This Qualifies as a ‘Scandal’ in the Catholic Church?

Of all the scandals in the Catholic Church, this should really be the least of their worries:

But no. Assistant Bishop Gabino Zavala will resign for the crime of having a family.

Meanwhile, other priests rape little boys and just get transferred to a different parish.

And we’re supposed to be the ones without morals?

(via Joe. My. God.)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Gordon Duffy

    Maybe if more of them had kids, more of them would care about child welfare!

  • http://twitter.com/jeteve Jerome Eteve

    I think it’s a mistake to assume religion and moral go together. Look at the ten commandments. ” Thou shalt not kill” is only #6

    • Anonymous

      Never mind that they left off things like “Thou shalt not keep slaves”, “Thou shalt treat everyone equally” and  “Thou shalt not fuck children”

      • crowepps

        Immense amounts of suffering would have been prevented by “Thou shalt boil all water before drinking”.

        • TheBlackCat

          I’ll remember next time someone brings up the supposed health benefits of Jewish dietary law.

  • Gunstargreen

    Maybe it’s possible that I am so lacking of morals that I don’t understand why this is immoral? That must be it.

  • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

    As your news item indicates, sin manifests among churchgoers just as it does among nonchurchgoers.  This proves that going to church, generally speaking, does not improve morals.  However, the person who actually goes to God instead of church finds the strength to live morally – and improvements in behavior are unavoidable.

    • Piet Puk

      And a person like me, who does not believe in any god? Can I not be moral?

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        Of course, you can.  And I hope you are.

        However, no matter how moral you are, you have sins.  If you go to God, confessing your sins to Him, He will forgive you and empower you live more morally than you have been.  Keep this up and you will become more and more like Him.  As I said above, if you engage Him and stay engaged with Him, improvements in behavior are unavoidable.

        • Piet Puk

          I am.
          Don’t worry about sins, I don’t have any. They are a religion concept, I don’t follow any religion.
          The sins you say I have are only in your head.

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            Forget religion.  Sin is simply missing the mark on morality.  Use another name for it if you like.  We all need some term to describe those times when we have been less than fully moral in thought, word, or deed.  

            • Piet Puk

              Ah, for that I use common sense. No gods needed.

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                That works only if you aspire to no higher morals than those you already have.

                • Piet Puk

                  Than my morals are propably very high already.
                  Also, you can ask yourself to be more moral. It is a great way to think and change morals.

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  Clocks set to each other don’t run as accurately as clocks set to GMT.

                • Anonymous

                  Do clocks have free will?

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  Your point being?

                • Anonymous

                  I’m just trying to understand the analogy.  Do clocks aspire to be more accurate?

                • HA2

                  But they do run more accurately than clocks set to four-thousand-year-old sundials.

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  That’s why you  need Jesus Christ and not Moses.

                • TheBlackCat

                  2000 years isn’t much better.

                • Piet Puk

                  Then you are assuming people can not learn and change.

        • Anonymous

          So, if I consider your affirmation that “going to God” will enable you to live more morally, isn’t it a neccesary consequence that believers would act, as a whole, more morally than nonbelievers?

          - If so, can you provide some evidence that this is the case?
          - If it does not follow from your affirmation that, all other things being equal, a believer will be more moral than a nonbeliever, can you comment on why not, or where my mistake was?

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            It depends on what you mean by “believers” and “unbelievers.”  There are many people who profess to believe, but actually don’t.  That is, there are many professing Christians who are practicing atheists (http://wp.me/pKqSA-eu).

            My primary source of information regarding the moral benefit of “going to God” is my own life.  When I tried to live morally on my own, I reached one level.  But when I went to God I was pulled higher – by His higher standards and my desire to please Him by reaching for those higher standards.

            • Piet Puk

              Would you care to share with us what those “higher standards ” are?

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                Those of Jesus Christ as taught in the Sermon on the Mount, and elsewhere, and demonstrated by His life.

                • Piet Puk

                  Can you be more specific?

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  Matthew 5:43-48

                • Piet Puk

                  Ok, I do that already. Didn’t need a god for that.

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  You don’t make sense.

                • Piet Puk

                  Neither are you.

                • Anonymous

                  You refer to the higher standard the sermon on the mount teaches us that if our eye “offends” us we should pluck it out. Or if our arm “offends” us we should cut it off? Or do you believe it is always the moral thing to do to “give to him that asketh of thee”. How about “Take no thought for your
                  life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet
                  for your body, what ye shall put on.” I am sure you aspire to the moral rule to take no thought for your life. I agree that the sermon on the mount has many good admissions, but it is hardly a solid moral treatise.

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  The Sermon on the Mount does not contain everything that Jesus taught us about morality, but when you say it “hardly a solid moral treatise” it makes me wonder what you consider a “solid moral treatise.”

                • Anonymous

                  I listed several things I disagree with in the sermon. Do you agree with all of them? As far as solid moral treatise, I do not have one to point out, I only point out the areas of the sermon on the mount. That are questionable at best and horrible at worst.

            • TiltedHorizon

              “There are many people who profess to believe, but actually don’t. ”

              How is this not a logical fallacy? Next you will say, an a moral Atheist is a practicing Christian.  

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                If you think that is a logical fallacy then you are saying there is no such thing as a Christian hypocrite.

                A moral Atheist could not be a practicing Christian.  That indeed, would be an oxymoron.

                • TiltedHorizon

                  “If you think that is a logical fallacy then you are saying there is no such thing as a Christian hypocrite.”

                  Mike, you are using the “No True Scotsman” fallacy… again.

                  These Christians who you deem are “only professing to believe” are in fact following their faith based on their own interpretations or the versions sanctioned by their church. They are still ‘Christian’, the fact that their version of it does not align with your subjective definition does not make them hypocrites or practicing atheists, hence your argument is a fallacy.

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  The primary logical fallacy in play here is that you think I am engaged in defending Christians or Christianity.  Rather, I am speaking on behalf of Jesus of Nazareth whose life and work are recorded in the Bible.  He is raised from the dead and He is God forevermore.  Everyone who truly looks to Him become more moral in the process.  This has nothing to do with being a Christian or going to church.

                • T-Rex

                  You’re pretty sure of your claims. I suppose you’ve done or seen/read studies to back up your claims? I’d love to see some evidence of these claims, just like we’d all love to see one shred of evidence for the existance of Jesus Christ and “your” gawd…outside of your Bible of course, that doesn’t count.

