Mother Starves Son for Resurrection Experiment

Bloody handWe’ve discussed what we would do if a god appeared and asked us to kill one of our children. We’d tell him to get lost and then get our heads examined. But if we believed in God and miracles, the request might not seem out of place — after all, in the Bible God did ask Abraham to kill his son as a test of faith.

Something like this happened recently to a Maryland mother.

She was involved with a Christian group called One Mind Ministries. Her son refused to say “amen,” during the meal prayers, so their leader, ”Queen Antoinette,” insisted the boy was possessed by a demon. The boy continued to refuse to say the magic word, so she said that God wanted to raise him from the dead. Which, of course, meant he had to die first.

So they put the child away in a back room and prayed — and left him there without food or water for over a week.

The boy died.

No resurrection took place. Any sane person could have told them this, because resurrections only happens in myths and fairy tales. But they were deluded and thought it could happen in real life — an unfortunate consequence of believing in miracles.

The mother has been charged with first-degree murder, but she has insisted on a clause in her plea agreement that requires the charges will be dropped once her son is resurrected. The clause has been accepted.

Amazingly, she still believes:

“She certainly recognizes that her omissions caused the death of her son,” Silverman said. “To this day, she believes it was God’s will and he will be resurrected and this will all take care of itself. She realizes if she’s wrong, then everyone has to take responsibility … and if she’s wrong, then she’s a failure as a mother and the worst thing imaginable has happened. I don’t think that, mentally, she’s ready to accept that.”

What a tragic lesson that deities can’t be relied upon.

If she had only trusted her God less and her reason more, perhaps her child would still be alive.

  • Sock

    That’s just awful.

    “and if she’s wrong, then she’s a failure as a mother and the worst thing imaginable has happened.”

    That line says to me that, she recognized the difference between the real world and the fantasy world, but choses to live in the fantasy world.

    Maybe without religion, she wouldn’t have had that fantasy to escape to, and would’ve been a good mother.

    I am somewhat reminded of that scene in Trainspotting.

  • http://www.slim-blondje.com/eng Pascalle

    You forgot to include that teh kid was only 1.5 years old (18 months).
    At that age it’s still hard to even talk, let alone understand that you “obviously” must say amen.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    What a horrific story.

    While extreme in the context of modern American culture, unfortunately this is an example of where magical thought can lead.

  • RobotzAreAwesome

    James 5:14:
    “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.”

    Whats scary is that according to The Bible, this woman’s efforts couldn’t have been more spot on.

    • Brain

      Are you as insane as this woman? Where in that passage does it say to be completely retarded and refuse to feed a sick person?

    • Jeff

      That verse is about physical ailments and diseases. It says nothing about letting a person die, or God resurrecting a person from the dead. “The Lord will raise him up” just refers to God making the person well again.

      Don’t take that the wrong way, I’m not a Christian. But I just don’t like it when non-Christians interpret Bible verses like you did.

      • Chris

        It’s far more scary when Christians interpret the bible, as they tend to take passages completely out of context to justify almost anything they do.

        At least atheists don’t try to excuse torture and murder by claiming “it’s god’s will”.

  • http://www.theamenheresy.com Bill

    The “killing fields” of religion take a back seat to no depravity.

  • Stupid Idea

    What that poor boy must have gone through. Absolutely sick.

    • Daniel

      It could have been worse. The kid died after a week. He could have hung on for a lot longer than that. It’s sick, I know, but at least he’s not suffering anymore.

      Or worse, becoming as insane as his mother obviously is.

  • Steve Jeffers

    There will always be crazy people who do crazy things – the real story here is that the authorities took a lenient view because it was religion:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032801936.html?hpid=moreheadlines

    “At times there can be an overlap between extreme religious conviction and delusion,” said Robert Jay Lifton, a cult expert and psychiatrist who lectures at Harvard Medical School. “It’s a difficult area for psychiatry and the legal system.”

    This is a horrible situation. It’s not a typical outcome for religious belief, but it was enabled by perfectly typical religious thinking. And, as ever, it’s always the kids that suffer.

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      “At times” ?

  • claidheamh mor

    Ugh. I wonder if any of the christian cultists who believe abortion is murder use this as an out, killing a baby they didn’t want after it’s born, because that’s okay.

    I hope the legal system stays with her planned sentence (i.e. no insane resurrection clause).

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      Maybe an abortion just means you didn’t want the child now but you’ll be ready for it when god decides to resurrect it.

    • http://blackirispublishing.net gothceltgirl

      I second that. All thier “abortion is murder” rhetoric is such bull! I’m so fed up with it!

    • ChristianCultist

      What was I thinking before reading your comment? Obviously only “Christians” (whether real or nominal) have ever killed children they didn’t want.

      Forgive me. At least pro-lifers acknowledge their mistakes and give up an unwanted pregnancy for adoption–never mind whether it’s murder or not.

      This mother did not kill a child that she “didn’t want.” She was deluded and took a single radical example from the Bible and applied it to a modern context; clearly the thinking was irrational, but nothing in her situation suggests that she didn’t want her son or that she did it maliciously. Think before you next speak about premeditated homicide, please. Your comment makes rational humans cringe at our representation.

      • TrickQuestion

        There’s a fascinating post around here about the hypocrisy of pro-lifers and how many of them have abortions at the very places they protest.

        • Yoav

          I had to deal with this kind of stupid so often I have this saved in my bookmarks, just in case.

        • Custador

          Indeed. I wrote it. It’s linked to this.

  • LRA

    Two stories:

    (This one I mentioned a while back on another post, but Robotz’s mention of James 5:14 reminded me of it) A friend of my family’s mom is dying. She was diagnosed with colon cancer, but refused to get treatment, instead choosing to “live her faith”. Her church prayed over her, but she’s still dying. She’s on morphine now, which means it won’t be much longer.

    I used to volunteer at a women’s shelter in Dallas. There was a woman there who was de-converting from a cult (she was only there a short time until they could get her into a full time psychiatric facility). The people in her cult had a hierarchical order, so she was mentally broken down to do whatever she was told. I don’t know all the details of what happened to her, but physical and sexual abuse were involved.

    My point being: there are sick (physically and mentally) people in this world who live their faith to a point of harming themselves or others. In the first story, the mom was considered a normal, but devout woman while the second case is very extreme. I really don’t see that much of a difference between them though.

    The woman who starved her son has points in common with both of the stories I mentioned. I’m pretty sure that they will prosecute the religious leader involved in this cult, but would the authorities prosecute the pastor of my friend’s mom? Just a thought.

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      Perhaps preachers who encourage people to forgo medicine and to pray away their terminal illness could be charged with assisting suicide like they did Dr. Kevorkian.

  • Bruce

    I feel horrible for the mother. I really do. The report states that she was clinging to her child begging him to say “Amen”. The fact that she couldn’t assert herself over the leader of the cult “Queen Antoinette”, and get the heck out of there, when she realized what was going to happen is the worst.

    Although she was brainwashed, she still chose to let her son die. I have to believe that the leader realized that she was “losing her faith” and was planning to leave. The leader had to have worked hard to not only keep her there, but also to keep her from feeding her son. I’m sure that when he actually died, the cognitive dissonance was too great and she probably had to completely buy the “religion” that she was in the process of breaking away from to save her son.

    This is a no win for anyone at all.

  • Pingback: if you encourage people’s delusions… « rebel’s advocate

  • Ty

    I read that four other members of the church are also charged with crimes including murder. I hope this Antoinette is among those charged.

  • http://alphonsuspeck.wordpress.com Alphonsus

    I gotta think that there was some kind of mental illness involved in here somewhere, as well. But…

    Sigh…

  • jayglo

    This truly is a very very sad story.
    However, she is obviously very twisted. There is no where in the Bible that suggests anyone should kill their child who is possessed. This woman was not “Christian”, although she might have claimed to be. She had her own views on things.

    And it is not a “fantasy” to believe in miracles. God can’t grant every wish everyone has. If God did ressurect that child, she would have thought that her actions in killing him were moral and right. He chose to not save the child because the woman would have been even worse off. It was not his will.

    No where in the Bible does it say to kill your child if they are possessed. (and clearly this child was not). This mom was insane, not doing God’s will.

    One of the main problems in Christianity is that people interpret things how THEY want to. This can easily be avoided by sticking to the roots of the teachings of the Church. This woman strayed very far and the consequences were tremendous.

    Very interesting article. :)

    • godIsAFantasy

      The kid would have been much better off.
      Do you mean god had a choice here?
      God didn’t save the kid because god never does anything, ever. If a moral being had to chose between saving the life of one person, and teaching another person a lesson about morals, that being would choose to save a life.

      Don’t kill them, just rape them?

    • godIsAFantasy

      I’m sorry about the badly formated comment (above). New try:


      And it is not a “fantasy” to believe in miracles. God can’t grant every wish everyone has. If God did ressurect that child, she would have thought that her actions in killing him were moral and right. He chose to not save the child because the woman would have been even worse off. It was not his will.

      The kid would have been much better off.
      Do you mean god had a choice here?
      God didn’t save the kid because god never does anything, ever. If a moral being had to chose between saving the life of one person, and teaching another person a lesson about morals, that being would choose to save a life.

      One of the main problems in Christianity is that people interpret things how THEY want to. This can easily be avoided by sticking to the roots of the teachings of the Church.

      Don’t kill them, just rape them?

    • Michael

      “All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.” — Leviticus 20:9

      Try reading something before professing eternal faith. It’s only called ‘blind’ faith, not ignorant faith. I actually read ‘Origin of the Species’ before I slit the throat of my first sacrificial amoeba in reverence to the Dar-One.

      By Christian standards, this child was not honoring his mother and thereby ‘cursing’ her and her religion required her to put him to death….guess she couldn’t find any rocks….in her neighborhood, they must have all evolved into Croco-ducks.

  • DarkMatter

    “One of the main problems in Christianity is that people interpret things how THEY want to. This can easily be avoided by sticking to the roots of the teachings of the Church. This woman strayed very far and the consequences were tremendous.”

    I would not judge her, I think the court verdict is humain.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/3407882/Child-witches-of-Nigeria-seek-refuge.html

  • antisupernaturalist

    ** Theodicy is just one xian Big-Lie

    There are many ‘excuses’ for infanticide. It is the dark side of the pro-birth (not pro-life) movement — that there should be no impediment to birth whatsoever.

    I don’t know what you think of a so-called God who would let an 18 month old starve to death, but I’m quite sure that such a moral monster does not exist.

    Fundies, dogmatic RCs are a public (mental) health menace. What they believe is injurious to themselves and others.

    antisupernaturalist

  • the right solution

    give her the death penalty, but include an *additional* resurrection clause.

    “if the son comes back to life after capital punishment has been carried out, then we assume you will be resurrected,too.”

    surely, she could agree to that. i mean if she really thinks she’s right, then there’s nothing for her to lose.

  • Ty

    Can we alter the tax laws with provisions like this?

    All churches must pay tax, but if Christ returns and tells us which one was correct, we’ll give all the money back with interest.

    • Brain

      ahahaha

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      Brilliant!

  • Word Of Truth

    I hope people realize that this is not a typical “Christian” practice. First if all, any bible believing Christian would not have taken an order from this “Queen Antoinette”. Though the bible does tell us to follow the command of those in leadership over us, that is negated if the command goes against “Biblical Law”
    The scripture in Genesis about Abraham and his son is true, however; there was no follow-through, God asked Abraham as a test of his obedience, and when he saw that he was serious about his commitment to God, God stopped him and sent a ram to talk the place as the sacrifice (which is where the term scape-goat came from).
    Another point, God, according to the Law of the New Testament, no longer requires a living blood sacrifice to Him. Jesus was the last Living Sacrifice that needed to be made as an atonement for mankind’s sin, which is why the scripture says that by accepting the death of Jesus as the perfect sacrifice to God man can be saved and accepted into heaven. Of course there is a bit more to the “Bible Believing Christian Religion” than that, which goes into the areas of faith and other types of lifestyle sacrifices, is not really relevant to this discussion.

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      This discussion isn’t about what the bible says it is about the irrational behaviour of the religiously deluded.

      • http://EvolutionIsAmyth.com EvolutionIsAmyth

        Who made you forum-cop, pig?

        • realistichope

          Pig? How unchristian! I was once so afraid of keeping my daughter sick by telling the drs. her symptoms (it would be a bad confession). There are literally thousands of churches who preach healing for those who are spiritual enough to receive it. Who wants their total social support to think they are not spiritual enough?

          • Sunny Day

            Pig is slang for Police Officer.

            How unchristian!

            You must be new here and rather dim.

            Who wants their total social support to think they are not spiritual enough?

            The same ignorant scumbag parents that would want to avoid embarrassment at the cost of their children’s suffering and death.

  • http://unreasonablefaith No Masters.

    What this mother did to her own child is sickening, to attempt to justify it by what is written in a fantasy book is horrific.

    If you claim to be christian then you follow the word of god as it is written. Christians choose to conveniently claim that the bible is not literal at the times best suited to their needs. Either the bible is the word of your god or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways. All religions are cults, some just happened to have/had enough power and money not to be classified as a cult.
    Religion, brainwashing at it’s best.

    The bible is truth or fiction. No in between.
    Waiting on an answer from a “christian”.

  • http://unreasonablefaith No Masters.

    I am not the one claiming that the bible is the word of god.
    The case is either the bible is fact or false. If one part is false, then by definition the entire bible has to be seen as false.
    More so, given that christians claim it to be the word of god.
    It’s a case of basic reasoning.

  • http://unreasonablefaith No Masters.

    Loops, it is very simple. Either the bible is fact or fiction.
    Since christians claim that the bible is the word of god it had better be followed to the letter. Another apologist attempting to justify cults.

    The new testament is filled with contradictions.

    Scientific definition. ie if one part of the observations of a hypothesis is incorrect then the hypothesis is incorrect.
    ie. Time for a new hypothesis.

  • Tom

    I hope somebody gets punished because of this incredibly stupid act. A child’s life was lost. He needs his justice. Someone needs to be punished.

    I heard something the other day that I think is supported by this story:
    “Jesus was great and everything, great man, great leader, just the best. It’s his crazy followers who screwed everything up.” And yes, I am talking about this mother as being one of his followers that has screwed things up.

  • Steve

    Yeah … some of you people are complete philistines to be honest. This wasn’t a Christian group, it was an insane cult .. a fringe group no different than the Branch Davidians or the Westboro Baptist Church. They call themselves Christians but they really … aren’t. Normal, sane Christians realize you can’t do these things, nor should expect a normal person to be resurrected from the dead. Only Jesus has accomplished this feat (and those he brought back), and he obviously had some divine intervention working for him. If you people can’t tell the difference between a cult and a group of sane people (mostly) who simply worship a good, caring God in order to have sustained peace and stability in their lives .. then I truly do feel sorry for all of you.

    It’s easy to pick out the most grotesque and insane aspects of a group (look at the far right wing republicans) and say THIS is why I don’t believe in so and so .. when the reality is 99.9999 percent of the people in said group do NOT believe this way and would never think of doing something this crazy … however it’s pretty darn hard to look at the little things that actually show oneself that God really is working in this world and your life. That’s because those who get deluded and fall into vanity and fall in love with the world forget in the little miracles that happen every day and end up slowly falling into a life of sin. They eventually simply can’t recognize the fact that God is all around us, speaking to us every day. It’s sad .. and it’s hard to change and start living right .. but once you make an effort to do so, you can start noticing God’s voice and his works in your life again.

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      “Normal, sane Christians” you are very funny. sane-christian would have to be an oxymoron wouldn’t it?

      No one is saying this behaviour is typical of believers, what is being said is this is behaviour only believers could justify.

  • Steve

    Also, I just want to reccomend a book to you evolutionary theory nuts … “The Evolution Handbook” … it basically disproves the entire theory. Which isn’t hard to do btw .. considering it’s the biggest lie ever told in the history of mankind. That theory has been around FAR too long .. and it still hasn’t been proven. It’s got more holes than swiss cheese and the US interstate system put together. It’s funny .. man has completely stopped evolving. RIGHT when we start trying to prove that we actually evolve. Darn that great ape … he’s hiding from us!

    Read that book, and you’ll see that Darwin’s theory is a real pile of poo. Natural selection? Evolution? Primordial ooze? It’s a big fairy tale that you MUST have faith in order to believe in. Which makes all of you hypocrites because most of you are completely anti-faith. Think about it.

    • warmlight

      But Darwin’s Theory has been proven. You yourself with very little specialized equipment can observe evolution in action. Make a culture in a petri dish and then watch it grow. That’s visible, record-able evolution. There aren’t any holes in Darwin’s theory. And we can not say that we can’t see it in our own species because we can. Have you ever seen a full suit of amour? People were short just a few hundred years ago. As a species we have gotten taller. That’s evolution.

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      Deluded much? No scientist I’ve ever heard of claims evolution has finished or even that we are close to its conclusion. It takes the faith of the religiously deluded to think we were created with myriad flaws by a perfect god in his image. We may be only 1% of the way up the evolutionary ladder, as we don’t claim to know the future we have absolutely no way to know what form we’ll evolve into. Rest assured though, if the religious idiots on this rock don’t kill us all while trying to prove which idiot’s creed is right, we will continue to evolve either until we are flawless and perfectly adapted to our environment or if our environment is constantly changing we will evolve ceaselessly.

      No faith is required, no belief is required, no acceptance is required. We’ll keep evolving whether you believe we are or not and those of us who haven’t had our reason clouded by religion are quite capable of observing the overwhelming evidence of evolution.

      Either you were simply trolling or you were denied an education that included science instead of superstition. You should be upset with your parents for that.

  • http://none Esben

    oh.. and sorry for double posting. – and the fact that i accidentally replied to Socks post.

  • Elemenope

    @Ty, from above (it was getting crowded up there)

    re: Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists

    None of the three cases proffered come close to intentionally starving someone because they wouldn’t say “amen”. Not even close.

    In the Catholic case, they are proceeding from the assumption (right or wrong) that the fetuses are children and from that rationally argue that killing two to save one isn’t a moral choice. If their premise is right, their conclusion is certainly sound. You and I may disagree with the RCC about that premise, but it’s a long way from running an illogical resurrection experiment in your living room.

    Also, intentionality matters. Refraining from acting when that refrain might cause death in order to save other lives is a bit different from refraining from acting for the purpose of killing someone to drive demons out of them and see if they magically come back from the dead. No?

    In the other two cases, which I will grant are at least a little closer (though not much, because the intentionality is closer to the Catholic case than the crazy cult lady), you are talking about two sects that combined number about 7.5 Million members. Given that there are about 1.7 Billion Christians on Earth, that would place them at .5% of the parent group. Tell me, exactly how many standard deviations from the norm is that?

    Nice try, but try harder.

  • Mike

    This is a tragic story, and its sickening how often I read about things like this on the news. But to think that religious presuppositions make it more likely for such horrific acts to occur is naive. After the death of Nietzsche more people were killed by atheistic, totalitarian, regimes (operating under Darwinian, Nietzschean, Marxist, and Malthusian philosophies) than were killed by all of the combined religious wars from the 19 centuries before.
    So please, before you jump on your anti-religious bandwagon and display you are just as much of a bigot as the unbalanced religious nuts you despise, go read some history books.

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      Surely you don’t actually believe all that drivel? Nietzsche only died in 1900 and Darwin wasn’t a philosopher. You’ll never convince anyone who even passed high-school history that there has been anywhere near as many deaths caused by atheists or people somehow driven by an atheistic philosophy, if there truly is such a thing, as have been killed in the name of god.

  • Illuvar

    Deuteronomy, I think, gives pretty explicit instructions for stoning willful and misbehaving children, so I guess where they went wrong was not stoning the 18 month old.

  • evil1dwk

    OK Ty I agree with you whole heartedly on the “No true Scottsman” call. Anytime someone does something extreme in any religion suddenly they weren’t truly part of that religion to the non-extreme. This woman believed in Christ which technically makes her a Christian. Whether or not she believes your brand of Christianity doesn’t make her any less of a Christian. You can separate yourself all you want but it doesn’t mean she’s less of a Christian in her own eyes or her crazy ass cult churches eyes.

    Loops. you are a moron who spends his time attacking people’s typing and english skills rather than actually saying anything of actual substance. Here’s a few quotes I would like to tear apart for you.

    “like, as in atheists tend to loose there no-god-no-how shtick when faced with life-threatening or stressful situations.”

    First off it’s lose not loose. I don’t think atheist untighten their no-god-no-how shtick. Learn to type yourself before attacking others. Glass houses dude. Unless you have been in a foxhole with an atheist or all atheist for that matter don’t make the assumption that there lack of belief would change under stressful or life threatening circumstances. In fact in my case an extremely stressful and life threatening circumstance made me question my faith which lead to my atheism.

    “if you want to get biblical, all of the levitical laws before jesus came (i.e.; the old covenant) don’t apply to christians anymore (i.e.; the new covenant, get it?).”

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” Matthew 5.17-18

    Uh Jesus didn’t change or abolish any of the laws of the OT.

    “do you unintentionally come across as a belligerent douche, or does it take effort? just wondering.”

    What happened to judge not lest ye be judged?

    “my question is; why is it so impossible for god to have created creatures that evolve?”

    Sure it’s possible for god to have created creatures that evolve. Then are we created in his image? Was God at the time of our creation some creature that resembled more ape then human that later evolved into a homosapien? Or did he create some ape like creature that would later become like his image? It tears apart the entire foundation of Christianity. Well true Christianity anyway. I have no problem with the God created creatures that evolve hypothesis but it puts into question what we really need God for and what is his “image” if we are created in it. I would have to say that would make you a non-true-christian in some believer’s eyes.

    I’m sorry but the bible is the no more than Christian mythology. The creation story can be compared to Greek mythology’s story of Prometheus and man’s acquisition of fire. The story of Christ can be compared to fables. Stories to take some life lesson from with characters no more real than little red riding hood or the big bad wolf. The Old Testament is horrifying. It reads more like a history of genocide and war. Moses was a warlord commanded by god to kill women and children. Compare that to the New Testament with it’s happy-go-lucky out-to-save-the-world hero Jesus. It’s obviously not the same author but both are said to be the word of God. Did God have a big attitude change?

    I won’t make the claim that all believers are stupid or weak minded or crazy. I would say that anyone that literally follows a book that’s obviously not applicable in our time is mentally unstable. If you want to take and apply the life lessons you like from the the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon or Aesop’s fables for that matter there is nothing wrong with that. If you want to believe that some big flying ball of spaghetti created all the universe and earth, so be it. When you take your belief and kill someone because of it (whether by starving a child or witch trials and burnings or crusades for holy lands) then you are absolutely insane.

    But I digress. This woman is clearly mentally ill. I think the fact that she would join some extremist religious sect and believe in something like resurrection is proof of that. If anyone, whether they claim to be God or a priest or anyone else for that matter, told me to kill one of my children, I being a sane person, would inform the authorities or perhaps end the person’s life myself. The Queen Antoinette bitch would of hit the ground before finishing she finished her sentence. This Queen Latifah chick needs to be put into general population in a nice women’s correctional facility. Let the inmates (probably mostly mothers) handle the rest. I have no object to the resurrections clause for the mother. If it stops the waste of millions of dollars in tax payer’s money for this woman to think she can get out of jail when her son is resurrected than tell her whatever she wants to hear, give her an orange jump suit and send her on her way.

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      Well put Sir. It is nice to see such a well worded destruction of stupidity. Brav.

      • rodneyAnonymous

        Are you aware you’re responding to comments that are around three months old? Just checking.

  • http://www.myspace.com/adamridleymusic Adam

    First off, being a Christian, let me state that doing what this woman did WAS ludicrous. As far as I’ve read, Issac was the only child in the Bible ever told by God to sacrifice. AND if I’m not mistaken God did NOT allow him to be slain. Whether you take the story as fact or fiction the lesson still remains. Christ even talks about in the Bible and, I’m not a scholar so I can’t quote, but the gist of it was…”if you, being evil, would not give your child a snake if he was hungry, how much more your Heavenly Father, being good, will take care of you”.

    I also remember it stating in the Bible that whosoever would be a stumbling block to one of these little ones that it’s better a mill stone be hung around their neck and tossed into the sea.

    You can call me crazy for having faith that there is a God and Christ was His Son and whatever else, but, I also believe that there are demons that influence these soft minded people that have been deceived by these cults that are not Christian in the least. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that woman wasn’t under possession. God asks us to have faith but He also says to use our BRAINS. He gave it to us after all for a purpose and not to just roll around in our craniums.

    No excuse for what she did and she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I doubt she had malice in her heart but there are certain things that are totally unacceptable and that is the worst of the worst.

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      It’s amazing how you remember some bits but not others. I don’t suppose you remember the bit where your beloved Jesus character abused a fig tree for not fruiting for him off-season?

  • Word Of Truth

    I guess since us as Christians can be lumped together based on the actions of one person claiming to be a christian; shouldn’t we also say that all Muslims are terrorists? In Mein Kampf Hitler made references to Darwinism and natural selection as part of his reasoning for the Holocaust, in which case we can say that all Evolutionists are Nazis or practice genocide. I don’t agree with this, I am just making a point. Just because some people claim religion as their motive shouldn’t incriminate the rest of us.

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      Godwin’s law!

      Seeing as Hitler was following Catholic doctrine in his “final solution”, final meaning that the Churches several previous edicts over nearly a millennia to followers to exterminate Jews had so far been very destructive, estimates vary from 4 – 7 million killed, but not effective enough because Jews still existed. The Catholic Church does not like competitors. The only way Darwinism applied was in his understanding of evolution, breeding and eugenics something Darwin was very opposed to.

      Actually all Christians are terrorists. When you tell someone “Either believe what I believe or burn for eternity”. You are using terror to achieve your desired result. Look up “terror on dictionary.com. in part it states “threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.”

  • Bill

    I’ve debated with atheists, agnostics, other Christians, Calvinists. This article is weak. The comments verge on embarrassing. The only strong point was when the author assured us he knows all there is to know concerning resurrection:

    “resurrections only happens in myths and fairy tales”

    Whew! Us lucky stumblers. All doubts and have been cleared away by the author’s unchallengeable reason.

    And certified by the subsequent comments. Yay for this page! Its smarter than God!

    Durka

    Durka

    Do

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      O course it’s smarter than god. It exists therefore it is automatically smarter than god. Even you are smarter than god and that’s saying something.

  • Amanda

    The problem here is not so much faith in God, but faith by one crazy ass woman in another crazy ass woman. Had God told this lady to let her son die, he woulda been resurrected. Interestingly enough, God didn’t actually let Abraham kill the kid. So would it have happened that God told this lady to starve her son to death? No. Would God want her to force her son to say amen? No.

    People are a corrupting force on everything.

  • Pingback: Friday Awards at the ~AP~ « The Angry Philistine

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Good thread here.

    I agree with a number of people who say the “No True Scotsman” dismissal gets over-used.

    But it’s a natural hazard. Whenever someone’s beliefs, which they characterize as “Christian” (in this case) or “Islamic” (to use another), cause them to do things the majority of humans find repellent, then suddenly we are deluged with explicatory comments that say, in essence “No true Christian/Muslim/ Church of the Shiny Red Bicylist would do such a thing …”

    This woman characterized her beliefs as Christian. It might not have been a variety recognizable to the majority of people who think of themselves as such, but those beliefs caused the death of her son.

    On the other hand, more rational people would have said “screw this” and left. Which puts her a little outside the circle of Scotsmen we’re defining here. I don’t know many Christians who, on hearing a ghostly voice (or that of the Pope) calling for them to sacrifice their child, wouldn’t run for the shrink rather than an altar.

    Interestingly the shoe is an uncomfortable fit on the other foot too. There’s the other Christian (or other theist) argument which goes rather like “Nyeah nyeah nyeah–Okay, so we got Jim Jones and David Koresh–You guys get Hitler and Stalin.”

    And yet we know they weren’t true atheist Scotsmen.

    Perhaps we need to establish some sort of other term, as Elliott suggested, to cover the fact that no-one wants their personal belief structure associated with maniacs.

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      Only those who were educated at christian schools or by preachers ever claim Hitler was anything other than a good old god-fearing practising Catholic. Where the hell do you think he got the idea to exterminate the Jews. Damn it man go to a library and read some history books not specifically published for religious schools.

  • DarkMatter

    “Sadly, there is another reason for denominational differences and that is the failure of Christians to live according to the will of God. ”

    This perception or reality seems to exclude christianity of her responsibilities.

    3Jo 1:10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

    Apostle John dealt with dividing issues by his assertion of authority in christianity contrary to christianity today without control over her own faith showing to humanity that christianity is not what the “book’ says it is, that is, christianity is a false religion according to the book.

  • jayglo

    Deuteronomy 7:9

    “Be certain, then, that the Lord your God is God; whose faith and mercy are unchanging, who keeps his word through a thousand generations to those who have love for him and keep his laws;”

    He is unchanging.
    This woman did not make certain that this is God. She followed the cult leader’s words, not God’s.
    She didn’t keep his laws.

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      Why would you want to claim “he is unchanging”? So you like him as a genocidal maniac then?

  • DarkMatter

    “What people aren’t understanding is that it isn’t just the Bible that we follow blindly. We follow the Church, which was set up by God.”

    I presume typing error in your reasoning.

  • Peter

    I agree this is horrible.

    But, I wonder why the modern world thinks it is not just as horrible when the mother chooses to kill the child before birth? Why is this mother considered a murderer when the other is not?

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      Every “child” killed before birth gets a free ride to heaven. No one else can claim that. So every abortion is a gift of guaranteed eternal bliss to the foetus. Sounds like a good deal to me.
      I know this is a stupid statement but it is not incorrect according to the bible so it’s biblically correct stupidity not secular.

  • Peter

    What are they then, rabbits?

    How can you make a distinction? Unborn children are alive no? They move, have beating hearts, can hear (so our baby manual tells us). They are human no? So, we must be talking about human life.

    Why the distinction?

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      So you can guarantee that every terminated foetus would have been better off if it had been born. Ever seen a crack baby?

  • Peter

    Good point, suffering = evil.

    Late term, early term, … Why take the chance?

    By the eighth week, (often before the woman knows she’s pregnant) the baby, in fact, has a spinal chord, brain , limbs, eyes, and has had a beating heart for nearly a month. How can you or anyone else know if it suffers or not?

    http://www.babycenter.com/2_inside-pregnancy-weeks-1-to-9_10302602.bc

    Watch this cool video to learn just how developed a nine week old fetus is. I can’t understand how anyone seeing this process can still claim that life just happened by chance. The development of a fetus is a miracle of the first order.

    I know that embryos sometimes die. However, I don’t think the term “Abortion” applies to this. Cambridge defines abortion as “The intentional ending of a pregnancy, usually by a medical operation.”

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=195&dict=CALD

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      Belief in miracles is a psychiatric diagnosis for delusion.

  • Peter

    The chance that we are in fact causing human suffering.

    I’m sorry neither you nor anyone else can say that an 8 week old fetus does or does not have consciousness. This remains something that is outside our present level of understanding. Even the most eminent neurologist cannot know what is going on in the brain of an 8 week old fetus other than measuring electrical stimuli (which by the way, exists). However, currently “consciousness” can’t really be measured in any quantifiable form.

    I just can’t agree with you that a human fetus, at whatever level of development, is as you seem to imply with your comment about my eating habits, just a piece of meat.

    I think that we as a society should rather err on the side of caution when it comes to deliberately ending a life.
    For me anyway, there is a very “easy answer”: Don’t deliberately kill human life if you have ANY other choice. Why make it complicated?

  • Peter

    Is that your FINAL answer NEA? “Because you think it’s stupid?” That seems like a pretty easy answer to me.

    I am (as it seems that you are) simply opposed to abortion being used for the purposes of birth control. The current law allows it to be used in just this way. Because it is allowed, it IS used in this way about 1,25 million times per year in the US. That is far more human death than is caused by any war or disease.

    It’s really pointless to argue about whether a fetus is not alive or not conscious. If an eight week old fetus is not conscious, wait a week or two, or 15, it will have consciousness. It will be a person.

    NEA said in his first post that it is “just a cluster of cells”. You could really say this about ANY life. No matter what, it is a human life. To me, a human life, ANY human life is a most wonderful gift. To kill it because it happens to be inconvenient is wrong. It seems simple to me… I guess maybe I’m a simple person. I’m content to be one, though.

    LRA, I’m sure that you know much more about the clinical nature of consciousness than I. And, I don’t presume to tell you what to do with your body. Furthermore, I don’t really expect to convince you. Believe what you will. I’m just stating my own ideas.

    BTW the resource that you referred me to makes exactly my case in it’s first paragraph:”Despite the lack of any agreed upon theory of consciousness…”. How can you be so emphatic that it does or doesn’t exist in such a place or at such a time if you can’t even say what it is? As I said above, I don’t really think it matters very much to this argument.

    If it makes you feel better to believe that an abortion hurts no one, and that the world doesn’t lose out because a person dies, you’re entitled to your belief.

    I feel badly for you, and hope that you never have the chance to make this “choice.” If you have already made such a choice, I’m sorry if I have hurt you with my words. I truly am, it is not my intention to do so.

