In the beginning there was nothing.
God said, “Let there be light!” And there was light.
There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better.
—Ellen DeGeneres (attributed)
(via)
Recent Comments
- Shawn: Sounds a bit like ‘torture until you agree with... on Let’s Hope The Mormons Are Wrong…
- Donny Pauling: Pay attention to the sign, gentlemen. The part where my name is... on Let’s Talk About …
- UrsaMinor: Practically anything that is covered in beer batter and deep-fried is... on Night Swimming with Sea Monsters
- Lashaunda Reginaldo: I appreciate an amazing publish, can examine your... on The Bible Argues Against Blind Faith
- FO: Awesome animals. Also, they apparently taste good and I’d be curious... on Night Swimming with Sea Monsters
- PamBG: Facetious. No, there is no free will in heaven, because everyone knows that... on John Piper and Divine Command
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
That’s pretty funny.
Is this the best evidence you can give for your ‘non’ belief? A comediene? It is sarcasm at its best, foolishness at its worst and demonstrates that you are as much in the dark as Ms. DeGeneres. And it proves one thing most clearly: you can’t stand the light of God and so you must do your very best to try to put it out. Just remember these words’ The darkness of your unbelief will not overtake the LIGHT! God is and I know Him!
Wait, I don’t follow it. First you say there was nothing… So where does this god fellow come from?
Ah, well, glad Voice in the Wilderness was here to demonstrate what true spiritual enlightenment looks like.
Anyway, given that this quote is about Genesis this, I suppose, will be on-topic. I tend to try to give the bible a little credit in that I don’t think many its authors ever intended it to be used the way modern Christianity uses it today. I like to think that Moses or Fred or whoever wrote Genesis had enough of a head on his shoulders to not think that his words were intended to make people ignore absolutely all contradictory evidence. They were trying to understand the world in the very limited way they could observe it.
Imagine what the author would say today.
Us: “Moses, help us out. Does Genesis 1 mean six literal, 24-hour days? Did God make the earth with the appearance of age just to fool us? What happened to the dinosaurs? Does evolution contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics? How did Noah get every species of insect on the ark, and then have none of them die? What did the tigers eat for all those months?”
Moses: “Jesus Christ people, they were a bunch of stories we told our kids to get them to go to sleep. I’m a frickin’ shepherd. We were just throwing around ideas, how the hell should I know?”
I can’t read “Voice in the Wilderness” without thinking “Fart in the Wind.”
Oddly enough, the comments of a comedian who still exists and can be asked for confirmation are much more credible than mythology written 2000 years ago.
Just sayin’.
You know you have a bad religion when you can’t laugh about it.
Know a tree by it’s fruits, and all that…
Damn errant apostrophe.
No, but then non-belief (which doesn’t need scare quotes) doesn’t need evidence, does it? Or, to put it another way: What is the best evidence for your ‘non’ belief in Scientology?
It’s up to the person who makes a positive claim to demonstrate evidence. The fact that you can’t do that is the best evidence we can give for our non-belief.
Like I said; the Truth always makes people mad and the truth is that you hate God and all that He stands for so you’ve got to put up this front, either comedic or hateful. But no matter what you say, you will never be able to put out that light. And the clear evidence of the existence of the True LIGHT is your anger. Jesus said: “you are either for Me or against Me.” It is quite clear which side you are on.
Having said that, have you ever really taken the time to listen as God speaks through His Word? Have you ever given serious time to thoughts about God? Other than what I have heard up until now I mean. Yes I know I am commenting on an athiest blog but the truth is important enough to take the time.
I am asking you to please check out Gods truth, not what you’ve heard from other people or opinions you will find on this site or elsewhere. I’m sure you all have access to a bible. Open it up and see what God has to say, not someones opinions of what He said but read it for yourself.
And please don’t come back with “I’ve read it before” or “My friends think its stupid” or whatever other excuse you can think of. You all seem like you’ve got brains and are able to articulate somebody elses ideas. (Dan Florien, Richard Dawkins, Ellen DeGeneres) Open up the bible, read what is written there and then lets have your opinion.