                • TiltedHorizon

                  I did not suggest that you are defending anything, simply that you are dividing believers into categories, attempting to legitimize one over the other with the “No True Scotsman” argument. Before you say “No I didn’t” let me remind you of your own post:

                  “There are many people who profess to believe, but actually don’t. That is, there are many professing Christians who are practicing atheists”

                  If that is not what you meant, then please correct my interpretation with the actual meaning.

            • http://twitter.com/enuma enuma

              I can’t help but think you’re trying to No True Scotsman your way out of this.

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                Not at all.  I wasn’t the one who raised the  believer-unbeliever distinction.  I was merely trying to respond to it, and relate it to my original point.

                Go back to my original comment which was to distinguish between those who go to God and those who go to church.  

            • Anonymous

              Two things:

              First, if what you actually mean by “practicing atheist” is “a person who acts as if they don’t believe in God” and implying that this makes them behave less morally, then you are saying that nonbelief leads to bad behavior, in which case I would again ask you to provide evidence to back that up.

              In addition, even if we throw the “No true Scotsman” fallacy out the window and accept your diferentiation of real and fake Christians, my point still holds because we could still differentiate two groups:

              Christians: Composed of “real” Christians and what you call “practicing atheists”

              Nonbelievers: Composed entirely of nonbelievers.

              If you affirm that “true” belief in God leads to better behavior (which you have not yet, though this is strongly implied) then by neccesity the Christian group, even while having “practicing atheists” in it, would on the whole show better morality than the nonbeliever group. If this is the case, evidence supporting it should be readily available and I’d be happy to hear it.

              There’s also the matter of other religions, which presumably you treat as false religions. Can you provide any evidence that belief in nonexistent gods leads to worse moral outcomes than the “true” god? If you don’t think this is the case, why not?

              Finally, I will not deny you your experience that a belief (or greater belief) in God made you better, but I would very much like to hear the evidence of how that can be extrapolated to everyone else.

              Cheers.

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                It’s self-evident that a person who begins looking to God will behave more morally than he did before he began looking to God.

                My own experience backs this up, but it was obvious to me even before I experienced it.

                • Anonymous

                  No, it’s not self-evident. You can’t apply your limited and very subjective experience to everyone else. Organized religion has an unfortunate tendency to warp people’s moral compass and get otherwise decent people to do horrible things

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  Religion may have that tendency.  Jesus Christ does not.

                • Anonymous

                  It’s self-evident that a person who begins looking to God will behave more morally than he did before he began looking to God.

                  Excellent, now we’re getting somewhere. You’ve made the affirmation that “looking to God” makes one behave more morally.

                  So since you’ve responded the first part of my question, would you be so kind as to respond to the second part?

                  Can you provide evidence to back up your claim?

                  Personal experience only applies to yourself I’m afraid. It is evidence of nothing except how you personally react to your believed proximity to your god.

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  I can only bear witness to my own experience in this regard.  Nor will you yourself be able to find or even conduct the studies you seek, for only God would be qualified to conduct such a study.  

                  The good news, however, is that you do not need studies to know that this is true.  For just as you can know that that you will die if you do not eat often enough, drink often enough, and breathe often enough without having any studies on hand to confirm these things, you can also know that to be separated from God removes you from the taproot of all morality.  Your leaves can stay green for a time…but only for a time.

                • Anonymous

                  You appear to be saying that there can be no measurable evidence for some humans being more moral than other humans. I can’t help but think you are being disingenuous. I’m pretty sure that if you could easily google and bring up statistics that showed that atheists are 10 times more likely to be incarcerated for violent crimes, you’d lower your standards of “who is qualified to do such a study” from the divine rather quickly. The fact you can find no such evidence is only a problem if you have a problem going where the evidence leads, even if that’s not where you want to go.

                  Oh and the only reason you don’t need studies to show that not eating, not drinking, or not breathing will kill you, is because these are widely observed and tested causes of death. Belief in God causing more moral behavior is harder to observe, but it should be observable, so evidence should be available if its true.

                  As for my leaves staying green for a time…well they’ve been green all my life, as I’ve always been an atheist. My great-grandmas’ leaves stayed green 100 years. Grandpa 96 I think and abuelo 94. No apparent bouts of depravity from lifelong atheism, it would seem :-)

                • TheBlackCat

                  “I can only bear witness to my own experience in this regard.”

                  Yet you say repeatedly that you can conclusively state that it works for other people.  Which is it?  You can’t have it both ways.  Either this applies to everyone, in which case you will need to demonstrate that fact with evidence, or it only applies to you, in which case we can’t count on it working for anyone else.

                • Gordon Duffy

                  It is equally self evident that believing a god will forgive you no matter what is a licence for atrocities.

                  With god, anything is permitted.

            • walkamungus

              Mike, whatever helps you to respect other people and treat them with respect; to be charitable in word, thought and deed; to be trustworthy, honest, courteous, fair and kind; and to apologize to and ask forgiveness from others or from yourself if you don’t do these things — go for it. We all have to be able to get out of bed in the morning.

              Just don’t expect that my method will be the same as your method.

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                I’m not promulgating a method so much as I am testifying to the person of Jesus Christ, and all that He means to the world.

                • walkamungus

                  Who?

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  Jesus Christ.

                • Littlebrownbird

                  What does ”
                  testifying to the person of Jesus Christ” mean?

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  I am using what credibility I have as a human being to assure you that He is alive, and that everything the Bible says about Him is true.

                  I am not bearing witness to organized Christianity because it has many flaws.  I am not encouraging anyone to go to church or become a Christian.  Rather, I am promoting the fact that Jesus Christ is God and that He is immanent and transcendent in this universe.  If you will “go to Him” – that is, converse with Him in the privacy of your heart – He will hear you.  And if you continue to seek Him, you will find Him.  This has nothing to do with joining a group.  It has everything to do with joining God.

                • TheBlackCat

                  “I am using what credibility I have as a human being to assure you that
                  He is alive, and that everything the Bible says about Him is true.”

                  I hate to break it to you, but some random guy on the internet has close to zero credibility.  You are going to need to provide something more concrete than that.

                • Anonymous

                  I think I see what you’re saying. We have a higher moral authority hard wired into our unconscious. We take advantage of our natural tendency to experience our beliefs as having objective reality, to access this sort of hidden moral nexus. You believe that the myth of Jesus is the best vehicle for this.