    You say you are pro-choice. It seems to me that most women who “choose” abortion do so because they feel backed into a corner, or that they don’t have any other choice. That is not really a choice at all, is it?

  • piedpiper909

    wow…you know im not a christian. but i have a problem with non christians using the bible as a reference to facts towards anti-christian arguments. if you dont believe in their religion, why are you using their so called fake, far fetched sources to support what you believe? or dont believe rather. and whoever said “how can we tell a bad christian from a good christian” or somethin like that…what are you really that blind? want a reference? read the bible, study their religion, then start pointing fingers. its lame that ppl act like they know it all when in fact theyre just as close-minded as their christian enemies. ive seen my fair share of all the different types of christians and its not hard to tell the difference between a sound minded christian from a raving lunatic. same goes to anti christians. plenty of lame raving lunatics who talk out of their butts to those who are dumb enough to believe what theyre saying. sounds a little too much like close-minded blind faith. god or no god, everyone puts their faith into something. anyways learn about the religions before you bash them. a good christian can be a rare find. a good clean argument is also a rare find. most commenters here are going by their blind faith, god or no god. research before you start runnin your mouth

  • piedpiper909

    ooo abortion and conscious! ok so if its not conscious, then its ok to kill….hmmm….what about all the trees and plants hippies are fighting to save? are they any different from an unconscious fetus? sooooooo lame

  • Tom

    I think this was a bull shit story made up by non believers. God won’t send someone to starve their child because he/ she wouldn’t say ‘Amen’ I know I slip up and don’t say but you don’t see me dead. I don’t believe this story at all. Get a life. Stop disrespecting others beliefs. I can understand where some people get chased away from Christianity, and well I believe it’s because of some older people just can’t stop shoving thier faith down peoples throats. I hate it and if your not a christian they hate you but you also have to keep in mind that aton of christians arn’t going to shove their faith down your throat. I hate it when people stereotype. I HATE it. It’s not fair to everyone else. We don’t care if you don’t believe just stop trying to prove what we BELIEVE is not real. We believe in what we want to believe, and you can believe what you want to. They are opinions.. kinda like ass holes.. everyone has one. Just stop wasting your time trying to become the next hitler.

    • http://www.unindoctrinated.com/ EvilGod

      Aargh! Hitler was a good Christian. He’s one of the reasons atheist can’t tolerate believers you deluded fools can justify damn near anything in the name of god. Get a real education.

  • piedpiper909

    sorry i meant fanatical crying for the trees hippies btw

  • piedpiper909

    ok LRA you totally ignored my point. lol did you even think about what i said? yeh saving the environment is great. what i was arguing, that you totally ignored, is the fact that fetuses are getting the shitty end of this “save it even if it doesnt have a conscious” deal. and be serious if you want to comment back. think about it nice and hard. saving the environment also involves not wasting what was naturally produced. abortion is a big waste factory. rather than focusing on killing off the fetuses, why dont we focus on making sure everyone has birth control, and these ppl can handle the responsibility of their natural consequences? if you want to call childbirth a consequence. too tyrannical to make ppl take birth control? i think it would help economically to push birth control rather than abortion rights. abortion…costs atleast $200. you can get birth control for free. thats an extra $200 in your pocket to donate to saving the rainforest! but…i doubt ppl would actually donate that much anyways…unless you are a die hard. $200 bucks could buy a lot of coffee for some coffee shop debates…hehe ok im bein mean i guess.

  • piedpiper909

    sorry about no capital letters. just didnt seem that important yah know?

  • piedpiper909

    ooh and i meant conscience…too..thought it looked weird..

  • piedpiper909

    ahh ok i guess i wasnt mature enough for this argument. also i do care for the little fetuses, but i also respect abortion for what it is if its done responsibly. its a very touchy matter. since im way out of my league here im going to take this time to push my clever idea! a t-shirt that states “genocide is the cure all!” or somethin like that…in truth im a very critical person and i could be very irrational. Like its been one of my past time fantasies to drive around in a tank on a rampage and just…yeh total destruction. i wouldnt recommend voting for me for presidency lol. would be a lot of “because its kewl and i said so” lol anyways im sure we all know who we are and what we want and what we are willing to do to get what we want. what i want to see is more action and less talk. if you believe in something, you should rise up and raise hell. and that goes for you christians too! we need an all out battle here, that will show everyones true faith! good luck everyone and rememeber, genocide is a cure all! because…the world doesnt need us right?

  • piedpiper909

    lol rememeber…sorry remember.

  • piedpiper909

    LRA!! I GOT BORED! SORRIES! im not a pro ranter

  • piedpiper909

    ok last comment. My husband just informed me that i am what the blogging world calls “a troll”. I want to apologize for my rude and obnoxious behavior. i know you guys take this seriously. I do as well, but i was tempted into making this serious matter seem somewhat humorous. again i am sorry. :)

    your pal,
    pied piper (female btw)

  • Pingback: Gravity’s Rainbow » Blog Archive » What I’ve Noticed

  • Peter

    Strawman or not, 1,25 million “emergencies” per year? I don’t think so.

    NEA: Where to start? Yes, you’re right. It was a cheap shot on my part, but I hope that you agree that, “because it’s stupid,” isn’t really a valid argument.

    “You make this clear distinction between human and animal life… ” Yes, human life is very different. You make a great point that we can’t really decide when life starts. So I say, “Don’t try to decide.” It can’t be before the sperm hits the egg, so it must be after. Since it is difficult to know, or be able to tell exactly what stage of development a particular fetus may be in, how can anyone decide whether it feels or thinks?

    If you start picking dates, what about the individual who is a rapid developer? Maybe he’s a week ahead of the norm, so will he feel it when the vacuum rips him asunder? Shouldn’t society be extra careful about the way it interprets this? to err on the side of caution?

    Another problem I have with this is that everyone speaks of statistics. What we are dealing with here are individuals. I know of an individual who was born three months premature (induced to protect the life of his mother). He’s alive and quite normal today.

    Isn’t someone doing research to stop still births?

    I’m sorry that I didn’t take time to read LRA’s entire multi-page document. I’m sure it’s full of great science. But I still say it enforces my point. It says on the first page that modern science doesn’t have a definition of what exactly consciousness is. SO, this document describes what some think it might be and they admit that it is debatable. Did you read it all NEA? (LRA probably wrote it, no?)

    I am against the abortion pill for very real reason: It killed someone whom I knew. Years ago, my friend’s 19 year old sister went off one morning, no one knew where. She never came home. Days later it was discovered that she went to the hospital where she was given an “avortement chemique” an abortion pill. Several hours later, she was dead. I can’t help but count this as two deaths.

    I also agree with you that we are a part of nature, but I believe that we are a very special part. Although we are the smartest, we are unfortunately, also corrupt, and it makes us tempted to behave in ways which are not in our best interest.

    To answer Bill with his question about crack babies: I am unfortunately not in a position to adopt children, however, my extended family cares for three foster children. All are great kids. I’d have difficulty telling any of them that things would somehow be better for everyone if they were never born.

    What about all the others? I can’t abide with the idea that killing them is a better solution. I admit it is more expedient, but should that be they way that society solves it problems? I’d be happy to pay taxes to support adoption centers and orphanages.

    I don’t propose to force LBA to run her life my way. But I don’t have to think that she is right. I feel obliged to tell her so, as her decisions may well end the life of someone who can’t tell her she’s wrong.

    Also to Bill: The word “Simple” has many meanings it can mean “unsophisticated”. If I have to adopt Mengelean attitudes about life to become sophisticated, I prefer simple thank you.

    Mark bey – I live in southern Mexico in a village where the per capita income is about $1000 a year. I see poverty first hand, every day.

    “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee…” John Donne

  • claidheamh mor

    @jayglo: Actually, yes. God did have a big attitude change. The God from the OT (the same God, mind you) WAS more impatient and forceful.
    Then, with the coming of Christ, he DID have an attitude change. Don’t ask me why, because I’m not God and I don’t know his emotions. But yes, he did.

    @jayglo: This goes back to what was said earlier: when Jesus came he took away many of the unpleasant rules of the Old Testament, such as stoning.

    @jayglo: Deuteronomy 7:9
    “Be certain, then, that the Lord your God is God; whose faith and mercy are unchanging, who keeps his word through a thousand generations to those who have love for him and keep his laws;”
    He is unchanging.

    @jayglo: Well, true. God did say those things in the OT. But as I said above, he changed kind of in the New Testament.

    It becomes clear who is even more inconsistent than “God” here: clearly jayglo has more trouble making sense and having consistency than his god does.

  • piedpiper909

    Never said god announces anything. The bible was written by followers and I never said it was his true word. As far as common sense goes, perhaps it was common sense back in the day to have mass death. Like its common sense now to get rid of what you don’t need or want. And heres a good example. Abortion is a gradual mass death. In fact its never ending. Mass death changes with time, cultures, and new ways of executing it. Back in the day, they didn’t have the methods as we do now. Seemed like a slaughter to us now, but even our gradual and discreet ways of getting rid of what we don’t want or what is good for humanity, as far as population control and economics, isn’t different from one huge sweep of mass destruction and death. So god killing women and children and calling it sadistic, enjoying it or not, isn’t any different than killing the unborn little by little, decade after decade, and from how it looks, it will never end. If you kill something that has no say in what their fate is, you’re no different from god killing off women and children who had no say in their fate. Just because its done slowly and not dramatically, doesn’t make you a better person. It just prolongs this dance of death.

  • piedpiper909

    Very true in a lot of ways. Abortion is a very difficult thing to justify for both parties. Very true as you said if someone aborts twice then something is wrong. I believe it will be a hard matter to regulate how many abortions people can have. A mass majority will feel we are free to do whatever we want and it will seem too tyrannical to regulate their abortion rates. These people i feel are very ignorant and selfish. Yeh, it will seem like we would want to control them. But we have to draw the line for those who have no control. We need to compromise somewhere. We are intelligent beings (in human standards lol) and to let people like them control our laws and morals because they disagree, doesn’t make things better. There has to be some force here.

    Its a bit weird being in the middle of beliefs here. My mother is a christian and when she speaks of god, I do have to tune some of it out. I myself am not ready to dedicate my life to a religion, but I do defend good morals and good sense. Christianity and like religions are under a lot of pressure in these times. Everything is changing and everyone is becoming individual. Religions that stop you from doing certain things are now listed as an enemy, despite the facts that most of the religion has good morals. Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t disrespect your elders. These are all very good things and very vital things for a sound society. I believe there is something underneath that we need to focus on, rather than the whole religion. People are acting out of anger.
    Also, as we all know, there’s a vast majority of followers that have manipulated the religion. Twisted it to their benefits. It is obvious that these are the people we should focus on waging war against. There are people in the non-religious side who also act as this. Its seems like its a part of human nature. And if this is wrong, we should not look at these people as our leaders or our representatives. This is the disease underneath the skin that needs to be stopped.

  • Mattt

    modivarch – you are an intelligent individual

    thank you for making the comment section of this anti-christian article worth reading.

    And I esp liked your point about letting your opponent express their strongest argument opposed to their weakest.

  • Yeshuwa

    I see all this back and forth of an idea, which that God isn’t good. You can argue back and forth at this for eternity. There is so many things to go through and to reference from both the 40,000 or so years mankind became cognitive to the many beliefs and world views that have developed from them. If there is a God, a creator, then he made this univerese rationale, almost like clock work a universe of chaos runs. However, because nothing shatters (the universe continues to be in perpetual existence as far as my cognitive mind will allow me to believe this truth) He (if He exsists) obviously is a rationale being. Through all the scriptures I’ve read and from many of the world views I’ve studied, one thing is clear. The only people to have said God was good were people. As far as the Judeo-christian God goes I have not read a single word from Jesus that says so (assuming Jesus is God) He lists of a copious amount of things in which humans have given positive connotation, but certianly these things are good traits, not a statement of whether or not He is good. We all must take at face values the actions of those we look at, or we will see the world in a twisted scope, one where logic is easily shaped to be something else. God whom has good traits is likeable. We like people with likeable traits yes? If what Jesus preached is true, then (in this worldview) God forgives people. In fact in a christian worldview,God commits kamakazi for the souls. Why he needed to do this, in this specific worldview, can only be proclaimed as a mystery, it could be something we have not been revealed to as of late. In any case, he performed this action showing how much he wants to forgive people no? If he forgives and we are “made in his image” then it should be gathered that maybe, we ourselves should forgive all the actions in which we see as bad. They are of the past. We can gather a clearer perspective of what kind of person He is from these actions, but back in the time of the antients a very diffrent view of life was present. He needs to deal with their generations differently than ours. We evolve and become creatures of different minds. You can’t teach a dog the same way you can teach a wolf. If you do the wolf will surely bite your hand. So, in a symbalance of forgiveness, we must admit that humans arguing with such fervant hatred about what God is or what He is like is thouroly rediculous. Shouldn’t we be in a search for knowledge to refine logic to make it a better tool, sharper, more resillient? Logic is a tool for understanding, not hatred. (and to those religous people who think God will burn us all in hell, I refute them for they propose an unfounded doctrine which can only harm the world not help it)

  • onecae

    Two Questions of Christianity
    Why does anyone believe anything new and good can come into the world? Especially when there’s so much evidence to the contrary?
    And why is it that what is new is so often attacked, even though it’s sometimes also good?

  • DarkMatter

    By saying Peter is the first pope is already blind faith for this teaching comes not from the “bible” but from “a church”.

  • Yeshuwa

    Oh my bad, I read somewhere in scriture that says that he said it but this is only one source (the bible) so I don’t think we can attribute this has his pure unadulterated thought. The only thought I’ve known him to say is I am Him. So, I think it is safe to say that humans are the only ones whom have proclaimed that he is good. Even if he has said this directly it is an idea I think that one comes across by ones self. If he reveals that thought to you then you know it to be true, but we can never trust someone else saying they have spoke with God (unless they claim they are God, but this is an entirely different situation in which a truth test must be implicated for) and saying that it is logical for us to believe him. It is not, we must experience a divine nature ourselves, if at all, not a proxy. (I’m starting to lose my train of thought so if anything seems out of place I apologize, please correct me)

  • DarkMatter

    “The only thought I’ve known him to say is I am Him.”

    Anyways, dividing your future post into paragraphs would be nice.

  • DarkMatter

    I thought of not misundertanding your writing.

  • Yeshuwa

    hmm. Should I just copy it and repost it with paragraph indents? though that seems like a lot of writing to reprent.

  • Yeshuwa

    The quote you pulled out of the passage doesnt fit particularly well in the passage. I understand, just kinda floating there. I think thats what you meant. thankyou for the help though. Sometimes I get caught up in the moment and wander.

  • onecae

    If a person says, “I am here and I bring something new and good into the world.” It incites anger and conflict in others. There are some others, however, who are excited in a positive way.
    Try it yourself and see, say to someone, “I am here and I bring something new and good into the world.”

  • Yeshuwa

    yes I see what you mean, but isn’t another response to it oh look something that makes sense. I think its awesome, maybe this person knows other things that will make me happy. or something around those lines. Some cultures and environments promote different reactions though, so something that is a bad idea in one place can be a very good idea in another. Can we clarify good? Do we mean good as an adjective, a positive connotation, or do we mean good as in true or longterm benifical

  • Joe

    Well, the support of religion has historically taken more lives than anything else. Its sad that a child has to become part of a statistic. Maybe if religion taught logic instead of archaic fear I could bring myself to follow it, until then I have been a lot happier as an atheist. I don’t live in fear at all and its amusing to me now, its like a bunch of people worshiping Santa Clause.

  • onecae

    Joe, where do you get that “quaint” idea that saving lives, being happy, and not living in fear is so important? You speak as if someone should care. Perhaps you have a religion after all. Maybe your religion isn’t like what comes from the other side of your mouth. Maybe your beliefs in others and happiness isn’t really a childish fantasy, but a very real and rational hope that something good will happen because of who you are, what you believe, and how you share it.

  • Yeshuwa

    As I see it, there is plenty to live in fear of when it comes to the earth, aids, the flu, shingles, tornadoes huricanes, iran. I don’t see how not having a religion reduces the net fear in life. If anything not having to worry about death should be a thing that takes of a load of fear no?
    As for the religous killings throughout history many of those were ignorant politicians (or would be politicians) who use religion as a facade to manipulate the law or gain some earthly benifit. Like the crusades. They clearly fucked up Jesus’ teaching of passiveism by starting a “holy war” when in reality it was to gain some land from the muslims. If weapons dont kill people, and people kill people and religion is used as a weapon (an implement to cause fear into other peoples lives so they can gain some earthly benifit) then religion doesnt kill people. Also most people who use religion as an excuse distort the teachings of their own religion (see previous example of the ccatholic church)

  • http://www.carmelsundae.org Christina Martin

    Do you really think that this is what Christians believe? Do you really think that this is what Christianity teaches?

    If so, you are woefully misinformed. Virtually all legitimate Christian churches would agree that first, the ten commandments (including thou shalt not kill) are morally binding and therefore anyone who tells a woman to kill her son is not God. Second, all legitimate Christian churches would agree that the church of this woman is not a Christian church at all, but a cult.

    You can’t judge a faith by the insane people outside of it who try to hijack the name. If that were the case, it would be equally fair to judge all nonbelievers by the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer; but I think we both agree that it would be unreasonable.

  • onecae

    Christina makes a good point. Remember the story about the passenger who complained the trains were never on schedule. “We might as well do away with the schedule for all the good it does,” he said. But the conductor pointed out that if we did away with the schedule, then no one would ever know if the trains were or time or not.
    Many so-called atheist in fact use our hard won Christian concepts to critique Christianity. When they say Christianity is bad, they really merely naively express disappointment that so many people are not better Christians.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    “Do you really think that this is what Christians believe? Do you really think that this is what Christianity teaches?”

    No… almost no one believes this is true Christianity. But again, for non-Christians, we have to take someones word that they are Christian… who are we to decide who is or isn’t? But to be fair, Christians damn us to hell because we choose not to believe in one thing in their religion. So to me, any Christian who’ll judge me because they can’t prove something to me, is crazy.

    “Many so-called atheist in fact use our hard won Christian concepts to critique Christianity. When they say Christianity is bad, they really merely naively express disappointment that so many people are not better Christians.”

    So called? If you don’t accept a belief in God, you’re an atheist. There’s no “so-called”. The truth us, good Christians often ignore bad Christians. And that’s not only Christianity. Its all religions, its most politics, its most of life. As a people, we ignore the bad rather then act against it, until it directly affects us. What hard won concepts? What did you fight to win? In the western world, Christianity has been the dominant religion for about 1700 years. If you mean the concepts back then, it wasn’t won… Constantine gave Christians rights by demanding tolerance for Christians. Atheists don’t have an issue with Christians… its all religions, who choose to condemn others, enforce beliefs without warrant, and believe they are the center of the world.

  • piedpiper909

    I was talkin to my mom about the behavior of children and teens nowadays and it was going good, until she said “its the devil in those children”. I feel like religions have good advice and stuff, but when it comes to where the good and bad comes from, it goes from something level to ,all of a sudden, somethin way out there. I try to overlook her blind faith but it comes to a point where it just ruins the whole conversation for me. We have conversations that are very deep and intellectual, then it ends with her stating “I don’t have to worry about it because its in gods hands” or “god will take care of me” Its impressive in a sense that someone can be “brave” enough to hand their lives over in this way, yet I feel like gods are just a scapegoat for their fears.

  • Peter

    Well NEA, your moniker certainly fits! You have a way of making things very complicated.

    Thank you for listening and considering my ideas. I sincerely appreciate it. I think that this is a case where we need to agree to disagree.

    You’ve succeeded in convincing me that through a smug interpretation of medical facts you’ve decided that living human fetus is somehow now different than a tumor (or parasite as I believe it’s been stated here, though not by you). I don’t join you in this assessment.

    Know that what you embrace goes against something deep in the race. It seems insult to nature to consider that human beings perhaps are the only species to purposely set out to kill their own offspring.

    I can say that to people living in simpler (yes, simpler) cultures your ideas are ludicrous or worse. I’ve lived with Mexican indians, as well as with tribal peoples in Africa. They react with absolute horror when they understand what you propose. In these cultures, without exception, children are an precious asset. No matter how deep the poverty, there is always room for one more.

    I guess that one reason that this is so important to me is that I myself am a disappointed customer of abortion. I have never stopped wishing that I could have known the person I helped to create, or tha the or she could have at least lived. But, I never will.

    I hope that any reading this consider this angle. What seems expedient and easy at the time may come back to haunt you later. Consider fully the ramifications of your actions before you commit to an irreversible course which you may later regret.

  • onecae

    It’s naive to deny Christianity is any good, then use some of it’s bedrock ideas, like love and tolerance, as the foundation for a critique of Christianity. You are assuming to be true what you are claiming to be false. It’s also naive to create or accept from others a false conception of God, then attack it as if it were the only conception of God. Certainly, a Christian idea is that self is a creative power; you believe that don’t you? Now, merely do a small thought experiment about creative power, how extensive is it? Where does it begin or end? Don’t you have a little awareness that you are here, shaping a world?

  • onecae

    Christians say you are a child of God.
    Muslims say you are a slave of God.
    Atheists say there is no greater power than the political state.
    Take you pick, or use this Christian belief: You have the power to make up or accept a better paradigm, all on your own, even if the world is against you.

  • onecae

    Christians say you are a child of God.
    Muslims say you are a slave of God.
    Atheists say there is no greater power than the political state.
    Take your pick, or use this Christian belief: You have the power and authority to make up or accept a better paradigm, all on your own, even if the world is against you.

  • oodunkin

    at what point do you draw the line though? some christians believe that X is the right way to live, and some believe that y is the right way to live. if you were to interpret the bible literally, christianity is full of hate and intolerance. it seems like the only argument for defending christianity is to pick and choose the rules that your particular group choose to belive and follow. the entire religion is corrupt to the core. this crime is a result of it. if you claim to be a christian, this crime is on your head and you guys need to do something about your extremist sects besides sitting back and saying that your beliefs are different. christianity is a plague, religious organizations are a plague with nothing to back them up but ancient scripts written by men. learn to control your pit bull extremists or become an atheist, because you have no moral high ground anymore. you’ve become a disease, regardless of what your quite little church on sunday chooses to preach.

  • Peter

    LRA – Do you have direct experience in the problems facing impoverished people? Have you lived in their houses? Shared their food, even spoken with them?

    From what experience do you speak? Have you seen for yourself? Or are your ideas derived from watching CNN and the dramatized pleas for money from charities? Many people seem to think that they can solve the problems of the world from their sofas (perhaps you are not one of these). When in reality they haven’t a clue about what solutions are even possible for those who suffer.

    Please understand that a child, while a burden for a time, becomes an adult. An adult can produce many times what he consumes. Barring cases of famine caused by drought or crop failure, more people can produce more food.

    Abortion (which is what I believe we’re discussing here) is certainly not the answer for Chad (where I’ve lived) where hospital facilities are so limited that mothers often die in childbirth. I can’t imagine an abortion clinic would be a safe alternative. As I’ve already stated here, the only person I know who tried a (non surgical) abortion in Chad, died.

    Think about it.

  • Yeshuwa

    “the entire religion is corrupt to the core. this crime is a result of it. if you claim to be a christian, this crime is on your head and you guys need to do something about your extremist sects besides sitting back and saying that your beliefs are different.”
    Orthodox christians believe that the word is revealed to you throughout your own experiences. In away they hail the same creed of the Buhhdah in that your experiences show you the path that needs to be troden. Not all christians are extremist. not all of them attack. I think I am no better than anyother religion. They may find their own solace to the spirit of God. Even the athiest will find solace amongst a presence. Ideas are inspiration, we dont know where they come from.
    Therefore. Can an athiest really be unhypocratic, arguing that there logic isnt based of assumptions. Sure we know gravity exists but every time you want to drop something you assume (believe) that it will hit the ground?
    Can a religous person be unhypocratic, arguing that there logic isnt based of assumptions? They believe in an external or internal force that drives something in creation, whether it be after during or before death. They assume something will happen
    It seems to me that there needs to be a different criteria for attacking either side. I personally believe that eventually, if God did create the world with omnipotence, he will eventually make people happy.
    Yes this is an assumption, but is it a bad one? Can we really put more credibility on one assumption more than another? I think not. All arguements for and against religion (atleast the ones I’ve seen so far) involve speculation. Please tell me why one speculation has more merit over another.

  • jayglo

    bdemong says there is a low probability that God exists.
    He says that it is possible that there are fairies in his garden.
    Then it is possible, however inprobable, that he himself is a fairy.
    And it is possible that I am not real.
    So it is also possible that, now that you know that I am not real, no more messages from me will appear on this website, because they wouldn’t be real.

    I’m glad that you know that I’m not real now and can live a sane life.

    PS: If you are right and there is no God, then I don’t really have anything to worry about. I will have lived a good life with no regrets. However, if you are wrong, you have a whole lot to worry about.

    You have faith that you will take another breath, that the sun will rise the next morning, yet you don’t have Faith that there is a God who created all of that.

    Have a good Easter.

    ~Jayglo, the one who very possibly does not exist.

  • piedpiper909

    Phew a lot has happened since I posted a day or so ago. Since you guys are way more educated on either side than I, I’m just gonna sit back here and read this discussion until I have something to say that is worth saying. And my husband says I buy too many books for my Kindle and I need to slow down. So with nothing to read, I think you guys are doing a fine job with keeping me occupied. Not saying you guys are just considered entertainment. I’m actually learning a lot from reading this. And I’m glad to see that you guys aren’t a bunch of kids spouting anger in an uncivilized manner. I keep telling myself I think I have seen enough, but I keep coming back to see how you guys are doin.

    Your biggest fan
    Pied Piper

  • onecae

    Wow. PiedPiper is right!
    None the less… consider these two definitions.
    Religion: What one does when one doesn’t know what to do.
    God: The source of organization (of course, any creation is organized in some manner).
    I think these are reasonable definitions.
    Who among us, besides the very innocent, has never been been a position of not knowing what to do, yet also having to do something?
    And, who among us cannot recognize, at least in some small way, the identity of God?

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    “And, who among us cannot recognize, at least in some small way, the identity of God?”

    Me. You got a photocopy of his driver’s license?

    Lemme spell this out yet again: My eternal happiness may be on the line here. You goddish types may be my only hope.

    So what can you produce by way of convincing me to accept your particular salvation? How can you help your Jesus, or Buddha, or Zoroaster, or Oestre (’tis the season, after all), enter my blood-pumping organ and change my heathen ways?

    Like most atheists I will happily and readily convert once I have evidence in hand of the reality of a particular god.

    So far, no dice.

  • onecae

    Choosing or accepting definitions is of course needed to organize a religion. You choose to believe otherwise? Organize it as you will. I’m just sharing here.
    I agree drinking could be organized into a religion. In fact, that has been done many times. The one that come to mind is god is Bacchus.
    The problem with some religions, that is the problem with the way some people act when they don’t know what to do, is that afterward they still don’t know what to do. Their religion entrenches stasis instead of freeing transformation. The source of the activity is the being that becomes entrenched or freed.
    By using “the source of organization” for the meaning of the word “God” you will find that you are one such source. I am, but I recognize others. Christianity relies on this: The source of organization is identical to the personal being that is here now. Locate that being and you will identify God :) Easy enough to accomplish, right fishy fish? The thought experiment is like a fish that can locate the water and then locate the fish.
    Believe it if you will, reject it if you want. In either case you will have to act without knowledge and that act reveals who you are. This information is Christianity.

  • onecae

    Biblical references often proves alienating. People only hear whatever the first heard, but of course, it doesn’t have to be that way. But you are asking, so okay. The Bible can be understood as a story that embeds certain, significant themes. The themes I’m indicating are problematic to discuss because there is no vocabulary, except the one of metaphor. The intent is to describe and organize the truth about how we influence the world. “We” is the big word.
    I admit, one of the corner stones of Christianity is that there is such a thing as a “person” or “self” or “causal identity”. This apparently can’t be proven in the modern sense of proof – but neither can the axioms of logic be proven. They are merely accepted as the starting point for the line of reasoning called “logic”. The starting point for the line of reasoning called Christianity is that there is a self and there is an other. Solipsists often disagree with that position, but who cares about them? :). I don’t know if this is natural or not. The evaluation of what is natural seems pretty advanced compared to what I’ve just said.
    As Biblical reference: The first act of the Bible is something created something, a beginning of self and other. It assumes some kind of creativity is possible, once creativity is established, the creator is separate from the created. A little further in the story, one learns that people are creative too. Later in the Bible, Jesus a mere man, claims conscious and willful ability to make the world (tear down this temple and I will rebuild it). He says, it is because of who I am that I can do this. He says also, you can know who others are by what they create (ye will know them by their fruits, beware of the leavening of the pharisees). And, He says we are like Him in that we are His brothers. Also, “rejoice not that you have power over your enemies, but rejoice that your names are written in Heaven.” (that’s a paraphrase).

  • onecae

    The first axiom of logic is that something is identical to itself.
    A=A. No one tries to prove this.
    The second axiom is “If A, then if B, then A.”
    No one tries to prove this one either.
    The first words of the Bible are “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.” It doesn’t say God is the Heaven and the Earth. Also, it doesn’t necessarily imply that there is only one beginning. So, ask yourself, can you create beginnings? You know, start something? If you believe you can, then try to describe to me how you begin something. See what you come up with. I think one way to begin something is to create it in the mind, then implement it in action – that is create it in Heaven, then implement it in Earth. If you know of another way, okay. But the way I just described works pretty good for me, and for others like me, and I believe it’s been that way for a very long time.

  • onecae

    I’m trying to find a handshake. I have no intent to frustrate. Clearly words have varied meanings in varied contexts.
    The Bible is: A) slightly autobiographical account of a bearded man in the sky 6k years ago or, B) written by intelligent, ancient and poetic people about import spiritual themes that are useful to humanity.
    You can choose, even make up, or accept other opinions. No one’s going to kill you any more for actually understanding it. They might kill you for preaching your understanding of it, I guess.
    Atheists and Christians both attack my ideas because both are committed to the notion that the Bible is God’s autobiography. They defend that the only choice is to believe that idea, or not. Very strange. It’s almost as if there were a third group out there trying to keep everyone focus on a completely irrelevant, useless, believe-what-you-want-as-long-as-it’s-ineffective-and-influences-nothing, interpretation. They have taken a very important subject and turned it into nonsense. The big argument is whether to believe nonsense, or not. The warring factions have totally missed the subject, even to the point that if I say there is subject that makes sense, for example here are some clear, simple, metaphors that make sense; the rebuttal from both warring sides is that the subject inherently doesn’t make sense!! You believe their narrow ideas, or not on the basis of nonsense. In one group you are “atheist” in the other group you are “religious”. It’s kinda like what’s the best dessert on the moon, chocolate or vanilla ice cream?
    However, there are some of us who see it very differently. Religion-again roughly speaking-is expressed by how you live your life. It doesn’t come into you, it comes from you. Jesus said, “Do not worry about what goes into your mouth, be concerned about what comes out.” The pundits of then and now think He’s talking about indigestion. The story of Christianity also concerns this very problem: A person can have His own beliefs, He is free of the ingrained beliefs of culture and tradition. Jesus said, “Man was not made for the law; the law was made for man. It is even lawful for the Son of Man to heal on the Sabbath.” I guess you know in those days working on the Sabbath could get you the death penalty. Now days, it’s just a fire fight on a blog, but we’re all still very trapped by laws and beliefs of our own making.
    I know what a process could be, e.g. a proven way to bake potatoes… etc. So, what could it mean for you to say “a process can’t be proven”? Help me out here; what’s a “process” and what is “proven” such that they cannot be reasonably related?

  • onecae

    Metro, the substitution principle is not always accurate in language. For example: “Joe thinks he saw Bill in the car. Joe believes Bill has the key. Bill is in the corner. Therefore, Joe believes the man in the corner has the key and is in the car.”

    Your sentences are different from each other. The word “Metro” has been substituted for the word “God”. You need to accept an assumption “Metro = God”. Then the sentences would be of the form “A=A”, but not necessarily valid if words like, believe, know, think, etc. are introduced.

    However, in the case of the Bible, What character does “God” play? He offers this contrast: The control you have over your life is similar to control God has over his “life”, as represented in the Bible. He’s got warring factions, regretful positions, mistaken attempts to rule by force, etc. etc. Are you saying, metaphorically speaking, that these themes are alien to your experiences in conducting life so far?
    Historical accuracy is not the point. It’s just a way gaining a little “comparative distance” for your own situation.