Here’s a suggested starting place. The Gospel of John. Just check it out. Give it an honest read and then render and honest opinion.
Hope to hear from you.
God Bless.
Mike
What anger? All I see is gentle mockery.
Yes. The Bible is clearly not divinely inspired, and the god it describes it not one I’d care to worship, if I believed it existed.
Why not? Has it changed recently?
Know a tree by it’s fruits, and all that…
Hey, enough with the gay-bashing! (kidding)
Oh, and I suppose the fact that many Muslims in India exhibit anger and violence towards the Hindu majority is “clear evidence” that Hinduism is the One True Religion, is it?
Or is it possible for people to be angry at a religious group without that group being theologically correct?
“Here’s a suggested starting place. The Gospel of John. Just check it out. Give it an honest read and then render and honest opinion.”
I’ve read it probably fifty times in my life. Has it changed?
Voice from the Wilderness –
I have read the Gospel of John. Several times. My honest opinion (esp. from knowing a bit of the history behind it) was that it was a text written both to fulfill certain political aims (orienting Christianity as a religion not hostile to the Roman Empire) and also to tell a story about redemption, history, prophecy, and ethics. I enjoy the story the same way I might enjoy a Chuck Palahniuk novel; it is thought provoking, as well as entertaining, and demands a close reading. It’s a remarkable text that strives to combine many strands of thought from not a few traditions (and is occasionally successful at making an original point).
The question I have for you is this: the call to witness, to deliver the “good news” is meant to be that which brings people closer to God. How do you imagine your methods accomplish this? Aggressive, dismissive, drive-by posting is not likely to work with this audience; it is more likely to drive people away from what you wish to drive them toward. Do you believe your methods here are likely to produce positive results? Perhaps you might want to change your approach?
I’ve read it probably fifty times in my life. Has it changed?
ROFL.
Not to take a snipe at the (really funny) snark, but food for thought:
A book you read when you’re twenty years old can mean different things to you than when you read the same book at sixty. The intervening experiences change your orientation to the text, and can provide additional tools for understanding what is written.
Sorry to be snarky, but this whole, “If you just read it and let god into your heart” crap is annoying to me.
Not only have I read their book dozens of times, but I’ve done in depth study, looking up the Greek and Aramaic words, and then doing research on the original meanings of those words. I’ve read in depth analysis written by the foremost bible scholars. And I’ve read it late at night when I was worried and needed comfort, praying to god all the while. I’ve passed all the entry tests. I still don’t want to be in your stupid club.
My atheism has nothing to do with not having read the damn book enough.
“Open up the bible, read what is written there and then lets have your opinion.”
I never understand people that arrive at a blog and base their opinions on the author from the first post they read.
They then proceed to make it even more obvious that they have not taken any time to understand the author or his points with each sentence they type.
‘Voice in the Wildernes’ does not deserve such attention.
I don’t understand why non-atheists think they can change an atheist’s mind by pointing them towards the bible.
Indeed.
It was my in depth study that turned me into an atheist, not the other way around.
i think very few people that call themselves atheists haven’t read the Bible. you can’t really make that kind of a judgment without reviewing the facts.
of course there are always exceptions because some people don’t really know what it means to be atheist.
I went to wilderness’s blog and looked at the picturesque landscape at the top of his page. It struck me that that landscape probably was an uninhabitable wilderness until some intrepid humans cleared the land, planted farms and erected buildings. Nothing any of us have was given to us by god. It’s all the result of human labor or natural processes, which I think was Ellen’s point.
VFTW: Give it an honest read and then render and honest opinion.
If the shoe fits… There are some suggestions for you on the right-hand side of this page.
It was my in depth study that turned me into an atheist, not the other way around.
While I never was a Theist, I have to say that learning about the history of western religion and the texts therein really gave me a shove from “yeah I’m an atheist…” to “I am an Atheist.”