        • TheBlackCat

          More like Him?  You mining torting anyone who doesn’t believe in me and ordering armies to commit genocide?  I’ll pass, thanks.

    • TiltedHorizon

      Mike, with respect,  ‘sin’ in its literal form is a religious invention, it is meaningless to me. Its colloquialize variants: offense, transgression, fault, regrettable, and wrong;  still hold meaning.

      I can, and have, committed ‘wrongs’ in my past. When it happens, rather than seek forgiveness and absolution from a faceless entity, which REALLY does not address the ‘wrong’, I make amends to those I have wronged, I seek their forgiveness and I right my wrongs. Once forgiven, I choose to not unburden my conscience, instead I carry the guilt of these transgressions as a reminder to never make the same mistakes.

      As a former Catholic, I have to say, my life was easier when ‘accountability’ meant a five minute confession and having to recite the same prayer twelve times. Now I have to actually learn from my mistakes since absolution and forgiveness do not come easily.

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        I commend you for making amends to those you have wronged (Jesus has taught us to do this).

        I also relate to your carrying the memory of past wrongs for the purpose of avoiding repetition.I can also relate to your abandonment of Catholic confession as inadequate for the task it presumes to tackle.The one thing I think you are forgetting is our moral offenses against God Himself.  These, too, require making amends with Him.

        • TiltedHorizon

          “The one thing I think you are forgetting is our moral offenses against God Himself.”

          Here is the crux of the problem, I don’t believe in the existence of god therefore how can I morally offend something nonexistent?

          First you have to prove existence or at the very least provide a convincing argument, one that is exclusive to your specific faith which cannot apply equally to Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for god.

          Unless you can do this there is nothing to distinguish your assertions, meaning all faiths are equally legitimate, from the Appalachian Snake Handlers to Digambar and everything in between.

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            The New Testament documents bear witness to Jesus of Nazareth.  It was by focusing on that human life that I was led to trusts in the divine.

            • Anonymous

              And the Harry Potter novels bear witness to Dumbledore

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                J.K Rowling professes to write fiction.  The apostles professes to writing what they saw and heard.

                • Anonymous

                  You need to look up who actually wrote the Bible and when. None of its authors were there. The real origins of the Gospel of Mathew are unknown

                  Not even “biblical scholars” (a dubious profession to begin with) pretend that it’s an eyewitness account or even an accurate retelling of history

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  There is ample scholarly attestation that the gospels are eyewitness biography.  See, for example, this video clip:
                  http://wp.me/p1eZz8-L7

                • TheBlackCat

                  Attestation is one thing, but do you actually have any valid argument to contradict the evidence that the gospels cannot be eyewitness accounts? (and no, neither faith nor how the Bible changed your life are evidence that it is historically accurate)

                • Piet Puk

                  “J.K Rowling professes to write fiction.  The apostles professes to writing what they saw and heard.”
                  This is said to be the first test, to see if you realy have faith. Apparantly you don’t.

                • Gordon Duffy

                  So JK is more honest, surely that makes her book more moral!

            • TiltedHorizon

              Mike, I do not believe in god, by extension I do not believe in the bible, therefore using the bible as assertion of itself or its content is pointless as a means to convince a non-believer.

              My challenge to you was to was: “to prove existence or at the very least provide a convincing argument, one that is exclusive to your specific faith which cannot apply equally to Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for god.”

              Any Muslim can ‘prove’ Allah exists by using a copy of the Qur’an. I happen to know a bible exists for the Flying Spaghetti Monster too.

              The point that I am making is, unless you want special consideration for your faith, then based on what you offer as evidence, I still have to give equal consideration to all competing assertions since they can also offer the same proof.

        • Anonymous

          You can’t offend something that doesn’t exist

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            Agreed.

    • Anonymous

      “Sin” is defined as a transgression of divine law. Since there are no gods, there is no sin. It’s a completely meaningless and in some ways immoral concept to Christians. In reality, sins are merely man made inventions with the sole purpose of controlling people in every small detail. That’s why so many sins are thought crimes are things that don’t actually hurt anyone

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        Check the alternative terms identified by Tilted Horizon above and see if there are any that you think apply to you.  

        If you sense that you have done no wrong to others and that you have been completely moral in all your thoughts, words, and deeds, then nothing I say will have any meaning for you.

        • Anonymous

          You don’t get to redefine words to suit your worldview
          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sin

          There is a somewhat colloquial use of “sin” that can apply to broader actions, but that doesn’t really apply here either

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            I’m not redefining words.  The M-W definition is perfectly acceptable to me.

    • TheBlackCat

      “However, the person who actually goes to God instead of church finds the
      strength to live morally – and improvements in behavior are
      unavoidable.”

      Citation needed.  And no, a sample size of 1 is not sufficient.  And no, we don’t find it self-evident.  In fact many of us don’t consider Jesus to be particularly moral.  That whole Hell thing is a big turn-off.   And his nasty temper, like the fig tree incident and insulting and belittling his followers, doesn’t sit well with many people.

  • Hermaj2

    I’d like to know what “go to god” means.  And how can a thought be less than moral?  Sounds like the usual theist gobbledygook to me.

    • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

      He who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.  - Hebrews 11:6

      (“go to God” in your question = “comes to God” in this verse)

  • walkamungus

    Maybe this guy will be able to go off and have a happy life with his family now. Good luck and best wishes to him!

    The whole “priests must not be married” thing is a latecomer: In the early spread of the Church, priests were indeed married and had families, and there was a period when the papacy was pretty much hereditary…

    • Anonymous

      The reason celibacy was introduced is that the church was worried that priests would  pass on their property to their children. Given how much real estate the church owned at some points and that some higher ranking clergy basically had the same role and power and worldly princes, that wasn’t entirely unjustified.

      But I don’t get why they didn’t simply prohibit inheritance of church property. In the  event of a priest’s or bishop’s death their property could simply have gone to the church. Much easier

  • T-Rex

    The one “normal” priest in the Catholic cult resigns while the pedophiles are relocated. I didn’t use to care about religion much but I’m full on anti-theist now. Fuck religion and all of the snake oil salesmen peddling their superstitions.

  • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

    T-Rex,

    “You’re pretty sure of your claims. I suppose you’ve done or seen/read studies to back up your claims? I’d love to see some evidence of these claims, just like we’d all love to see one shred of evidence for the existance of Jesus Christ and “your” gawd…outside of your Bible of course, that doesn’t count.”