  • Snowbird

    I had to skip a lot of this because its based on natural understanding. It used to break my heart when people raved on God and scripture, but I’ve learned over time that its normal and to be expected. We are different, and unless you are of the same mind and accord you cannot expect those of another mind set to agree with you. We attend school as children to learn and that education is continued for the rest of your life unless you decide you already know everything and do not need to learn anything else. You accepted what you were taught as a child, most of the time without question…especially if you had loving parents and teachers. What would cause you to do that? Simple trust. You may not understand why things happened the way they did, but you accepted it because you had those who cared for you and watched over you for your good. If I could explain everything that has happened in my life then I’d be on the front page of the newspapers everyday and receiving medals of having the greatest mind in the universe. No one on earth has all the answers and no one on earth has ever been able to halt a war until its time was finished. Fallen man has choices to make and we make them everyday. If you deny you have an eternal soul then your choice has already been made. No one will force you to change your mind or your heart. What you believe about yourself becomes your destiny. But its impossible to make Judgement calls on someone you’ve never met. You may read a book but that doesn’t mean you know the author personally. I have learned over the years that there are just some things in life that I have no control over. After all, I am a human being who was formed in a womb and known before I was even conceived. Sure, there’s plenty I do not know and hopefully I will progress in knowledge as time allows. But when you already think you know all there is to know and have all the answers, then you can’t see the forest for the trees. I know for sure that God can be trusted, just because he is God. There is no other. A personal relationship is the essence of salvation. I have found a peace that none other has ever been able to give. The kind that passes all understanding. And I found a love like none other that I have ever known in my entire lifetime. He will defend the innocent and those who leave this earth as a child for whatever reason will go straight to be with him forever. What they leave behind is only an empty shell in the form of a human body. God deserves respect, but if a person cannot respect themselves or others, they certainly cannot respect the one who made them. Some will never see the truth.

  • http://www.hopefulspirit.com Hopeful Spirit

    This is exactly why I avoid people who insist that the Bible is the “inerrant” or “unerring Word of God” and demand that it be translated literally. Anyone who seriously thinks that a loving god of any sort would ask a follower to sacrifice a child has a screw loose. Most of the Old Testament cannot be understood to be literally true because that would be beyond lunacy.

    The poor woman was obviously mentally ill and fell in with a group that fed upon her illness because they were also ill. An unfortunate case of unfortunate people finding each other.

  • Dave

    Sounds like an abortion to me.

  • David Fox

    Fuck freedom of religion.

  • http://www.successfuldatingpro.com Dede

    What a horrible thing to do in the name of religion!

  • http://www....wut?.com Nicholas Hannan

    hmm. im just 14 and have never believed anything like god. even when i was yonger and i grew up in a christian comunity. this is just another example of how religen was an excuse to make war in the dark ages. but people have carried it on. in my opinion religen is the most deadly weapon civilians have aces to.

  • Pingback: Atheist "Intellectual" - Page 4 - Political Forum

  • SkepticJesus

    This seems to me to be less of a lesson on how deities cannot be trusted and more how believers must learn to balance their ridiculous ideas with prayerful contemplation and realistic expectations of the consequences that are aligned with their actions, both for themselves and for others.

    I don’t believe God will ever ask me to kill another human because of evidence in scripture for how God wants me to live. I don’t believe forcing others to live under the reign of my beliefs will ever be justified by Christ because of the evidence I have read in the Bible and the way the Lord has been revealed to me.

    To live a wholesome religious life is not to act on the whim of a feeling, but to analyze feelings and what can be perceived as leading through exegetical study, prayerful thought on the subject of the calling, and the gift God gave us of logic.

  • Beamer

    Absolutely Ridiculous!

    perfect example of how religion is set out to brainwash people instead of teach the willing about faith and belief. Its amazing how completely backwards religious fundamentalists can be. The poor kid was 18 months, didnt have a clue what Amen meant or why he was saying it. What a lovely Religion. Claims to be founded on love and forgiveness but yet its followers think they have the power to ridicule its nonbelievers and insist on their eternal life of damn nation.

  • Pingback: Things Atheists Did Not Do… | Quixotic Journey

  • Renshia

    She wasn’t delusional, because she was following a religion

    Yeah, it’s easy to see how that conclusion can be drawn.
    Good grief, I wonder if his head exploded after he thought about what he said.

  • Chris

    Can we stop saying that these ‘radicals’ are actual christians. Just because you stand in a garage and say you are a car doesn’t make you a car.

    • Kodie

      How aren’t they Christians?

    • Custador

      Do they believe in the existence and divity of Jesus? Yes. Then they’re Christian. You don’t get to define what a True Christian (TM) is any more than you get to define a True Scotsman. Look it up.

  • 1a2a

    RELIGION, FUCK YEAH!

  • Pingback: Still More Things Atheists Didn’t Do « Students for Rational Policy and Scientific Values

  • Miguel

    Pascalle,

    actually the kid was around 20 years old according to Biblical scholars. I just read this somewhere. Anyone, correct me if I’m wrong.

  • latsot

    That line says to me that, she recognized the difference between the real world and the fantasy world, but choses to live in the fantasy world.

    Yeah, that’s the impression I got too.

  • http://none Esben

    well…. being a christian (or xian, call it whatever you want!)
    this really frigthens me!
    Well… mind you that this does not represent “everyday christians” (at least; not the ones that i know of here in denmark), but more specifically it represents a “sect” – a subject upon which i heavily agree with most atheist/agnostic/etc. minded blog/person.

    Point is’ whenever i hear about these things, it leads me to great depths of horror! (and hey.. read your bible: somewhere it says not to challenge god, and “force” him to do stuff)

    hey.. great site btw. stumbledupon it a few times before.

  • http://none Esben

    well…. being a christian (or xian, call it whatever you want!)
    this really frigthens me!
    Well… mind you that this does not represent “everyday christians” (at least; not the ones that i know of here in denmark), but more specifically it represents a “sect” – a subject upon which i heavily agree with most atheist/agnostic/etc. minded blog/person.

    Point is’ whenever i hear about these things, it leads me to great depths of horror! (and hey.. read your bible: somewhere it says not to challenge god, and “force” him to do stuff)

    (btw. steve says what most of us other christians is thinking; do NOT judge the average christian by the extremists. and NO. hatred for homosexuals is NOT the standard among christians, – again, i’m speaking from my own experience; which at large is christians in europe, and tennese.)

    hey.. great site btw. stumbledupon it a few times before.

    *EDIT* (down below)

    And in regards to whoever started talking about evolution?

    yup… well.. adaption cannot be questioned… Man even does it as of this day. (having a slightly better cold-related resistance if you’re from greenland, that kind of thing..)
    Well; science is that after all; science. We do not question the place where the sun resides (that is: space. in the middle of our solar system.) Why? Basically because science PROVED that it was there the sun chose to be hangin’ out. (excuse the simple language. :D)

  • Mike

    This is a tragic story, and its sickening how often I read about things like this on the news. But to think that religious presuppositions make it more likely for such horrific acts to occur is naive. After the death of Nietzsche more people were killed by atheistic, totalitarian, regimes (operating under Darwinian, Nietzschean, Marxist, and Malthusian philosophies) than were killed by all of the combined religious wars from the 19 centuries before.
    So please, before you jump on your anti-religious bandwagon and display you are just as much of a bigot as the unbalanced religious nuts you despise, go read some history books.

  • kacee

    Not sure why you chose this story for a topic of discussion here, “mother starves son”, her deranged actions come from her own evil heart, this act is just a confirmation that she IS NOT a follower of Jesus Christ.

    Titus 1:16 “They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.”

    You can twist the scriptures into just about anything you want if you try hard enough, I bought a CD about “Hermeneutics”; the art and science of interpreting scripture; it helps to have at least a basic understanding of scripture because there are A LOT of false teachers out there!

    Kacee

  • Coyote

    If “God” said, as a test of my faith, that I had to sacrifice my child (or anyone), my response to that test would be to refuse – my faith would be in the idea that if there is a benevolent Creator, that we’re not _supposed_ to do something terrible like that, even if we’re told to. I think the right answer to the test would be refusal, not obedience.

    A faith that is based more on obedience than on an internal understanding of right action, love, loyalty, or other ideas we could label as good or useful isn’t something I could personally have any use for.

    If there is a god and god is good, but god says “Kill your kid,” shouldn’t that mean god wants you to be good enough and smart enough to say “Like hell I will!”

    In any case, even if there is a god, if that god is all-powerful and omniscient, I figure if they want to tell me something, they can come do it themselves. I just can’t see following the words of some person or other who claims to be an intermediary – but so many people do.

    It boggles my mind, the number of people who listen to someone who claims to speak with the voice of god. What is god shy? He can only pass notes?

    If there’s a god, they can come talk to me personally. And if they tell me to do something I believe to be wrong, I’m still not going to do it.

    A great many people of faith believe that “God is good, so if God says to do something, that something by definition is good, because God said so.” That kind of thinking is based on authority, power, and obedience, not right or wrong. I’ve even heard religious people say “God made the universe, so he gets to make the rules – he gets to decide what’s good or not.”

    I just can’t get behind that. Rightness or goodness aren’t determined by who has the biggest stick – that only determines who is more likely to get beat on.

    I think a lot of people like the idea of being told what to do. Perhaps it makes them feel like they’re not responsible for anything, even their own moral compass.

  • Jennifer

    of course this wasn’t a case of christianity corrupting people, this was a cult using religion as a cover. i mean cmon “one mind ministries”…”queen antoinette”. but either way it’s pretty sick and twisted.

  • epolet

    This is so sad.

    Here’s the thing. It seems like this blog is written by a former believer trying to prove that Christians are screwed up, therefore Christianity is flawed.

    I’m going to do you one better than that.

    I am a current believer, and I completely agree that Christians are screwed up. This story is a prime example of the dysfunction that exists in every single Christian who ever lived. No, we might not all kill our kids. But every last one of us misunderstands and poorly represents what we profess to believe at some point.

    The reason? We are people. We are not Christ.

    To the author of this blog: You seem really intelligent. I would actually really be interested in anything you have to say regarding reasons that Christianity (as opposed to Christians) is flawed. I’m sure you’ll have some great points; I come up with more unanswerable questions about my faith every day. Maybe through conversation I can edify you a bit and you can ground me a bit.

    To Christians who read/respond to this blog: God doesn’t need to be defended by Christians in this situation. It is disheartening for me to read comments where you all get so upset that you stop acting like Christians. God is big enough to handle being challenged; we don’t have to verbally protect Him. Seriously; it makes us look horrible, and we kind of suck at it anyway. So just love. Love the poor woman in this story. Love the people you disagree with.

    To people everyone who reads this blog, Christians and non-Christians alike: as humans, we are all prone to err. None of us can know that we are right, because none of us has died yet. None of us has been to heaven or hell, none of us has the answers.

    So instead of focusing on something that we can never know, we should try the best we can to live in a way that makes the world a better place. I will do it believing that Jesus Christ died in order that we might live. You can do it believing that this life is all there is. We respect each other and live in community with one another, and this life is a tiny bit less stressful while we’re here.
    If we’re going to discuss, let’s discuss. But do it with love and respect for those you speak with, because they are in EXACTLY the same place you are… just making their best guess about what it’s going to look like at the end.

  • latsot

    Well, I screwed up the blockquote again *hangs head*.

  • Stupid Idea

    She’s talking about the Maryland boy who was starved.

  • Proto

    Death by starvation apparently happens ~100,000 times a day – that’s horrific, this is mildly sad at best. (Source:Wikipedia)

    Cult members or not, anyone who could starve an infant until it died is most likely a psychopath. However, it probably wouldn’t have been expressed as anything worse than animal cruelty and mild child abuse had the religious justification for murder been absent.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    I have no doubt that death by starvation happens every day with great frequency – each of those instances is horrific. Starving to death = not a nice way to go.

    Regardless of the motivation for it, intentionally starving a person to death is horrific. It certainly rises above “animal cruelty” or “mild child abuse,” and it is more than mildly sad.

    You really rank up there on the empathy and sympathy meters.

  • Stupid Idea

    Intentionally starving a child a to death is horrific. Starving to death because you live in a place that cannot adequately provide for you is a sad tragedy of nature. VERY different.

  • Proto

    Starving someone is worse than animal cruelty/mild child abuse. I was expressing doubt that the mother would have been mentally stable without religion, rather than attempting to justify murder or divert attention.

    I agree that starvation is not a nice way to go, but if a single instance is horrific, what is 36 million? I suppose it’s a matter of where you draw lines and how you use english, but I can’t manage anything more than feeling sorry for the kid.

    It probably doesn’t help that there’s a similar story of child death as a result of religion induced stupidity every month and a half.

  • wcoenen

    “At times there can be an overlap between extreme religious conviction and delusion”

    Great understatement there.

  • claidheamh mor

    I’m pretty sure that they will prosecute the religious leader involved in this cult, but would the authorities prosecute the pastor of my friend’s mom?

    Interesting thought, LRA. There are some good cult studies leaders (Rick Ross, Margaret Singer, some websites, one of which was bought out by Scientology). Ross does list some christianesque fringe cults on his site.

    But I think the pro-christian prejudice in the USA keeps people from thinking of christianity as a cult.
    Therefore, the usual sanctions probably won’t be applied.
    …..
    Oh, of course not! I just looked up the word “sanction”:1563, “confirmation or enactment of a law,” from L. sanctionem (nom. sanctio) “act of decreeing or ordaining,” also “decree, ordinance,” from sanctus, pp. of sancire “to decree, confirm, ratify, make sacred” (see saint).

    Of course! Sanctions are applied by christians to heretical <non-christians!

  • Stupid Idea

    One of the biggest differences I see between the two stories is that one is an adult woman who chose not to treat herself for a disease. I obviously don’t know exactly how far the cancer had progressed when she was diagnosed, but she may have felt that the cancer would probably kill her eventually anyway, so why prolong the inevitable? They other is a story of a child who had absolutely no control over the situation and an adult advising that the child should be starved. Am I saying that the mother is faultess? Of course not. But the person telling (and seemingly forcing to a degree) her to starve the child should be held accountable too. As should any adult in the house who knew what was going on and did nothing.

  • jayglo

    Absolutely.

  • James

    As a Christian, I find what this mother did obscene. Please please please do not lump all Christians in with this mother, or all religions. I don’t say “Amen” after every prayer, I believe that God will forgive sins and that we cannot be perfect. Using the verse above to say that what the mother did was right is absurd! “If he has sinned, he will be forgiven” should have the opposite effect of starving a child!

  • amy

    one death is a tragedy, thousands is a statistic.

    Can’t remember who said that.

  • Mr. Briggs

    The reason 36 million cases of starvation is no tragedy is because those cases of hunger are normal within that society. It certainly is a tragedy when you take it at face value, but nobody really elevates all 36 million cases individually.

    As (the person above me who managed to beat me to the point) posted, “One death is a tragedy, but a thousand deaths is a statistic.” Everybody cares more for the one person simply because that one person is an outlier.

  • Ty

    Yeah, I admit I don’t get Proto’s point here. It’s like saying that someone running their child over with a car on purpose isn’t a big deal because thousands of kids are killed by cars each year.

    Hundreds of people are also killed in hunting accidents and accidental firearm discharges each year, but shooting your kid in the face because he wouldn’t say Amen would still be a worthy news item.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    Question: “but if a single instance is horrific, what is 36 million?”

    Answer: Horrific.

    I’m really not seeing your point here.

  • Elemenope

    amy, that would be Josef Stalin.

  • gamingguy

    Amy, Joseph Stalin said that quote. If anyone would know about that, it’d be him.

  • Sock

    I draw the line in that this death by starvation was by the mother’s choice. She CHOSE to starve the boy, it wasn’t a situation where she didn’t have the money or means to feed him, she made a decision to deny food to her child, knowing that it would kill him.

    That’s where I draw the line.

    Death by starvation is a sad thing all by itself, but this particular case is absolutely horrible.

  • Ty

    “This truly is a very very sad story.
    However, she is obviously very twisted. There is no where in the Bible that suggests anyone should kill their child who is possessed. This woman was not “Christian”, although she might have claimed to be. She had her own views on things.”

    No, it just says kill them for talking back or worshiping other gods. But no specific mention of possession. Oh, sorry, did I accidentally step in a puddle of ‘No True Scotsman’? Man, you Christians leave that stuff lying all over the place.

    “And it is not a “fantasy” to believe in miracles. God can’t grant every wish everyone has. If God did ressurect that child, she would have thought that her actions in killing him were moral and right. He chose to not save the child because the woman would have been even worse off. It was not his will.”

    You have evidence of even one actual miracle taking place? Even one? I can get you a million dollars if you do.

    Until you can provide evidence, it is a fantasy. The fact that your personal delusion differs slightly from her delusion is not evidence of anything.

    “No where in the Bible does it say to kill your child if they are possessed. (and clearly this child was not). This mom was insane, not doing God’s will.”

    You’re repeating yourself.

    Also, tying your son to an altar and preparing to kill him with a knife to prove your love for god is totally sane, but starving a kid to death to prove your love for god is insane.

    Promising to sacrifice your daughter to god for his help in winning a battle is sane, starving kid to death insane.

    Got it. These things are so tricky.

    “One of the main problems in Christianity is that people interpret things how THEY want to. This can easily be avoided by sticking to the roots of the teachings of the Church. This woman strayed very far and the consequences were tremendous.”

    Yes, that is in fact a problem. I would say that any interpretation that includes Christianity being true is a false interpretation, but I’m willing to bet you aren’t going that far.

    Also, you keep leaving a trail of ‘No True Scotsman’ behind you wherever you go.

    “Very interesting article. :)”

    I agree, but your reply shows that you didn’t understand it at all.

  • RobotzAreAwesome

    I agree with you that it is absurd to follow the verse. However, my reasoning is probably different, I believe the bible is the word of man. If one believes the bible is the word of God, yet does not believe that god will heal the sick if they just ask, well, technically, they would be guilty of heresy. The Bible is explicitly clear on this, God WILL heal the sick, all you have to do is ask.

  • Mogg

    I’d be interested in your interpretation of this passage, given that it seems to be fairly often used by some christians to support the belief that sickness is actually caused by sin, and confession rather than medicine is the cure. In my experience, that leads to guilt-tripping either by others who assume you are sinful because you are ill, or by yourself as you frantically try to work out what it is you’re doing wrong.

  • DarkMatter

    Ironically how come christianity and the church cannot get the message according to what was written in the “book” and their deeds never reflect what are written in the “bible”?

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    I LOVE this idea!

  • LRA

    Excellent proposal Ty!

  • Elemenope

    Oh come on, Ty. Not the no true Scotsman thing again.

    Look, there is little evidence that infanticide was suggested as an acceptable behavior by Jesus, nor much evidence that most self-identified Christians would condone or practice infanticide. There is thus a good normative presumption to be had that whatever Christianity is, infanticide falls outside of that norm.

    It is entirely justified, in viewing that, that whatever this woman was, it was at best an *aberration* of Christianity, and not the normative strain. Given that, there is nothing wring with Christians saying, “we are something, and she ain’t it.”

  • Loops

    for someone with such an objective, intellectual argument, you’re kind of defensive.

    i think all jayglo was saying was that christianity doesn’t teach you to kill your kids. i mean, i’m no bible scholar, but i think it’s safe to say that breaking one of the ten commandments is a no-no. even if your kid won’t say “amen”. and aside from the “big 10″, it’s just fucked up.

    people have used christianity for thousands of years to justify similar acts, though, so i get where you’re coming from. i mean, it goes from the spanish inquisition to the bombing of abortion clinics. it’s sort of like islamic extremists. nearly the entire muslim community shuns these people for abusing their faith to gain control over weaker minded individuals. the same goes for this.

    and anyway, the whole “No, it just says kill them for talking back or worshiping other gods” thing is bogus.

    if you want to get biblical, all of the levitical laws before jesus came (i.e.; the old covenant) don’t apply to christians anymore (i.e.; the new covenant, get it?). that’s one of the ways our faith is different from judaism, we don’t follow levitical law anymore because, well, jesus said not to.

    fundies might take and pick from the bible to spread hate and lies, but you do the same thing. glass houses, dude.

  • Ty

    Ugh, and yet another drive by apologist stomps through the living room leaving his No True Scotsman covered footprints on our rugs.

    Thanks for the meaningless post, Word of Fallacy. Now off you go.

  • claidheamh mor

    Christians avoid the fact that, no matter how they complain that this is a weirdo/outlier/”no true christian”, etc., whatever heinous person is under discussion is a christian acting out of christian beliefs.

    They don’t like it; they apologize and excuse it; they pretend it isn’t a “true” christian; they change the subject; they give their own interpretations of their mythical scripture; anything to evade admitting that a christian did something horrible based on christian beliefs.

  • Elemenope

    The bible is truth or fiction. No in between.
    Waiting on an answer from a “christian”.

    While I’m not a Christian, I fail to see how that is necessarily the case. Why can’t some parts be literally true and some parts be figuratively true or false?

  • Loops

    you really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?

  • Elemenope

    Ty, see above on my response to your accusation of Scotsman shenanigans.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    “Ugh, and yet another drive by apologist stomps through the living room leaving his No True Scotsman covered footprints on our rugs. ”

    And wouldn’t you think, if Christians (and other types of holy rollers) really believed they had the smartest, baddest most everything that is good dude on their side they wouldn’t be so afraid to debate us ignorant and wrong headed Christian’s.

    Perhaps Daniel needs to put some of that plastic covering on the furniture and rugs to keep the holy rollers from messing up our thinking quarters

  • Ty

    I can name three major sects of Christianity, off the top of my head, that condone allowing a child to die to avoid violating tenants of their faith.

    Are they all not Christians, too?

    The fact that Jesus is not reported to have said, “kill your babies” is a non-argument. Jesus is also never reported to have said, “don’t let the gays get married” and yet that would generally be considered a tenant of modern Christianity based largely on a scripture in the OT. An OT, btw, filled with justifications for killing children.

    I know you like playing the fair guy, but I don’t think you have a case here.

  • Elemenope

    p.s. restarted this thread below.

  • Loops

    shit! i meant that for no masters. sorry.

    and lol to the icon.

  • Ty

    And see my reply to your non-starter argument.

  • http://sourapplesblog.com Elliott

    I agree Ty is using the technical term incorrectly, but we should have a name for the tactic. Maybe it shouldn’t involve the word Scotsman. There may not be anything logically fallacious about ‘they’re not real Christians,’ but there’s still something slimy about it.

    It’s like, everyone is content to call them Christians, until they spinoff and do something nuts, which they do quite frequently. And, I might add, the Christian ‘go-nuts-spinoff’ rate is higher than the go-nuts-spinoff rate of, let’s say, post office workers, or buddhists.

    Put another way, it’s like there’s two universities. One outputs good workers with a go-nuts-spinoff rate of 1/100, the other 25/100. When we try to draw a correlation between the second school and it’s greater number of go-nuts-spinoff graduates, they try to escape culpability by saying, ‘well, we taught them the right things, therefore, they must not have listened.’ Well, maybe they weren’t ‘true graduates,’ but if you went to the first school, you wouldn’t have had a problem.

    Maybe we should approach it that way: “well, maybe she wasn’t a ‘true christian,’ but if she were an atheist, she wouldn’t have starved anyone.” And I bet you could find statistics to back that up.

  • Loops

    no… it doesn’t… by what definition, exactly?
    your basic reasoning has you sounding like an idiot.
    get better reasoning.

  • Elemenope

    What if God lies? Then part could be true and part could be false and all could still be God’s word.

  • Elemenope

    Three *major* sects? Really? Come on, build your normative case. What are these three major sects?

    Catholicism is a major sect. Episcopalianism is a major sect. Methodism is a major sect. The Second Church of Jesus Christ and Divine Ephemeral Stardust, Reformed is not a major sect. If you can show that infanticide is normative throughout Christianity, then fine, but I serious doubt you can come anywhere close.

    The hating gays thing is normative (though less than many people think) and so is reasonable to incorporate in the normative definition. It woudl be a no true Scotsman to argue that a homophobic Christian was not a true Christian because he was homophobic.

    That is far, far away from analogy with starving babies to death.

  • Ty

    The Catholic Church just faced a shitstorm for their position that allowing a 9 year old rape victim to die delivering twins was a better choice than giving her an early abortion to protect her.

    Jehovah’s Witness, who have about eight million members worldwide, will allow a child to die rather than give it a blood transfusion.

    Christian Scientists, who have millions of members, think that any medical care other than prayer is a sin. Their kids die often enough that it doesn’t make national news any more.

    That’s off the top of my head.

    “The Second Church of Jesus Christ and Divine Ephemeral Stardust, Reformed is not a major sect.”

    Nice strawman.

    “That is far, far away from analogy with starving babies to death.”

    While allowing a child to die of starvation because of the beliefs is an extreme, is it really that far off from allowing one to die because abortion is bad? Or blood transfusions are bad? Or medicine is bad?

    The bible, and by extension Christian beliefs, can and have been used to justify all sorts of infanticides in the past. Is the mode of execution the big sticking point here? Dying of starvation because you’re diabetic and your parents won’t let you use insulin is ok because they kept feeding you even though your body didn’t process the sugars?

  • Loops

    umm… i think you’re the one using the bible to justify infanticide here. the vast majority of christians would never even consider killing a child. duh. i think that goes for the vast majority of people.

    again, man, glass houses.

  • Ty

    What?

    The bible *does* justify killing, including infants.

    The fact that most modern Christians wouldn’t actually do it says a lot more about our social evolution than it does about the foundations for Christian beliefs.

    Most modern Christians also wouldn’t own a slave, but that doesn’t delete all the many OT and NT rules about slave ownership.

    The fact that you choose not to engage in an activity that modern humans would consider immoral or repugnant does not change what the bible says. You don’t get to retcon the belief system.

    And your glass houses shot is a complete non sequitor. Can you explain how it is applicable here?

  • Sock

    EXTREMELY well argued Ty! Well said, very well said.

  • Elemenope

    None of the three cases proffered come close to intentionally starving someone ebcause they wouldn’t say “amen”. Not even close.

    In the Catholic case, they are proceeding from the assumption (right or wrong) that the fetuses are children and from that rationally argue that killing two to save one isn’t a moral choice. If their premise is right, their conclusion is certainly sound. You and I may disagree with the RCC about that premise, but it’s a long way from running an illogical resurrection experiment in your living room.

    Also, intentionality matters. Refraining from acting in a way that might cause death in order to save other lives is a bit different from refraining from acting for the purpose of killing someone to drive demons out of them. No?

    In the other two cases, which I will grant are at least a little closer (though not much, because the intentionality is closer to the Catholic case than the crazy cult lady), you are talking about two sects that combined number about 7.5 Million members. Given that there are about 1.7 Billion Christians on Earth, that would place them at .5% of the parent group. Tell me, exactly how many standard deviations from the norm is that?

    Nice try, but try harder.

  • Loops

    well, i’d like to believe that god doesn’t lie, but that’s exactly right.

    rather, i’d like to believe that god wouldn’t lie.

    but yeah. i don’t get where this post is going. it was a terrible, terrible event. the woman should be sent to a loony bin for ever and ever. christianity doesn’t tell you to kill your kids. christian-based cults are bat shit crazy. agreed.

    isn’t that about it?

  • Loops

    okay honey, now listen closely:

    jesus taught in parables, no? parable meaning a story meant to illustrate a moral point, a story that probably isn’t true in and of itself.

    i.e., a lie, to illustrate the truth.

    now, knowing that, is it possible that things like the creation story (either one, or both) are not necessarily “true”, but designed so that we may gain a general understand of how we came about?

    i.e., a lie, to illustrate the truth.

    and anyway, this isn’t an experiment. we’re not wanting to know the optimal net force of a standard king james verson of the bible. one doesn’t use scientific theory to prove the veracity of a book.

    i.e., you’re an idiot.

  • Loops

    i completely agree. wasn’t that ghandi? i think i spelled that wrong. lol.

  • Ty

    “fundies might take and pick from the bible to spread hate and lies, but you do the same thing. glass houses, dude.”

    I pointed out that modern Christians still kill (or allow to die) children based on their interpretation of the bible.

    How is this spreading hate and lies?

    The answer to this fact is always “well they aren’t real Christians then” which is, as I pointed out, the No True Scotsman argument.

    And don’t lecture me on the bible. Not when you are going to say, “The new covenant man!” and “Follow the ten commandments!” in the same breath.

  • DarkMatter

    Whoever behind this devilish punishment and resurrection lies of the infant must bear the full responsibility of their doings abet the understanding of the mother by the court.

  • http://unreasonablefaith No Masters.

    Wow, an answer so definitive and concise this time. The bible contains lies. Thank you for your words of wisdom.

    However, christians follow the teaching of Jesus.
    The intent of Jesus to uphold the laws of the old testament is clearly stated in Mathew 5:17.

    This is the part that you may want to pay attention to; the murder of a child was justified by a christian following the what has been sited by most christians as the word of god.

    By your own posts you have shown that you are not open to any discussion that in anyway has impacted the murder of a child.

  • DarkMatter

    “one doesn’t use scientific theory to prove the veracity of a book.”

    No one need to, but christianity like to, to her own lying dismay.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Loops… no offense, but you’re the one coming across sounding like the idiot… so many Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible… not that its parables, which most sensible people would come to realize. If you take objection to bunching these Christians with your view on Christians, stand up against them. In a large sense, they’re smearing Christianity as much as suicide bombers smear Islam. But there’s no public outrage about either group by its respective counterpart.

    And waaay too many Christians try to denounce science with the Bible, so yes, using science against the Bible is fair turn around.

  • Loops

    wait, what? no.

    first of all, no masters is saying the same over and over again. (christians follow the way of jesus!? what will that think of next?) start making sense. now.

    second, there is a separate and definitive way to prove a book’s validity- scientific in nature, yes, but not problem-hypothesis-experimentation-conclusion. they look at the authors, the time period, physical references, etc.

    third, i’m not denouncing anything. darwin came out with a whole treatise on how evolution doesn’t contradict the bible, the man was a pastor himself. neither science nor christianity has to be wrong. that’s my whole point with the parables.

    and darkmatter, when you learn to type, we’ll have a sit-down one day and just chat it up. agreed?

  • Loops

    do you unintentionally come across as a belligerent douche, or does it take effort? just wondering.

    obviously you need a lecture on the bible, since your out-of-context biblical quotes are getting a bit ridiculous.

    and i guess your just going to ignore my point completely and try to put me down via blog. which is fine. i don’t need to pretend to be an atheist to get attention from perfect strangers.

    i know, i know, you’re so avant guarde for you “radical!” “original!” beliefs, or lack thereof, but i’d like to remind you that there are indeed no atheists in foxholes.

    and, alright, one last thing. i never actually said follow the ten commandments, although most people (christian or otherwise) would say that’s a decent idea. it is true, however, that jesus was also speaking of the ten commandments, along with levitical law, when he said to come over to the new covenant. which includes neither. technically.

    are we done here?

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    Loops,

    When accusing someone of being beligerent, you probably shouldn’t insult other people.

    That is, if you want to have the high ground, act as if you want the high ground.

    There are atheists in foxholes, who proudly serve their countries in the armed forces.

    Check out this list of “Atheists in Foxholes” from the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers:

    http://www.maaf.info/expaif.html

    Please do not insult people whom you don’t even know. That is not helpful at all.

  • Loops

    wow.

    okay, you have me on the belligerent thing. that was a little nasty. we shall kiss and make up.

    but, umm… you know that “there are no atheists in foxholes” is an old adage, right? like, as in atheists tend to loose there no-god-no-how shtick when faced with life-threatening or stressful situations.

    honestly, the first time i read your post, i thought you were being sarcastic. i still hope you were.

  • bdemong

    “you know that “there are no atheists in foxholes” is an old adage, right?”

    I believe he was pointing out that the adage is false.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    Loops,

    I was employing a bit of sarcasm, but I am serious about the atheists in foxholes point. There are atheists who protect their country and even die for it, like Pat Tillman.

    Even if you were joking when you said that, I want people to understand that it’s not true.

  • Sock

    “like, as in atheists tend to loose there no-god-no-how shtick when faced with life-threatening or stressful situations.”

    That statement offends me so much that I can’t even think of a fair response to it.

    Suffice to say, I would reach out and hope for ANYTHING to save me, and should God do so I’d believe. However, if I were picked up in a tornado and then gently set down a few feet away, completely unharmed and with a chest full of gold right next to me… I wouldn’t thank “god” in the same way that someone who believes in him would. I’d personify the event, and thank chance/luck/god, but that doesn’t change my conscious view that there’s no actual personality -to- thank.

  • claidheamh mor

    @Loops
    do you unintentionally come across as a belligerent douche, or does it take effort? just wondering.

    Loops -

    No, but YOU do.

  • DarkMatter

    I apologize if my typing catch your attention, disrupting your argument here and why not if we do meet.

  • Loops

    dark matter, down below:

    i’m still having to read your posts five times before they make sense.

    and you’re not disrupting my argument, you’re raising my concern for the literacy rate.

    so, here, understand this: go please for to take ass sorry home and do book learnings.

  • http://unreasonablefaith No Masters.

    Loops, veracity is not the same thing as validity.
    While your point about Darwin presenting himself as a christian does hold some validity, the fact that his wife (Emma Wedgwood) was a devout christian and the time in which he wrote must be taken into consideration. Remembering also the reason he published his “Theory of Natural Selection” was due to the papers of A.R.Wallace.
    There is no point in attempting to have a civil discussion with you as your explanations are basic in nature and you have only shown disdain to others not taking your word for it.
    May your life be peaceful.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    We have to be clear here… Darwin studied theology, he wasn’t a pastor. If you have evidence of the contrary, please do share, nothing I’ve read to this point has indicated that.

