Bad Atheist Arguments: “I Just Reject One More God than You” (2 of 2)

Bad Atheist Arguments: “I Just Reject One More God than You” (2 of 2) December 28, 2016

Andy Bannister The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist bookThis is part 3b of a critique of The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist: The Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments (2015) by Andy Bannister (part 1 here). The book promises to critique a number of atheist arguments.

This post wraps up my critique of Chapter 3, “The Aardvark in the Artichokes.” In the first half, I responded to Bannister’s critique of the atheist argument that the Christian rejects hundreds or thousands of gods, while the atheist just goes one god further. He’s now moved on to argue that Christianity is special, and lumping it in with the unwashed masses of religions is wrong.

Why Christianity is unique

Christianity’s big difference compared to Zeus, Thor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the other gods is:

Every single one of those other entities is an object inside the universe. God, on the other hand, according to Christianity is the creator and sustainer of the universe, the author of the story.

So then make up a new character and call him the Creator. Make him outside. Now Yahweh has a competitor.

You don’t like that he was just invented? All right, then revisit this character after 2000 years has passed so that the origins of this tale are clouded and it has become legend and mythology. That’s Christianity’s advantage—not that it’s correct but that it’s venerable and uncheckable.

Bannister simply declares that God is the creator. That’s not good enough: he must prove it. Without evidence, this is just theology, not an argument.

I’d also recommend that he read up on the Combat Myth and then tell me that Yahweh is in a completely different category. Today’s timeless, outside-the-universe god isn’t what Yahweh was initially. He’s evolved. (Y’know how Superman at first was just pretty strong and could “leap tall buildings in a single bound” but then became insanely strong and could fly? Like that.)

And let me take issue with this claim of uniqueness—that the Christian god’s relationship with the universe is somehow unique. The Greek creation myth (to take just one) has Chaos creating Gaia (Earth). She created Uranus (heavens), and their offspring were the Titans. Cronus (the youngest Titan) was the father of Zeus, the ruler of the pantheon that’s now in power.

That sounds about as sensible (or ridiculous) as the two creation stories that Genesis opens with. Bannister wants you to ignore the man behind the curtain and look instead at the modern Christian view where God walks hand-in-hand with modern cosmology. God is now said to have triggered the Big Bang, sustain the laws of physics, exist outside of time and space, and so on, ideas that would mystify the original audience for Genesis.

No, that won’t do—you’re saddled with the pre-scientific thinking in your holy book that makes your origin myth no more compelling than the Greek one.

How can you dismiss religions without understanding them?

Bannister next complains:

The atheist making [the claim that the world’s religions are essentially the same] has not investigated all of them—probably not any of them—and is instead assuming that they must all be more or less similar to the characterless Catholicism or pedestrian Protestantism they half-remember from their youth.

Bannister has a PhD in Quranic Studies, so he has studied at least one additional religion in great depth. I wonder though if he and I are much different with respect to the other religions. He’s right that I’m no expert in the other thousand (to pick a number) of religions in history, but how can he criticize me for rejecting those thousand religions without cause? Didn’t he do the same thing?

Sure, let’s acknowledge that Christianity is different from all the other religions, but why is that a bold claim? Each religion is different from all the other religions. And as far as I’ve been able to determine, they all have the same unmet burden of proof. You’re right that I haven’t thoroughly investigated Santeria, Baha’i, Raelianism, and the hundreds of others. If you’ve compared them all against Christianity, show us.

Christianity vs. Islam

Returning to Bannister’s expertise in Islam, he tells us, “On almost every major point of Christian doctrine, I think it is safe to say that Islam teaches the opposite.”

But they’ve got the same god! Islam accepts the Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy), so whatever properties you pull out for Yahweh you must assign to Allah as well. You can say that Mohammed took things in a very different direction to give Allah a unique character, but Christianity did the same with its New Testament.

You can focus on their common origin or their divergence, but let’s go where Bannister is pointing. He says Christianity and Islam are very different—okay, they’re very different. So what? This example only emphasizes the made-up nature of both religions. How does this support his thesis that Christianity is not just different from all the other religions but the only one that’s true?