    Although the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is attested outside of the New Testament documents, these documents are the primary historical source material we have about Him.  I don’t know why you’d want to reject them.

    • TheBlackCat

      Perhaps because of the numerous contradictions with the historical record and with each other.

    • ACN

       is attested outside of the New Testament documents

      NOPE! Sorry, better try another ‘lie for jesus’ ™.

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and, of course, Josephus all testify to the historicity of Jesus.

        • Anonymous

          Wrong again. All they mention is the resulting cult decades later. It means that people believed that something happened. But it certainly wasn’t what is described in the Bible. Even if there was a crazy Jewish wandering preacher who claimed to be the Messiah, he wasn’t the son of god, he didn’t perform any miracles and he didn’t resurrect. You’d think someone would mention the great Zombi Apocalypse of Jerusalem. But no…didn’t happen

          And the Josephus reference is probably a fake that was inserted later.

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            Stev84,

            Tacitus certainly mentioned Jesus and his execution by Pilate.  Pliny the Younger and his writings are consistent with an historical Jesus.  And you cannot dismiss Josephus with a “probably.”  You fully betray your bias there, for had you been fair-minded you would have acknowledged the dispute about Josephus earlier when you wrote that there was no attestation outside the New Testament.  Say it is questionable if you believe it so, but you led readers to believe no evidence existed.  You are obviously someone who is more committed to his conclusions than to the process of sifting evidence and letting it speak.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=23430830 Matthew Shepherd

              Ironic, considering there’s enough evidence to throw out your conclusions.

              http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                If word count and footnotes were the measuring stick for arguments, Lowder looks good.  However, closer examination reveals that besides being verbose, he moves the goalposts as it were.  That is, the charge here was that there was no attestation of the historicity of Jesus outside of the New Testament.  Even if this were true, it would not in and of itself discredit the NT records.  Nonetheless, it is not true and the Roman historian Tacitus was offered as a case in point.  Lowder’s argument is about the sources Tacitus uses, not about Tacitus’ attestation.  Lowder cannot say that Tacitus didn’t cite Jesus so he tries to say Tacitus didn’t have good reason to cite Jesus.  Whether Lowder was trying to move the goalposts, I cannot say – but it’s obvious you are.

  • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

    alconnolly,

    “I listed several things I disagree with in the sermon. Do you agree with all of them? As far as solid moral treatise, I do not have one to point out, I only point out the areas of the sermon on the mount. That are questionable at best and horrible at worst.”

    I find nothing morally objectionable in the Sermon on the Mount.  While I don’t fully understand everything in it, I love what I do understand and try to practice it.

    As for it being better to lop off an appendage than to continue sinning, He is conveying the importance of doing right.  That’s not a message that goes down well with today’s anything-goes society – but it is moral advice well taken.  As for not worrying, lots of people say that’s good advice.

    • TheBlackCat

      So you are willing to give interest-free loans to anyone who asks?  What is your address?

  • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

    Sheepnomore,


    I’m just trying to understand the analogy.  Do clocks aspire to be more accurate? ”

    We aspire for them to be more accurate, just as we should aspire for our consciences to be more accurate. 

    • walkamungus

      To go back to one of your earlier comments on this thread, setting my watch to GMT isn’t any different than setting my watch to the clock in the next room — it’s still setting one clock to another clock, with the added problem that if I’m not on the prime meridian, with my watch set to GMT, I’ll be either late or early to all my appointments. GMT as a function of the earth’s rotation isn’t terribly accurate either, because the speed of rotation tends to fluctuate. And any clock is only as accurate as its mechanism permits it to be. The atomic clock at NIST that currently serves as a U.S. timekeeper is accurate to one second in 100 million years. (Cool!) NIST has built a better clock; last year, they announced one that is accurate to one second every 3.7 billion years. (Cooler!) But if I set my watch to the NIST clock, it’s still only as accurate as a cheap Timex can be.

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        The point of the analogy – and it stands whether you use GMT, NIST, or any other standard – is that there is a correct time which we are forever trying to identify and follow.  If we give up that notion and let all clocks run on their own, they will all eventually be out of sync with each other  and -more importantly – inaccurate.

        Jesus Christ is the one true standard of morality, to which we do well to be calibrated.

        • walkamungus

          I’m cognizant of the point of the analogy, thanks. What lots of people here are telling you is that Jesus may be *a* standard of morality, but that morality exists without Jesus.

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            I take your point, and I do realize the name of the site on which I am commenting.  

            I also recognize that probably every reader here has heard Jesus Christ preached, many having been adherents themselves in times past.  Most preaching these days, however, carries with it a lot of baggage (e.g. you need to become a Christian, you need to go to church, you need to hold these theological and political views, etc.).  I myself used to be a pastor and used to preach with this baggage as well.

            When I learned that Jesus Christ can be worshiped and followed without becoming a Christian, without going to church, and without adopting certain theological and political views, I wanted to share that with people.  And I presumed it would at least be a novel presentation of Christ on a site like this and not the same ole same ole.

            Nonetheless, since I am not preaching to the choir, I have not expected “Amens” (or ‘Likes”).  I have appreciated the interaction and hope to comment in the future on this site if an appropriate subject and opportunity arise.  The good news of Jesus Christ has yet to be fully known, much less fully told.

            • TheBlackCat

              “And I presumed it would at least be a novel presentation of Christ on a site like this and not the same ole same ole.”

              You presumed wrong.  We have had easily dozens of people just like you here before.  You have not said a single thing we have not heard dozens of times before.

              “The good news of Jesus Christ has yet to be fully known, much less fully told.”

              If he couldn’t get it right in 2000 years I think there is little chance he ever will.

        • TheBlackCat

          “Jesus Christ is the one true standard of morality, to which we do well to be calibrated.”

          You need to provide something to back this up other than your own say-so and the Bible. 

          Many people here have read the Bible, and don’t consider the things Jesus said all that moral, nor do they consider the moral things he said all that original or even stated particularly well. 

          So just throwing out these sorts of baseless assertions will not help your case, we have heard it too many times before.

  • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

    I_Claudia,
    My point was that measurable evidence for going to God is obviously the province of God.  As for comparing human morality, you are talking about crimes and such which are but a fraction of the morality Jesus Christ expects from us.  God looks on the heart, and He’s expecting a purity there that goes far beyond the avoidance of criminal behavior.
    As for being willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads even if it’s not where I want to go, that’s how I ended up at Jesus Christ.  He is the very last conclusion I was interested in reaching.  In fact, the whole reason I took on the evidence was to get Christians off my back because I was positive the evidence would refute them.  Therefore, I return your challenge to you:  are you sure you are willing to follow evidence wherever it leads even if that’s not where you want to go?
    If you need studies to convince you that insufficient eating, drinking, and breathing will kill you then…well, I just can’t believe you need such studies.  These truths are more self-evident than the ones Tom Jefferson penned.  Even children know them.  Even animals “know” them.
    As for depravity, you are measuring without a standard.  I’m sure the folks in Sodom thought they were as good as the folks in any other city of their day.  Grading on a curve is no way to achieve excellence.

    • TheBlackCat

      “Therefore, I return your challenge to you:  are you sure you are willing
      to follow evidence wherever it leads even if that’s not where you want
      to go?”

      Yes I am, so please either give us the evidence or stop claiming you have it. 

      I suspect I speak for many others here when I say I am not going to change my entire world-view just on your say-so.  I need to actually look at the evidence myself.  I have had too many dozens of Christians claim they had undeniable evidence of Jesus or God only to turn out to just have the same long-debunked arguments I have heard hundreds of times before.

      You should remember that many of the people here were once Christian themselves, and arguments requiring faith are not going to be persuasive to people who had it and lost it.

    • Newavocation

      Mike, maybe consider the follow quote from Robert Ingersoll. 
      “Love was the first to dream of immortality, — not Religion, not Revelation. We love, therefore we wish to live. The hope of immortality is the great oak ’round which have climbed the poisonous vines of superstition. The vines have not supported the oak, the oak has supported the vines. As long as men live and love and die, this hope will blossom in the human heart.”

  • Newavocation

    Hey at least he didn’t use contraception that should count for something to the church.

  • Brian Macker

    Seems like more of a sperm donor situation rather than a family.   The implication in the article is that he wasn’t even supporting them.

    • Brian Macker

      Well except that the sperm donors don’t get to wet their willies in the patient.

  • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

    scotanthony, surely you don’t deny the historicity of Jesus.  The vast majority of people who deny His divinity and His authority do not deny His historicity.  That position belongs only to a fringe group, probably no larger than those who think the moon landing was faked.

    Newavocation, the love of which Ingersoll speaks, unbeknownst to Ingersoll, is God Himself (1 John 4:8, 16).

    Piet Puk, I said you didn’t make sense because you said you were already practicing Matthew 5:43-48, which says that we should pray for those who persecute us – but you also said you didn’t believe in God, which leaves you no one to be praying to.

    Gordon Duffy, what motive did the apostles have to lie about someone who said that He came to testify to the truth?

    TheBlackCat, you have written me many things, mostly repetitive.  According to your standard, however, I should not heed any of them.  I say this because I comment with my real name and real picture which link to my four blogs containing over 2,000 posts and two online books – totaling over 200,000 words explaining my positions and giving evidence for my views, while you use a pseudonym which links to nothing.  If I am “some random guy on the internet who has close to zero credibility,” you are far more so. 

    • Piet Puk

      I thought you meant forgiving your enemies. How is praying for someone good moral behaviour?

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        God can put something in your heart to do for them that you wouldn’t have thought of yourself.

        • Piet Puk

          So.. having something put in my heart is good moral behaviour?
          Or.. I can think for myself and come up with my own idea.

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            Do you realize you’re claiming omniscience?

            • Piet Puk

              Where am I claiming that? I am claiming that thinking about things make me come up with ideas. Is that so hard to understand?

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                You implied that God could not think of an idea that you could not think of on your own.  Thus, God could not have knowledge that you don’t have.  Since God is, by definition, omniscient, you are claiming omniscience.

                • Anonymous

                  He implied nothing of the sort. I thought we were supposed to have “free will”?

                  Like any other Christian, you are just making up shit as you go along

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  I am not promoting Christians.  I am promoting Jesus Christ.

                  We use our free wills to pray.  We open our minds to the thoughts of God.  He is generous with His wisdom, and we grow to become more like Him.  This is freedom operating at its best!

                • Piet Puk

                  Nope, I said that thinking about things makes me come up with ideas. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  I think we’re on different wave lengths at this stage of our respective lives.  

                  At least we tried to communicate with each other.

                • Piet Puk

                  One of these wave lengths is called ‘Reality’. You should try it some  time.

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  Why should someone who makes a claim to being moral issue a gratuitous insult in parting?

                • Piet Puk

                  Being honest, at this point, is more important than being polite.

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  Hmm.

            • TheBlackCat

              No, he’s claiming mind control  does not qualify as good moral behavior.

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                How is it “mind control” if you are praying to Him for ideas and He gives you one?

                • TheBlackCat

                  He is altering your thoughts and feelings, how is that anything other than mind control?

        • TheBlackCat

          And he can’t do that if you don’t pray?  God must be pretty weak if he can’t act without someone praying to him first.

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            It’s obvious that God does plenty of things without someone praying to Him first.  It’s also obvious He does some things in answer to prayer.

            • TheBlackCat

              Well, no, neither is at all obvious, nor is it obvious that God even exists to begin with. 

              But that doesn’t really solve the underlying problem, which is that you claim God won’t tell you how to forgive your enemies unless you beg him to.

    • TheBlackCat

      I am not the one asking everyone to change their entire worldview based nothing on my say-so.  I never staked anything on my credibility, you did.  If you are actually willing to lay out your position, I would be happy to look at it, but I am not going to just take your word for it that you are right.  You are the only one here asking people to do that.

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        “If you are actually
        willing to lay out your position, I would be happy to look at it”

        It’s all there, just as I described.

        • Anonymous

          Well, then the only expression one can get is that you are insane

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            ??

        • TheBlackCat

          So you expect me to hunt through 200,000 words to find the evidence you claim you have?  Are you kidding me?  You can’t even be a little bit more specific than “read through everything I have ever written”?

          We are having the discussion here, if you have the evidence you should post it here so it can be discussed.

          I read through the first two pages of your blog and there was nothing that could be even remotely considered evidence or even original argument.   I simply don’t have time to read through hundreds and hundreds of pages if I don’t have some indication that I will see something I haven’t seen before, and what I have seen from you here and on your blog does not look like anything new. 

  • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

    TheBlackCat,

    Go to this Introduction-Overview, which indexes 17 one-page posts.  If any of them interest you, there will be links to more information at the end of each post.  Given how upset some Christians have been with me for writing these things, I’m confident you’ll read some things there you haven’t heard from them.

    • TheBlackCat

      Did you miss this bit?

      “We are having the discussion here, if you have the evidence you should post it here so it can be discussed.”‘

      You aren’t even courteous enough to tell me which ones actually contain the evidence you claim to have.  I read through the first 4 and none are at all original and none have anything close to being evidence.  They are all composed pretty much entirely of the unfounded assertions you have made here. 

      The closest you come is your argument about the apostles, which has so many flaws I don’t even know where to begin (for instance lots of religious people are willing to die for their beliefs without killing, lots of cult leaders sound very sane and convincing, and ignores the fact that we have lots of evidence that the apostles did not write the gospels so we don’t actually know what the apostles sounded like).  It is also one of the more common arguments for Christianity I have seen, having turned up easily 2 dozen times so far.

      So through 4 of the documents you are most proud of there is exactly one thing that comes close to being an argument or evidence, and it is an extremely common one that is easily debunked in at least a half-dozen ways. 

      If this is the best you have to offer than I don’t see any point reading your website further.  I ask again, please don’t linking to something else from your website.  If you have anything to add, add it here.  I am not going to keep doing your work for you by hunting down your own arguments.

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        TheBlackCat,

        At the Introduction-Overview, I encouraged you to choose posts that interested you – not just the first four on the list.  I am not surprised therefore that you did not find much that you hadn’t heard before.  I am not “proud” of my teaching, nor am I seeking to be novel.  Rather, I am sharing truth, which, as I state in the About section, is sometimes new and sometimes old.  However, were you to have chosen, say, Everyone Is Going to Heaven or Jesus Christ Has Already Come Again I think you would have been confronted with some ideas that aren’t regularly presented here.  By the way, the evidence for the former is the book The Biblical Case for Everyone Going to Heaven, and the evidence for the latter is the book Whatever Became of Jesus Christ?

        If you don’t want to read any of my links, that is your choice.  However, the mere presence of the links refute your “no evidence presented” charge.  And the organization of the material as well as the delineated links refute your “no courtesy shown” charge.  As for putting all my evidence on this site, a comment box allows only so much structure and detail.  Moreover, I respect the blog post and don’t wish to “take over”his real estate with thousands of my words.  I owe him courtesy as well as you.  I’ll put here what seems reasonable, and link when reasonable.  What you do and don’t read is entirely up to you.

        • TheBlackCat

          You didn’t provide any links to evidence, you provided links to a page that contained links to a whole bunch of other pages, giving no indication which, if any contained evidence, then expected me to read through all of the links to actually find the evidence for you (if it even existed, you never explicitly stated there was even any evidence in the links, just that they might contain something I haven’t seen, which they didn’t). 

          If you can’t even be bothered to point out what links actually contain evidence, not to mention link to them yourself, I would say you are not being very courteous at all.  It is not my job to do your research for you, especially not when it is your own writings.  Surely it can’t be that hard to just list them, right?  I am start to get the feeling you don’t even remember which of your articles contain any evidence, which doesn’t give me much faith.

          And no, I am not going to read an entire book just to find the evidence you claim you have.  You can’t even tell me what section it is in, not to mention which subsection?

          Let me make this very explicit: You are making assertions.  You are providing absolutely no basis whatsoever for any of those assertions.  You need to back up those assertions here or no one will take you remotely seriously.  Your consistent inability to even tell us where on your own website we can find the basis for those assertions does not bode well for the quality of that basis.

  • Tommy

    This is my first time on the atheist website.  It was a revelation for me.  I know many people who claim that they do not believe in any god and that is completely up to them but to finad a group that speaks from ignorance 100% of the is something else.  You are wandering aimlessly in the darkness and it is an embarrasment to the human race that you would ignore God’s gift to you and risk your eternal salvation in this life and the next by your pride.  I pray daily for you.      

  • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

    TheBlackCat,

    The Biblical Case for Everyone Going to Heaven is a book of approximately 55,000 words.  It has a table of contents outlining its contents and the sequence of its logic.  Moreover, one-page summaries of the book can be found at Everyone Is Going to Heaven and Summary of the Book.

    Whatever Became of Jesus Christ? is a book of approximately 25,000 words.  It also has a table of contents which outlines the contents and their logical sequence.  A one-page summary of it can be found at Jesus Christ Has Already Come Again.

    In addition, there is a series of 21 essays (each averaging about 1,500 words for a total of about 30,000 words) called Essays on the Implications of Everyone Going to Heaven.  This link provides a listing of the essays.  They can be read individually or in sequence.

    In all my writings I make truth claims which I then support with logical and biblical evidence.  I organize the material in such a way that a person can quickly tell by a title the truth that is being claimed, and then, if interested, read the support for that particular claim.  Further, I have prepared this Introduction-Overview to identify the most important truths claimed so that person does not have to wade through the entire site to try and figure out what’s crucial.  In other words, my conclusions are not buried in the details – they are evident in the headlines.  I do all these things out of respect for readers and their time.

    If you don’t want take advantage of these courtesies, that is your prerogative.  But falsely accusing me of discourtesy to readers is not.

     

     

    • Piet Puk

      Make a topic “Evidence”, than you might get some respons.
      Can you at least tell us if you have any scientific evidence? Or is it just mental gymnastics and ‘other kinds’ of evidence?

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        I am not a scientist.  If one has to be a scientist to know God then that’s bad news for a lot of us.

        • Piet Puk

          Ok, well do let us know if you ever have any scientific evidence to share. Than might actually impress people here.

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            We are currently situated on the side of a ball that is spinning around 1,000 mph at its widest point, while it circles another larger ball at 66,000 mph, while said balls are together flying at 432, 000 mph through their galaxy, and so on.  Yet none of us are falling off or sliding off the ball, nor is any of the water sloshing out of the oceans, rivers, and lakes in which it sits, nor are any of us even getting chapped lips.  Science can tell us that these things are happening and how they happen because science is an exploration of material things.  When it comes to immaterial things, however, science has no tools with which to explore.  

            Science is good, but when people try to make it into a religion or make it the means by which to explore God and decide about Him, it fails miserably.

            • Piet Puk

              So it is safe to conclude you have no scientific evidence?