    And I think you have a screwed view on the scientific method…

    By your example:

    Hypothesis: is the Bible valid?
    Theory: (Pick yes or no)
    The next step is not always experimentation, its research. That can be practical experimentation or it can be going out into the field and finding evidence.
    Conclusion: Prove or disprove the theory

    That’s how science works… historians do a form of science of their own. But where did this evolution thing come from anyway?

    You tried to make the point that the Bible is parable, and DarkMatter tried to make the point that some Christians take the Bible literally. You’re both right.

  • Loops

    may my life be peaceful?
    are you killing me with kindness or something?

    my explanations are “basic in nature” because i needn’t write my doctoral dissertation on a blog. simple statements beget simple responses.

    and what the hell does his wife have to do with anything? regardless of the time period, you only become a minister if you believe in god and love you some jesus. it’s not as if it was the sociable thing to do back then.

    “oh, let’s become ministers terrance!”

    “oh, i think that sounds lovely pip. let’s do!”

    alright,
    what if i use reverse psychology?

    okay, now *stop* making sense! go.

  • Loops

    for some reason, i like no easy answer’s point.

    i give.
    hugs for everyone.

  • Loops

    umm… gravity is just as much a theory as evolution. it’s pretty much true, and there aren’t that many gaps. at all. acutally, like i said earlier, darwin published a whole lecture on how his evolutionary theory in no way contradicts the bible. he was an ordained minister.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    “Think about it” = please accept my opinion without thinking about it.

    “Think about it” = please be close-minded enough to discard whatever evidence you may actually find.

    When people tell me that evolution didn’t happen, I just ask them questions like:

    How do you think animals adapted certain proteins to be venomous over time? Do you think a god designed them this way, in such a manner that so suspiciously looks like they actually did evolve? Further, why would a god design these animals to be venomous through such pain-staking efforts?

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/cephalopod_venoms.php

    Evolution is fact. What is evolution, anyway? It’s change over time.

    Biological evolution is change in populations of organisms over time.

    Why do scientists have to make a new flu shot every year? The viruses evolve.

    There is so much more evidence for evolution out there…please consider the overwhelming evidence in its favor.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    I also read a book that showed how the Holocaust didn’t happen… there are 4x more historians who believe the Holocaust didn’t happen then there are evolutionary scientists who disagree with evolution.

    One book says evolution is false… HUNDREDS of scientific papers say its true. Loops and Telepromter have it dead on: Evolution is a fact. The theory of Evolution explains that fact.

  • claidheamh mor

    I agree with Teleprompter: when you say it,

    “Think about it.”

    = “Agree with me.”

    @steve Darwin’s theory is a real pile of poo.

    = “If I fool myself that I’m a loving christian and do some preschool style name-calling, I can feel triumphant without having said anything of value. Only negative spewing.”

    @steve It’s a big fairy tale

    = “I’m really a loving christian! All this name-calling is to stroke myself into thinking I’ve said something worthwhile!”

    @steve that you MUST have faith in order to believe in.

    = The old saw that atheists have or need faith. Wrong AGAIN! “a-, no or without” and “-theo, god” – demanding some evidence or reason before believing is not faith. The scientific method of research and test and measurement is not faith. I’m going to follow your christian name-calling example and call you a dumbass.

    @steve all of you hypocrites

    You have accomplished what you came here for. You have won a soul for Christ. Your name-calling and hypocrisy are an exemplary shining beacon of Christ’s nastiness and irrationality. I’m shaking with the power of the Holy Spirit (or is it suppressed laughter?)… I’m becoming a christian….

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Hey Steve, thanks for trying to hijack the thread, eh?

    And if you’d taken the time to come up with something more convincing than “Darwinism is a religion!!!” it might have been interesting. As it is, I’ll call it a FAIL.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Wow Steve. You come in here, hijack the thread and insult us, and you expect us to react how?

    Welcome you with open arms and thank you for saving our souls?

    Or does your active fantasy life allow you to foresee a future in which you are roundly derided and abused?

  • Loops

    thank you.

    my question is; why is it so impossible for god to have created creatures that evolve? couldn’t have the creation stories been meant as parables? since god created man and such, what part of the bible says that we remain stagnant? c

    hange is obvious and relevant throughout nature, as well as the bible.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    Loops,

    I don’t think it’s impossible. But there are other things which make me doubt that it happened that way…

  • vorjack

    “why is it so impossible for god to have created creatures that evolve?”

    It isn’t impossible, but I think it does force us to reconsider what we mean by “God.” It also changes how we view our relationship to the divine.

    As some Christians say, if Adam & Eve didn’t eat the apple, then there’s no original sin. If there’s no original sin, what did the sacrifice of Jesus mean? And that’s just the first problem.

    Evolution involves a lot of probabilities. It’s not accurate to call it random, but there is a lot of chance involved. Stephen Jay Gould used to say that if you rewound the tape of time and played it back, you’d get something different every time. Which would probably mean that humanity wouldn’t exist. In fact, intelligence might never arise. What kind of God would accept this? That’s a serious question: what does evolution say about God?

    There are other problems: if human evolution is accurate, there’s not absolute line between us and the animals. Were does that leave the soul?

    And so on. Evolution forces God and religion to … well … evolve.

  • bdemong

    “While I’m not a Christian, I fail to see how that is necessarily the case. Why can’t some parts be literally true and some parts be figuratively true or false?”

    No. How do you tell which parts are literal and which parts are figurative? On what authority does one choose to follow or ignore particular passages? Or interpretations? Anything can be “interpreted” in any way; the Bible can be used to justify anything. Skip the middle man and make your own decisions.

  • http://none Esben

    Like?

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    Esben,

    That’s a very good question. This will probably be a rather long answer, even though it is just a summary.

    There are a lot of religions in this world: Christianity and all its forms, Judaism, Islam and its forms, Hinduism and its forms, Buddhism and its forms, etc.

    Each of these traditions has its own narratives as far as religion goes. What is more likely — that one of them has divine truth and the others don’t, or that all of the accounts are allegorical or mythical in nature?

    Also, does the Bible make more sense as a human narrative or as a divinely inspired one? There are a lot of the things in the Bible and in Christian teaching that I question, like the genocides in Joshua and other places in the OT. Is that divinely inspired — or human? What about hell? Is that divinely inspired — or human?

    People had traditions of good and evil, like the Zoroastrians. Now we have Yahweh and Satan.

    Krishna says, bring me your failure. Jesus says, bring me your sins.

    And people say that morality comes from any one religion? People say that morality comes from the Judeo-Christian religion? What about Confucius and his moral teachings? What about the Buddha and his moral teachings? They did not have access to that morality, but they still produced enduring moral teachings of high quality.

    I don’t know if there are any gods or not. But all of these religions which people practice today…to me, they are indelibly human. That is why I suspect that there are no gods, at least ones that we would understand or be able to perceive.

    As for evolution and the Biblical account, I think they could be reconciled, but one would have to radically reinterpret some of the teachings to make it plausible. Genesis could easily be taken metaphorically — sure, why not?

    But then you have to ask yourself, how do I know which parts of this book (which is supposed to represent divine truth), are literal and which parts are metaphorical?

    And further, everybody has a different opinion on this. Ask the Catholics what they think about evolution and then ask the Southern Baptists what they think about it. Some people think hell is annihilation or the absence of god. Some people think it’s eternal torture. Many people have been killed in history because they could not agree on the details of the Trinity.

    There are a lot of religions, and there are a lot of Christianities. Are any of them “divine truth”?

    Decide for yourself, but currently I have come to the conclusion that all of these human religions are merely social constructs. Perhaps I could still participate in one of them as a social endeavour, but I would not believe that it is divine.

    Add to all of that, I’m not sure that humans have a soul, either. When parts of peoples’ brains are critically damaged, their personalities are profoundly and permanently altered. What is the soul — it’s you, right? It’s the essence of what it means to be human, right?

    If that essence is a product of your brain, then what do you think happens when you die?

    Anyway, that’s just a brief summary of my thoughts.

  • claidheamh mor

    @ steve This wasn’t a Christian group….. They call themselves Christians but they really … aren’t.

    Yeah, we haven’t heard that one before…
    not more than a few dozen times in the last few weeks.

    See above re: christians excusing, saying “no true christian”, interpreting the mythical book only they believe, anything to avoid the fact that some scary person doing some heinous action is a christian acting on christian beliefs.

    Convinces me christianity is a harmful belief, and it’s enough to convince me christians are scary.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    I tawt I taw a Scotsman …

    Oh, no, appawentwy I din’t.

  • bdemong

    Evolution is just as true as anything is true in natural sciences (in which there are no proofs, proofs are only possible in formal sciences like mathematics) Evolution is every bit as much a fact as that the earth revolves around the sun; humans definitely evolved from ape-like ancestors, the question is how exactly.

    Darwin didn’t come up with the idea of evolution, it had been around for hundreds or thousands of years. He did come up with a plausible mechanism to explain how complexity can arise from simplicity (the theory of natural selection), elevating evolution from a hypothesis to a theory. 150 years ago.

    The “evolution is just a theory” fallacy comes from mistaking the word “theory” for the vernacular English meaning of the word, which implies a guess or doubt. In science, a theory is a framework of ideas that can be used to explain phenomena. If you let go of an apple, it falls toward the center of the earth: that’s a fact. This falling behavior is predicted and explained by the theory of gravitation.

  • Loops

    here’s one way:

    babylon really did fall to the assyrians.

    fact.

    god took a rib from adam and created eve.

    probably not fact.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    “Ugh, and yet another drive by apologist stomps through the living room leaving his No True Scotsman covered footprints on our rugs. ”

    I made an error in my last comment.

    And wouldn’t you think, if Christians (and other types of holy rollers) really believed they had the smartest, baddest most everything that is good dude on their side they wouldn’t be so afraid to debate us ignorant and wrong headed non believers.

    Perhaps Daniel needs to put some of that plastic covering on the furniture and rugs to keep the holy rollers from messing up our thinking quarters

  • http://unreasonablefaith No Masters.

    Thank you to bdemong for your comment.

  • Sock

    Mind you. This child died in his name.

    He could’ve performed one tiny miracle, and since these people were devout enough to starve the child in the first place, I doubt they would’ve even been that surprised if the kid woke up after death and said “Amen”.

    They clearly expected this to happen, so if it had, it would’ve reaffirmed their faith. No harm, no foul, and their love of God would’ve actually have been justified.

    But, since he doesn’t exist, this didn’t happen, and the kid died.

  • Loops

    yikes, elf lord got game.

  • bdemong

    How do you know Babylon really fell to the Assyrians? If you had nothing but the Bible, how do you decide that “Babylon fell to the Assyrians” is true, but “God took a rig from Adam and created Eve” is false?

    Evidence, right?

  • bdemong

    Erm, I hit submit before editing that. The last sentence about evidence contradicts the condition of having nothing but the Bible. Should read:

    How do you know Babylon really fell to the Assyrians? If you had nothing but the Bible, how do you decide that “Babylon fell to the Assyrians” is true, but “God took a rib from Adam and created Eve” is false?

  • bdemong

    Here’s another angle:

    Did you know there is no evidence at all for Jesus’ existence? That’s not just sophistry, there is some kind of evidence for the existence of just about any historical figure you can think of, even really ancient ones. Nothing written about Jesus was written in his lifetime; the gospels were written at least 50 years later, probably closer to 100. Most stuff that mentions Jesus was written hundreds of years later. No contemporary works mention him (and there were dozens of still-famous historians living at the time). He wrote nothing himself. No “miracles” left any traces. Here is this supposedly incredibly important figure, famous, known to rich and poor and kings and slaves, but not a single person bothered to write anything about it? Herod has all males younger than two murdered because he fears the Messiah, but this terrible infanticide is recorded nowhere? We are talking about what is arguably the most well-documented period in human history; the Romans were really keen on writing things down. (BTW, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate, and he ordered many executions, none of which were of a man named Jesus or Jesu or similar.) Imagine looking for evidence of Abraham Lincoln and not finding a single occurrence of the name before the 20th century.

    No evidence. Zero. Jesus is almost certainly fictitious.

    The Bible makes all sorts of claims that are demonstrably false. Why spare it the same skepticism as other books? If you picked up a book and half its contents were wrong (not to mention the much-worse things that can be said about the contents of the Bible), would you keep combing it for bits of wisdom, or dismiss it?

  • trj

    Not this old cliché! If you really think those societies were killing people because of a specific atheistic or darwinistic agenda, I’d advise you to read some history books yourself.

    You think Stalin was motivated to kill all those people because he believed there was no god? Please, he killed anyone who was in his way, theists and atheists alike. The same goes for all other dictators.

  • Elemenope

    Have you ever read Nietzsche or Darwin?

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Wait… Mike, are you trying to say that in 100 years, more people died from Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia, Communist China (I’m assuming these are the ones you’re talking about, even though Hitler was a follower of Christ (note, I’m not saying Christian), Communist China has no religious pros or cons, and Stalin Russia didn’t support religions but didn’t ban it either), then did in 1900 years of religious wars, crusades, jihads, and simple territorial warfare in the name of a religious figure? Do you have any knowledge of history what so ever? For the crusades alone, deaths start at 10 million. Then we can get to witch burning, heretic killings, and those kings who fought each other because God wanted them to.

    By the way, when did Marx say anything about not being religious? Or Malthus? Or Darwin? It seems pretty clear you have no knowledge of history.

  • Elemenope

    No leader or nation, so far as I know, operated under a “Nietzschean” or “Darwinian” regime. I would question strongly whether such concepts are even coherent.

    Be slow to swing your rhetorical sword at targets with which you are not familiar.

  • BoggyWoggy

    How often do you read things likes these? Seriously?

  • LRA

    Mike,

    Are you serious? Considering percentages of people on Earth living at the time (and not just raw numbers as raw data tells us nothing), the christians are destructive, witch burning, crusade initiating, inquisition starting people. Yeah, and Hitler was a religious fanatic. Sorry but you are WRONG.

    I know because I HAVE read the ACTUAL history books.

    ps if you want to talk atrocities, just read the OT. I mean, god killed off the entire human population except Noah, according to that book. Therefore, god is the ultimate Hitler.

  • griz

    “This is a tragic story, and its sickening how often I read about things like this on the news. But to think that religious presuppositions make it more likely for such horrific acts to occur is naive. After the death of Nietzsche more people were killed by atheistic, totalitarian, regimes (operating under Darwinian, Nietzschean, Marxist, and Malthusian philosophies) than were killed by all of the combined religious wars from the 19 centuries before.
    So please, before you jump on your anti-religious bandwagon and display you are just as much of a bigot as the unbalanced religious nuts you despise, go read some history books.”
    (sorry I don’t know how to make the little quotes)

    this boy’s death at the hands of religious crazies and the totalitarian government mass murders of the last century have one thing in common: both groups twisted the original doctrines of their “faiths” and turned them into something the originators didn’t intend. Evil is evil whether it is wielding a bible or the communist manifesto.

  • jayglo

    Where in Deuteronomy?

  • jayglo

    Nevermind, I found it.
    This goes back to what was said earlier: when Jesus came he took away many of the unpleasant rules of the Old Testament, such as stoning.

  • jayglo

    And for everyone’s information, it was Ty who was first rude. All I did was made an innocent comment stating my opinion, and he got really defensive and jumped on it, filling his post with heated words.
    So don’t think it’s only steve who was flaming.

  • Elemenope

    Well, Marx did point out that religion functioned as part of the social superstructure, as distraction away from ‘class consciousness’ and direct perception of the economic structure. “The heart of a heartless world, the opiate of the people.”

    His “followers”, and I use this term loosely, took this as a condemnation of religion generally, and used this as the excuse to exclude religion from public life and persecute followers. Not sure you can blame Marx for this, but you can definitely blame Marxists.

  • jayglo

    “For the crusades alone, deaths start at 10 million.”

    Ummm… 10 million. Recently-discovered documents show that just the effects of Stalin caused the death of 250 million!!!! That makes 10 million look very small. And that’s just Stalin!!

    What you guys are doing, as was mentioned before, is clumping all Christians together with cultists.

    We could do the same with Atheists, saying you are all like Stalin. But I won’t do that, because I know that you are not. I know that many of you are very sane, intelligent, normal people. I realize that. So can’t you please try to realize that us Christians are not as insane as that woman was?

  • bdemong

    Unfortunately, Jesus contradicts himself there, among other places.

    Matthew 5:17-18…

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”

    So which is it?

  • Sara

    What “recently discovered documents” are you talking about? Cite yr. sources when you use them — makes you sound more believable.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    So…. your claim is Stalin killed over 2x the population of the country he ruled over? And your facts are from an apologist website? Riiiiiiight….

    Anyway, we can “lump” Christians together because you all believe in at least the same basic facts. Sure, the implementation varies, but still the same facts. Being atheist says no more to what you believe then saying you’re human says to what you believe. Religion has always made excuses that they’re not like the fringe groups, but why aren’t you crying out that someones using your religions name in a evil manner? Instead, you’re saying, oh, this happened, but atheists are worse, when you have no facts to back that up.

  • jayglo

    Well yes, actions obviously do matter too. They help define the beliefs.
    What I meant is that simply numbers can’t define the beliefs.

  • http://p Mark bey

    @ Jayglo

    ” So can’t you please try to realize that us Christians are not as insane as that woman was? ”

    I agree with this statement, however it still doesn’t change the fact, that you (Christians) claim that a being who is hiding from all of us in spite of the fact that I and billions of others have begged him to show himself exist.

    It also doesn’t change the fact that a loving christian god who says that all things asked for you shall be received has lied to all of his beloved creations by not answering prayers.

    It doesn’t change the fact that in spite of the exclusive claims to god of thousands of religions god still refuses to come to earth and sort things out himself.

    You may not be as insane as the Lady who starved her child to death. But do you not see how someone who is not a christian could think that talking snakes are insane.

    Can you not see also how a non christian would think anyone who believes that a perfect and divine god would ever give instructions on how to sale a persons daughter into slavery.

    Or what about -

    ” Numbers 22:21-30 (King James Version)

    21And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.

    22And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.

    23And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.

    24But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side.

    25And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall: and he smote her again.

    26And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left.

    27And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.

    28And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

    29And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

    30And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay. ”

    Or what about this one.

    ” Joshua 10:12-14 (King James Version)

    12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

    13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

    14And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel. ”

    So you may not be insane but will you at least admit how non Christian’s could think that talking donkeys and god making the sun stand still so more folks could be killed are insane things to believe in.

  • jayglo
  • Sara

    Oh, my mistake — I thought you meant REAL sources, by scholars. Not sources twisted by apologetics to display atheism’s “evil” nature.

  • jayglo

    Atheism’s evil nature? Kind of like this website is trying to display Christianity’s twisted nature?????

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    jayglo,

    1. This website has also dealt with Islam and other faiths. However, most of the focus is on Christianity (I presume because the author is an ex-Christian).

    2. Whoa. “Atheism’s evil nature”? That’s irrelevant. Even if some people do bad things because of atheism, that doesn’t affect the outcome of religious arguments. The same is true for religion: just because some people do bad things because of religion does not automatically make it untrue. Now, in some instances, I think it should arouse our skepticism, as when Jesus says “know them by their fruit”, and then when lots of people who aren’t Christian are moral anyway, then we can doubt that claim.

  • jayglo

    First of all, thank you for your respectful reply, Teleprompter.

    Secondly, I never meant to offend anyone. I was simply defending my standpoint. I do not believe that atheists are “evil”. That is something Sara said. She put the words in my mouth.

  • Sara

    Teleprompter: The “evil” nature bit was my summary of the contents of jayglo’s “source” website.

    jayglo: The words weren’t yours — just the website you used to cite your inaccurate claims. I never claimed you called atheism evil; your compatriots at “Scholar’s Corner” did that.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    jayglo,

    Thanks for trying to clarify that. I am glad that you don’t think atheists are evil. While I still dispute your claim that humans automatically do good things and avoid “evil” things, I respect your right to that opinion.

    However, it still seems implausible to me. I think we have seen repeated examples throughout history of how ordinary people can be motivated to do extraordinarily cruel things.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    Sara,

    Okay, thanks. Now I understand what you were trying to say.

    Jayglo, if you cite a website for someone, people will probably assume that you agree with the viewpoints of the website you have cited. I do not think Sara was wrong to make that assumption, as most reasonable people would do so. However, I am glad that you apparently do not agree with them; though I think it would have been helpful if you had said that earlier.

  • jayglo

    I just saw those stats and posted the link to it. I didn’t read the entire page and didn’t see anything calling atheists evil.
    I realize I should have read the entire thing before linking to it. So I apologize if I offended anyone, and again, I do not think those things about atheists.

    I was basically making that point actually to say that the numbers are sort of irrelevant. All people of all kinds do bad things. The amount of people who are killed doesn’t matter a whole ton when it comes to history in relation to beliefs.
    It is the beliefs themselves that matter. :)

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    jayglo,

    I hesitate to be nitpicky, but you said that

    “It is the beliefs themselves that matter. :)”

    and while I agree with this in general, I wanted to emphasize that there are a few conditions, in my opinion, where actions are relevant.

    For instance, if a certain set of beliefs implies that some people will act in a certain way, and that others will act in a certain way, and people don’t act in the ways suggested by those beliefs, then I believe that this would be a good reason to scrutinize those beliefs further.

  • Elemenope

    John 8:1-11

    It’s not so much that the law was abolished, but that Jesus demonstrated nobody was qualified to execute it.

  • Elemenope

    Anyway, we can “lump” Christians together because you all believe in at least the same basic facts.

    “We” can. “We” shouldn’t. I don’t.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    And Elemenope, that’s your prerogative… like I said, it was to the claim of lumping. I tend not to say all Christians are the same, but I recognize similarities and don’t stand for “No True Scottsman” fallacies.

  • jayglo

    “Religion has always made excuses that they’re not like the fringe groups, but why aren’t you crying out that someones using your religions name in a evil manner?”

    Have you not been reading our replies? We HAVE been crying out! We’ve stated how TERRIBLE it is that this woman did this. I AM ashamed of what she did and that she called herself a Christian. I am sorry that she felt like that was God’s will.

    I was only defending us because it was getting to the point where people were saying all Christians believed this were true. We don’t.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    I apologize for making it seem when I said “you” that I meant you or the people here in general. I meant the general you, and no one can deny, in general, Christians don’t speak out against these fringe groups, but rather just say they’re not true Christians. This doesn’t works!

    Yah, you guys are speaking out, and I hope you guys are doing it outside of this forum… I think we’re all guilty of saying “That person’s not a real (whatever that we are) and so we can ignore him” and we all have to step up and stop people from doing it.

    “Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.”

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    By your logic, if Abraham would have used his brain, wouldn’t he of NOT tried to sacrifice his son?

    Perhaps instead of a test of faith, it was a test of intelligence, and Abraham failed.

  • jayglo

    Yes yes, Adam.

  • jayglo

    He did use his brain. And he trusted God. And obviously it paid off.

    And what would be the point of an intelligence test?

  • Sara

    I gotta call Poe on jayglo for that last comment. I mean, come on.

  • jayglo

    Well, true. God did say those things in the OT. But as I said above, he changed kind of in the New Testament. (See my discussion above with evil1dwk).
    Religions of that time murdered. It was common for people to be stoned and murdered just on the spot, in public.

    Today, religions don’t do that, at least they don’t without great criminal consequences.
    Things don’t stay the same throughout time. Sure, the basic moral teachings do, but not everything.

    You just keep defending yourself, too. So why shouldn’t you admit you are wrong?
    You are slamming my “tactic” when you are using the same one.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    This woman trusted God, and it DIDN’T pay off. What’s the difference?

  • jayglo

    What was wrong with that last comment?

  • jayglo

    The fact that Abraham was told by God to slaughter his son.
    This woman was not. She was told by the leader of this cult thing she was in to do so.

    God or twisted cult queen?
    There’s a significant difference.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    How do you know God didn’t also tell her? Or that God wasn’t communicating through the leader? Doesn’t God often do that — he spoke through Paul, right? Peter? Etc.

    But regardless, if I hear a voice that claims to be God, telling me I should slaughter my son — you think I should obey it? Seriously?

    If not, then why should have Abraham obeyed?

  • jayglo

    This woman seemed to have given no thought into her actions. She was not backed up by Christian beliefs.
    If there is contradiction then it cannot be God. (One contradiction, for example: no where does anything even suggest anything as insane in the Bible that Christians should kill a child because they do not say Amen after prayer.)

    And I don’t believe that God would actually have someone kill anyone. The point is, he DIDN’T have Abraham kill Isaac. If this were God in this woman’s case, he would have stepped in and stopped it.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    And I don’t believe that God would actually have someone kill anyone.

    Jayglo, no offense, but have you read the Bible? God tells the Israelites to kill millions of people — including women and infants! See Deut 3; Judges 21; Josh 6; 1 Chron 21; 2 Kings 10; etc.

    What about the man who was picking up sticks on the Sabbath, and when they asked what they should do with him, God told them to kill him?

    There are other examples if those aren’t convincing. Even by your own holy book, God has people kill people.

    It would be good to just admit you are wrong here if you want to establish any credibility. The usual fundie tactic is to keep defending, but I hope you’re better than that.

  • jayglo

    “It’s obviously not the same author but both are said to be the word of God. Did God have a big attitude change?”

    Actually, yes. God did have a big attitude change. The God from the OT (the same God, mind you) WAS more impatient and forceful.

    Then, with the coming of Christ, he DID have an attitude change. Don’t ask me why, because I’m not God and I don’t know his emotions. But yes, he did.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    jayglo,

    Elemenope said it best, in my opinion, when he said that Jesus is supposed to have recognized that no one was good enough to execute the laws.

  • jayglo

    And with that, I will go to bed.
    ‘Night all. :)

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    No offense jayglo, but I think you’re molding your God to make it more comfortable. There are plenty of Bible passages talking about how God is unchanging. Yet the God of the OT and the NT are vastly different. Its easy to say that the NT overrode the OT, but plenty of quotes to show that Jesus didn’t intend that. I find it hard to believe that God would be affliected by the human fallacy of not knowing the right way to behave… instead, if hes omnipotent, he knew he’d be a jerk in the beginning, and nice later, and yet he needed Jesus to fix the sin mistake, even though he know the mistake was going to happen. Its so skewed, the physics of time travel are easier to understand.

    You say things don’t change over time, yet the basic Christian ideals haven’t changed in 1900 years. Today, so many of our political institutions are being invaded by stone age ideologies, because a book says so. Its easy to say that things are meant to change, but the overall direction Christianity is going today shows the opposite of change. In the same week that African Americans in California took a new step to bring the first non-white President to office, striking a new hallmark for all non-Caucasians, they revoked the right of another group (gays) because a 1900 year old book said so.

    By the way, it was common tactic to stone someone to death all the way up to the dark ages, thanks to Christian ideals… and burning at the stake, and drowning, etc. Stoning is something you find relatively exclusively in the West (yah, the East has equally horrible torture methods, but stoning even up to the 1400′s is all thanks to Christianity). So you can’t say “religions of that time”… Christianity carried it up till the Renaissance, when finally the critical thinkers wondered why people were doing that.

  • Roger

    Waaaaitaminit. If God “changed kind of” in the NT, then that means “God” is changeable, and thus, we can’t know if anything attributed to God in the Bible still holds today. Further, if people claim to have received a revelation from “God” and it runs counter to what other people claim is revealed in the Bible, then all that person needs to do is claim that God “changed, kind of.”

  • claidheamh mor

    jayglo

    Well, true. God did say those things in the OT. But as I said above, he changed kind of in the New Testament.

    Yeah, God, make up your damn mind!

    In The Old Menu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster placed His emphasis on obedience to the law. No substitutions. Pay cash only. No extra meatballs.

    In the New Menu, the FSM wanted people to be saved! Nonfat items and substitutions were for glorious freedom in His Name.

    Your christian god makes just as much sense. And jayglo makes nonsense.

  • Sara

    Fallacy; specifically: No True Scotsman. That junk won’t fly here.

  • http://p Mark bey

    ” it helps to have at least a basic understanding of scripture because there are A LOT of false teachers out there! ”

    Why does your perfect all power god allow humans to misrepresent his word/scpritures to the tune of thousands of different beliefs in god.

    Why is your perfect god hiding from us if he is going to send us to hell for not finding him?

    What exactly is a basic understanding of scripture?

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    And who said it does? Of course most Christians wouldn’t do this. Thankfully, if they heard a voice in their head saying to do this, they’d go on medication like any sane person. It’s the ones who actually think it is God that are the problem. Unfortunately, belief in God/miracles/etc contributes to the problem IMO for these kinds of people. If they were atheists, maybe they’d go get their heads checked instead of believing it is their sky god communicating with them.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    I think Daniel’s comments are key… its not that all Christians do this, but her religion gave her a justification. Her religion gave her an excuse. Imagine if she said an alien made her do it? Everyone would call her equally crazy cuz heck, the idea of an alien making her do it is impossible. But instead here, its God. But no, its not your God! Its another God, or she’s just crazy thinking God talks to her. The point is, her religious beliefs added a veil for her to hide behind. Just like I’d say for Muslim terrorists, their religion provides a justification for actions that they know deep down are wrong.

    And by the way, Mein Kampf says NOTHING about Darwinism nor natural selection. That is, yet again, another apologetic misnomer. He talks about superior blood (a Biblical concept), not natural selection.

  • Elemenope

    I would think a mentally unstable Atheist is about as (un)likely as a mentally unstable Christian to behave appropriately after exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    I would say they are higher. A Christian might think it is actually a supernatural being speaking to them — an atheist would just know they’re slipping into craziness. Hopefully!

    Then again, maybe I overestimate most Christian’s amount of faith.

  • Word Of Truth

    I agree, as a Christian, if someone in a leadership position over me, i.e. a pastor, told me to sacrifice a child, I would definitely report him to authority. Biblically there is nothing to support that sort of action, also the bible tells us as Christians that we are to abide by the laws put in place by man, so long as it doesn’t go against biblical law. So, yes, according to both the law of man and spiritual law, as well as basic conscience, she is not supported in what she did.
    I want to apologize for all those “Christians” who, I believe, have taken the scripture out of context and try to use it for personal gain, or have just generally warped the context of it to support weird distorted fantasies. It is my belief that I serve a very loving God who “wants that none should perish”
    The sole purpose of being a Christian is to “spread the word of God” although very cliche it is that that I feel I am called to do. Not for any sense of personal gain, or award in heaven, but it is my belief that without accepting Jesus, people are destined to perish. That is the “Great Commission”, not to kill children, or anyone for that matter. Our sole purpose as Christians is to spread love.
    So on that note, I truly love all you guys, and I understand that you all have your own opinions, I wasn’t always a Christian, and I used to stand on the other side of these arguments. I just want you all to know that I wish the best for you all.
    God Bless

  • kacee

    …thousands of different beliefs in god?

    =====================

    Isaiah 44:6-8

    6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

    ==================

    “Why is your perfect god hiding from us if he is going to send us to hell for not finding him?”

    YOU ARE CORRECT!

    Romans 1:19-32(New American Standard Bible)

    because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

    For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

    And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

    being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

    and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

    Psalm 5:5 (New American Standard Bible)
    The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;
    You hate all who do iniquity.

    Psalm 1:5-6 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
    Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
    For the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
    But the way of the wicked will perish.

    You see Mark, if you cannot keep the law perfectly, (which only Jesus could do), God will have to give you justice; you and everyone else who have refused to repent and put their trust in Jesus.

    Kacee

  • kacee

    Made evident? He didn’t do a very good job, then. I guess God made it evident to the Anglicans and the Lutherans and the Methodists and the Baptists and the Presbyterians and the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics all in slightly different ways, right? Not to mention the Hindus and the Buddhists and the Muslims and the Sikhs. Maybe this isn’t so “clearly seen” after all.

    “The test of the Gospel is grace. If the message excludes grace, or mingles law with grace as the means either of justification or sanctification (Gal 2:21; 3:1-3), or denies the fact or guilt of sin, which alone gives grace its occasion and opportunity, it is ‘a different’ gospel.

    “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from youselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast.

    The Christian worldview (taken from God’s self-revelation in Scripture) has the necessary preconditions for man’s: existence, reasoning, experience, morality… The Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary…the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience.

    Some might equivocate on God ordaining all things and God making some sin – God ordains whatsoever comes to past, so God does ordain all things, however, that does not alleviate human responsibility or human volition – MAN CHOOSES TO SIN, just so happens God ordains it. Our problem is our finite minds can’t understand how God could ordain something, how He could incorporate a human element that is volitional and responsible, but that’s what the bible teaches. (see acts 2:23).

    ‘Billions of people have lived have never seen or heard of this verse…’
    You have, so why are you suppressing the truth?
    [see (Rom 1:18)]

    Kacee

  • kacee

    ‘OK so if I am alive (because I reject Christianity and I was never saved even when I was a Christian) by the grace of god then how to you explain all of the murderers, trouble makers and evil doers walking around the public.’

    ===========================

    http://www.carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/why-there-evil-and-suffering-world

    http://www.carm.org/questions/questions-skeptics-ask

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    kacee,

    “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.”