It’s the particulars that really ruin it for me. Yeah, it is hard to form arguments for or against the idea of God in general, but specific Gods are pretty easy to pick to pieces.
The Bible is a serious existential *liability* in our times for Christians; I don’t get why they keep pointing to it either. I understand why it worked five centuries ago, but you’d think they’d update the methods with the times, y’know?
@MilitantAtheist
That’s funny about this picture. Good point. Even though it is a default picture that comes with that WordPress theme, your point still stands, and I wonder if she thought about that. (I’m assuming “she”? Not sure why)
@xy
I very much disagree. Mainly because I had never read nearly a page from it until recently, and have always been atheist.
Also because you don’t have to have read the folklore and stories of a specific people from a certain span of time to understand the concept of a “god”, and make decisions about it based on one’s current knowledge of his/her surroundings.
I have attempted to argue before that we are born atheist. It takes people and their culture to plant the supposition of god into one’s mind.
…more on that:
You can be an atheist regarding the idea of god without knowing the specifics of a particular god.
IOW, the god of the bible is a specific god, but he’s still a god, just like any other religion’s god.
(of course “just like” is debatable, but besides the point)
@Voice from the Wilderness
Having read the Bible I’ve found it a bit of a let down in the later stages. All that stuff with Charlton Heston was pretty good although I think most people would agree that his best work was Ben Hur or maybe Planet of The Apes — were they the same author? As a slight aside why didn’t they make a sequel called the 11 Commandments they certainly missed a trick there. When it gets to this Jesus character well it all goes a bit wrong doesn’t it — where’s the love interest and what sort of ending is that; nailing him up on a cross, well that may be ok for French art house films but not the sort thing anyone wants to see in a proper Hollywood movie. Oh and all this dying in a cave bit, isn’t that just a rehash of Romeo and Juliet.
i suppose i didn’t really think that all the way through. i’m just lately figuring out how to think about it in an eloquent way.
i’ve known for most of my life that there is no god watching over and directing our lives, but until recently i haven’t been able to reconcile what i was taught in my youth with what i now believe(or don’t believe).
@McB
I don’t agree that we are born ‘atheist.’ I think we are born with an innate tendency for superstitious irrational thought, and depending on what culture you’re brought up in, the nucleation point for these tendencies can differ (Allah, Yahweh, Astrology, Tea Leaves etc.). It’s true that a good majority of religious behavior is due to indoctrination, but we’re not by any means born with a blank slate.
It’s like language. There is a certain amount of biological priming for the behavior, but the details of how it manifests itself are entirely subject to the surroundings you are brought up in.
I would agree though that we are born ‘a-anyparticular-theist.’
Today is the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth.
Elliot
I very much agree that we are born with that tendency.
However, like you said about it depending on what culture you’re brought up in, because modern culture now has a scientific explanation for 99.9% of what once was attributed to god(s), the main reason anyone would assign any experience to a god is because someone else has told them that they should.
I’m saying that hundreds of years ago, it very much makes sense that the human innate tendency for superstition would lead to god. Today, not so much.
I very much doubt if a child was born into a modern culture on Earth today, and was never told about this concept of god, and was offered all of the knowledge we currently have about the world with absolute omission of any reference to the idea of god, that he/she would conclude that there is such a thing.
Dang, and I haven’t finished my Darwin’s Day present shopping….
I agree with most here, this is funny.
@ Elemenope
“How do you imagine your methods accomplish this? Aggressive, dismissive, drive-by posting is not likely to work with this audience; it is more likely to drive people away from what you wish to drive them toward. Do you believe your methods here are likely to produce positive results? Perhaps you might want to change your approach?”
i totally agree. frankly i find it rude and i’m a theist. this is your space and to come here and attack is just rude.
I very much doubt if a child was born into a modern culture on Earth today, and was never told about this concept of god, and was offered all of the knowledge we currently have about the world with absolute omission of any reference to the idea of god, that he/she would conclude that there is such a thing.