              “Science is good, but when people try to make it into a religion or make
              it the means by which to explore God and decide about Him, it fails
              miserably.” Which is almost exactly what the ID people are doing.

              “When it comes to immaterial things, however, science has no tools with which to explore. ”
              Please define “Immaterial world”.
              Should there not be a place then where the material and immaterial world meet? How do you suggest we explore that interaction?

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                How is what the ID people doing different from what you are doing in that regard?

                “Immaterial” means that which cannot be measured by material means.

                The material and immaterial world meet most obviously in a human being.  You can use science to explore the body but the spirit, being immaterial, is a different realm.  Psychology tries to get beyond the body but, as I’ve said, there are places science just cannot go.

                Although I am not a scientist, I have all the scientific evidence I need to conclude that this material world did not arise from nowhere.  Nothing cannot create something.

                • Piet Puk

                  The ID people fail miserably by pretending to be scientific.
                  Please define “the spirit”.
                  Please share your scientific evidence.
                  “”Immaterial” means that which cannot be measured by material means.” How very convenient..
                  Non existence can also not be measured by material means. How can we know the difference?

            • Anonymous

              What you are doing is called “special pleading” or “moving the goal posts”. “God is immaterial and can’t be known, so I can make up any shit I want and you can’t do anything about it. Lalalalala!”

              That might work if your god had no interaction with reality (in which case he would be even more irrelevant than he already is). But you claim that you influences things. Even that he creates things. In that case there would be an interaction that would be measurable.

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                I’m not moving the goal posts.  I’m just pointing out that science, by its very nature, cannot even get into the red zone.

  • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

    Piet Puk,

    “The ID people fail miserably by pretending to be scientific.”

    I don’t get where the “pretend” comes in.  They accept and follow the principles of science (observation, experimentation, etc.).  Does one have to be an atheist to be a legitimate scientist?

    “Please define ‘the spirit’.”

    The human spirit is the unseen (i.e. immaterial) part of a person.  Death is the separation of the spirit and the body.  The body remains (and decays) while the spirit departs.  This is why dead humans are lifeless corpses.

    “Please share your scientific evidence.”

    Share my scientific evidence for what?

    “‘Immaterial’ means that which cannot be measured by material means.’   Non existence can also not be measured by material means. How can we know the difference?”

    You have to have a reason to think that something immaterial exists.  My scientific facts about 1,000 mph and no chapped lips etc. give me reason to believe that a Creator exists.   There are other reasons also, but those scientific facts strong on their own.

    • Piet Puk

      “They accept and follow the principles of science (observation,
      experimentation, etc.).  ” Eh.. no they don’t. Show me one experiment which proves their claims.

      “Does one have to be an atheist to be a
      legitimate scientist?” It helps.

      “This is why dead humans are lifeless corpses.” And here I am, as a First Aid volunteer, thinking that the absense of breathing and a heartbeat have anything to do with it. You might want to invest in some biology lessons..

      “Share my scientific evidence for what?”
      “..I have all the scientific evidence I need
      to conclude that this material world did not arise from nowhere.”
      This scientific evidence.

      “You have to have a reason to think that something immaterial exists. ”
      I have the same amount of reason to think that your god exists as I have of  thinking fairies, unicorns and Zeus exist.

      “My
      scientific facts about 1,000 mph and no chapped lips etc. give me
      reason to believe that a Creator exists.   There are other reasons also,
      but those scientific facts strong on their own.’
      There is a big difference between scientific facts and the conclusion derived from them. Your use of both indeed show that you understand neither of them.

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        Jesus Christ is true.  However, if you limit yourself to science, and particularly if you limit yourself to science-as-a-religion, you will never get a really good look at Him during this life.

        • Piet Puk

          “..if you limit yourself to science, and particularly if you limit yourself to science-as-a-religion..”
          Lucky for me I do neither.
          If you limit yourself to religion, you will never experience reality. It is not too late to open your eyes and see the world as it is.
          Good luck!

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            I’ve experienced more than enough reality to realize that Someone is holding it all together.  God bless you!

            • Piet Puk

              And that ‘Someone’ is indistinguishable from non-existent. May non-existance bless you too.

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                Indistinguishable by science, but not by other means.

                There are many important things science cannot distinguish: honor, shame, logic, love, and so on.  But just because science cannot distinguish between these things does not mean you can’t.

                • Piet Puk

                  Science can. By measuring different kinds of brain activity and fluctuati0n in skin temperature.
                  Again, invest in some biology lessons.

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  That’s only measuring the physical reactions we associate with honor, shame, logic, and love.  It would be measuring those realities which drove the reactions.

                • Piet Puk

                  Or it would be measuring the chemicals that cause us to feel honor, shame etc. Like feelings of attractions that occur after detecting feromones.

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  Same thing.  You’re measuring things we associate with honor – but not honor.

                • Piet Puk

                  And your point is=

    • Parse

      ID advocates don’t accept and follow the principles of science.  For one thing, they admit that ID isn’t science as accepted by the NAS. Additionally, they have never done any research or experiments to test their theories.  Though they have proposed some experiments, they believe it’s the responsibility of their opponents to actually run the experiments (and even then, they admit that what they’d show is simply that evolution is wrong, not that intelligent design is right).  You don’t need to be an atheist to be a legitimate scientist (See, say, Francis Collins), but you do need to play by the same rules as everybody else.

      Also, I’d recommend taking a physics class or two before claiming that ’1,000 mph and no chapped lips’ is evidence for your god.  It makes you look willfully ignorant – there’s a simple explanation why your lips aren’t chapped, but it looks like you’ve stopped your search for answers once you can wedge your god into the equation.  (Here’s a hint: it’s all about relative speeds)

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        Parse,

        You’re too focused on the trees to see the forest.  Sure, there are ways to scientifically explain the combined phenomena, but the irony of it all is being lost on you.  It’s as if you have no sense of humor at all.    

        I’ll leave it to you and the ID’s to sort out your differences.  As I’ve said, I’m not a scientist.  I do, however, know how to read an encyclopedia.  All that I find there makes me grow in my wonder and appreciation of God.  I’m sure a couple of physics classes would do the same.  