    “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

    Made evident? He didn’t do a very good job, then. I guess God made it evident to the Anglicans and the Lutherans and the Methodists and the Baptists and the Presbyterians and the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics all in slightly different ways, right? Not to mention the Hindus and the Buddhists and the Muslims and the Sikhs. Maybe this isn’t so “clearly seen” after all.

    “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,”

    If God is all good, and everything is of God, where did evil come from? Satan? Where did he come from? God. Same problem.

    “and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

    What kind of death? Is this implying that people are worthy of eternal torture? But perfect love drives out fear (1 John 4:18)!

    “You see Mark, if you cannot keep the law perfectly, (which only Jesus could do), God will have to give you justice; you and everyone else who have refused to repent and put their trust in Jesus.”

    Let me get this straight: Jesus came because none of us were able to execute the laws, which God originated and knew that we wouldn’t be able to execute them flawlessly – in fact, would have created us with the propensity to break the rules. But it was still our fault. We had to pay for Yahweh’s negligence.

    I don’t believe that a God created us to break rules which were made or that we were made with a propensity to break the rules that were made and then condemned for breaking the rules which we were made not to be able to live up to.

    A good parent would instruct a child not to do wrong. But if we do wrong once, according to your Bible, we’re all condemned. What a crappy parent.

    Imagine a father telling his toddler not to turn a hot stove. Would you put the stove next to the crib of your child, and then beat them for touching it, even though you know that they will anyway?

    This is mythology. I shouldn’t even refer to it as if it’s internally coherent.

    It’s allegory. The only reason I argue on the details of it is to demonstrate its absurdity if taken literally.

  • http://p Mark bey

    @ Kacee

    ” Isaiah 44:6-8

    6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God. ”

    You did not answer my question, which was why does your god allow thousands of other god beliefs if he is in the business of sending folks to hell for choosing the wrong god..

    Are you not aware that billions of people who have lived have never seen or heard of this verse, or Jesus or the bible?

    Id really appreciate it if you answered my question.

  • http://p Mark bey

    @ Kacee

    ” You see Mark, if you cannot keep the law perfectly, (which only Jesus could do), God will have to give you justice; you and everyone else who have refused to repent and put their trust in Jesus. ”

    What are you talking about it was already known by god that I nor any other human would be able to keep gods law perfectly because he created us flawed.

    Why does your perfect, Divine and just god design his beloved creation (man) so flawed but then punish us for not being able to keep his law perfectly.

    What you just confirmed is that your perfect and just god set his beloved creation up to fail from the get go.

    Lastly are you aware that most of the non believers here are former Christian’s who repented, accepted Jesus and then rejected the belief in Jesus/God based on lack of evidence that would prove his existence.

  • http://p Mark bey

    @ Kacee

    ” because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

    For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen ”

    If this is the case how come atheist have a lower rate of divorce and imprisonment than Christian’s.

    In which ways is god evident to Christian’s that he is isn’t evident to buddhist.

    What specific invisible attributes are you trying to say god has. Name them.

    How can gods eternal nature be seen and how can you be sure of which gods eternal nature you are seeing.

    Also how do you know that gods power is eternal, what exactly do you base this statement on.

  • claidheamh mor

    @kacee

    Your blather didn’t make any sense.

    You are:

    (1) Quoting the text from your specific mythology, in which you believe, to people who don’t believe it.

    (2) Prattling on about your particular mythology’s god’s “invisible attributes”; what he’s done (It’s a he? You never pulled up his robe and looked); and telling people who don’t share your mythology what its god and jesus are going to do to them.

    You repeat (1) and (2) many more times over.

    You do all this without a shred of reason or evidence.

    Does this make sense?
    No.
    You and your actions make no sense.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    No offense WoT, but “The sole purpose of ” your interpretation ” of being Christian is to ‘spread the love’”. There are plenty of Christians who would say that you have started down the right path but aren’t there yet, there are those that agree with your ideology but disagree that that is the purpose, and there are Christians who think you are completely off in the purpose of Christianity. I’m glad that’s how you see Christianity, but unfortunately, while many Christians preach that as a value, a much smaller number of Christians follow it.

  • Andrew N.P.

    Gandhi. And the exact quote was: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

  • Elemenope

    Even if the Bible is correct then resurrection has happened exactly twice in the last two thousand years. One of them was by the direct power of Jesus and the other one was Jesus.

    So, yes, even if the Bible is true, then for all intents and purposes resurrection happens only in stories and myths, because even if those myths are real accounting it’s still only ever occurred then and no other time.

    And if this is all so far beneath your awesome and diverse debating experience, by all means keep meandering in the direction you’re going. You’re bound to find greener pastures sometime.

  • claidheamh mor

    @Bill Yay for this page! Its smarter than God!

    Durka

    Durka

    Do

    It’s MUCH smarter than your apparently imaginary god for whom you can provide no evidence, support, or good reasoning, and whose idiocy is well represented by you, his exemplary, shining beacon.

  • Francesc

    Really? There is people who thinks that diseases are not caused by viruses or bacteria, or lack of some chemicals, but by sin?

    I’m beginning to like that idea in a kind of twisted “darwinian” sense… those people doesn’t seem going to have a healthy descendence…

    I think too that that’s a very clear and falsifiable experiment …wait… can they say, if a person does not go well, that the people who where praying for him had not true faith?

  • Adam

    Well see, and you have some very valid points, but anybody that thinks and reacts to something that “God” puts in their heads is not reacting to anything God did at all. It comes down to God’s nature. God wants us to use our brains but He doesn’t instruct us through our brain, i.e. thought implantation. God instructs the Christian, and I’m talking true ones now, and there are some people that say they are Christian who aren’t, God instructs the true Christian by speaking to the heart.

    The main thing though that makes it difficult for hard atheists and true believers to communicate any real ideas with success is there is a communication gap that is impossible to bridge. I say it’s impossible because the only way you can understand things as Christians understand them, referring to matters of God and faith, is to have faith because many of the things we defend with and postulate with is rooted in our faith and it’s something you can’t understand without having it yourself.

    It’s the same as if I’m a Christopher Columbus before he sailed and I’m speaking to you about the spherical nature of the earth, yet, you know nothing of it because it goes against what you “know” to be true (assuming you were of that era). So I would always advise a bit of leeway due to that breakdown.

    The only thing I can say about all the killing God said to do, is that many times, as you know, religious leaders use the name of God to slay their enemies and be justified in doing so. Yes there was times that God did command people slain. To that, the only thing I can offer up in defense is that before Christ, there was no grace. Without grace there was no mercy. God only abode so much disobedience and once His anger was kindled, that’s all she wrote. That change between the Old and New Testament was due to the fact that He was no longer looking at the world from the perspective He had been. Now He looks at the sacrifice of His son who pleads on our behalf.

    AGAIN, I’m talking matters of faith. I don’t expect that you’ll understand it and I don’t hold your unbelief against you. Just understand that every bad thing someone does isn’t always going to be God. Most of the time it’s brought about by the devil. Course there I go with the “round earth” talk again. lol

  • Adam

    actually, if I’m not mistaken there was more than two, but not many more. the resurrections i’m familiar with were of course that of Christ, Lazarus and there was also a little girl that Christ raised. I remember cause it says she sneezed 7 times.

    that is all.

    :D

  • Word Of Truth
  • Bruce

    I agree with this completely. You would probably insert “God told me to do it” with a more ‘rational’ reason. If you are mentally unstable, the concept of God just gives people an easy excuse for their actions. It doesn’t mean that if they don’t believe in God that they won’t find another excuse.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    @ adam

    ” He doesn’t instruct us through our brain, i.e. thought implantation. God instructs the Christian, and I’m talking true ones now, and there are some people that say they are Christian who aren’t, God instructs the true Christian by speaking to the heart. ”

    1) How do you know this
    2) When you say god speaks to the heart what exactly do you mean. Please be clear.

    3) Do you have to pray for god to speak to your heart.
    4) If your answer to question 3 is yes, does god speak to your heart whenever you request.
    5) How would you when or not god is speaking to your heart.
    6) Does god speak to everyone’s heart who asks him to.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    @ adam

    ” AGAIN, I’m talking matters of faith. I don’t expect that you’ll understand it and I don’t hold your unbelief against you. Just understand that every bad thing someone does isn’t always going to be God. Most of the time it’s brought about by the devil. ”

    When you talk about matters of faith Adam what you are really saying is Christianity cannot be accepted on its merits alone and therefore in order to make it work you have to introduce this mythical and confusing Idea of faith.

    Thank you for not holding my unbelief in Invisible Sky daddies against me. I just want you to know I don’t hold your non belief of the Thor or Buddha against you.

    OK accepting your statement that god isn’t responsible for all of the bad things that go down, please enlighten us on what bad things god is responsible for.

    Also how do you know which bad things god is responsible for or not, where would this awesome power of discretion come from.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    But see, how do you know the God you’ve been believing in this whole time hasn’t been lying to you? He’s powerful right? He can do anything? You’ll then say, its not in his nature, but isn’t he beyond your understanding?

    Its interesting how you humanized God there, by saying he no longer looked at the world from the same perspective. How human of him, to have changed his mind. If you know what you’re doing is right (and if you’re perfect, everything you do is right) why would you need to change your mind? And again, if he just felt like it, and he knew he was going to anyway, that’s just a dick move. You also say God did killing in the times of war… God killed all the first borns of Egypt because of Pharaoh, when those kids did nothing wrong, then when Pharaoh decided to let them go, God hardened his heart. God didn’t speak to Pharaoh there, he made a decision for him, and he know it would lead to his death. It’d be like me cutting the brakes on a car… I didn’t actually crash the car, but no one can say it wasn’t my fault, and I would be reasonably sure there would be a crash.

    I gotta comment to the sacrifice thing… how is God killing his son so he can resurrect him 3 days later to be God, a sacrifice. By definition, sacrifice is when you give up something meaningful so someone else can get something out of it. Dying to become God is NOT a sacrifice. If he died and sins were wiped out, I’d buy this story so much more. Instead, again, it looks like God is being humanized, “Oh no, I made a mistake, what nonsensical story can I come up with to fix this! I know, I’ll take me, be my son, kill me, fix this sin problem, then just rise to heaven to be with me!” Anyone else thing that sounds like narcissism?

    The difference is that Christopher Columbus could prove the earth was round, not to mention every sailor in the world already knew the world was round. This continued notion that sailors thought they’d fall off the edge of the world is just bull. Some people already knew these facts, but because of mass populous and religion, it was kept down.

    Regardless, your last statements about bad things being because of the devil… so these bad things are because of the devil, which pretty much all Christians who believe in the devil would say, but then what about the natural disasters that so many people claim are God’s wrath? Can the devil control the weather? If not, clearly this is bad stuff caused by God. And even if you don’t think it is, that’s definitely what the vocal part of Christianity thinks.

    And by the way, I am religious, in a matter of speaking, but my religion doesn’t believe in a God (Jainism)… so I can understand faith and yet still not get how to cling to a 1900 year old book.

  • Adam

    Hey Mark, I appreciate the honest questions. I must say, even though I haven’t read the 10k responses to this article, I’ve read quite a few and I must say that yourself and Teleprompter are two very easy people to talk to. You challenge but seem open to the answer. I appreciate that alot more than somebody that asks a question, not to try to get an understanding of what someone else thinks/believes, but, asks with the sheer intent to attack whatever the answer is.

    I must admit I did feel your rebut about not holding your non belief against you was rather abrasive in nature. Allow me to rebut that. It appears that with that comment you assumed I was attacking you and you felt you should attack back. If you took it that way I do apologize due to the fact that it was not intended to offend. I was merely attempting to draw a contrast between what seems to be many atheist attitudes toward us believers. I find that many hold believers as some form of lower creature with no intelligence and many have no qualms about insulting believers in these forums. Believers and unbelievers are equally intelligent as far as the equality of believers and unbelievers alike intelligence quotient differs.

    I will also scold those who claim to be Christians that bash non believers. Whether it is to you or not, to us, our belief is not in “Invisible Sky Daddies” as you so eloquently pointed out. It is a spiritual relationship with our Creator. I think that’s where the communications start to break down. There doesn’t seem to be respect for the other on either side of the issue save a few.

    The way I see it, my own “knowing” not withstanding, with all things being equal, there is a 50% chance you are correct in your assumption there is no God. There is a 50% chance that there is a God and my belief is correct as well. We’ll all find out when we die. As far as I’m concerned if you’re right, I die, they chunk me in the ground, I have no conciseness, that’s it. I lived a moderately good life, to the best of my ability and had an overwhelming sense of peace my life through and was genuinely happy. No harm, no foul. Didn’t miss anything by following my concision. If I AM right in my belief, then, I am assured a forever consciousness in a land that no fairy tale description could even fathom to describe. I will spend forever with my Creator in perfect peace and happiness. Whether you believe it or not is not dependent on my reality, so, where do I lose in believing what I believe? I’m still carnally intelligent, successful, respected (by believers and non believers alike I might add).

    I’m very live and let live. I’d love for you all to believe like me, I really would. To ME, it’s like, if I discovered the cure for cancer and you had it, I’d want to share it with you, or the world for that matter. I can’t adequately answer your questions but I can tell you that along with the belief system and the relationship with your Creator comes so much joy. Even through tears. There’s a peace that I didn’t have before I kindled that relation with the Father, or rather He with me. It truly is a peace that surpasses all understanding. Cause I truly DON’T understand it myself, but, I also don’t understand how my motor exactly works in my vehicle, but, it doesn’t stop me from driving. I’ve got the key and I know how to access it’s power. But as much as it would be my hearts desire to see everybody have that same peace, I can’t give it to you and I can’t make you believe. There is nothing I can say or do to make you believe. The only thing I can do is to try my inadequate best to answer these questions you pose in a manner in which you can maybe understand.

    You asked alot and to be quite honest I’m completely overwhelmed. On this site you’re constantly asked to explain yourself when in alot of cases we’re ill equipped to being that we don’t understand stuff ourselves. I WILL give an honest attempt at answering your questions though. I only ask that you have patience with the answers cause it probably won’t be able to justify much of what your asking. If you care for a more detailed dialogue I’d welcome any email correspondence. My email is singingcowboy674@aol.com.

    Now, let me TRY and answer a few of your questions, again, I can’t bridge the understanding between carnal and spiritual knowledge that would sufficiently answer your questions, but maybe I can provide at least a shadow of an answer.

    1) How do you know this?

    Honestly, I can’t give you an answer to this. God operates in the spiritual when He communicates with me. It’s a rarity that God penetrates into the physical. Aside from some what I would call “divine provision” (making a way out of an impossible situation unscathed) I haven’t ever seen it in my lifetime.

    Again, I can’t clarify to your satisfaction I’m sure but when God “tells” me to do something, He does it through a burden. Now, that is using that term as a spiritual one, not the physical def. The only way I can define a burden is with a description of what goes on when I feel one.

    Let’s say for example, God wants me to give some specific encouragement to someone going through something. And let me retract my previous statement that there is no thought implantation at all, because there is some to some extent, suffice to say He’ll “alert me” to the person. Then if it’s something specific He wants me to do, there is an instantaneous physiological response. It’s mainly a pounding of the heart. Almost always a feeling of dread (not sure where it comes from), sometimes my breathing may become a bit shallow while God is giving instruction or what we call bidding (asking of us). How do I know if it’s God rather than my own thoughts, I can only answer it with a spiritual phrase that prob doesn’t mean anything to you. The phrase was a quote by Paul when he said “The flesh and the spirit doesn’t strive together.” Meaning, even if it’s something good, which if God bids us it’s always going to be beneficial, being human we want to do the opposite of what God wants us to do. Or at least if not do the opposite we’d rather do nothing. Again, I’m sitting here trying to explain feeling that has no meaning to you. It’s not based in intellectual process to the point I can break it down into digestible kernels of understanding for you.

    2) When you say god speaks to the heart what exactly do you mean. Please be clear. Again, if it’s “task” related it will be a burden. If it’s simple one on one communication in a worship type exchange, there is a overwhelming peace that comes over you. Some scientists believe that this is linked to the Penal gland (correct me if I misspelled it) which has been deemed the “God part of the brain”. Anyway, endorphins flood your system during these times of communication.

    3) Do you have to pray for god to speak to your heart.

    That’s based on the individual. Sometimes God initiates, other times we pray and He responds. When I talk about Him responding I’m referring to the carnal knowledge of a response on His part due to the corresponding physiological reaction to it. Again, I’m sure it’s not explanatory enough, but, I’m just trying to bridge the gap between the carnal and spiritual in a way you might can use.

    4) If your answer to question 3 is yes, does god speak to your heart whenever you request.

    That’s another great question you’re probably gonna shoot a hole right though my response on but it’s something I just don’t know how to answer….

    Answer: Sometimes He does and sometimes He don’t. lol Sorry, I’m trying to be as truthful, open and honest as I know how. Many times it depends on the intent or humbleness of the person asking. If it’s asking with a pompous or arrogant or challenging attitude most times no. The earnestness of the heart when requesting communication is key.

    5) How would you when or not god is speaking to your heart.

    Again, it’s something that you just know. It’s God. And He has a way of making Himself known when He so chooses. Again, I know that’s not going to be a satisfactory answer for you, I accept that. It’s just the best one I can iterate at this moment.

    6) Does god speak to everyone’s heart who asks him to.

    You know, I’ve talked to a lot fo people. Believers and unbelievers alike. Admittedly I believe He’s more apt to respond to those that believe in Him, but, then again I can kinda see His point of view. If I did all this and that and I just got ridiculed for it and blamed for everything and snarled at, I don’t think I’d be to talkative to that person. lol That’s Adam talking though. lol

    Now, this goes into my personal beliefs, but, I have resigned to the fact that if a person, not with their mind but with their heart, in other words if they have a heart desire to know that God is who He says He is and that Christ is who He says He is, I TRULY believe with all my heart, at some point God will reveal Himself to that person that is seeking knowledge. That has served me well. I’ve talked to a lot of non-believers about believing and in most cases I’ve been told that I’m really pleasant to talk to about the subject due to the fact I don’t try to brow beat them or preach to them that their going to hell and all that that most believers do.

    Now to answer the other part of your question I’m afraid you’ll have to wait till this time tomorrow. It’s 415 in the morning and I’ve been trying to answer these for 2 hours. Not the fastest typer in the world plus I had to think of how I was gonna say what I said. I hope you take no offense to any of it. Though I may not be able to explain myself to yours and others satisfaction, I still welcome the discussion and I must say I like the challenge most of you pose. Calls for a bit of introspection.

    Hope you’ve had a pleasant day whenever you read this and I look forward to communicating with you again soon.

  • Roger

    ” Had God told this lady to let her son die, he woulda been resurrected.”

    How do you know?

    “Interestingly enough, God didn’t actually let Abraham kill the kid.”

    That’s not the point; God commanded Abraham to do something that was immoral–why would God command such a thing? Yes, blah blah blah, faithcakes, but still–God commanded an immoral action. Further, God commanded genocide, racism, ethnic cleansing and the like–”he” sure didn’t stop the Israelites from being right bastards to their neighbors; and even the “happy God” of the New Testament sure doesn’t like it (or, at least Paul says that’s what God told him–who can know?) when guys stick their you-know-whats in other guys’ you-know-whats. Nevertheless, at the end of the NT, “happy God” turns angry again because of all those people who didn’t believe it when other goatherders said, “Hey, some deity whispered this to me and only me!”

    “So would it have happened that God told this lady to starve her son to death? No. Would God want her to force her son to say amen? No.”

    Again, how do you know? God has, according to the biblical text, commanded a whole slew of insane actions.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    @ amanda

    ” People are a corrupting force on everything. ”

    Didn’T your Invisible Sky Daddy create us this way, isn’t it part of gods will that man be a corrupting force on everything.

    If people are a corrupting force on everything then how come your all power invisible sky daddy dosent step in the he did in the past.

    Whats the the difference between depravity in the Old Testament and depravity in 2009.

  • LRA

    “The Christian worldview (taken from God’s self-revelation in Scripture) has the necessary preconditions for man’s: existence, reasoning, experience, morality… The Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary…the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience.”

    That is illogical. First of all, a brain is all that is necessary for existence (in memory), reasoning (multiple areas), experience (in sensory cortices), and morality (in mirror neurons).

    The christian world view is true because of the impossibility of the contrary? Really? It is impossible that any other world view is true? Out of the millions of permutations of world views? Then please explain (1) why all the diversity of christian world views all over the world that differ from each other on just about any doctrine you can imagine, and (2) why you would consider the Jewish world view to be “false” as it was Jesus’ actual world view.

    Talk about foolish ignorance.

    Finally, my philosophies don’t provide knowledge or meaning? Are you sure you want to make that claim? I’ll give you a chance to back out of that statement before I take you to town on it.

  • kacee

    In response to LRA

    ‘That is illogical. First of all, a brain is all that is necessary for existence (in memory), reasoning (multiple areas), experience (in sensory cortices), and morality (in mirror neurons).’

    ======================

    Here is a very brief introduction to: “The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God”. You can go here to get a more compete explanation:

    http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/atheism/transcendental-argument-existence-god

    Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter), because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds, because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God.

    ====================

    The christian world view is true because of the impossibility of the contrary? Really? It is impossible that any other world view is true? Out of the millions of permutations of world views? Then please explain (1) why all the diversity of christian world views all over the world that differ from each other on just about any doctrine you can imagine, and (2) why you would consider the Jewish world view to be “false” as it was Jesus’ actual world view.

    Go here for your answer:

    http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/atheism/why-believe-christianity-over-all-other-religions

    Kacee

  • LRA

    Kacee-

    You suggested “The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God”

    Let me suggest my own link on nominalism:

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/

  • LRA

    Also, you didn’t answer my question with that second link. I asked about the diversity of Christian faiths. Please explain this.

  • kacee

    ‘Also, you didn’t answer my question with that second link. I asked about the diversity of Christian faiths. Please explain this.’

    ======================

    The reason there are different denominations within Christianity is because the Bible allows for us to have differences of opinions. Within Christianity there are very few essential doctrines that define what it means to be a Christian. These essential doctrines are,

    Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
    Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
    Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
    The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
    There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8).
    God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (See Trinity).
    Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (nature of incarnation)
    As long as a church believes in these essential doctrines, then it is Christian. However, there are many things in the scriptures that have been interpreted in different ways. For example, what day of the week should be worship on, Saturday or Sunday? Should we baptize by sprinkling or baptize by immersion? Do we take communion every Sunday, once a month, or once a year? The answers to these questions do not affect whether or not someone is a Christian. It is in these issues, and others like them, that denominations are formed. It does not mean that one denomination contradicts another. It means that though they agree in the essentials, they differ in some nonessentials. This is permitted in Scripture:

    “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind,” (Rom. 14:1-5).

    Sadly, there is another reason for denominational differences and that is the failure of Christians to live according to the will of God. The truth is that we are all sinners and we do not see things eye to eye. It is an unfortunate truth that denominational differences are due to our shortsightedness and lack of love. But, the good thing is that God loves us so much that He puts up with our failures. There waits for us, in spite of our differences, a great reward in heaven. Neither salvation nor damnation is dependent upon our differences. Our salvation is based on our relationship with Christ.

    Kacee

  • LRA

    “Within Christianity there are very few essential doctrines that define what it means to be a Christian.”

    Actually, no. What it means to be a Christian was decided by men at the council of Nicaea:

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

    Now, if you are going to pick and choose what makes a “True Christian”, then you are committing a logical fallacy. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim both universalism and interpretation. Sorry.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    ” For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from youselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast. ”

    OK so if I am alive (because I reject Christianity and I was never saved even when I was a Christian) by the grace of god then how to you explain all of the murderers, trouble makers and evil doers walking around the public.

    Do you mean all people have been saved by grace of god, if your answer is yes then wouldn’t that also mean that people who murder Christian’s are saved by gods grace as well.

    I am specifically talking about a case where a Christian lady was driving home on Sunday from church with her two children in the car with her and was shot and killed by a stray bullet with her children in the back seat. Was gods grace responsible for the murderer who shot that christian lady to death being alive the day he pulled the trigger. This is a true story by the way,it happened in dc on Sunday after the morning church session.

  • claidheamh mor

    @kacee

    Yet more blather!

    And still not a shred of evidence or supporting reason!

    Don’t you get it? When you quote your mythology, it only convinces people who already believe that particular mythology and agree with its premises.

    If you want to do some convincing, you have have a good, sound line of reasoning. It’s better if it’s backed by some evidence, but you don’t have any.

    Good reasoning without evidence is worth listening to , but you don’t even have that.

  • modivarch

    maybe we should apply your stereotyping to every other category. like if 3 black men commit a crime then all black people must be criminals.

    good job throwing out a bigoted generalization.

  • modivarch

    Oh, I would also like to ask what “history book” you are reading. Hitler was not a religious fanatic he was a bigoted egoist. Nietzsche greatly influenced Mein Kempf and the rest of Hitler’s worldview.

  • Mike

    See my reply above to Elemenope regarding my use of history and philosophy.
    If you want to assume that such events recorded by the bible occurred then you need to atleast take into consideration their explanations. When a group of people were to be wiped out it was because of how horribly corrupt they had become. We find in history that the cultures of this time were engaged in atrocities that we, today, cannot even imagine. Depictions of bronze idols whose outstretched hands would be heated until they glowed and then infants would be set on them to be sacrificed. I can only imagine that if God has a parental outlook on mankind that such actions would enrage Him. I know that if I saw this kind of thing occurring habitually I would kill everyone responsible as well. But this is not something that can be settled competently in such a limited format. If you actually care about this topic, I would recommend looking into competent and brilliant scholars and philosophers that have tackled these difficult issues for generations.

  • Mogg

    “…can they say, if a person does not go well, that the people who where praying for him had not true faith?”

    Yes. Or they can say that it was God’s will to allow them to die despite our wishes, and because the Lord uses every situation for his own ends, you’d better find something worthwhile in the fact your husband/wife/parent/child just died.

    Maybe I’m just too cynical, but there’s always a way to induce guilt and shame if you look for it.

  • Mogg

    Oh yes, I should add that there are a large number of Christians who believe that mental illness of any kind is not real, but only a manifestation of sin or possibly possession. I knew someone who ended up in hospital for months after his nutty relatives convinced him that his quite severe mental illness required faith, not medication.

  • LRA

    I’m a bigot? Pot meet kettle.

    According to christians, the billions and billions of non christians are morally inferior people deserving no less that eternal torture.

    And I’m not stereotyping. I’m arguing from EVIDENCE– something that many christians know nothing about.

  • modivarch

    There you go generalizing again… What Christians are these exactly? Hardcore fundamentalists?

    And you are FAR from arguing from evidence because the only evidence you are accepting is the evidence that supports your beliefs–or “anti-beliefs.”

    Here is an article that is, for the most part, unbiased and covers some of the legitimate different sources.

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian

    Aside from that let me give you a tip that my philosophy professor gave. If you want to argue with someone allow them to have their best argument. Don’t take the least of their position (or a mutant version of it) and try to argue against it. It’s poor intellectually and philosophically. Furthermore, even if Hitler was a “Christian” in name he was obviously not one in his actions. Hitler served himself and himself only. Simply because Hitler said he was a Christian does not mean that he is. If we go by that logic I guess I’ll just start calling Russian, although I’ve never been there, but I guess I am, because I call myself that. Seriously, we can be a little more intelligent than that. (Just a little, it doesn’t require that much.) The simple point is that Hitler was presented as “religious” only to the point that it served his own egotistical purposes and hunger for power. That should be, and often is, clear to everyone.

  • modivarch

    Also, I didn’t mean to imply that you are a bigot. I’m sorry that it came across like that. I do think , however, that you have greatly “over stereo-typed” Christians in your argument. Yet, not that ,as a person, are a bigot.

  • LRA

    Well, you’ve made a mistake here. I didn’t call Hitler a christian, I called him a religious fanatic. And he was.

    So there you go.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    ” Furthermore, even if Hitler was a “Christian” in name he was obviously not one in his actions. Hitler served himself and himself only. Simply because Hitler said he was a Christian does not mean that he is.”

    Ok – serious question – for those of us who aren’t Christian, how are we suppose to be able to identify Chirtians from Non-christians if we can’t rely on how they identify themselves? Is there a list of attribute somewhere that we should look for? Is there an official list of Christians we can get a copy of?

  • modivarch

    “According to christians, the billions and billions of non christians are morally inferior people deserving no less that eternal torture.”

    you wrote that… yes you did stereotype Christians.

    Bill–I understand your point. Wouldn’t it be great if we could just everyone at their word? Yet, we both know that doing that just isn’t possible in our world. However, if you really care then discover for yourself what the truth is about different worldviews. It’s either a choice between doing that and not understanding. Which is fine, but no excuse for making broad comments such as comparing Hitler to other Christians. (Not that I’m implying anyone has done that.)

  • modivarch

    “I didn’t call Hitler a christian, I called him a religious fanatic.”

    Never said you did… see below

  • modivarch

    …but no excuse for making broad comments such as comparing Hitler to other Christians. (Not that I’m implying anyone has done that.)

    Actually… yes I am. LRA has clearly done it.

  • LRA

    (“According to christians, the billions and billions of non christians are morally inferior people deserving no less that eternal torture.”

    you wrote that… yes you did stereotype Christians.)

    Hello? I’m summing up the scriptures. It’s not stereotyping to point out what you ACTUALLY believe.

    Duh.

  • LRA

    (…but no excuse for making broad comments such as comparing Hitler to other Christians. (Not that I’m implying anyone has done that.)

    Actually… yes I am. LRA has clearly done it.)

    You seriously have no sense of history do you?

    I mean, it’s sad really. You have no ability to read a passage and glean its meaning. Hitler was a religious fanatic. How many times do I have to tell you that he meandered from Christianity into occult Aryanism.

    Duh. And again I say duh.

  • LRA

    (“Through project Muse (at my university’s library) I found this review (which I’ll pull a quote from):”

    I’m not exactly sure what your trying to prove with this article. It’s a review and that’s all it is.)

    Well, you accused me of not having actual sources from actual historians. I just gave you a basic summary of several actual sources from actual historians. Or do you not get that?

  • LRA

    In fact, it was in direct response to this comment:

    “LOL, wow look at those academic references. Infidels.org and nobeliefs.com?????? Are you serious? I said what HISTORY BOOK. You know the type that legitimate HISTORIANS write? Not some biased website.”

  • LRA

    I would like to add that I referred modvarch to websites affiliated with Princeton, Rutgers, and also to a review of a book published through Cambridge University Press.

    (S)He referred me to “straight dope dot com” (mind you after ridiculing me for not having scholarly articles).

  • LRA
  • modivarch

    LOL, wow look at those academic references. Infidels.org and nobeliefs.com?????? Are you serious? I said what HISTORY BOOK. You know the type that legitimate HISTORIANS write? Not some biased website.

    If Hitler was a legitimate Christian then why was Dietrich Bonhoeffer constantly writing against him and thrown in prison?

  • modivarch

    Oh Btw,

    Did you even read the wiki article??

    Thanks for proving my point…

    My favorite quote was the last one in the religious beliefs section:

    Hitler once stated, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.”

    Just curious do you want to argue any further? It’s pretty much pointless now isn’t it when you start citing stuff that proves my point?

  • LRA

    Again, as what point did I call Hitler a Christian? I DIDN’T. I said he was a religious fanatic.

    Further, I can’t exactly post scholarly articles on this blog as I can only get them in pdf form. As I said–

    If those weren’t scholarly enough for ya- I’d dig some more up:

    Through project Muse (at my university’s library) I found this review (which I’ll pull a quote from):

    “Two notable recent works turn this picture upside down.They focus on the
    motivations and tactics not of church luminaries but of the Nazis themselves,
    who usually (but not always) remained in the driver’s seat in this relationship.
    Arguing that many Nazis sincerely believed themselves to be good Christians,
    Richard Steigmann-Gall elucidates the religious beliefs of the leading Nazis,
    including Hitler,Himmler,Goebbels, and Bormann.Though he covers this same
    terrain,Wolfgang Dierker analyzes in great detail the religious politics and religious
    beliefs of one particular branch of the Nazi state, the SD, the
    Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführers SS.The SD was an offshoot of the SS created
    to gather intelligence on ideological enemies of National Socialism. Only
    recently have historians researched its activities.2
    These two books have certain superficial features in common.Both appeared
    with first-rate publishing houses at roughly the same time.Wolfgang Dierker’s
    book, Himmlers Glaubenskrieger: Der Sicherheitsdienst der SS und seine
    Religionspolitik, 1933–1941, arrived in 2002 as part of the so-called Blaue
    Reihe, or blue series, an extremely well-regarded series produced by the Roman
    Catholic historical association, Die Kommission für Zeitgeschichte. Richard
    Steigmann-Gall’s book, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity,
    1919–1945,was published in 2003 by Cambridge University Press. Both works
    were the outgrowths of dissertations by promising younger scholars who had
    carried out their research in the 1990’s.”

    Do you want me to continue to waste my time looking up stuff for you, or will you do it for yourself?

  • LRA

    BTW, Having “fanatical faith” = religious fanatic. Duh.