Atheists aren’t allowed to play with God’s toys

Bannister wants to banish atheists from the field of intellectual discourse, though not for any good reason.

Truth, the pursuit of knowledge, the existence of ultimate values such as justice—those are grounded, ultimately, in God. And so to pick these things up and wield them as weapons against God is to play by his rules.

Give me a break. These things come from humans. Don’t flatter yourself that your God gives truth, justice, and so on to humans when they were humans’ to begin with. But if you have evidence of your remarkable claim, provide it.

And if this turns on the word “ultimate” (as in objective or absolute or God-grounded), I await the evidence for that as well. Ordinary justice is defined in the dictionary without the word “ultimate.”

Continue with chapter 4.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation,
whose purposes are modeled after our own—
a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
— Albert Einstein

Image credit: Ketzirah Lesser & Art Drauglis, flickr, CC

"You do know that the rebuttal to the video is in another post, right?https://admin.patheos.com/b..."

The True Meaning of Christmas (According ..."
""The two statements must directly and unambiguously contradict each other."OK, done.Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a ..."

9 Tactics Christians Use to Dismiss ..."
"Like I already said, "You suck!" isn't an argument.Seems to me that I trashed the ..."

The True Meaning of Christmas (According ..."
"Like I already said ... you need to study the subject and start over - ..."

The True Meaning of Christmas (According ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • guerillasurgeon

    Einstein said it all. We anthropomorphise God(s) the same way we tend to anthropomorphise animals. Interesting column.

    • Jim Jones

      But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
      or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
      horses like horses and cattle like cattle
      also would depict the gods’ shapes and make their bodies
      of such a sort as the form they themselves have.

      Ethiopians say that their gods are snub–nosed [σιμούς] and black
      Thracians that they are pale and red-haired.

      Xenophanes

      • I am not surprised that Negroes paint the devil with a complexion of dazzling whiteness, and their gods as black as coal; that the Venus of certain races has breasts that hang down to her thighs; and finally, that all idolaters have represented their gods in the likeness of men, and have ascribed to them all their own passions. It has been very well said, that if triangles were to make to themselves gods, they would give them three sides.-Montesquieu

  • Dys

    They keep treating uniqueness as an identifier of truth, when it’s no such thing.

    And Bannister’s blather

    Truth, the pursuit of knowledge, the existence of ultimate values such as justice—those are grounded, ultimately, in God. And so to pick these things up and wield them as weapons against God is to play by his rules.

    Is typical presuppositionalist tripe. It’s nothing more than begging the question in a rousing game of mental masturbation.

    • T-Paine

      “God is the foundation of all knowledge. Without God, you wouldn’t know anything.” – the deplorable presupp apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate

      • Michael Neville

        Good old Sye Ten B. He was well described by PZ Myers as a “slimy motherfucker”.

        • Brad Feaker

          He was well described by PZ Myers as a “slimy motherfucker”.

          PZ would know since he is a ‘slimy motherfucker’ as well.

        • Cluebyfour

          PZ would know since he is a ‘slimy motherfucker’ as well.

          Indubitably.

    • Kingasaurus

      —They keep treating uniqueness as an identifier of truth, when it’s no such thing.—-

      Yes, and they also do it with very Christian-specific claims, too. Jesus claimed to be EQUAL with GOD! That’s SO unique he must be telling the truth!

      Even James Bond knew that was bullshit:

      “World domination. Same old dream. Our asylums are full of people who think they’re Napoleon. Or God.” -Dr. No

      • rubaxter

        But, there really WAS a Napoleon, while there was NO Dr. No.

        Oh, that is the model for Apologetics, isn’t it?

  • Kevin K

    This is getting worse and worse. Honestly, I’m wondering if this is worth your time.

    • Doubting Thomas

      If you’ve read any amount of apologetics, you’ll know that the only thing that really changes is the name on the cover of the book that you’re bashing over your own head.