        • Parse

          Mike,
          I had my sense of humor surgically excised on my thirteenth birthday, during the confirmation ceremony in my science-as-a-religion faith.
          You’ve said repeatedly that you aren’t a scientist, and that’s fine.  What I’m trying to say is that by making inaccurate scientific claims, you’re representing yourself and your religion poorly.  I’m sure you’re aware of St. Augustine’s quote on preaching ignorance?  Essentially, it says that if we can tell you’re talking nonsense about things we know about, why should we think any different about everything else you say?

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            Parse, what “inaccurate scientific claims” have I made?  The only science I’ve spoken is mph’s for the earth and its solar system.  Are you saying my numbers are off?

            • Parse

              Howsabout the fact that you expect us to be falling or sliding off the ball, water sloshing out of the oceans, rivers and lakes, or people getting chapped lips, if not for your god’s existence?  
              In any case, I really have no interest in arguing any further with you.  I feel it’s a waste of my time to go trawling through your web pages to find evidence you claim is there, or to try to shoot down arguments you make which you then claim you can’t support.  I have no intention of doing your research for you, about intelligent design (or science in general), or appropriate sample sizes, or logical fallacies, or how to convert atheists.  

              Well, correction on that last point.  I’d recommend you read Ebon Muse’s Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists.  At the very least, it’ll help you realize the mistakes you aren’t even aware that you’re making.

            • Anonymous

              You might as well be saying “God us what keeps is from falling off the Earth and not gravity”. Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously?

              Just consider that the air moves with the same as we do relative to the center of the planet and that the relative speed between the air and us is zero and your nonsensical claims disappear

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                Yes, and isn’t it amazing!

                You, too, seem to lack a sense of the ironic.  See my response to Parse.

                • Anonymous

                  So now you’re trying to pretend that you were joking. Right….

                • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                  I wasn’t joking.  The juxtaposition of those facts is ironic, even funny when you stop and think about them.  But they’re no joke.

  • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

    Piet Puk,

    “And your point is=”

    That just because something (or Someone) cannot be distinguished from the nonexistent by science does not mean it (or He) cannot be distinguished from the nonexistent by other means.  Science is a tool for humanity, but no one tool can do all the work.  You’re trying to make science do too much if you expect to be able to put God under a microscope or experiment on His presence.  Just as you don’t use science to determine when you’ve been honored and when you’ve been shamed, you don’t use science to choose a spouse…or God.

    • Piet Puk

      Are you claiming that feelings are indistinguishable from non-existent? I certainly am not.
      My spouse exists, I don’t need scientific proof for that, but I could proof it scientifically. Apparently not so for your god.

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        Science can measure feelings to a degree, but they can’t measure what the feelings are feeling.  That is, you can construct a test to measure heart rate, perspiration, brain activity, etc. that we associate with honor or shame or logic or love, but you cannot construct a test that measure honor or shame or logic or love.

        I don’t need scientific proof that my spouse exists either but neither can I imagine why I would ever want it.  What does science have to do with our relationship?  Especially since we met in Spanish class.

        • Piet Puk

          Maybe feelings are no more than the things we can measure. Just like taste and colour. We as people gave it a name.
          You brought up spouses and science. I pointed out the difference between a real person and a indistiguishable from non-existant one.

          • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

            Yes, and in response I pointed out the superfluity of science in that regard.

            • Piet Puk

              No you did not. You just showed me you do not understand the difference between existant and non-existant.

              • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

                Why don’t we take a break?

  • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

    Parse,

    “Howsabout the fact that you expect us to be falling or sliding off the ball, water sloshing out of the oceans, rivers and lakes, or people getting chapped lips, if not for your god’s existence?”  

    That wasn’t a scientific claim; rather, I was pointing out ironies in creation.  Objects normally fall or slide off a ball, but we don’t fall or slide off the earth.  Water resident in moving objects without a cover normally sloshes out, but water does not slosh out of the oceans, rivers, and lakes of the earth even though it’s moving at a high rate of speed.  Constant high winds usually causes our lips to chap, but we do not routinely get chapped lips even though we’re moving at a high rate of speed on the earth.  These are all simple and undeniable observations and I juxtaposed them in a way that revealed irony, or even humor in the universe.  If you can’t smile at them, then maybe your sense of humor was indeed excised some time back.  But to continue with the humor nonetheless, I find it ludicrous to think that such ironic realities came from out of nowhere.  Not only must we have a Creator, we must have one with an exquisite sense of humor.

    “In any case, I really have no interest in arguing any further with you.”

    Okay.

    “I feel it’s a waste of my time to go trawling through your web pages to find evidence you claim is there, or to try to shoot down arguments you make which you then claim you can’t support.”

    I’ve explained the organization of my links relative to the truths I’ve claimed here.  I’ve shown how they’re organized.  Once you get there, the material is organized in such a way that  you can challenge me or ask questions on specific points or sub-points.  There is no need for you or anyone to “trawl through my web pages.”  And as to support, I support all my arguments but I don’t do so with scientific evidence.  I do so with logic.  Not every person is a scientist.  Not even a majority of people are scientists.  But everyone can be logical.

    “I have no intention of doing your research for you, about intelligent design (or science in general), or appropriate sample sizes, or logical fallacies, or how to convert atheists.”  

    I wasn’t the one who brought up Intelligent Design so I’m not looking for you or anyone to do that research for me.

    “Well, correction on that last point.  I’d recommend you read Ebon Muse’s Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists.  At the very least, it’ll help you realize the mistakes you aren’t even aware that you’re making.”

    I looked up your source and he shot himself in the foot in the first paragraph.  Among other things, he says, “Ask any believer what would convince him he was mistaken and persuade him to leave his religion and become an atheist, and if you get a response, it will almost invariably be, ‘Nothing – I have faith in my god’.”  Meanwhile, I, for example, have written I Invite You to Challenge Me at My Most Vulnerable Point.

    Thanks for engaging with me.

    • Anonymous

      There is nothing ironic or funny about it. Just because you’re too uneducated and simple minded to comprehend it doesn’t mean there are any gods involved. The irony is that your attitude is exactly why humans created religion in the first place. Primitive people coming up with mythological explanations to explain things beyond their comprehension. In both cases, we now know better.

      It’s not like it takes a scientist to understand it. This is just simple high school physics. Doesn’t even take physics. A basic understanding of meteorology would suffice

      • http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com Mike Gantt

        Ancient humanity would not have known about the rotation of the earth, its revolution around the sun, and its movement through the Milky Way.  Only modern man can appreciate the ironies associated with the facts I was presenting.

        Modern man thus has just as much reason to believe in God as ancient man did.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X