I imagine such a child exploring the notion of causation would eventually spontaneously ask the question “well, what was/is the first cause?” At that point, they may hypothesize a deity, though I don’t think such a conclusion is necessary.
Voice in the Wilderness, meet Roger’s mental killfile. Clearly, this person was born without or somehow lost a sense of humor and decided to straw-man a frickin’ joke. And 90% of his posts are fractally stupid (yeah, convince an atheist…by pointing to the Bible. Good show there, chap!).
Elemenope
True, and that is what I thought of in that 0.1% not explained yet.
However I think the idea that the universe needs to have a cause is derived from religion. Perhaps I’m wrong.
I’m just using my own experience here, and what I observe from theists’ views. Meaning, they seem to be the ones that want to answer that question.
I have just never considered it, nor knowing the answer to be of any consequence on my day-to-day life.
“straw-man a frickin’ joke”
HAHA.. so true.
Voice from the Wilderness wrote:
> you hate God and all that He stands forI am asking you to please check out Gods truth, <
Ah, I see from whence came Elemenope’s errant apostrophe. Vftw has a habit of losing them.
Without that apostrophe, vftw turns a possessive into a plural noun, which makes me wonder, vftw, why you choose to believe in one god over another.
To paraphrase you:
I’m sure you have access to other bibles. Open them up and see what gods have to say, not someones [sic] opinions of what gods say but read it for yourself.
And please don’t come back with “I’ve read them before” or “My friends think all the other bibles are stupid” or whatever other excuse you can think of. You seem you got a brain and are able to articulate somebody elses [sic] ideas. (Jesus, Baby Jesus, The Snake) Open up the other bibles, read what is written there and then lets [sic] have your opinion.
Here’s a suggested starting place. Mysterious Stranger, by Mark Twain. Just check it out. Give it an honest read and then render and honest opinion.
@Elemenope
“The Bible is a serious existential *liability* in our times for Christians; I don’t get why they keep pointing to it either. I understand why it worked five centuries ago, but you’d think they’d update the methods with the times, y’know?”
It’s not that you don’t have a point with this statement but what is the alternative, besides being an atheist? Some would say follow a community that updates with time, but that hasn’t worked very well, witness the history of the Catholic church. The pope is supposed to be an infallible source of “truth” but some of the actions of certain popes would probably make Larry Flynt blush. So if a pope can mess up I’m sure we all can. I guess you could be a mystic, but that usually tends to be a closed door when speaking to issues of morality or truth. A true mystic wouldn’t presume to have any empirical truth available for discussion so for a lot of them its better to sit in silence. In the end they add little to the discussion, generally speaking of course. So you’re left to the reformation revision of sola scriptura. By no means am I saying that this is without problems, but at least there is something objectively there to discuss. Obviously we aren’t going to come to the same conclusions but the texts are there to be argued about, hence the apropo funny of “has the book of John” changed. Atheists should prefer this type of Christian to dialogue with, in this sense that this Christian can be held to his/her own position of x,y,z based on the texts. This type of falsification isn’t available against a theist that makes no empirical claims at all.
But I’d be interested to see how you see it, or what alternatives you would have for a Christian. Are Christians that can’t point to Scripture relegated to a subjective position, strictly speaking? If they are, I think atheists would be justified in being dogmatic, since there would be no evidence, directly or indirectly available, to be judged at all. This truly would be the realm of the spaghetti monster.
…meet Roger’s mental killfile.
You do use that thing a lot.
—————
@McB
I’m just using my own experience here, and what I observe from theists’ views. Meaning, they seem to be the ones that want to answer that question.
I have just never considered it, nor knowing the answer to be of any consequence on my day-to-day life.
Some Atheists want to answer it too, but I agree that there doesn’t seem to be much existential weight behind the speculation; it really doesn’t have much impact the way some other fundamental inquiries can to how you look at the world. I always liked Thomas Aquinas’ note that God, if he exists, must come last in the order of knowledge, not first as the Platonists had assumed. It was almost as if he was saying that that speculations about first causation are not right, or wrong, but *simply boring*.