      • Jon Morgan

        Oh, they can have different focuses (though I do notice the popular apologists frequently cite each other).

        For a couple that I have found quite different (though not necessarily more convincing): Mere Apologetics, by Alister McGrath; and from my own former denomination Living on the Edge, by Jonathan Burke.

    • Rudy R

      It doesn’t get any better than this. The exemplar of Christian Apologists, WLC, reverse engineered his Christianity argument to the KCA, but KCA does not argue for a god, but that a universe had a cause. So his house of cards has tumbled down, but his faith has made him blind to see it.

      • Kevin K

        I’ve always been amused by Christians using the KCA in any event, since the “Kalaam” in question was a Muslim, and the argument was meant to bolster the reasons to believe in Allah.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          Ah, but Allah is the same god as Yahweh! Except when Christians decide that’s inconvenient and tell you that he’s not.

        • Michael Neville

          Most Muslims think that the Christian god is not Allah. Muslims, like Jews, are monotheists and see the Three-in-One Trinity as polytheism. So obviously Yahweh-Jesus-Spook are not the same god as Allah.

        • T-Paine

          It’s ironic that many Christians reject Islam for denying the Trinity but accept Judaism as true even though it too denies the Trinity. Islam and Judaism are much closer to each other (God is One in One) than either of them to Christianity (God is Three in One) -but Islam recognizes Jesus as divine in origin (born by the Virgin Mary and is a prophet from God) while Judaism rejects the divinity of Jesus entirely.

          Go figure, eh?

        • adam

          Childish sibling rivalry over who gets to inherit Sky Daddies ‘fortune’ https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b771a4ec57ad060b4acaad214ae436df6fd8facae4a468d9a6df580cb6f8dc21.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          Allah is Arabic for God however our differences separates us. So try again.

        • Myna

          It’s a bit of a rose is rose.

          Etymology of Allāh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

          “Cognates of the name “Allāh” exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic. The corresponding Aramaic form is Elah (אלה), but its emphatic state is Elaha (אלהא). It is written as ܐܠܗܐ (ʼĔlāhā) in Biblical Aramaic and ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ (ʼAlâhâ) in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply “God”. Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural (but functional singular) form Elohim (אלהים), but more rarely it also uses the singular form Eloah (אלוהּ).”

        • epeeist

          It’s a bit of a rose is rose.

          It’s fairly easy.

          If you take Leibniz’s ideas on identity (two things are identical if and only if there are no discernible differences between all their properties) you run into problems, how can one be sure that one has exhausted the list of properties that something has?

          However one can safely invert the problem, two things are different if they have properties that are different.

          Do Yahweh, Yahweh/Jesus/Paraclete, Allah have different properties? If so then they can’t be the same god.

        • Myna

          I was looking at it from the angle of the word, itself, but yes, tossed into the pool of story, the concept surfaces with different properties.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Therein lies the problem though. Throw just YahwehJesus into the pool of story a million times and the concept surfaces each time with different properties…depending on who ya ask.

        • Myna

          I didn’t articulate it very well, but that would be it, exactly.

        • Kendall Fields

          Really I hadn’t noticed but I did.

        • Myna

          Well, that makes a whole lot of sense.

        • Kendall Fields

          Think about it with your mind.

        • Myna

          That would mean I would have to think about it with your mind, and that I cannot do. Sorry.

        • Kendall Fields

          I am saying use your mind and understand it. I already knew that about the word Allah so you don’t have to tell me.

        • Myna

          لا إله إلا الله

        • Kendall Fields

          Ok?

        • Myna

          Yep.

        • Kendall Fields

          No.

        • Myna

          la ‘illah ‘illa alllah mmuhammad rrasul alllah

        • Kendall Fields

          And?

        • Myna

          And the painted ponies go up and down.

          Must get off the carousel now.

        • Kendall Fields

          No.

        • MNb

          Finally! Kendall has given the correct answer to the question “Is there a god?”

        • Michael Neville

          Oh no, there’s the call to prayer and I can’t find my prayer rug.

        • Myna
        • No, no–the Trinity really is monotheistic! Cuz faith!