  • LRA

    Just for good measure:

    “Hitler’s vegetarianism also appears to be a reflection of his relationship to the gnostic far-right – like Wagner, many of the old Viennese right had promoted this radical aspect of life reform, as did several of the German obscurantists who had been drawn to National Socialism.78 Mysticists in the 1920s certainly counted Hitler as one of their number.7″

    “Hitler and Germanentum” Bernard Mees Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 39, No. 2, Understanding Nazi Germany (Apr., 2004), pp. 255-270

    “His [Hitler's] primitive racial nationalism created an ambiguous confused simplification of all problems. It could replace as well as apparently accept traditional religion-sometimes posing as the new successful world outlook of the twentieth century or claiming to be a revival of anti-liberal and anti-communistic Christianity”

    “Hitler: The Simplifier of German Nationalism” Waldemar Gurian The Review of Politics, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Jul., 1945), pp. 316-324

  • LRA

    Yet another scholarly source:

    http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8820.html

  • LRA

    “Just curious do you want to argue any further? It’s pretty much pointless now isn’t it when you start citing stuff that proves my point?”

    I don’t think you understand what glorifying Germany meant. It meant linking Germany back to glorious societies like the Greeks and the Indian Aryans, just as Mussolini’s regime linked Italy back to the golden age of Rome. Hitler was obsessed with finding religious/cultural artifacts from antiquity to show the glory of the German people. Hitler WAS religious, whether or not you’d classify him as a True Christian(TM) (which I’m not arguing here).

    Another source:

    http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/faq/hitler.html

  • modivarch

    “Again, as what point did I call Hitler a Christian? I DIDN’T. I said he was a religious fanatic.”

    Yet all those articles your sending me are implying or directly saying that he is–so why are you dodging this? And even further to point I never argued that you did. Also Christianity is the religion that people would probably claim him to be now isn’t it? So if you say he was a religious fanatic and some argue he was a Christian seems like a pretty easy case of induction. Now that I look at it your stereotyping even more by grouping Christians in with Hitler the “religious fanatic” in your first post. The words may not have been said, and I never argued that they had, but the point has clearly been made.

    “Through project Muse (at my university’s library) I found this review (which I’ll pull a quote from):”

    I’m not exactly sure what your trying to prove with this article. It’s a review and that’s all it is.

    “BTW, Having “fanatical faith” = religious fanatic. Duh.”

    faith is not always religious faith. I can have fanatical faith about entirely un-religious things. For example I may have fanatical faith that my wife will make me breakfast this morning.

    And seriously? Your resorting to “Duh?” and when your wrong?… I’m getting bored.

    “His [Hitler's] primitive racial nationalism created an ambiguous confused simplification of all problems. It could replace as well as apparently accept traditional religion-sometimes posing as the new successful world outlook of the twentieth century or claiming to be a revival of anti-liberal and anti-communistic Christianity”

    LRA… your not even clearly reading your own quotes… what do you intend to prove with this? There is nothing solid here. Look at all the subjective implications–”it could” “posing” “claiming”. This author is no where trying to make definite statements. She/he even says it’s ambiguous!

    “Hitler WAS religious, whether or not you’d classify him as a True Christian(TM) (which I’m not arguing here).”

    Then don’t group in Hitler arguments with anti-Christian garbage especially when the person initiating (Mike) never even brought up the topic. You claim to not have made that connection even though the connection was clear and apparent. (Especially the part about God being the ultimate Hitler??) So now you’ve back-tracked and attempted to cover loose ends. Great.

    Having said that I’m done because one of us has to stop this useless conversation.

  • LRA

    Modivarch-

    You lack the critical thinking skills necessary to read what I have written and understand it. I’m sorry to be blunt, but I’ve offered you multiple sources of information from which all you can gather is that I’m being “anti-christian” Really?

    Had you actually read, then you’d see that Hitler DID start off as a christian, and as his life progressed, his views became more and more occultist (focusing on aryanism). Again I say duh.

    Why don’t you sit down and read some scholarly material (like the stuff I posted) before shooting off your ignorant mouth?

    M’kay?

  • LRA

    “There is nothing solid here. Look at all the subjective implications–”it could” “posing” “claiming”. This author is no where trying to make definite statements. She/he even says it’s ambiguous!”

    Finally, I would like to add that ALL scholarly papers in the humanities write from a “conversational” stance so that they may avoid logical positivism. The fact that you don’t know this shows that you aren’t familiar with much scholarly writing, are you?

  • LRA

    And just to be absolutely clear (since you don’t seem capable of holding extended arguments inside your head).

    I’m arguing against this point:

    “After the death of Nietzsche more people were killed by atheistic, totalitarian, regimes (operating under Darwinian, Nietzschean, Marxist, and Malthusian philosophies) than were killed by all of the combined religious wars from the 19 centuries before.”

    My disagreement resides in the fact that the bulk of the atrocities in the history of the world have been committed in the name of religion (including Hitler’s atrocities) and that, if one chooses to believe Genesis, the ultimate atrocity (ie the genocide of the entire human race saving Noah’s family) was committed by god himself.

    And again, I say duh.

  • LRA

    In fact, it was in direct response to this comment:

    “LOL, wow look at those academic references. Infidels.org and nobeliefs.com?????? Are you serious? I said what HISTORY BOOK. You know the type that legitimate HISTORIANS write? Not some biased website.”

  • Miguel

    Oh.. sorry.

  • LRA

    That video is soooo chock full of fallacies that I don’t know where to begin!

    Let me just say this. The doctor prayed over the man and then they shocked him again. Which action brought the man back to life? Well, given the empirical evidence for the use of electrical shock on the heart as a medically sound course of action to the point that it’s standard across hospitals in the United States (and probably the world), I’d say it was the electrical shock and not the prayer.

  • LRA

    Further, the man wasn’t brain dead yet. There has never been a case of “resurrection” after brain death.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    To make clear… Hitler wasn’t an atheist or a believer in evolution… he was raised Catholic and took on a perverted form of Christianity. Stalin was, admittedly an atheist, but again, atheism says what you lack belief in. Are the actions of an atheist also associated with his lack in belief in bigfoot, fairies, and orange cows? I mean, I’ll assume most Christians (and Stalin) lack belief in orange cows… is that a “lumping” factor? On the other hand, belief in a higher power is a lumping factor, as basic details are the same. Applying the “no true Scotsman” argument with atheists is like looking at a man wearing pants instead of a kilt and saying there’s no way he’s a Scotsman.

    You’re right, most rational people, Christian or not, would go to a shrink… but being devout in any religion gives you a veil to hide behind. The issue is, this is an extreme example of what religious belief does, and yet you don’t see that saying “you’re going to be tortured forever for not believing in the same sky man as me” is on same par for people who don’t share the same belief.

  • jayglo

    What people aren’t understanding is that it isn’t just the Bible that we follow blindly. We follow the Church, which was set up by God.

    How could something like the Church last for over 2000 years if it has no stable basis? If it is all myth?

    If someone starts a Harry Potter religion for Muggles, saying that there are wizards out there and that they can help us, how long do you think that will last?

    The Church will last FOREVER. It is protected by God himself and no matter what anyone does, it will always thrive. Always.

    And back to my post earlier about God “changing”. I didn’t word that correctly. Adam said it better. With Jesus, mercy and forgiveness was possible and magnified to the extreme. Therefore, God’s fury was put out. He is still an unchanging God.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    “What people aren’t understanding is that it isn’t just the Bible that we follow blindly. We follow the Church, which was set up by God.”

    Besides the claim that you follow anything blindly, which I don’t think is what you meant… God didn’t setup the church… man did… Jesus didn’t even create Christianity… he taught lessons… And God most definitely didn’t set up the Bible, even if it is his word… Look up the Council of Nicaea to see how the Bible came together. You can say they were influenced by God to make those decisions, but God did not create the Church (which didn’t exist for at least 100 years after the death of Christ) and he did not set up the Bible (which didn’t come together till at least 300 years after the death of christ).

    By the way, Hinduism has survived for over 2600 years, Jainism has existed for over 2600 years, Buddhism for 2400, and I’m just getting started. Stuff lasting over the years means nothing as to its validity.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “What people aren’t understanding is that it isn’t just the Bible that we follow blindly. We follow the Church, which was set up by God.”

    You admit to following the church blindly?! Which church? Because in Chritianity there are hundreds of sects each claiming to to have the truth. How do we know which one has it right?

    “How could something like the Church last for over 2000 years if it has no stable basis? If it is all myth?”

    So the argument here is that the “church,” and it’s belief system are not myths because they have existed for a long time?

    Conratulations! Turns out you also believe Hinduism, Budhism, Isalm and probably 10,000 other religions are not myths!

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    Because they aren’y children before birth.

  • Roger

    Oh, get of your moral high horse and don’t derail the conversation with your anti-abortion horsecrap.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Because until a certain point, a fetus is not self-viable by any means, even artificially by our current technology. And its a case of defining life… how come we’re not upset by killing animals? We’ve deemed them less. In the same way, until the third trimester, a fetus is considered less, non human, not deserving of the same rights.

  • bdemong

    If something has no nervous system, it can’t suffer. Should right and wrong be measured in something other than suffering? If so, what?

    First-trimester embryos are a cluster of cells. It is very rare to find someone who supports late-term abortions.

    Potential? Did you know that roughly 50% of conceived embryos are spontaneously (naturally) aborted?

  • jayglo

    A better way to word it would be:

    We don’t follow the Bible blindly We have the Church, which was set up by God, to help guide us.

    So, we aren’t just a faith that “follows an old book”. We are guided by the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    What chance are you referring to? At 8 weeks, a fetus is not viable. It is a mass of growing, developing cells. The brain is not yet functioning at a conscious level. I ask again, do you eat meat? Do you have a problem killing animals who are alive, conscious, feel pain? And yet a fetus, until the last trimester, is none of those. How can we know it if it suffers or not? Its called biology, neurology, developmental biology, neonatal medicine.

    You say, how can anyone see life and claim it developed by chance? It didn’t! We can prove nucleic acids form by chance… it happens in labs… we can also show nucleic acids can “reproduce” or copy itself in the right environments. But I don’t begin to guess how life started. Few scientists do, as we don’t really have any evidence or proof of it. What we can say is over billions of years, life has survived and mastered the art of survival, getting to the point where humans develop as they do. And by the way, the human body, if its so perfect, is filled with so many biological flaws, that if we weren’t as intelligent as we are, we’d be the next species to die out. I claim the development of a fetus is a testament to biology, and frankly, I think claiming it as a miracle demeans the biologic accomplishment.

  • jayglo

    Very well stated. I completely agree.
    Plus, if there is no real definition by pro-choice people when life starts, then why stop at any certain point? People like Obama agree to LET THE BABY BE BORN and then LEAVE THEM IN A BACK ROOM TO LET THEM DIE! That is one of the sickest things imaginable.
    And why cut it off there?
    Why not say that anyone without language skills has no soul, because they cannot express their feelings. etc etc.

  • jayglo

    I agree with Peter, that is. (I didn’t see NEA’s post before I posted this)

  • Sara

    I bet you also believe that he’s not an American citizen, eh? I’d like to see you citing (and actually reading) some reputable sources for, oh, anything you’ve said lately.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Who agrees to let a baby be born then die? I have never heard a stance like that, and its just sickening.

    And again, why assume that language is the only means of communication? Again, to me, this comes down to viability. First and second trimester fetus’ are not viable outside of the womb. That’s the line I draw.

  • Elemenope

    How on Earth did Obama get dragged into this?

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Nice strawman.

    You won’t find many (I’d say any, but in a world where a carpenter’s kid with some funny ideas becomes a deity anything is possible) people who’d “agree to LET THE BABY BE BORN and then LEAVE THEM IN A BACK ROOM TO LET THEM DIE! ” [Your shrieky all-caps].

    Find me the passage where Obama did this. Give me a citation from something like a reliable source. Produce it now, cite it or retract, damn you!

    It’s nothing less that libel and a good Christian like yourself should be ashamed for bringing that lie to this thread.

  • jayglo

    The difference between humans and animals is quite clear. Humans have a full language system, not supported by the help of any other species. Animals were made to be human’s food. (Or pets, etc.)

    Clearly, we have much more going for us than animals. Clearly God has a plan for the human race, who was made in his image and likeness.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    See? This is the problem… you’re so closed minded that your decisions are already made. This isn’t a debate, its talking without listening.

    Animals have highly complex communication systems. Maybe not languages, but language isn’t the only means of conversation. Who says animals were made to be food? In fact, the Bible claims at first everything was vegetarian, then humans started eating meat after the fall. So nothing was made to be food, humans just decided that’s the case. But that’s your view, in contrast to the half to three quarter billion vegetarians on the planet.

    Clearly, if God is your starting point, reasoning has no value.

  • bdemong

    “The difference between humans and animals is quite clear.”

    That is not so. The difference between mammals and non-mammals is quite clear: the neocortex area of the brain. Mammals are all extraordinarily similar. You are measuring intelligence only by the expression of primate standards of intelligence.

    Dolphins are potentially “smarter” than humans, but not in terms we are as yet able to understand. For instance, it’s possible that the dolphin “word” (clicks and chirps) for, say, a shark, is actually the echo-location “image” / signature of a shark. Pretty cool.

    Humans are primates. Humans are animals. Very little is unique about our species, other than that we’ve developed a written language, which is a big deal: lots of things are only possible when information can be stored outside the body. Other animals are way smarter than you think.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    Jayglo,

    If humans are not animals, why do we have such intense desires? Why do we express many of the identical behaviors of animals (besides us that is)?

    Why do we share so much DNA with chimps and other animals?

    You said that you acknowledged evolution. Right?

  • LRA

    “This woman did not make certain that this is God.”

    And how, pray tell, does someone make “certain” that ANYTHING is god?

    Do you even know what certainty means?

  • Sara

    Well said. Animal language is a fascinating subject — apes and monkeys with sign language, dolphins, the incredibly complex hyena social structure built around their creepy calls….it’s all so cool.

  • bdemong

    Fun fact: did you know that biologists don’t consider cro-magnon man to be an ancestor of homo sapiens? That is, cousin, but not grandpa. Chances are there were lots of man-like primates around millions of years ago, and australopithecus or homo erectus or some other ancestor of homo sapiens murdered (or out-survived) all the other more intelligent primates, and we are left with homo sapiens and the “less intelligent” primates, today.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Because everything is complicated. A woman gets pregnant because of rape, or has a medical condition that means having a child would be life threatening, and if she can’t get an abortion, she dies.

    I think the idea that all abortions should be made illegal is absolutely stupid. The idea that there are “simple answers” is stupid. To me, its a lack of looking at the entire situation.

    I don’t think abortions should be freely given out, because of lack of condom use, or because someone had second thoughts. But I don’t think you can just say, well, all abortions are wrong, so ban them all.

  • LRA

    Peter-

    Sorry, but you’ve not made a convincing argument to me. I am female and I am pro-choice. I also completed my master’s degree in the lab of a Nobel prize winning neuroscientist. I’ve taken classes in developmental neurobiology, and I can tell you that the early term fetus does not have consciousness. You don’t get to tell me what to do with my body based on your uninformed opinion of consciousness:

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

  • Roger

    What the frak does Peter’s missive have to do with a woman starving her baby boy to death?

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    What do you remember of your eighth week in the womb?

    Just asking.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “To me, a human life, ANY human life is a most wonderful gift. To kill it because it happens to be inconvenient is wrong. It seems simple to me… I guess maybe I’m a simple person. I’m content to be one, though.”

    Great – since you are convinced that every cluster of cells constitutes life, I assume you have adopted hundreds if not thousands of crack babies who are unwated by parents who are unable to take care of them

    Also – being “simple” isn’t something to be proud of.

    “If it makes you feel better to believe that an abortion hurts no one, and that the world doesn’t lose out because a person dies, you’re entitled to your belief.”

    Excellent, I assume that also means you think she is entitled to her choices and that you don’t get to interfere with them.

    “You say you are pro-choice. It seems to me that most women who “choose” abortion do so because they feel backed into a corner, or that they don’t have any other choice. That is not really a choice at all, is it?”

    Do you really believe this? There is no choice between a life of caring for a child you are not equipped to care for and not having that obligation? There’s no difference there in your mind?

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “To me, a human life, ANY human life is a most wonderful gift. To kill it because it happens to be inconvenient is wrong. It seems simple to me… I guess maybe I’m a simple person. I’m content to be one, though.”

    Great – since you are convinced that every cluster of cells constitutes life, I assume you have adopted hundreds if not thousands of crack babies who are unwated by parents who are unable to take care of them

    Also – being “simple” isn’t something to be proud of.

    “If it makes you feel better to believe that an abortion hurts no one, and that the world doesn’t lose out because a person dies, you’re entitled to your belief.”

    Excellent, I assume that also means you think she is entitled to her choices and that you don’t get to interfere with them.

    “You say you are pro-choice. It seems to me that most women who “choose” abortion do so because they feel backed into a corner, or that they don’t have any other choice. That is not really a choice at all, is it?”

    Do you really believe this? There is no choice between a life of caring for a child you are not equipped to care for and not having that obligation? There’s no difference there in your mind?

  • LRA

    Silly Peter, if you’re going to quote mine, then you should put the WHOLE quote in:

    “Despite the lack of any agreed upon theory of consciousness, there is a widespread, if less than universal, consensus that an adequate account of mind requires a clear understanding of it and its place in nature.”

    Here are sections of the article:

    4. The descriptive question: What are the features of consciousness?
    4.1 First-person and third-person data
    4.2 Qualitative character
    4.3 Phenomenal structure
    4.4 Subjectivity
    4.5 Self-perspectival organization
    4.6 Unity
    4.7 Intentionality and transparency
    4.8 Dynamic flow

    Can you honestly tell me that a fetus has ANY of these behavioral features?

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    My saying simple answers is stupid is what you pick out of everything I said? Ok, fine, lets go into minuscule detail. Answers can vary in range from complicated to simple. Answers are almost never a simple dichotomy, and to break them down into terms of simple is stupid. Should we continue on for another paragraph while I describe why I think its stupid, so that its not so simple?

    You make this clear distinction between human and animal life… I’m pretty sure you would have no objection to animal abortions (yes, a silly argument, but that’s what we’ve come to it seems).

    To make social life simple, we draw a lot of lines where they don’t exist, such as personal space, personal rights, heck, property. We draw them because having gray areas makes social management hell. My personal right to say what I want ends when I make a threat against someone… even if I never act on that threat. It is a line we as society decided was appropriate. In the same way, who knows when a fetus actually gains consciousness? I certainly don’t think a fetus that has a 0% chance of survival outside the womb is life yet. By your reasoning, the day after pill should be banned, not to mention we need to start doing research to stop still births. These are human lives that are dying by your definition. But you’ll just say, still births are a natural death… while you use modern medicine to push your livespan far beyond what it would be without it.

    Like it or not, everything we do is part of nature… we are part of nature, we are just animals… We just happen to be the smartest animals on the planet (debatable). If you’re opposed to “artificial” means of ending life, do you also oppose the death penalty for mass murders, the cutting down of forests for toothpicks, the hunting of game for sport? You’ve drawn your own line for what constitutes “special life”, in that you’ve granted it to humans and no others… while I, and many others have drawn our lines elsewhere, in a myriad of places. The only difference is if you could prove to me a child is conscious by any usable definition in earth formation, I would switch sides immediately. LRA has provided a great article to define consciousness, but you ignored it with quote mining, which to me, indicates you wouldn’t be open to evidence opposed to your own.

  • Sock

    Abortion used as birth control? I really think you’re stretching it.

    It’s maybe used as BACKUP birth control, but I really doubt there are that many people with enough money that they can afford to get an abortion every time they get laid. It’d be much smarter and far more cost effective to use any other method of birth control. From the pill to condoms to everything in between and beyond. All of those options are much cheaper and far more prevalent forms of birth control.

    Abortions are for emergencies. Which is how they’re used by the vast majority of people who do get an abortion.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    “LRA, I’m sure that you know much more about the clinical nature of consciousness than I. And, I don’t presume to tell you what to do with your body. Furthermore, I don’t really expect to convince you. Believe what you will. I’m just stating my own ideas. ”

    But you’re stating them as fact, and they’re wrong. You’ve been told.

    What was that line from your holy book about motes and beams?

    You don’t support reproductive technologies, then? As the process that culminates in a couple’s child also generates many unwanted embryos, which become lab waste.

    Do you dislike your god’s habit of ending roughly every tenth or so human pregnancy with a spontaneous abortion?

    Implicit in your arguments is the assumption that women go running out for an abortion on the least pretext, without consideration or forethought.

    Abortion is legal, regrettably necessary, and fortunately quite rare, relatively speaking. Because it’s not like people do it for fun. And it’s insulting when you appear to suggest, as you have, that pro-choice people, some of them god-fearing, haven’t considered the issue.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    Sorry for the double post – not sure how it happened.

  • LRA

    So what I’m saying is that there are quite a few theories of consciousness– all of them involve OBSERVING said consciousness. Can’t do that with a fetus because it doesn’t display consciousness. If you read the features of consciousness then maybe you’ll understand my stance better.

  • LRA

    Another interesting link on social justice and the family, including a talk on abortion:

    If I seem defensive about abortion, then this quote from the article explains it:

    “Historically, men have exercised enormous power over women’s bodies through controlling their sexuality and reproduction.”

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-family/#3.1

  • bdemong

    No, that’s not it. Flying planes into buildings because you’ll be rewarded with hot and cold running virgins in the afterlife, starving your children, and eating a cracker on Sunday believing it’s the body of Christ are all based on an equal amount of evidence: none.

    Moderate religion creates the context in which extremist religion can never be adequately opposed.

  • bdemong

    *starving your children to death because they’ll be resurrected no problem

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    I also just noticed you dropped the consciousness argument, saying its irrelevant, when really its completely relevant. I don’t think its murder in the first or second trimester, nor in certain cases in the third trimester, because I don’t think the mass of cells (in the first and second) is yet alive, and consciousness is one of the means by which I make that definition. If you don’t think consciousness is required for life, how do you define it?

  • bdemong

    Here’s a fun tidbit to lose friends and offend people: embryos and fetuses perfectly fit the definition of “parasite”.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    That is the funniest yet true things I’ve read on this thread yet :-p

  • DeusNonEst

    Quickest way to tick an anti-choicer off in a debate, without being wrong.

  • Mogg

    I was always taught that offspring don’t count as parasites, because they are of benefit in that they potentially propagate your genes, whereas a parasite has no benefit to the host.

  • bdemong

    Really? Wow. That is kind of amazing. Who taught you that? In what context is propagating your genes “beneficial” other than natural/sexual selection?

  • Mogg

    High school biology class, I think in the final year of high school. I’d be interested in seeing an interpretation of biology that doesn’t consider producing viable offspring as possibly the most important “goal”, although I obviously realise that there is no goal as such.

  • http://p Mark bey

    ” I think the idea that all abortions should be made illegal is absolutely stupid. The idea that there are “simple answers” is stupid. To me, its a lack of looking at the entire situation. ”

    You are correct my friend. This is why the, reason whatever, whatever why I hate religion. Because they box people into this ridicilous corners.

    As for these intellectually and morally bankrupt right wing anti choice idiot nutcases, they should be forced to live in high poverty areas that are full of people who just casually have babies, who dont have fathers around and who are chronically under educated. Im talking communities where 50 percent of the high school students dont graduate.

    If these right wing nut cases were really that concerned with the santictity of life they would be doing so much more to prevent people who are just not ready from having babies.

    Its starts with sex education specifically use of condoms amongst kids who are sexually active.

  • DeusNonEst

    Not to mention there are very few people who would regularly go through the PROCESS of abortion itself. Surgery aside, even the abortion pill (the actual abortion pill, not the plan B pill people seem to get all foamy at the mouth about) involves a couple of days of cramps and bleeding. Who goes through that in lieu of more practical birth control?

    The “abortion as birth control” argument is a total strawman.

  • LRA

    Wait… so you’re arguing that we shouldn’t kill plants? Well, good luck with that while you starve to death.

  • Elemenope

    Capital letters are awesome.

  • Elemenope

    I think he is, clumsily and without capital letters, making the point that lack of consciousness is insufficient warrant for the pro-choice ethical position. And I think he’s right about that.

  • LRA

    The story is not made up:

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/31/cult.child.death/index.html

    And we’re not disrespecting people’s beliefs, we’re questioning them. Given the American tendency (by the religious right) to try to force their religion on everyone, I think we are well within our rights to question.

    No one here is trying to become the next Hitler, that’s absurd.

  • LRA

    Well my take on the consciousness issue is that it is a teleological argument. Just because something has the potential to become something (like conscious) doesn’t necessitate that it should. I also think the guy was trying to argue from sentience, but he screwed it up and said conscience. If that was the case, the sentience can’t be established without basic consciousness, if only to process the pain.

  • LRA

    Sorry but your original comment was so short I had a hard time parsing it. I think we are in agreement here on this matter!

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    piedpiper, I think you make a good point, that I think even most pro-choice people agree (that birth control trumps abortion)… but no offense, you came in late after we dealt with a lot of people who argued with strawman and “No True Scotsman” arguments, so some of us are a bit on edge about how people approach it, not to mention your comments come off as snide and belittling, to which point I also thought you were arguing against abortions.

    So good point, but I mean this as constructive criticism, poor execution.

  • LRA

    ??????????

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Humor is fine, trolling is not :-)

  • DarkMatter

    “This woman did not make certain that this is God. She followed the cult leader’s words, not God’s.
    She didn’t keep his laws.”

    And

    “A better way to word it would be:

    We don’t follow the Bible blindly We have the Church, which was set up by God, to help guide us.

    So, we aren’t just a faith that “follows an old book”. We are guided by the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit.”

    The argument is self defeating apart from the argument of “church” by No Easy Answers and Bill.

  • LRA

    Peter-

    I referred you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. No, I did not write it!

    (although it would be totally amazing to write something for it someday!!!!)

    Your unwillingness to read the “multi-page” document shows your unwillingness to educate yourself. I mean, god forbid you have to read a few pages at a time, in one sitting!!!

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    The idea of “don’t start to try” is again, naive.

    Years ago, people didn’t know what caused diseases, if everyone said “lets not bother to find out, demons are doing it”, where would we be now?

    Years ago, when we didn’t know about the shape of the earth, if everyone said “lets not bother to find out, the earth is flat and there are monsters at the edge”, where would we be now?

    You have to challenge and study and research to advance science. “Don’t try to decide”, just put your faith in a higher power, is so archaic, its been the leading detriment to scientific advancement for hundreds of years.

    There are a variety of foods and fruits that if plucked early, are dangerous enough that they could make a person very sick or die. We make the line, because we can’t know exactly when each one ripens, but we know approximately when they do, so we take a guess, normally later to be safe, and hope nothing goes wrong. But 1%, .5% of the time, it does. The same thing applies here. You can’t make rules for every individual. As much as it sucks, I was in a bunch of classes in high school and college where me and a few others were just bored from how slow the classes moved, but as a society, the rare few have to bow to the rules of the whole. Imagine trying to make a rule for every single instance of every single person’s actions. You’re saying that since we can’t make rules for each individual, make it so that no one can choose, this way there is no argument. And fine, even if we were to side on the err of caution, that’s what we do now. If a person is late into the second trimester, any ethical doctor will consider if its the right choice or not. They don’t just hand out abortions to anyone who asks. Sure, unethical people will, but they will regardless of the law. Again, I’m willing to move the line a week or two, because in a week, a lot happens. But I think moving the line to the very beginning because the line needs to be moved is like saying, I’ll split this evenly with you, 90/10.

    Erring on the side of caution? Do you drive? Do you fly in planes? Do you ever eat meat raw or close to raw? These are all risks, at various levels, and require that you not err to enjoy, and in a lot of cases, to live. You want to err on caution here, but not in many cases, where the action available information is much higher.

    I’m sorry to hear you know someone who died from it… its unfortunate that ALL medicine carries risk. Taking aspirin can kill you, taking pain killers can kill you. You have my sincerest condolences… but as a society, again, we accept a few deaths, as much as it sucks. It doesn’t make the deaths any less meaningful, but we don’t stop the world when one person dies, and as much as that thought might suck, its true.

    But regardless of all that, now I have to ask. You say you feel obligated to tell her you think she’s wrong. That’s fine, and while I’m not versed in Mexican law, in the US, that’s your right. And while you might not believe this, we are open to listening to you, even if we don’t accept it. But people who think like you aren’t just out to tell people they’re wrong… they want laws, and rules, and obligations saying they’re wrong. I am entitled to my morals, just as you are. But your rights shouldn’t trump my morals, unless my morals interfere with your morals. I’m sure you’ll agree with me on this. Yet that’s exactly what you’re proposing. I see nothing morally wrong with an abortion. I don’t think it should be something that can be done any time, any where, but I don’t think its morally wrong. If people with your mindset make all abortions illegal, then what’s happened is suddenly, my morals are wrong, even though I NEVER interfered with your rights. This would be like me moving to make eating meat illegal, making violence illegal. Vegetarianism and non-violence are part of my moral standard, but I don’t see why I should force you to follow them… I can explain why I think they’re the right way, but as long as you don’t force me to eat meat, we have no issue. You have no empirical evidence to support your side… you have morals and ethics, and those are no less valuable. But you don’t make laws based on one groups morals and ethics, you make them off the morals and ethics of the whole. And where there is no clear strong majority, you have to fall back on empirical evidence, or you’ve got nothing more then a cultural dictatorship.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    “I’m sorry that I didn’t take time to read LRA’s entire multi-page document. I’m sure it’s full of great science. But I still say it enforces my point.”

    What?

    Shorter Peter (much shorter):
    “Here’s a paper I was pointed to by my opponent in this debate. I’ve never read but in fact it agrees with me completely …”

    Who taught you how to argue? Liberty U? The Discovery Institute?

  • jayglo

    You didn’t even read my full replies.
    Stop taking them out of context and putting them together in one post.

    Go back and read what else I said and it will make sense.

  • jayglo

    It says his faith and mercy and his word are unchanging.
    They are.

    That doesn’t mean that he can’t have times where he is more gentle in his ways on mankind, etc. His nature is the same, his love is the same, he is the same. Unchanging in that way.

    And why would I claim to be more consistent or make more sense than God?

    Don’t think that humans can even begin to understand God. He’s God.

  • jayglo

    And I never said, “God changed.”
    I said his attitude changed. He “kind of” changed. But his faith, mercy, love, and word, etc. remained unchanged.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    “And why would I claim to be more consistent or make more sense than God?”

    Good thing you don’t. You aren’t.

    Understand a nonexistent god? I can barely understand you.

    You claim god is always and unchanging, except when he’s not.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Um… an attitude change is a change… either God is consistent or he’s not. A “kind of” change is a change… a 1% change, a .1% change, a .01% change is a change. But the God of the OT and NT are BIG changes.

  • jayglo

    Read what I said above again, please.
    Parts of him can can change without HIM changing.

    If you get angry at me because of a post and yell, that doesn’t make who you are different. You aren’t a different person.

    You have an attitude change.

    You don’t have different views or opinions on the subject. You just have an attitude change.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    You’re not seeing my point… any change is a change. Sure, an attitude change is a relatively small change, but you’re interpreting the Bible there to satisfy your viewpoint. I know Christians who hold a different view point from you on the same point.

    If I’m calm for a while, then yell… my attitude has changed, my actions have changed. How is this not a change? I might not have changed, but how do you know? You said yourself, God is above knowing by humans, so how in the world do you know he didn’t change? Because the Bible says it? Then lets go into how the Bible is wrong, and contradictory, and so forth. You’re basing the idea off of a narrow definition, ignoring the actual statement being made.

  • piedpiper909

    God hasn’t changed unless he himself has announced it. If he seems changed now, its only because his followers “changed” him to their conveniences. God’s way is pretty basic common sense. You cannot change common sense, you just manipulate it.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    But God himself never announced anything… the Bible did… so you either have to assume the Bible is actually the word of God, or believe in a moral God.

    God’s way is pretty basic common sense?

    OT God seem to almost have sadistically enjoyed killing women and children. Even if he didn’t enjoy it, he endorsed it… That’s not common sense.

    NT God had no objection to slavery… That’s not common sense.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    I repeat your self-contradictory claim here, in full:

    And I never said, “God changed.”
    I said his attitude changed. He “kind of” changed. But his faith, mercy, love, and word, etc. remained unchanged.

    So he changed, but he didn’t.

    “He ‘kind of’ changed” is appropriate on this thread, inasmuch as it sounds just like “a little bit pregnant.”

  • LRA

    ps- Peter, in addition to section 4, why don’t you go ahead and read section 9:

    9. Specific theories of consciousness
    9.1 Higher-order theories
    9.2 Representational theories
    9.3 Cognitive theories
    9.4 Neural theories
    9.5 Quantum theories
    9.6 Nonphysical theories

    Pay attention to 9.3 and 9.4, as this is what a medical doctor/neuroscientist would look at (as opposed to a philosopher of mind).