BTW, your Stay-puft icon is awesome.
“I couldn’t help it. It just popped in there.”
“What? What just popped in there?”
“…I tried to think.”
@ Voice
Thanks for joining us. Can you please answer a few questions?
“Like I said; the Truth always makes people mad and the truth is that you hate God and all that He stands for so you’ve got to put up this front, either comedic or hateful. But no matter what you say, you will never be able to put out that light.”
What makes you think we hate god? That’s kind of like hating Scooby-Doo. My feelings about fictional characters don’t really rise to the level of hate.
“And the clear evidence of the existence of the True LIGHT is your anger.”
Ok now we are getting somewhere. Can you please describe that evidence for us? (I’m genuinely confused about this since I don’t have any anger toward fictional characters) We keep asking theist after theist for the evidence, and they never seem to have an answer. Your help is greatly appreciated.
” Jesus said: “you are either for Me or against Me.” It is quite clear which side you are on.”
Really? I though W. said this. You learn something new…
“Having said that, have you ever really taken the time to listen as God speaks through His Word? Have you ever given serious time to thoughts about God?”
Again, can you describe this “Word” for us? Is this the evidence you spoke of above? If so, how is it evidence?
Listen – you are commenting on an atheist blog. Chance are pretty good that those of us who care enough to devote our time to posting on the topic have given serious time to thoughts about god. Thing is, those thoughts have led us to conclude he doesn’t exist.
“I am asking you to please check out Gods truth, not what you’ve heard from other people or opinions you will find on this site or elsewhere. I’m sure you all have access to a bible. Open it up and see what God has to say, not someones opinions of what He said but read it for yourself.”
Oh no! Is this the evidence you are talking about? The bible? Yes I’ve read it. It doesn’t answer my questions. It’s not evidence.
Now I’m starting to get disappointed.
“And please don’t come back with “I’ve read it before” or “My friends think its stupid” or whatever other excuse you can think of. …Open up the bible, read what is written there and then lets have your opinion.”
So prior readings don’t count? Why?
Ok – here’s my opinion. It’s an interesting book inasmuch as it forms the basis for some very strange beliefs. It isn’t evidence for the existence of god. It makes me actively dislike the god described therein as a bully and despot.
Can’t wait to hear back from you
@All
Check out Voice from the Wilderness’ web-site — it’s a real hoot. So far I’ve learnt the Obama may actually be the anti-christ. Well I never that’s a turn up for the books don’t you think?
“Some would say follow a community that updates with time, but that hasn’t worked very well, witness the history of the Catholic church.”
Some would argue that the Catholic Church’s (willing or forced) evolution has been one of its strengths, not a weakness.
If they still argued for geocentrism would anyone take them seriously?
A hundred years from now creationism, if it exists at all, will be a cult belief like flat earth.
Groups who cling to biblical literalism on this point will either have evolved, or they will be gone.
One interesting thing about modern Christianity (to me) is the shrinking of useful bible verses. I know many Christians who won’t read the OT at all. And I know a few that only read tiny portions of the NT. Basically the bits that have nice things to say.
I would say that what nope is talking about is already happening.
“What makes you think we hate god?”
You know, “you just hate X!” is a favorite retort of those without a rational argument to make.
I remember hearing this a lot when criticizing policies of GWB. “You just hate Bush!”
In the last election, how often was, “You just hate Palin!” the comeback to criticisms of her?
As soon as someone tells me I just hate something that I am criticizing, I assume they have nothing rational to say on the topic.
@Barry
The Bible is fine for Christians to use to inform their own beliefs, though that has its own perils (namely that the world is different than when the book was written; the contexts that help to provide it with meaning have shifted in serious ways). But I have always believed it to be useless as an evangelical tool in the modern world.