        • MNb

          She has done so.
          You even haven’t begun yet.

        • MNb

          Maybe you should try reading Clint’s comment again. Then it might dawn that you don’t contradict him ….

        • Kendall Fields

          Actually I do for there is a difference as if you have a different view of God from the actual view then you are wrong.

        • Greg G.

          Are you are telling us is that if someone has a different view of God than your view, then they are wrong? Does anyone have an actual view of God? If not, then everybody with any view of God is wrong.

          Catholics and Protestants read similar Bibles but they can’t agree on whether certain books should be included. But that is not the extent of their differences. Their views of God has led them to kill one another the past few centuries.

          It’s worse than that. There were 45,000 different denominations of Christianity (in 2014 but the number was growing) that have different views of God. They can’t all be right. It just illustrates that there are many ways to be wrong about religion.

          Each denomination has many people who feel certain that their denomination has the actual view of God but they cannot all be correct. That shows us that a sense of certainty is not a reliable way to tackle the subject.

          Which leads us to the Greatest Prayer Failure of All Time:

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

          Christians only agree on a few basics, barely enough to be classified as Christians. But they were supposed to be so unified as to impress everybody else. That has never happened and it is getting worse.

        • Kendall Fields

          There is an actual view of God however if our view is different from it than our faith means nothing. All Christians view God as the all mighty creator whose son died for humanity however denominations are formed whether through arguments between leaders or differences in salvation or the divinity of Jesus. Most of denominations occur because of arguments rather than theological differences. If you think we were united because of trying to impress people then you are sorely mistaken.

        • Greg G.

          All Christians view God as the all mighty creator whose son died for humanity however denominations are formed whether through arguments between leaders or differences in salvation or the divinity of Jesus.

          Which is what I said. (“Christians only agree on a few basics, barely enough to be classified as Christians.”) If a person doesn’t believe most of what you reiterated, they would not be considered Christian, and would not fall under the prayer of John 17:20-23.

          If you think we were united because of trying to impress people then you are sorely mistaken.

          Then I am not mistaken. It doesn’t matter why you do not agree according to the prayer quoted. Jesus prayed that Christians would be united to impress people. Read verse 23 again. To fulfill the prayer, all Christians would have to agree so closely that everybody else would be impressed enough to know that Jesus came from God.

          Instead, we see discord between the earliest Christians in Paul’s letters. We see extremely divergent forms of Christianity from second century writings. We see fourth century Christians holding councils to come together but settling for tense compromises. We see Christians killing one another over theology all through medieval times and continuing to the present.

          Apparently, the faith required for that prayer to be answered is more than even Jesus was capable of. On the other hand, maybe the Bible isn’t exactly true.

        • Kendall Fields

          The bible is true however humanity is weak. Even the devil can scripture to suit his purposes. Even when we differ we are Christians through and through however there are those who try to lead us astray like you. However God knows one day we will come together fully and without differences. But you wouldn’t understand that.

        • Greg G.

          Do you have an aversion to reading scripture because the devil might be watching? Read the passage. Has the prayer of Jesus ever been true? Read the whole chapter of John 17. It is a continuous prayer. If the cited piece has never been answered, why would you think the rest of it has been answered?

        • Kendall Fields

          Then read the whole thing rather than just a few verses. Jesus knows division sows problems for a house divided against itself cannot stand.

        • adam

          “Jesus knows division sows problems for a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

          And yet, Jesus is POWERLESS to unite his OWN HOUSE.

          What a LOSER…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e71894366d405a2560c124d806904b75ddf8371641ab58bc4449b6c60b966fb8.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          It is our own fault that church faces problems because of our sins and weaknesses. It would seem the loser is you.

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e936d3b9451f720cc31cb395e29d663e0b002544c7104ca964476499270530f4.jpg “It is our own fault that church faces problems because of our sins and weaknesses”

          Because Jesus doesnt have the power to overcome our sins?

          I thought that was his WHOLE PURPOSE?