  • piedpiper909

    Oh and slavery isn’t over. It’s called minimum wage entry level jobs. But you know, culture and society changes. So the difference between now and then, we don’t have to wear loin cloths or shackles. But we do wear clothes that label us as slaves.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    No, while I agree minimum wage workers are abused, its not slavery. You can always choose to quit a minimum wage job. It might have terrible reprecussions, and you might never do it, but you have that option. A slave could never choose to stop being slaves.

    And I wasn’t claiming you believed in a literal Bible… you never made the claim, so the claim wasn’t attributed to you. But I did misinterpret what you meant by announces.

    The difference I see between God’s command to kill women and children and abortion is simple: we can hold ourselves accountable for our actions if within a few years we decide abortion is wrong, or if we ever do. We can say we were wrong to do it then, and x is the better way. You can’t hold an idea/concept accountable. The followers will never say God did wrong, and those who don’t believe can’t hold an imaginary creature accountable. And you’re right, killing in different ways doesn’t make you better. But one being, God, decreed the death of millions through the years (if we assume that God is real, and that kings in particular are appointed by God), while in abortions, a single woman is responsible for a single or maybe two deaths. If someone is having more then 2 abortions, something’s wrong, and either that person needs to see a psychiatrist, or some legal intervention needs to take place. Again, you think its killing, I don’t think early term abortions is killing any more then eating an egg is killing. An egg has as much potential for life, but by artificial means, we’re keeping it from developing and growing into an actual living being.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    I agree, almost 100%. I don’t see religion in general as a bad thing… I think there is a lot of good that comes out of religion. But I don’t believe in blind faith… believe without reasoning is just the same as what an insane person does, they just have different beliefs and get thrown in a padded cell.

    There may be a God… I don’t know, and I personally don’t believe anyone can know. But to believe a God exists because a book says so, or someone else says so, I think is the same blind faith that leads to so many problems today. And the problem is that once the idea that the God exists because of a book, its easy to believe you’re having a spiritual experience because of that God.

    I do have to say, you say we all know… being both Indian and the follower of a religion that doesn’t believe in a God, I can tell you, not everyone knows… plenty of people don’t look at it with ration and reason… and that’s what I think we have to fight.

  • piedpiper909

    HERE HERE! lol yeh it baffles me at times at how people argue about their beliefs so blindly. Not just religious beliefs mind you. My husband and I have debates about some things that I don’t even know why there’s any questioning of the obvious answers and reasons. But some people will defend their belief just because they cannot belieive they are wrong. Most of these cases we see around us is two groups goin at each other and it will never end because neither can come to the conclusion that they are wrong. We need more mediators and neutrals. Ration and reason for the blind :)

  • piedpiper909

    I have this idea, its kind of off topic, but the same anyways. I think it would be cool to have a place for the public to have debates. It would be neutrally owned and either side can have a chance at speaking their mind. Each day would either be a new topic or a continuation of a previous topic. I know it sounds exploitative, but I think it would be good for everyone. And it would be a controlled environment just in case it gets out of hand or, what I despise most about debates on television, one side tends to over ride or speaks over their opponent. Like ring a big bell if that happens or slam the mallet to have order lol. i think it would be fun. And have someone check for weapons upon entry. If you wish to speak, you can put your name on a list for the next event or request to take over your representative who you didn’t think defended your side good enough. Sounds like a blast? Filled with coffee and pastries?

  • LRA

    Are you serious? modivarch made no point whatsoever. He has no evidence for his claims, and in addition they are weakly supported philosophically.

    ps. the people here aren’t anti-chritsian, they are a- theist! That means rejecting more religions than just yours. Get over yourself. Despite what your bible god tells you, you aren’t the center of the universe!

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Heh, after readin your comment, I went back up to read his… and there is no scholarly argument that while Hitler was not a Christian, he was a religious fanatic. And he was strongly influenced by Catholicism, the religion he grew up in.

    But again, LRA said it best, this article is not anti-Christian… I would say its anti-blind-faith. But of course, it mentioned Christianity, so of course its a personal insult. If it was anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-Satanist, a lot (not all) Christians wouldn’t mind this article at all.

    I think all blind faith is wasted time. I think anyone with a lack of critical thinking is holding themselves back to feel safe. Theists love to claim that atheists aren’t open to “higher thinking” while ignoring that (I’d wager) half of atheists would be open to evidence of “higher thinking”… if theists would argue with open minds as well.

  • jayglo

    I like that idea! :)

  • LRA

    They have several organizations that do this. Here is one:

    http://www.philosopher.org/en/Socrates_Cafe.html

  • jayglo

    Well it’s a good thing that I made the point that we don’t have blind faith then.
    The Bible gives us guidelines, teachings, etc. The Church guides our actions, keeps us from straying from God’s original plans. It is guided by the Holy Spirit. It WAS set up by God, when Jesus picked his apostles, appointed Peter as the first Pope, and told him the Church would be guided by God. That same unbroken line is still alive today.

    We obviously use our own judgements to decide whether or not to follow God. I said before, we do not blindly follow the Bible. We are GUIDED by the Bible and the Church.

    And for all of those arguments about God’s killings in the Old Testament, for all of you, what is wrong about killing, from your standpoint? What do you base your morals off of?
    (Obviously I do think killing is wrong, so don’t think I’m insane or anything.) :)

  • jayglo

    I’m honestly surprised you haven’t heard of it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html

    There’s one of many articles. It’s partial-birth abortion.
    That shows that you need to draw the line at the beginning (conception) rather than taking these types of risks.
    It’s getting even more ridiculous.

  • jayglo
  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Killing any other human being is wrong, at any level. Even though I support the death penalty for certain things, I still think its morally wrong. I just think we all have to decide how much “wrong” we can live with. I base my morals off what is best for society and myself. Killing other people is bad for society. I don’t steal from others because I don’t want them stealing from me. I treat people fairly because I want them to treat me fairly. And I think that’s where the Bible got its morals from too. The only difference is morals are meant to be updated… the Bible never was.

    You might not believe in blind faith, but I think most theists do. When confronted about their beliefs, they back into fallacies and lack of critical thinking. And here’s the perfect example:

    Other then the Bible, what evidence is there that Jesus existed? That Peter was the first pope? When the Bible advocates slavery and stoning people, do you see that as morally correct, for any time period? You might argue, it was fine back then, but is it fine now? What about contradictions in the Bible? And if humans are fallible (which I don’t think you’d argue), are you telling me every single priest and nun are touched by God and so cannot and will not advocate their own thoughts? And if you’ll say they aren’t, how do you know which is which?

    I have no objection to a figurative Bible… I think some of the stuff in there teaches great lessons… I also think it teaches some horrible atrocities, and I think it teaches people not to think for themselves. I think it teaches people to blame something else when something goes wrong, and robs them of their credit when something goes right. It gives people an excuse to do horrible things, and it gives people reason to oppress others.

    I think some people need faith, and unlike other atheists, I don’t mind faith. But, and no offense, I think you are following on blind faith. You comments above are things I’ve seen before and said before… and they’re lacking in critical evidence. I don’t think you, or people who follow the church are stupid, I don’t think you’re incapable, I think you’ve fallen into the same trap we all do. Someone gives you hope, someone gives you something you think you need, and you’re willing to follow them to the end of the world, literally. For you its religion, for me, when I was younger, it was a girl. For some of us its political leaders, its society. You might see some clear difference, but just speaking from a psychological point of view, its not.

    And as crazy as I and other atheists think religions are, most of us would have no problem with them, if they didn’t advocate policies and politics that others might disagree with. Opposing abortion, or advocating war, because God said so, isn’t fair to those of us who don’t believe in God. You can go ahead and believe in him, but this isn’t the first century anymore. There are plenty of people with different, and many with opposing beliefs. You have no more evidence for you God, then Muslims do for theirs, Hindus do for theirs, heck, my own religion, Jainism, does for anyone before our last thirthunkar. You have belief, and while that’s great, that’s not evidence. If you’re gonna say, you need to open your heart, believe… I have… I’ve tried. I’m currently in a situation most people can’t imagine, where I know plenty of people who’ve just given up. I’ve prayed for something, a sign, a little help. And thing’s are gettin worse. So either God hates me, or God doesn’t exist. And no, that’s not the only reason I don’t believe… its just an opposition to this idea that “open your heart and it’ll happen”.

  • jayglo

    “The only difference is morals are meant to be updated… the Bible never was.”

    True, to some extent. That is, like I said before, why we have the Church to help guide our morals. It keeps us “updated”.

    “And if humans are fallible (which I don’t think you’d argue), are you telling me every single priest and nun are touched by God and so cannot and will not advocate their own thoughts?”

    You make some good points. It is true that any person, priest or lay person, is fallable. So I totally agree that humans can induce their own ideas into their teachings. In fact, I myself have had to make a decision based on my own thoughts and that of the Church’s combined to come to a result. I was in a group with a priest. He was the spiritual advisor for the group. After several years with this priest who became my good friend, he began inflicting his own thoughts and beliefs that contradicted that of the Church’s. I gave up my friendship with this priest and didn’t follow blind faith. I quit the group and now the priest who was once a good friend of mine won’t even reply to my emails.
    So I totally agree: blind faith can lead people down the wrong path. Christians should not blindly follow. I also agree that there are Christians who do, and that is not something that should be happening.

    “I think it teaches people to blame something else when something goes wrong, and robs them of their credit when something goes right. It gives people an excuse to do horrible things, and it gives people reason to oppress others.”

    Like where? What does it tell us to blame when something goes wrong?

    “I think you’ve fallen into the same trap we all do. Someone gives you hope, someone gives you something you think you need, and you’re willing to follow them to the end of the world, literally. For you its religion, for me, when I was younger, it was a girl. For some of us its political leaders, its society. You might see some clear difference, but just speaking from a psychological point of view, its not.”

    I agree that people have their things that they would follow to the end of the world. Political leaders is a great example. Of course for me, I think religion is worth it. I believe that if I do God’s will, I will be happy – and I am. And I respect if you think otherwise. I can’t make anyone believe what I do. I wouldn’t even want to. If someone wants to, I strongly believe that their life would change. If they completely with their whole hearts believe in God, I honestly believe that they would be very happy. But, I don’t think they should blindly do it, because then their hearts are not in it.
    My example above shows how I do not blindly believe, too. (The example with the spiritual advisor)

    “I’ve prayed for something, a sign, a little help. And thing’s are gettin worse. So either God hates me, or God doesn’t exist.”

    God does not hate anyone. All I can do is ask that you please do not give up, because God will not give up on you. I will certainly pray for you, and although that may sound “cute” to you or not very helpful, I fully believe that it can help. Many times, God saves people who have hit rock bottom. Many of the strongest Christians today are ones who have had no hope left. But please don’t give up. I know you said you opposed that viewpoint, but maybe that’s the problem. Maybe you aren’t completely asking God for help. Maybe it’s half-hearted. I don’t know, but God Bless you nonetheless. :)

  • jayglo

    And you said that we can’t prove that God exists. Although we think we can (by just looking around at creation), there is also no way to prove God does NOT exist.
    So this will be an argument that will never end, will never be proven.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    “Like where? What does it tell us to blame when something goes wrong?”

    When something goes wrong, people are quick to blame the devil, or demons. When something goes right, its by God’s grace. It might not be written, but its what people believe. When something goes wrong, its important to find out what, even if its personal error, so it doesn’t happen again. When something goes right, personal credit is important, its helpful and ego boosting.

    You sound brilliantly logical, and while I think you still haven’t taken it all the way, I can at least respect you for thinking for yourself, and accepting religion that way. But you have to accept, most people of faith aren’t that way.

    And while you can’t disprove God, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see the claims of God no different then the claims of Bigfoot, and at least we’ve seen its “tracks” and photos and fur (all fake, I know). You say creation, I say evolution, biologic, physics, etc. We can prove those. We can show clear evidence, we can do experiments. You can’t prove God. But someone else said, why not err on the side of caution. So I ask, why trust in something that might not exist, when you can live a full life without it? If God is so great and wants people to help each other, and be moral, etc, why go to Church every week? Why not go out and volunteer, and speak a prayer while you help others?

    I’ve never understood, God is so caring and forgiving, but the one unforgivable sin is not believing in him. I’d like to think I’ve been a good, helpful person, yet I’m sentenced to hell by believers because I choose not to believe.

  • jayglo

    “When something goes wrong, its important to find out what, even if its personal error, so it doesn’t happen again. When something goes right, personal credit is important, its helpful and ego boosting.”

    I totally agree. Personally, I don’t blame things on the devil or God immediately. Some things are obviously humanly done.

    “You sound brilliantly logical, and while I think you still haven’t taken it all the way, I can at least respect you for thinking for yourself, and accepting religion that way. But you have to accept, most people of faith aren’t that way.”

    Thank you for your respect. I do agree that many people of faith do not think for themselves, but however I think that most do. At least I hope so.
    You sound very logical as well, and I respect your views too. It is completely natural to be questioning things like this, and actually a good thing. Questioning can strengthen people’s views. I enjoy reading things with opposite views as mine, so that I can question my views and so that I can strengthen my views.

    “I’d like to think I’ve been a good, helpful person, yet I’m sentenced to hell by believers because I choose not to believe.”

    If believers think that, they should not. Who are we to choose the outcome of people’s lives? That is only up to God. I would not say that you are going to Hell for not believing at all. That’s not for me to decide. If anyone tells you such things, don’t listen to them. :)

  • Yeshuwa

    thats an excellent questions that deserve answers. I don’t know if I can give you that answer, though I’ll try my best. First of anything is a very broad implication, so I will try and define that as “Why does anyone believe any belief can be new and good and come into the world” It is my opinion that ideas resonate throughout time space dimensions, etc. Capitalism is just the tribal system without shackles, communism is just homogenous tribal people working together. I don’t think ideas about belief can be new once they originate. So then why do these ideas survive? Well many, not all but it seems to be an evident trait in mankind, to be self serving. I think there is a type of person out there that feels the need to make other people as good as possible even if its at the expense of something, e.g. communism and economic free will.. These kind of people have very good/humanitarian intentions. So the ones that the majority of tyhe population think either a. make sense, b. suit their logic filter well enough or both then the idea will be entrenched into the community by tradition and another type of people (selfserving people who want to get the most out of life even if its at the expense of something) will try and manipulate the idea to serve them better, or refute this idea. If the general population (or those with power) think the refuter or manipulators idea sounds better (even if its not better in reality or more logical) then this idea will be adopted and become a tradition as well. When the two traditions conflict then you get a mess like the crusades or the futile era in japan. So to answer your first question (atleast I hope it does) is people want things to be a certian way to suit their wants and needs so that a joy can be in them. These ideas are immediately looked aat by other humans and they say wow thats great or wow that sucks and thus their opinion forms in a positive or negative way. In a sense every idea is good and/or bad because more than one person will think so. These ideas can be ultimately good if they help the society realise a truth about civillization or man or even things that are otherworldly like the heavens or life after life. Not all ideas help society in the long run, but a truth is certianly made clear through history good ideas can’t work unless fighting over it is quite (e.g. buhhdism didn’t help china until the chiniese stopped arguing about what the doctrine was meant for, once they stopped arguing china reached a very prosperous era.)

  • Yeshuwa

    Ok thank you for the advice. Hey Darkmatter you brought up a quote from one of my posts but didn’t say anything. Did you want to say something about it or were you just pulling it out for an example of a place to space a paragraph?

  • jayglo

    For some things, you need to just trust. For some teachings that is the case. There is a difference between trust and blind faith. If I trusted every little word literally and did everything it said, that would be blind faith.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    But trust has to have a basis. What basis is there, besides the Bible? Its circular.

  • jayglo

    Right. And for us it is the Bible, the Church, and tradition.
    So it isn’t blind faith because we need to make the decision whether or not we believe in the Bible. It is a decision we need to make, and the results we need to experience.
    So my trust lies in God.

  • jayglo

    True.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Really? And do you have the address of this spirit? Or are you going to point me to a load of literature written by people who were “inspired” to write that this spirit exists?

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    * … I’ve never read IT … *

  • jayglo

    I posted some links above.

  • jayglo

    What do you remember from the first few years of your life?
    If nothing, does that mean you weren’t alive?
    No.

    Memory has nothing to do with being alive.

  • jayglo

    @Metro I’ve repeatedly stated my points, but apparently you can’t keep up, so if I explain it again to you, it won’t help very much.

    So if you can’t understand these arguments, then maybe find a more basic thread to talk on. Because everything has to be understandable and seeable,etc. for you, then talk about something like how fast cheetahs can run. That is a little more basic.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Sorry for the double post, but I seem to have fumbled my last reply. Perhaps Daniel could delete the duplicate above?

    @ Jayglo: I repeat your claim here, in full:

    And I never said, “God changed.”
    I said his attitude changed. He “kind of” changed. But his faith, mercy, love, and word, etc. remained unchanged.

    So he changed, but he didn’t.

    “He ‘kind of’ changed” is appropriate on this thread, inasmuch as it sounds just like “a little bit pregnant.”

  • Mogg

    Ahh. So NOT exposure of a full-term, healthy infant born normally, which is what I though you meant.

    I suspect that this kind of partial-birth procedure is rare even where there are no restrictions (it is restricted where I am), and only done when there is something very wrong. Nobody goes for an abortion, particularly a late-term abortion, for fun. I would also be very suspicious that it is not being done correctly and someone is cutting corners if live births are as common as what the lady in the video said she witnessed.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    And what’s your point? It doesn’t say anywhere in the WaPo piece (which is an opinion column, editorial rather than straight reportage) that Obama would (May I quote your shrieky all-caps again?) “agree to LET THE BABY BE BORN and then LEAVE THEM IN A BACK ROOM TO LET THEM DIE! ”

    Do you really believe this is what happens during an abortion? You need to read up a bit.

    Gerson merely said Obama opposed banning partial-birth abortion. Which is not at all the same thing as (May I quote your shrieky all-caps again?) agreeing to “LET THE BABY BE BORN and then LEAVE THEM IN A BACK ROOM TO LET THEM DIE! ”

    Partial-birth abortion is a particularly unpleasant and gruesome type of abortion, and it is extremely rare, accounting for a miniscule proportion, perhaps a dozen, of the 12 million or so alleged abortions that take place in the US yearly.

  • jayglo

    I was using the partial-birth abortion as an example to show that it is too risky to try and define where life starts other than at conception.
    And I would say that partial-birth abortion is screech-worthy. ;)

  • Mogg

    It is your choice to do so. Others have the right to choose otherwise. Life is too complicated for me to be able to definitively say that everyone should choose as I would, or as I would like them to.

    Incidentally, there is at least some biblical support for the attitude that a foetus before birth is not granted human status. Exodus 21:22-23, New International Version: “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [footnote: alternative translation "she has a miscarriage"] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life…” Loss of the pregnancy is treated more as property damage than anything else in this case, and is certainly not as important as injury to the woman.

    I’m not sure how Christians can take a metaphor from Psalms, which is a book of poetry, and stretch it to mean that humans are sacred from conception, and ignore the clear, practical example elsewhere in their scripture.

  • Mogg

    Partial birth abortions are not the norm, and a long way from conception. I don’t think that the fact that partial birth abortions occur (and, yes, are horrible) is justification for saying that conception is the only place you can draw the line.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Not to mention, how is critiquing a religion a naive action? If all Christians held exactly to the Bible, ie being great Christians, while I’d respect them more, I’d dislike them more.

  • jayglo

    True, it is going overboard whenever someone says that someone has the devil in them because of anything bad that happens.

    But I think that trust in God in tough times is a good thing rather than a scapegoat. True, if they don’t do anything about a tough situation themselves and leave everything up to God, then that isn’t good.
    But putting hope in God is a relief. It brings peace.
    It is a positive thing, not a negative thing at all.

  • piedpiper909

    i can understand that. Just like people putting their trust in fate or calling a situation karma. Everyone wants peace amongst eachother. In the end I can only hope that people will just live and let live. I dont think it will ever happen. Its human nature to wage war against eachother and to challenge. Someone has to be the alpha but who will it be? I dont feel the need yet to pick a side. I would rather watch from afar and see how this plays out. I will jump in when Im ready to fight.

  • claidheamh mor

    @piedpiper909 Someone has to be the alpha but who will it be?

    You’re brainwashed.
    And you don’t even fight it or challenge it; you just accept your brainwashing as the way things are. (The nature of brainwashing, I guess. But you could summon up a few brain cells and try.)

    Why do you ASSume that “someone has to be the alpha”? You put down human “nature” and buy its ASSumptions all at the same time.

    What’s with your belief that there have to be leaders and followers, a pecking order, rank, position, power and authority, people ruling other people?

    You deplore what you call human nature, then turn around and ASSume that what is happening now – which you claim to deplore – is the way it just has to be.

    Whatever your problem is – lack of imagination of a better way for people to exist, or is it that you fancy yourself and are the superior one fitted to rule other people?

    @piedpiper909
    HERE HERE! lol yeh it baffles me at times at how people argue about their beliefs so blindly.

    Hear, hear! It baffles me that you simultaneously see problems with human behavior that you accept as “human nature”, and so unquestioningly swallow some of our social problems – “Someone has to be the alpha” – as the way it just *has* to be.

  • piedpiper909

    please kid, you dont even know. Brainwashed? Perhaps you havent noticed how hands off I am to picking sides. And also Im not even going to try to explain human nature to you. Its been taught through science and religion that since the beginning of time, there is an alpha. Dont even try to overlook the obvious. You cannot expect a society to thrive without someone being the leader. There are too many groups and types of people who cannot handle without someone telling them what to do. Name a time when there were no leaders and ranks and it fell through successfully! If it did, I wouldnt be here trying to make sense of your comment about me. I would be out doin whatever I want right? If it was successful, why are we not living it?

  • piedpiper909

    Sounds to me you are brainwashed into believing a silly pipe dream.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    piedpiper, I think this was a point of intercommunication, as religious folk normally refer to alpha meaning the start, the beginning. I believe by alpha, you meant leader? If so, I think it was a point of difference in terms. But still, science doesn’t say everything needs an alpha… but in general, yes, psychology accepts the idea of leaders.

  • LRA

    Mark-

    You should hear Rush Limbaugh’s latest bitchfest about his (upper, upper middle class) taxes going up. Oh, waaaah! I guess he can’t afford his New York City condominium now (in addition to his Florida home). Waaah! He thinks Obama’s a socialist (despite his middle-road politics). Waah! He preaches religious right conservative “values” except the mandates of Jesus that require that you actually love thy neighbor by helping the poor, the widowed, and the orphaned.

    *hippocrites*

  • LRA

    “It seems insult to nature to consider that human beings perhaps are the only species to purposely set out to kill their own offspring.”

    Wow. You don’t know much about nature, do you?

    “I can say that to people living in simpler (yes, simpler) cultures your ideas are ludicrous or worse. ”

    Except when a baby is deformed. Then they leave it somewhere to die.

    “No matter how deep the poverty, there is always room for one more.”

    Which is an UNBELIEVABLY cruel position to have. Wow. I can’t feed my self, so hey, why not bring a child in this world so that it can STARVE!!!! I recoil in horror at this.

    Your anti-family planning stance is one of the MAJOR factors involved in the huge problems that impoverished people suffer. Think about it.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    “It seems insult to nature to consider that human beings perhaps are the only species to purposely set out to kill their own offspring.”

    Many rodents, hunting dogs, lions, baboons, and a few birds, all kill their own young. Sometimes because they’re hungry, sometimes because the dominant male doesn’t want young males rising up to take their place. So… uh… no.

    I don’t think fetus’s are parasites… but the definition fits.

    I’ve also lived with “simpler” people, Indians (Indians are from India, I believe we refer to those from the Americas as Native Americans now, or indigenous people), and they consider your notion horrific. When they can barely afford to keep themselves alive, they would despise bringing a new life into the fold. So people don’t act as if you have some unique perspective, and more so, clearly judging those of us who oppose you to have some sort of evil, vile view point. I’m sorry you regret having gotten an abortion… but guess what… life is full of regret, as you well know… you made a decision and you have to live with it… others have made that decision and thought it was for the best. This notion that no matter how deep the poverty, you should have another life? You said I was naive? We’re rapidly reaching a critical point where we have too many people on this planet, and the mere idea of bringing in one more regardless of the situation makes me wonder if some of your stories are true. Have you seen a starving child? Not only is it the saddest thing in the world, and yes, I mean of anything, anywhere, it’ll also make you want to hurl.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    You’re right: But memory does have to do with consciousness. And I disagree with Peter on his main point. An eight-week-old foetus has no consciousness, so far as we know.

    In fact, I completely agree with his statement: “Don’t deliberately kill human life if you have ANY other choice.”

    The problem is that I don’t believe that the morning-after pill’s effect is to kill a baby. It merely does something that nature, or God, if you prefer, does all the time.

    Safe, legal, and rare is my preferred option. Actually, my preferred option would be safe, legal, and never used because everyone 1) had full-on, no-brakes sex ed and 2) used the information they got there properly.

    However, until 1) and 2) obtain, SLR it has to be. Any other option is inhumane.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    So you’ve decided to believe in the Bible because the God of the Bible says it’s true?

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    It isn’t blind faith. It’s trust, tradition, and a reading of scripture with absolute confidence that all of them are absolutely true, right from the start of the endeavour.

    So you see, it’s not really blind faith at all.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    Let’s see if I can address this without introducing a false tartan, shall we?

    1) This woman claimed to be a Christian, and apparently met the minimum standards for Christianity–Namely a belief in Jesus as the living son of her god.

    2) This woman killed her kid.

    A Christian killed her kid.

    You’re right that one should not conflate the actions of one crazy person with those of her brethren in faith, but you cannot deny that had this woman not held Christian beliefs, her son would be alive. Had she not believed in resurrection, her son would be alive.

    On another point, “anyone who tells a woman to kill her son is not God”.

    Really? God has a history of telling His supporters to kill their kids: Abraham was instructed to cut his son’s throat. Leviticus tells parents to kill their kids for all sorts of silly transgressions.

    And that God killed his own kid in order to be able to forgive humanity, his “children”, whom he would, on his own account, apparently have to kill unless said Jesus died an agonizing death.

    –But that, of course, is a mainstream belief–Not a cultish one of any sort.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    onecae,

    No one is denying that Christianity is not any good. That is a straw man.

    My position, is that it is a human social construct, and not a divine manifestation. Consequently, the religion contains some good things and some bad things — what you would expect from a human creation.

    Also, it would be easier to avoid attacking the “wrong” conception of “god” if there weren’t so many of them. Christianity is hardly consistent in its definitions.

    You speak of attacking false ideas — I hope you are avoiding what you seek to avert.

  • Mogg

    Onecae, your statement would only be valid if it were possible to show that love and tolerance were unique to Christianity. Love and tolerance are possibly bedrock ideas of some forms of Christianity, but they are not exclusively Christian by any means. It is perfectly possible for someone to hold love and tolerance as ideals without ever having heard of Christianity. It is therefore perfectly legitimate for someone who holds ideals of love and tolerance to be horrified at the examples of hate and intolerance ascribed to the Christian God and his followers, expressed in the Christian scriptures and history of the Christian establishment.

    I’m not sure what you are trying to say with your”self is a creative power” thought experiment. Would you like to clarify a bit?

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    onecae,

    Whoa, I do not agree with that.

    Since when do atheists say that “there is no greater power than the political state”? That is a complete straw man — an absurd misrepresentation you’ve convienently knocked down because it’s nowhere close to anything anyone’s actually said or believed.

    Your definitions are flawed.

    “You have the power to make up or accept a better paradigm, all on your own, even if the world is against you.”

    What in the world does that even mean? It sounds like gibberish. Could you please elaborate?

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Muslims don’t say you’re a slave to God. Way to attack someone without even knowing their stance. Bravo for showing the egotism atheists accuse men of faith of having.

    Atheists say there is no higher being. Everything is of a human construct.

    “You have the power to make up or accept a better paradigm, all on your own, even if the world is against you.”

    This isn’t a Christian belief, in general. At least not a Biblical belief. The Bible says God makes things better or worse, while saying God doesn’t interfere. That is a human belief, a optimists belief, and one that even atheists believe in.

    There are plenty of good Christian beliefs, but as far as I’m concerned, you don’t need religion to have those beliefs. This question commonly arises: what does religion give you, in a positive manner, that secularism can’t? The Bible is so inconstant, that you have to make up reasons for why it is, or ignore the differences, then accuse people who don’t think the same way of either not being true Christians or not thinking openly. If all Christians could agree on what Christianity is, the we can give you a clear argument. Until then, we have to argue a hundred different things simultaneously, then be brought down because that’s not one particular person’s belief.

    “Certainly, a Christian idea is that self is a creative power; you believe that don’t you?”

    No… Christianity says God is the creative power. That it starts and ends with God. I don’t believe that at all.

  • DarkMatter

    onecae is saying he has the power to make up anything by his creative words like Moses on Genesis.

  • Nick

    I’m not a big fan of Christianity myself but you can’t just discount all the good things it has done in recent years. Most of the major churches have undergone big reforms to try and fit in with modern society. Numerous philanthropic organizations have religious affiliations. CRS is doing some good work out there in world. The YMCA comes from Young Men’s Christian Association. If anything the majority of Christians are becoming very liberal apologetics. These so-called “pit bull extremists” are most likely the result of poor upbringings that allowed them to be brainwashed into wackos. The best solution would be to launch a massive education reform throughout these areas, however, odds are neither you nor I would be willing to foot the bill.

  • jayglo

    Hate and intolerance? Since when is that what we teach?
    We teach love and forgiveness.

    A disease? Give some examples. Why are we a disease? Why are we so extreme? Why is Christianity as a whole a bad thing for the world?

    Nick made some good points below.

    So based on this woman, you’re saying we’re all crazy and immoral and evil? If I were to do the same for atheists, I could say that they are all angry, rude, slobs based on your attitude… But I don’t do that.

    I THINK before I go blaming an entire group of people. I don’t say atheists are a “disease” even though I disagree with their teachings.

    No offense, but you are the one who sounds like a disease.
    What “moral high ground” do you have that is benefitting the world so much?

    Every group has their extremists: atheists as well. No group can control all of their extremists. So to say we are all corrupt because we have extremists is ridiculous and illogical at best.

  • LRA

    My experience of impoverished people is limited to South America and Mexico. There, the catholic church urges them to not use birth control. As a result, people bring children into this world that they can not afford. Then the children suffer terribly because of their parent’s economic conditions. Children may starve or be abandoned. This happened to my cousin. My uncle was a missionary to Bolivia. He found her in a ditch covered with flies. She had been abandoned by her parents.

    Now, I’m glad my cousin is here (although I abhor missionary work as it is set on destroying other people’s cultures). But the fact is that people shouldn’t bring children into the world that they cannot afford.

    I’m sure in Chad, there is still a agrarian mindset about having children… the more children, the more workers. But there is also (as you point out) terrible medical conditions there and many mothers and children die unnecessarily.

    I’m all for promoting birth control (ie condoms, etc.) over abortion. I also don’t believe abortions should be forced (as they do in China). But neither do I advocate for irresponsible parenting. If you’re going to have a kid, make sure you have the resources to raise that child.

  • Nick

    I kind of thought the whole many kids thing came from the lack of social security and mechanized labour. When you are old if you have, say, 7 kids then they are able to take care of you much better than just 2 kids. Also, the arithmetic might be off, but with more hands you’d be able to produce more food than the additional child would consume. It seems the logical solution would be to make loans to these people so they can afford more efficient technology and slowly work their way out of poverty. Coupled with decent education it seems like it would work quite well. After all, cottage industries did give rise to our opulent industrial civilizations of today.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    While you ignored everything I said, a lotta problems are solved from sofa seats… Many scientific discoveries and technological improvements that have saved millions of lives and improved millions more were made from sofa seats. Now, I’m not sayin this is the right way, but hey, trying to prove a point. Yes, in general people think they know the world by watching some TV.

    You are, however, flaws on one point in that last post:
    “An adult can produce many times what he consumes.”

    Any adult who has the OPPORTUNITY can produce many times what they consume. Plenty of people who do not get the opportunity, because of income, circumstance, etc, end up taking away more from society then they provide. Lets try this again: the world is steadily becoming over populated without enough opportunity for most of them, because the rich few control a majority.

    “Barring cases of famine caused by drought or crop failure, more people can produce more food. ”

    If this is such a simple truth, why is such a large portion of the world starving?

    “As I’ve already stated here, the only person I know who tried a (non surgical) abortion in Chad, died.”

    As I said before, all medical procedures have risks. Abortions are, for the most part, relatively safe, in comparison to things like heart surgery, brain surgery, etc. So again, I’m sorry to hear about the loss, but all medicine has risks, so unless you wanna start advocating we stop all medicine, its a straw man.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Nick, you’re right that religion can do a lot of good… but the good doesn’t negate the bad. And everything you’ve said doesn’t require religion. You don’t need religion to be a good person. Or to do good things. And sure, you don’t need religion to do bad… but having religion gives people an excuse for bad actions.

    I disagree that the majority are liberal apologists. In fact, I would say that as religion becomes more threatened, they’re tightening their grasps.