I honestly don’t have a good solution to suggest. If Christians want to use the Bible as an *evangelical* tool, rather than just the data-set for the beliefs they already believe, they have a serious hermeneutic obstacle that seems pretty hard to surmount. Namely, the people they are witnessing to don’t lend any epistemic weight whatsoever to a text they don’t believe is a true account of events.
There’s no way to break into that hermeneutic circle except by working with the perspective the person they are evangelizing holds, rather than their own. They can use their own life as an example “see, this belief has produced good effects in my life”, or others’ lives (similar argument), or frame the problem in terms of questions that the person’s epistemology does not satisfactorily answer. The Bible isn’t really helpful for any of those approaches.
@ Mcbloggstein
“However I think the idea that the universe needs to have a cause is derived from religion. Perhaps I’m wrong”
i think it’s deeply embedded in science as well. we see something and want to know why, we look for the cause.
i think the difference comes in to what we attribute the cause. A natural occurrence that can be traced to another cause or an act of an omnipotent being.
The thing i think that is often missed is that not all theists attribute every act to God. nature does it’s thing and keeps doing it. some would say God drives it others that God started it and now lets it do its thing.
“i think it’s deeply embedded in science as well. we see something and want to know why, we look for the cause. ”
This was true until we began looking into the quantum level. But as Dawkins says in one of his books, our brains evolved to track medium sized objects moving at medium speeds at medium distances. We have a hard time conceptualizing things that fall outside of the “That lion is running toward me” scale.
However, cause and effect, while the law on that scale, are not the law when we move outside it. So, while every effect has a cause is useful when we hear leaves rustle and wonder if a tiger is about to jump on us, it isn’t useful for questions regarding the origin of the universe.
You’re using the wrong tool at that point.
@ McB
I think you’re spot on when you say that if a child were raised today without the idea of god, they probably would not invent it. But crucially today, with empiricism supplanting irrationality.
I think empirical thought and skepticism is a learned behavior. There is little to no biological pre-programming for it, so it will always be a challenge to fend off superstition, which is a default state, of sorts.
Dawkins talks about how religion may be a perversion of our ‘obey your elders’ instinct, and that religious belief hijacks the drive to unquestioningly heed the advice of your parents.
“Don’t eat that berry” and “stay away from crocodiles” don’t offer much room for trial and error testing, so it would have been in the interest of our ancestors to be dogmatic about this kind of advice when it was available. Superstition arises when causality is not readily apparent. “Chew this plant and put it on a burn” and “put animal manure around your crops” make sense to us now, but to early people, they made no more sense than “sacrifice a goat on the full moon.” So the barrier between rational and irrational belief was blurred.
Anyway, the point is that we are fighting instinct with learned behavior, so it’s bound to be an uphill battle for us.
@Elemenope:
“…meet Roger’s mental killfile.
You do use that thing a lot.”
It’s necessary, or I’d spend more time than is healthy writing diatribes contra godbots who drive-by-post using Bible verses and poems written by intellectual midgets.
@Philip
Good point, but while science makes hypotheses from inferences based on prior knowledge/experience in order to find answers, theism makes assumptions based on little to nothing in order to answer them.
“God” being the answer, is of course on the list of explanations. I just think science has shown time and time again that goddidit is not a reliable explanation. Therefore, ‘god’ is lower on the list of explanations, where the one’s near the top are the most reasonable.
“I just think science has shown time and time again that goddidit is not a reliable explanation.”
It has, in fact, NEVER been the right answer. Not once so far.
It is also not falsifiable, and has no predictive value.
It’s a terrible answer.
“It has, in fact, NEVER been the right answer. Not once so far.”
True!
While the game of explaining things isn’t over yet, the score is:
God – 0
Science/Human mind – 8,234,875,422,806,141,623,022
I thought the joke was funny.
@Elemenope
“BTW, your Stay-puft icon is awesome.”
I forgot to say thanks! :)
Reading “Voice from the Wilderness” is like reading a poorly argued fundie gospel tract from Jack Chick. It also reminds me of myself as a teenager.
Plus it sure gives me a hell of a laugh and eye roll!
I haven’t read all the comments on this thread yet, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if “Voice” starting presenting the good ‘ol Romans Road next.
What is really sad is he thinks he is helping people see Christ, when really he’s making Christianity look ridiculous. This is the wrong place to use the emotional start-in-John believe-the-Bible God-exists-I-know-’em crap.
@ MC
“Good point, but while science makes hypotheses from inferences based on prior knowledge/experience in order to find answers, theism makes assumptions based on little to nothing in order to answer them.”
most theists will make their hypotheses on why something occurred is based on a previous experience. it just may be that their previous experience was with God, as they have experienced it, and so it factors into their hypothesis.
“science has shown time and time again that goddidit is not a reliable explanation”
fair enough.
@Voice from the Wilderness:
VftW, meet Perfesser Huxley: “Ye shall know the truth, and it shall make ye mad.”
Which would account for much of the behaviour of theists, if they had the truth on hand…
@Barry:
Why do you want an alternative?
As far as the Bible’s concerned, various sects can and do contort themselves into thelogical knots to try and fit it into modern thought, all without changing the Holy Word.
Consider the Catholic position on homosexuality: It’s okay to be gay, god made you that way. But you better not have gay sex–because the god who made you queer hates that.
It’s a 2,000 year-old book. With the accelerating pace of scientific change and thought in the latter century-plus-a-bit, iand the increase in lieracy and the scope of communication, it’s having to withstand forces is wasn’t intended to endure: Like serious scrutiny by someone other than a group of superstitious tribespeople.
@Jabster:
Obama the anti-Christ? $#17!
I thought for sure it was Ozzy Osbourne …
Now I have to go buy all new T-shirts.
Posting this comment here also to see if I can get some actual dialogue.
>>>
That is a great quote (I found via Twitter). We want “real” instead of praying. Yes Yes.
Bottom line, you guys are unaware of what Christians are supposed to really believe and speak about. I do realize that there are some that make your job of mockery and sarcasm easier. It makes me do the same thing. But you’re still speaking of the few that have no clue what they themselves believe and, much less, WHY they believe it.
And Mr. Florien is coming from a, no doubt, very fundamental background where a pastor or two were over-the-top, said chicks can’t wear jeans or cut hair, you have to give millions of dollars, etc…. I agree, that pastor is a moron.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE REALLY BELIEVE, then ask me. I’m engaged in a few conversations with atheists around this country and others who I’ve met through this blog. They ask an intelligent question and I give intelligent answers.
I know, I know, it’s much more fun for Mr. Bloggenstein to throw out generic “delusional” comments and sarcasm which rarely vary in creativity and thought. I know, sarcasm is fun for me too. But at some point, wouldn’t it be wise to hear from someone who can somewhat articulate what they believe?
Anyway, if you really want to speak to someone who won’t argue for the sake of arguing, won’t try to convert you, and will call you out on your pointless sarcasm, LET ME KNOW! I’m your guy.
And to the rest of you “Christians” in the mood to argue, SHUT UP! You’re just entertainment for both me and for Daniel Florien. Get a clue. Be intelligent in your speech and STOP IT with the Sunday School answers. Crap!
Sorry, Stephen.
At least as far as this atheist goes, I don’t have any questions you can answer.
I already know the Christian answers. They fail.
But thanks for offering.
@ Stephen Webb
Please see my response that I posted to the same post you just made in the other thread where you posted this.
I love how a little funny quote can generate 59 and counting responses, most of which formed by one theists rather ineffectual attempt at “enlightenment.” You have to admit that “Voices” attempt at providing light did prove that there was quite a bit to see in this instance. :)
Oh, and if anyone feels like going on a good anti-creationist, anti-ignorance rant, I put my two cents worth on the following post. http://alwaystilting.blogspot.com/2009/02/chuck-d-february-12-1809-april-19-1882.html. I am reply number 9, and I felt like spouting.