    I always find this sad and amusing… one of my best friends in college, who always applauded me for doing volunteer work, studying hard, being a good person, also mentioned more then a few times that I was going to hell. So even if they are becoming apologists, that’s no better. Saying someone deserves eternal punishment for something they don’t believe in, for something that has no proof, for something that’s wishy-washy, is as immoral as saying someone deserves to go to jail for life because their dad gave them stolen money. Although at least jail for life has a release… eternal torture doesn’t.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    The Bible has plenty of examples of hate and intolerance, and again… the idea that someone should be tortured for what they don’t believe in, is hate and intolerance.

    Can you make generalizations about everyone who doesn’t believe in fairies? Can you make generalizations about everyone who doesn’t believe in aliens? If not, how can you make generalizations about someone who doesn’t believe in a God? Saying what someone doesn’t believe in doesn’t often give you an indication of that personality, persona, etc, unless you make it personal. On the other hand, what someone does believe in can give you indications about them. Not always right of course, but something.

    And again, atheists and theists alike speak out against extremists. But theists don’t see the issues with the moderate beliefs… and that’s what atheists have a problem with.

  • DarkMatter

    Your sympathy for the dead child because of your loving nature against the mother is understandable.

    The verdict of the mother by the court points to her being deceived of her person by her church in her naiveness of her belief is fair, I thought.

    Believing in physical christian’s resurrection is not trival to humanity. Her faith in her church’s claim of resurrection of her dead baby is not unreasonable although extreme.

    Christians’ belief of the resurrection of the dead in or using Jesus’ name is not unreasonable in christianity, therefore a reminder of what is sanity is not altogether uncalled for.

  • oodunkin

    disease – any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society.

    the condition of christianity today is in a morbid condition at best. you infect our laws with your ridiculous ideology. the gay marriage ban being one example. you have branches that hold signs up at military funerals saying “god hates fags”. yes, the davidians are an extremist group, but they read from the same book every other christian does.

    and a couple things with your argument: there is no atheist teaching. we just choose rationality over this imaginary word called faith. that is it.

    i never said i had any moral high ground, nor am i part of a belief system that claims to have higher morals. my morals are based off of common sense, and knowing that killing and stealing are dick things, not just a “sin” punishable by hell or what have you.

    so again, i repeat. the core of your belief system is corrupt. just because you are part of a “good church” doesnt mean you arent part of the problem. an analogy for you: before the columbians started importing coke through miami, it was a shit town. cocaine brought money, jobs etc. so what we are talking about here is an ends justifying a means, and thats where we have our disagreements. be spiritual all you want, but organized religion is a dangerous thing.

    and on a personal note, fuck you. you dont say “no offense” before insulting someone, its redundant and it makes you sound stupid.

    “If I were to do the same for atheists, I could say that they are all angry, rude, slobs based on your attitude… But I don’t do that.” you just did fuck tard! and angry, rude and slobs? lol

  • jayglo

    “Can you make generalizations about everyone who doesn’t believe in fairies? Can you make generalizations about everyone who doesn’t believe in aliens? If not, how can you make generalizations about someone who doesn’t believe in a God?”

    I would say that you can. If I were ignorant and unfair, I could say that because you don’t believe in God you don’t have peace or morals. I could say that you are close-minded and afraid to admit to a higher power that you can’t see.

    Obviously I don’t think those things. I was just making a point.
    But you can generalize about people who don’t believe in things, also.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    “I would say that you can. If I were ignorant and unfair, I could say that because you don’t believe in God you don’t have peace or morals. I could say that you are close-minded and afraid to admit to a higher power that you can’t see.”

    You start with the assumption that you’re right. You start with the assumption that everyone else is wrong. Most atheists aren’t closed to evidence. Most atheists aren’t afraid to admit there might be a higher power… most atheists are agnostic, at least those I know. But we want some sort of proof, some evidence, or at least a less faulty basis.

    You say you can make those generalizations? So tell me something that is a generalization for everyone who doesn’t believe in fairies? Other then they don’t believe in fairies.

    And you’re right, if you said we don’t have peace or morals, you would be ignorant, because you have no basis for those beliefs. Its like the other person who said Muslims are slaves to their God. There’s no basis for that claim. If I say I’m an atheist, what does that tell you about my political beliefs? My moral beliefs? My religious beliefs? My sociological beliefs?

    Atheists are liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, male and female, old and young, Asian, African, European, American, Australian.

  • jayglo

    “You start with the assumption that you’re right.”

    Well if I assumed that I was wrong, my arguments would not be very strong, would they?

    Well not believing in fairies is just as hard as making generalizations for people who do believe in fairies. So that’s more of a matter of the subject rather than the group you are making generalizations about. (ie whether they believe or do not believe).

    Actually I have heard some muslims themselves say that their relationship with God is more like a master/slave relationship. But that’s another subject.

    “If I say I’m an atheist, what does that tell you about my political beliefs? My moral beliefs? My religious beliefs? My sociological beliefs?
    Atheists are liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, male and female, old and young, Asian, African, European, American, Australian.”

    True. And the same can be said about Christians, so really there’s not much of a difference when it comes to making those types of assumptions/stereotypes. There is great diversity in both groups.

  • bdemong

    Woah, woah, woah… there are more options than assuming you are right and assuming you are wrong…

  • Niva Tuvia

    @bdemong
    If you’re ARGUING (or debating, whichever term you prefer), the whole point is to have a strong opinion for one viewpoint. So to argue, you must assume you are right. Unless you plan on losing. But for any other purpose, I can only see one having the “opinion” of being right, wrong, or having no idea.

    What other opinions are there to have on your standing?

  • bdemong

    “the whole point is to have a strong opinion for one viewpoint. So to argue, you must assume you are right”

    I am afraid that’s not true at all.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Yes, when you’re arguing, part of it is assuming you’re right, but you have to be open to the opposing viewpoint. If you’re not, then its not an argument, its a shouting match. The big difference:

    An atheist will consider the thought of a higher power, if the train of thought is going somewhere. When you start down the train of “If God doesn’t exist”, what can the theist use to prove the hole that God exists, without using a religious text or God?

    Religion is not logical… that’s why it requires faith. If there was evidence, it wouldn’t need faith. Argument and debates are about logical reasoning. You won’t convince an atheist by saying “Well, open your heart and it’ll come” or “the Bible says so”, because a lot of them have tried. And saying “believe in God or you’ll go to hell” is equally ineffective, because while I think what a lot of Christians believe is immoral, I don’t condemn them to even prison, let alone something for eternity. Half my debates with theists start with “Lets assume that this part of your statement is true…” When is a theist willing to start with “Ok, lets assume that God isn’t true…”?

  • LRA

    Well, that’s assuming that out of the 7 kids you have that they all survive. Also, are people in Africa living to old age now? Not really. They’re dying of AIDS.

    However, I whole-heartedly agree with you about education and building out of poverty!!! Here is a charity that I particularly like because of its socially responsible missive:

    http://www.care.org/

    Poverty is a very complicated issue that needs practical analysis by the people who want to help so that deleterious side-effects don’t happen (ie good intentions don’t make the problem worse).

  • bdemong

    “Extremists” are extreme in their actions, not their beliefs. The more moderate a sect is, the more concessions they have made to reality at the expense of dogma.

    Or: how come religion is “twisted to evil” so often?

  • Niva Tuvia

    Right on. I would give you a high five, but due to the circumstances…

  • Mike

    Hitler was very much dedicated to a framework that was constructed using Nietzsche’s ideas of a superman race; and Darwin’s theory of evolution facilitated the idea that one race of people can be higher evolved than another. Darwin said in a letter that the higher evolved Europeans would need to enforce natural selection by weeding out inferior species of man. Hitler used these ideas directly. Furthermore, Communist regimes functioned under the idea that no higher power existed to which the state could be held accountable and that there was no intrinsic value to life other than what which was arbitrarily ascribed to it. Under these concepts more than 56 million human beings were killed between 1900 and 2000 A.D. More significantly is that when the crusades and other horrible things were committed in the name of ‘religion’, they were done so in complete contradiction of the actual teachings of the bible. In fact the Vatican had banned public possession of bibles for hundreds of years. On the other hand, those that killed under an atheistic framework were often completely within the bounds of the logical out-workings of their beliefs.

  • LRA

    Can you please provide me with the citation for your claim that Darwin “said in a letter that the higher evolved Europeans would need to enforce natural selection by weeding out inferior species of man.”

    What letter are you talking about? (As far as I know, no such letter exists).

  • LRA

    “We find in history that the cultures of this time were engaged in atrocities that we, today, cannot even imagine. Depictions of bronze idols whose outstretched hands would be heated until they glowed and then infants would be set on them to be sacrificed.”

    Can you please give me the citation for this claim? Where does this information come from?

    “I would recommend looking into competent and brilliant scholars and philosophers that have tackled these difficult issues for generations.”

    Well, seeing as I have degrees in philosophy, English, and psychology, in addition to my graduate degree in molecular biology/neuroscience, I’d say that I HAVE looked to competent scholars and philosophers, none of whom make the silly claims that you are making.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Arguments against religion aren’t based on speculation. Many religions in various parts of the world are fighting each other: fact. Many religions oppose each other: fact. Many religions believe everyone should only follow their belief system: fact. Most religions influence their local politics: fact. Often, they are not the only religion influenced by those politics: fact. More often then not, the dominant religion in a region doesn’t care if their beliefs aren’t shared: fact.

    This is why I oppose religion: because more often then not, religion wants whats best for itself, not for everyone. And religions that believe you’ll suffer if you don’t believe in that religion are as immoral as it gets. So no, one side has speculation (that a higher being exists), the other side is working off the world we live in.

    I think its great you get something positive out of religion, and a lot of people do. I think its great religion can do good things. I think its terrible that religion can do bad things, in a good name, then ignore the bad saying it was for a good cause.

  • jayglo

    “you infect our laws with your ridiculous ideology.”

    WE infect YOUR laws!? This country was founded on the Christian Faith!! We are One Nation Under God! Since when do the laws belong to atheists!? They belong to Americans, and most Americans are Christian!
    There was never a time in the United States when gay marriage was lawfully accepted. So I could say that you are infecting our laws.

    And yes, angry rude slob at best.

    Again, you seem to be the one spreading the negativity and hatred. What if all of our country leaders were like you? You think the world would be a better place? Honestly?

    If you think the world would be so much better off without religion, tell me exactly what you think the world would be like without any organized religions.

  • bdemong

    “And religion is trying to help society, not harm it.”

    Hitler was just trying to improve the human race. Humbert Humbert just loved too much.

    “I’m not really sure how if religion is taking a standpoint against gay marriage that that is religion being selfish. I don’t think it benefits them, because it has always been that way (ie no gay marriage) so they aren’t gaining anything.”

    Homosexuality has been taboo in the West specifically because of Abrahamic religion. The US government is supposed to recognise each person as equal, but two married people are “more equal” than two other individuals (there are over a thousand discrete legal benefits to being married). It is unfair to allow some people to marry, but not others. (Actually, I think it is unfair for government to recognise marriage at all, but that is beside the current point.) Gay marriage weakens religion’s monopoly on morality, thus it is selfish for religion to oppose it.

  • Roger

    jayglo, point of information: the United States was not founded on Christianity. Many of the Founders were deists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

    “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”
    -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

    “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

    Also, arguing that “most” Americans are Christians is a logical fallacy–the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. By extension, most Americans at one point opposed the emancipation of slaves–would you then argue that slavery was ok?

    Further, you contend that “there was never a time in the United States when gay marriage was lawfully accepted.” There was also a time when the same could be said about the following:
    –women voting
    –interracial marriage
    –African Americans holding public office
    Simply because something wasn’t accepted in the past doesn’t mean it was right–or that that custom shouldn’t be overturned.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    In addition, all references to God in our motto, our currency, etc were added during the Cold War, when we needed something to separate us from the “godless communists” (who weren’t actually godless).

    So basically, you’ve fallen into this trap that the religious light paint by rewriting history, accepting it as dogma, then yelling at those who actually studied the truth. And if you think we’re biased and giving you misinformation, go ahead and do the research, we’re confident the results will agree with us.

    I don’t think he would make a good leader… heck, most of us wouldn’t… but when more then half the world doesn’t run its politics with religion and why is it so essential America does it to not fall apart?

    Without religious organizations? Easy!
    People would have to argue on fact, not belief. People would do good because they want to be treated well. People who did wrong wouldn’t have a religious veil to hide behind. Everyone would be held accountable to their own actions, on this world. People could continue to believe what they want, as long as it doesn’t interfere with others lives.

    Again, what good things do religious organizations do on this planet that a secular organization can’t?

  • jayglo

    Okay, but he was saying they were his laws. Atheists laws.

    They aren’t.

    @Roger There’s a difference between argumentum ad populum and stating a fact.

  • Roger

    “@Roger There’s a difference between argumentum ad populum and stating a fact.”

    Please, don’t be obtuse. Stating a fact regarding majorities/minorities as though it should be a norm IS argumentum ad populum.

    http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

    “Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude.

    “Bandwagon”: the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.

    Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true.
    Statement p is true.”

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    No, when he said our laws, he meant American laws, secular laws. These are the laws ALL religions are trying to interfere in.

    No offense jayglo, but here you were shown to be wrong, seem to accept being wrong, but instead of accepting his point regardless of out tactlessly he said it, you went back to attack his point again. You could have said something like:

    “Ok, fine, they’re not religious laws, but that doesn’t mean religion is trying to infect them.”

    Because America is supposed to have atheist laws, secular laws. Most of the founding fathers believed that religion should never enter into politics, and are turning in their graves as we speak. I’m surprised geologists haven’t noticed given how many of their original words are not only being ignored, but rewritten and abused.

  • jayglo

    @No Easy Answers
    You’re right, I should have stated it like that.
    oodunkin just put it in such an offensive way that it fueled the fire and I was still upset about the comments he made.

    And religion is trying to help society, not harm it.
    I’m not really sure how if religion is taking a standpoint against gay marriage that that is religion being selfish. I don’t think it benefits them, because it has always been that way (ie no gay marriage) so they aren’t gaining anything.

  • oodunkin

    jayglo, i believe you just got served. its a lot easier when you’re right though. the separation of church and state is what this country was founded on.

    yes, the world would be much better off without religion, but in order to rid the world of organized religion, people need to be educated on the truth. what you dont seem to realize is that religion should be a personal thing to you, and it shouldnt interfere with anyones rights as TAX PAYING citizens. thats right, atheists and gays pay taxes too! and yet gays still dont have the same rights as straight people simply because of dense people like you that think its icky and “not gods will”. keep your god to yourself and the world will be much better off.

    you need to study your history somewhere else besides church and the bible my friend.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Jayglo, was it was pointed out, historically:

    - The US had slavery
    - Blacks had no rights
    - Women had no rights
    - Interracial marriage was outlawed

    Plus, the idea that we should do it because its always done that way is self-defeating. Its the exact opposite of progress.

    Not to mention, what do you mean “they don’t gain anything?” They gain everything! With marriage, you gain a multitude of rights from the government, including hospital visitation rights, property management, and if nothing else, the status. You don’t think they gain anything because you can’t imagine being in their situation. Marriage is more then just a name, and for the note, until about the ninth century, the church was not involved in marriage. In fact, many early churches were against marriage. So don’t go on this “its a holy sacrament from God”. No, it was a business, and the church co-opted it to make money. And today, marriage is a legal contract more then anything else. You can get married in a church and it not mean anything to the state if you don’t get a license, and you can get married without a church. For example, why do you oppose gay marriage? Because its in your holy book? And what about all the religions that don’t oppose gay marriage? Should their rights simply be ignored?

    Let me tell you something. Its easy to say you oppose something, specially when it can in no way be applied to you. But until September 11th, I thought I was just another American. Then all of a suddenly, my brown skin made me some evil terrorist, regardless of the fact that I’ve grown up in the US, and I’m as much a part of this country as anyone else. So “we didn’t do it before” or “they aren’t gaining anything” are bullshit arguments, and again, are a testament to the ego of religion.

  • jayglo

    “You don’t think they gain anything because you can’t imagine being in their situation.”

    I didn’t mean the gays. I realize that they get benefits from it. But religion is what I meant.

    “In fact, many early churches were against marriage.”

    Can you cite your source for that statement, please? I don’t want Sara to start throwing an absolute fit for not citing sources.

    “the ego of religion.”

    You talk about religion as if it is a person.

  • jayglo

    So are you suggesting that religion should approve of it even though it goes against its teachings just so atheists and pro-gays don’t think they’re selfish?

    That would be like me saying that it is selfish that atheists don’t believe in God because it helps out organizations like the American Atheists Society or something. Therefore, they should admit that God is real, because if they don’t, it is selfish.

    @oodunkin
    “and yet gays still dont have the same rights as straight people simply because of dense people like you that think its icky and “not gods will”.”

    With that reasoning, adults should be able to marry children of any age or gender, because children are people too and deserve the same rights. A father could marry his newborn son after divorcing his wife with that reasoning.

  • bdemong

    “So are you suggesting that religion should approve of it even though it goes against its teachings just so atheists and pro-gays don’t think they’re selfish?”

    No, I think religious concepts should not be the foundation for secular laws. Religion can oppose gay marriage without opposing its legality.

  • bdemong

    i.e. I think it is selfish for religion to oppose the US legality of gay marriage, not for it to oppose the idea of gay marriage

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    “So are you suggesting that religion should approve of it even though it goes against its teachings just so atheists and pro-gays don’t think they’re selfish?”

    No one says you have to accept it, and no one says churches opposed to gay marriage have to marry people. Go ahead, hold your beliefs, even if others disagree. But your beliefs shouldn’t be the basis for others rights.

    “With that reasoning, adults should be able to marry children of any age or gender, because children are people too and deserve the same rights. A father could marry his newborn son after divorcing his wife with that reasoning.”

    See? You seem to think that without God, there are no morals. You can’t accept that its even possible that without God, people are moral.

    People will do anything they want is a complete fallacy. Children in the US, have limited rights. Extremely limited. And as a species, we do everything we can to protect our young, our future. This is the same thing as the argument that an atheist just wants to be immoral and sin. Hell no, without belief in a God, we have more reason to be moral, because we accept this is the only life we have, that we can prove, and that for the good of the species, we should do as much as we can to make sure of a joint survival. This is the most biased argument you’ve made yet.

  • oodunkin

    “With that reasoning, adults should be able to marry children of any age or gender, because children are people too and deserve the same rights. A father could marry his newborn son after divorcing his wife with that reasoning.”

    it sounds like your religion is holding you back from some sick fantasies bub.

    we aren’t talking about pedophilia, sir. we are talking about sexual orientation between two adults. please remove head from ass.

  • bdemong

    There are completely different reasons that minors cannot give legal consent, besides “it’s wrong”.

    Right and wrong are not the final arbiters of legal and illegal. For one thing, those adjectives are subjective.

  • jayglo

    And here’s bdemong’s reasoning:

    “It is unfair to allow some people to marry, but not others.”

    Children are people, true or false? True.
    Therefore, he is saying it would be unfair for children to marry.

    In the above statement you will notice I say nothing about morality or God or anything. I am just making a statement using your reasoning.

  • Roger

    Don’t be ridiculous, jayglo. You’re tossing in a red herring, hoping to get people sidetracked away from the illogic that guides your arguments concerning gay marriage.

  • jayglo

    “it sounds like your religion is holding you back from some sick fantasies bub.”

    Who said that is my wish?? It isn’t, my gosh, how crazy are you? No where did I suggest that it was.

    And NEA, you say my arguments are biased. Of course they are.
    Yours are just as biased if not more biased.

  • jayglo

    It isn’t a red herring. It is using your own logic in another situation. How is that a red herring?
    I quoted what he said word for word and used his definition in another situation.
    You say my reasoning is illogical? The reasoning that all people should have equal marriage rights sounds illogical, and that is all I was trying to prove.

  • bdemong

    “It is unfair to allow some people to marry, but not others.”

    It is unfair to allow some adults to marry, but not others. Jeez. Is this a serious objection?

  • Roger

    Seems to me that jayglo is being deliberately pedantic and juvenile.

    Jay, I’ll refer you to Mark Jordan’s “Blessing Same Sex Unions” and Marvin Ellison’s “Same Sex Marriage?: A Christian Ethical Analysis”

    In short, no one here is talking about people who are not able to give informed, voluntary consent. By our laws and by our understandings of human development, a child is not able to give any kind of consent to any kind of legally binding agreement. Children aren’t the subject of debate here; you know it, so stop being a nimrod and present legitimate arguments.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    I’ll apologize and say, yes I’m biased… I’m biased to equal rights within ethical boundaries. And yes, it is a red herring. When people talk, they don’t include every detail and every point. Sometimes broader statements are made with implied meanings. This is clearly a case of that, and you’ll plucking at word choice to avoid the issue. Roger put it best.

    If you don’t mind, is your objection Biblical? Or do you have a secular reasoning, which goes in line with the “separation of church and state” we claim to have?

  • oodunkin

    jayglo is misquoting people and filibustering this discussion. he has discredited himself on the fact that he knows nothing of our nations history. his arguments are weak and ultimately just end up at “cause god said so”. you cannot argue with that which is why we still have organized religion. we are trying to have a scientific argument with someone that needs no logic, basis or proof to believe in something. its the ultimate stale mate, and his numbness can only be undone by him willing to think outside his little box.

    the bottom line is marriage is NOT a religious issue. if a church doesnt want to marry 2 men or women ok. but when it comes down to 2 people not being able to have the same opportunities because of a BIOLOGICAL difference, that is discrimination.

  • jayglo

    I admit I was acting juvenile at time and I apologize for that. People like oodunkin have been even more juvenile, to an extreme degree, and disrespectful. You say you are trying to have an intellectual scientific discussion, but he has been acting like a four year old. I guess his attitude just rubbed off onto me temporarily. Yet no one seemed to be reprimanding him…

    People like No Easy Answers has been for the most part respectful and under control, so NEA, I thank you for that. You have been one of the few on here that respects my opinion enough for me to listen to seriously.

    @No Easy Answers
    It is kind of Bible based, my beliefs against homosexual marriage, but it is also based on what I think is best for society. I think that if someone has two dads or two moms they won’t develop as they should. I just watched a video in my Psychology class that there was a kid raised by a homosexual couple and he had dolls and a pink room. He wore nail polish. While none of that is really immoral to do, he was made fun of and I felt sorry for him. That’s just one example.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    That’s reasonable… but is that the only example? Do you have any more? Have you done the sociological research? Research agrees that there is little to no difference in kids being raised by a homosexual or heterosexual couple. But with your example, should we also ban marriage for all couples who’s kids may be made fun of? How about if one parent has a mental disability that causes kids to make fun of them?

    Or would you not agree, its smarter to attack the problem? Teach kids tolerance?

    I’ll be honest. I have not yet heard a sound reason against gay marriage that wasn’t religious. The reasons I have heard could also be applied to all marriage. Ok, fine, your beliefs come from the Bible. But the Bible (and every other holy text) doesn’t belong in US law. So without a secular argument, I think the answer is right there.

  • Roger

    @jayglo: you present ONE kid from a video you saw in a psych class. There’s statistical evidence that proves the opposite of what you’re saying. Further, you claim that your concern about gay marriage is that kids within these unions won’t “develop as they should.” Does your same concern extend to heterosexual marriage? If one kid from a hetero marriage doesn’t develop well, does that mean the entire institution is invalid? By your logic, that would be the logical answer.

  • oodunkin

    i said scientific, not intellectual. my frustration comes from your bigotry. grow some balls.

  • jayglo

    You see the effects of my posts, but you do not see me. How do you know it really is me posting this if you do not believe in God? You see his effects but not him.

    Yet you have faith, I assume, that a real person is posting these posts.

  • bdemong

    “Then it is possible, however inprobable, that he himself is a fairy.”

    Perhaps! But I have not asked you to risk anything based on this possibility.

    “And it is possible that I am not real.”

    That is also true. It’s possible everyone else is a figment of my imagination. Evidence suggests this is unlikely; it is also more useful for me to assume there are really other people… otherwise the world is too complicated for me to comprehend, and I need to go to work if I want to go on eating and driving my car and stuff.

    “You have faith that you will take another breath, that the sun will rise the next morning, yet you don’t have Faith that there is a God who created all of that.”

    No. If faith means believing something without evidence, I have faith in nothing. I believe that I will take another breath and that the sun will rise tomorrow because, among other things, my experience tells me this is very likely.

    Good luck.

  • Francesc

    mmm…Pascal’s Wagger again… I’m sure you will find a lot of people explaining while that wagger fails. To begin with:

    1.- You indeed are beting something. Your life is not the same believing in god as it is not believing in him, unless you are a very bad christian.
    2.- You can’t choose to believe in god because of this bet. For that to have any possibility to work, you should think that your omniscient god is so dumb not to see that you don’t have a “real faith” but an interested one.
    3.- Wich one? What if there is a god and it’s not your god? Given the large number of equally probable gods the humanity has ever worshipped, given the gods that are still arising -will we be touched by His noddly appendages- and given all the imaginary gods that could be out there, you have at the end the same possibilities as we have. Pascal did the wagger as if it was an opposition between “christian god” and “not god at all” but it’s not so easy
    4.- You are thinking that your god will let you in -or a not so good person- to go to heaven if you have faith. And me -or a better person than me- to go to hell if we don’t have faith. How do you know that? May be God is only allowing funny people to go to heaven to have some beers with him, for all the eternity. May be he is only allowing woman to… well, ya know.
    By the way, how do you know that there is a heaven and you won’t reincarnate? How do you know there is a hell? Why would a finite crime be punished in an infinite time?

    So, to summarize, it doen’t cost you anything to believe in a particular god and it doesn’t does it more probable for you to go to a maybe-it-not-exists heaven

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    At the end of the day, if we’re gonna get philosophical, we’re not debating with each other, but with each others words. Again, the difference is lack of evidence.

    And yah, giving Pasal’s wager is horrible. If the Islamic God is real, then we’re all screwed. If the Hindu God is real, then we’re all fine regardless. If the Christian God that some Christians believe in, I’m ok and you’re not, and by some other Christian God, we’re both ok, we’re both screwed, or you’re right. Unlimited options!

    We don’t need faith to say the sun will rise tomorrow… we’ve seen it happen millions of times, so we can say its probably true. Of course, who knows, it might explode tonight, and if somehow we survive, yah, it won’t be here tomorrow, but the odds of that are so low its not worth talking about. Just like there is a possibility you can walk through a wall. Statistically and physically speaking, it is possible, but the chance of it happening is so impossibly low you don’t try to keep walking into a wall.

    If we’re gonna talk about faith, and we assume God and the Devil are real… how do you know it hasn’t been the Devil making the Bible, pretending to be God, and really, God is the evil one? You yourself have said we can’t know God. And if God did write the Bible, and its true, I’d rather go to Hell (which many Biblical scholars agree isn’t actually in the Bible… it was a fear tactic instated later to keep believers loyal) with people like Gandhi, Einstein, Darwin, etc. By human standards, God is extremely finicky, egotistic, sadistic, only to start, and I wouldn’t want to worship him.

    As for the fairy example, he’s not asking you to change for the fairy… that’s the big difference.

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    You see the effects of my posts, but you do not see me.

    So lousy argumentation skills on behalf of their followers is an argument for gods, now?

    How do you know it really is me posting this if you do not believe in God?

    You’re right–You could be a god yourself!

    You can’t be seriously asking this question, can you? Okay, I’ll bite:

    I believe in jayglo because jayglo makes statements and claims an identity. Now if someone told me jayglo was a false identity, I might revisit that idea. You revisting your god yet?

    Also, if jayglo told me to give up beer or be damned, I’d mock jayglo. If jayglo told me to “sell all I have and follow him/her/it” I’d say “Why?”

    But as it costs me nothing but a little time (and a few bruises from headdesking at the astounding ineptitude of its arguments) I will continue to believe that behind the identity jayglo there is someone I might quite like if we met socially and he/she kept the godbotting to a minimum.

    You see his effects but not him.

    And we know it’s not the Flying Spaghetti Monster why, exactly?

    Yet you have faith, I assume, that a real person is posting these posts.

    Yes, but you couldn’t convince me that you’d created the world. You’d have to, y’know, back that up with like, evidence and stuff.

    Or at least better argumentation than you bring to the debate.

    Come on! You have “evidence” so you say, and when asked to produce you keep pointing at the universe, a phenomenon that requires no creator.

    Produce your evidence, please. Souls may be on the line here, so we can’t afford anything but the clearest, most straightforward evidence you have. Please help us believe!

    Anything else is just more failure for god.

  • Francesc

    sorry, “why that wagger fails”

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    I don’t agree with these definitions at all

    BY your definition, research fits into religion. That’s such a blanket definition that it can cover so many things. Heck, you can fit drinking when you’re upset into your definition for religion!

    The Dewey Decimal System fits into your definition for God. Electromagnetic force falls into your definition for God.

    Sorry, your argument is flawed. This is nothing more then God of the Gaps, we don’t know, so God must have done it.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    onecae, your views seem to have almost nothing to do with Christianity, instead you seem like a deist. Do you have any Biblical references for what you’re talking about? How about which sect believes in this? Scholarly or theistic backing?

    I like how you talk about God… doesn’t mean I buy it, but I like it. The problem is, its not Christianity. How does the Bible and Jesus play into your view?

    Besides, your logic is flawed:

    “Christianity relies on this: The source of organization is identical to the personal being that is here now.”

    You’ve created a false dichotomy. You’ve started with the assumption that it is a being. Why can’t the source of organization be natural?

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Sorry, but I can’t have this conversation. What is your claim, that the Bible says stuff? You’re not offering any evidence, in fact, not even any solid claims. You’re just saying that “there is a self and an other”. What in the world does that mean? Again, you make claims that are very un-Christian, and more deistic.

    But by the way, logic is a means of processing. You can’t prove them any more then you can prove “beating an egg”. You can prove that an egg existed, you can prove an egg was beaten, and you can prove the process did it. But you can’t prove the process. The starting points of logic are not the same as the axioms of logic. I don’t start with “therefor”… I start with a claim.

  • DarkMatter

    Why don’t you just say you can heal the sick, raise the dead, prophesize the future, mend broken hearts, calm the storms, feed the hungry, etc because you are like Jesus for you are Jesus’ brother.

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Again… a process is not proven. It doesn’t make any sense to prove it. So explaining the axioms means nothing. You’re pulling things out of context and making them overly complicated in hopes of proving a point (what point, I don’t know) but instead of proving a point, you’re coming across as an idiot.

    Alright onecae, until you actually say something, I’m done replying, save to correct you. Again, “can you create beginnings”? What the hell does this mean? Can I start things? Sure! But I start things via what’s already in place. You can create things in Heaven? Prove to me heaven exists! Your not saying anything, and just going in circles, so I’m done until you can actually say something. By my interpretation, what you said is “think it then do it”… where the hell does religion come into that?

  • http://metroblog.blogspot.com Metro

    “In the beginning, Metro created the heavens and the earth.”

    =

    “In the beginning, God, created the heavens and the earth.”

    A, as you pointed out, equals A. Both statements are equally valid and almost equally provable (Where wast thou when I made the world, eh?).

    As to creating beginnings, shall I point out the obvious? What else is a child but a beginning?

  • http://noeasyanswers.com No Easy Answers

    Now you’re making more sense.

    First: its not your beliefs that have me frustrated, its that you’re talking in airy, poetic terms that say nothing. That’s what frustrated me. And I’m fairly certain that’s what frustrates other people you talk to, if you talk to them like this.

    You can prove an action, you can prove a physical result. You cannot prove a concept. Your example is wrong, as you can prove a way to bake a potato. But the idea of “baking a potato”. You can prove the potato was unbaked, you can prove the potato was baking, you can prove the potato was baked. You cannot prove the idea of a potato baking. It doesn’t even make sense to even try.

    So now we know what you believe, to a sense, but why? It is purely personal, then fine, nothing I can do or say. If its not personal, then do you have any empirical evidence of it?

    And you have a very wrong interpretation of atheist viewpoints. Most atheists are inclined to leave a theist to believe what he wants if he leaves everyone else out of it. The problem is, if you talk like you do to everyone else, they think you’re some crazy theist trying to avoid the main points by using poetic language.

  • onecae

    No Easy Answers: The concept of “proof” is also an idea. We can’t prove what proof is without begging the question. Don’t get me wrong. There’s evidence we’re on the same side of this issue.
    Atheists believe others believe somethings that aren’t true. I also believe others believe somethings that aren’t true. We can’t really prove to each other what our beliefs are – we just rely on statements and admittedly limited evidence. However, what I’m saying is a different argument. Just because ideas can’t be proven doesn’t mean they are false. And, many ideas of pseudoChristianity, taken as they are so often presented, are false ideas in that they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the subject. None the less, many ideas of Christianity, when understood in the intended context, are true ideas and because of this very believable. In fact, they are so believable that many people believe that they aren’t Christianity because Christianity is supposed to be unbelievable.
    For example: “The execution of the plan is greater than the plan.” It’s a rough paraphrase of a very important Christian concept. It has its usefulness. There’s nothing there to prove in the sense of scientific proof, but consider this: A poorly executed bad plan trumps an un-executed good plan as far as shaping this world goes. Think how much more a well executed good plan would accomplish. You merely use the ideas, or not.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X