See, you can’t tell us what “Christians” believe; you can only tell us what you believe. You can’t tell us what John C believes, or what Voice in the Wilderness believes, or even what Daniel believed.
You can always claim they’re not really true Scotsmen, and that people only count as Christians if they agree with you 100%, but I don’t really expect anyone to believe that you have the right to definitively define Christianity.
Maybe Stephen Webb is the pope’s internet handle.
Not sure if Ellen actually said that or not, but it reminds me a bit of the “Energy” attraction at Disney’s Epcot. Ellen and Bill Nye the Science guy travel to the beginning of the Universe and witness the Big Bang. It’s pretty cool, and also there are robot dinosaurs, so its got that going for it.
@ wintermute
“See, you can’t tell us what “Christians” believe; you can only tell us what you believe. You can’t tell us what John C believes, or what Voice in the Wilderness believes, or even what Daniel believed.”
thank you.
AWW DANG, why I get picked on? It’s always the fat avatar that gets targeted…
I thought my sarcasm was pretty light compared to some. In friendly situations, I do lay it on pretty heavy, but I try and hold back here because you all don’t know me well enough to know I’m just being silly.
Sigh.
Mister Webb, you aren’t the first, by several dozen commenters, to claim that “atheists don’t know what they’re talking about.”
It gets real old, real fast. And it starts to sound like the people voicing that sentiment (who I’m sure often have sincere intentions) are either being stupid or insulting.
I grew up a good Christian lad in a good Catholic household. Don’t tell me I don’t know what a Christian believes. I’ve read the Bible, I’ve done the Vatican Rag, and I wanted Jesus to be the real thing, in my heart, the way you’re supposed to want these things.
And God apparently couldn’t be bothered to extend me the faith I needed to sustain belief in his existence.
Are you likely to come back with “Catholics aren’t Christians,” by the way? Please don’t.
Perhaps I can help save a few million electrons by pointing out some other things you shouldn’t waste your time, and ours, by posting:
1) “Atheists who claim to be ex-Christians were never really Christians.”
2) “Atheists just want to disobey God, so they pretend to think he doesn’t exist.”
3) “Atheism’s just another sort of religion.”
Those’ll do for now.
Now if you want dialogue, you could start by presenting your valid arguments in favour of the existence of a deity. Do try to avoid the hundreds of logic holes Daniel has listed here, won’t you?
I thought I was here to make you look calm and reasonable, McB?
@Stephen Webb
Ok, joking’s over. You’re full of shit now.
You keep getting your feelings hurt, don’t you?
Remember this?
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/23/michio-kaku-explains-the-multiverse-theory/#comment-11077
You still haven’t responded to my point.
If I haven’t made any points worthy of discussion, and all I’ve done is make immature remarks, then I think my presence here would have been met with quite a bit of negative response. But… it hasn’t. Yours seems to have been.
Not only that, but Daniel has started 2 or 3 posts based on a suggestion I made or a question I posed.
Your presence here means you think a least some sort of viable conversation is going on that you would like to take part in (really badly apparently), and then you must therefore respect this blog’s author, in which case you respect his decisions.
McB, eventually you will piss off enough Christians that they can cross the streams and blow you into sticky goo.
Now, Ty, get real. We all know that religion and ghostbusting don’t mix.
http://xkcd.com/459/
But now the Pope has all those proton packs!
Haha! Nice comic.
You do do a good job making me look reasonable, comparatively, Ty.
Yeah, I’m just a punk. :)
Bloggenstein i like your sarcasm.
I haven’t gone through all the comments yet.. but i do want to reply to this gem.
“Like I said; the Truth always makes people mad and the truth is that you hate God and all that He stands for so you’ve got to put up this front, either comedic or hateful.”
I can’t hate something that i think doesn’t exist. No matter how many people scream that it does..
I don’t hate demons, as they don’t exist either.
About the ellen quote..
I like it, it’s witty :)