        • BlackMamba44
        • Kendall Fields

          Hell doesn’t motivate a lot of people to believe in God however Hell is a warning to all people on sin.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Greg G.

          Those problems, no matter what the cause, makes Jesus’ prayer the biggest prayer fail ever.

        • Greg G.

          I read the whole chapter which is the whole prayer. I have read the whole Bible. You should try reading it for comprehension instead of for inspiration.

        • adam

          “The bible is true …..”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86effa5e2bc761ae95f687bf44f1632c13ebd40a54b07502d779f242a887cc3e.jpg

          ” Even the devil can scripture to suit his purposes.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05cafdf4e54d70a9410dfd45f846304eb9891592e53b7561d59d1be03b899362.jpg

          “However God knows one day we will come together fully and without differences. But you wouldn’t understand that.”

          You dont seem to understand that enough to demonstrate it.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62da10177de8c12d9feedf1a0ff3d448ed929feef887a1192640edb3a8a15953.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          Still so foolish and so blind. You can quote it but you will never know the meaning. I will pray for you.

        • adam

          “Still so foolish and so blind.”

          Yes, believing the bible is true is foolish and so blind.

          “but you will never know the meaning.”

          Only because ‘believers’ like you dont know the meaning enough to explain it.

          ” I will pray for you.”

          Why?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5ecb966db1a62a1ce5c353d5752323ae84f0ee2cf2dae065fcc17ee961e0b7ae.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          Humanity must trust God not you.

        • adam
        • Kendall Fields

          Anyone can say that but your theories have been disproved.

        • adam

          So why pray for me?

          Dont you trust your “God”?

          “God will only accept one religion not all three.”

          Please demonstrate how you know this is true.

          Then demonstrate that this “God” of yours is anything but IMAGINARY.

          ” If Jesus is not the son of God, then Christianity is wrong.”

          Immaterial spirits dont have children, so christianity IS wrong.

          “God
          is different depending on how we view the relation between him and
          Jesus and whether or not Muhammad is actually a prophet.”

          Really, how does this ‘God’ change to meet that view?

        • adam

          All of these demonstrate BELIEFS in ‘virgin’ births,

          And yet the Torah doesnt make that claim for the messiah, that christians accept blindly.

          “Isaiah 7:14

          Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman (הָעַלְמָה) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/befc7a5fb7de5e6e4d57ec07e6863aeb663019010b51a419b65dd84936d046bc.jpg

        • The “theory” is that Jesus came from an environment full of supernatural births (mortal woman + god). How likely is it the Jesus story is the real one? Or maybe the authors of Matthew and Luke simply added it because it was a popular idea in their day.

          I respond to the Bible’s virgin birth story here:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/12/virgin-birth-of-jesus-fact-or-fiction/

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          How? By a book with a talking snake, a talking donkey, a flood that never happened, slavery in Egypt that never happened, and an exodus that never happened with five books written by a person who never existed?

        • Susan

          You seem to have accidentally upvoted yourself.

        • Kendall Fields

          And?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Narcissist then. So much for that elusive Christian humility no Christian seems to possess these days.

          Dull & dim.

        • Kendall Fields

          I will trust God on whether or not J am humble. It would seem Atheist delusions have not come far.

        • Greg G.

          Many Christians have a delusion that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, yet one of them says:

          Numbers 12:3 (NIV)3 (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.)

          Anyone who would write that disqualifies himself as the most humble person on earth. Perhaps you and Moses should look up “humble” in the dictionary.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Two armadillo’s!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ya think it was accidental?

        • Pofarmer

          He’s just that good.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The sarcasm is hangin’ right outta ya….ha-ha!

        • Greg G.

          A number of times.

        • adam

          “The bible is true however humanity is weak. ”

          Humanity is weak for believing such shit.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/831e274b356c03b8778b1d9672b8ab244560e2fda7a4cd57b0436d5bda02694f.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          There are animals that can mimic human voice so why back then couldn’t snakes. Also slavery back then was for paying off debts and were actually servants.

        • Read your Bible, particularly Lev. 25:44-46, where it explains how slavery for life works.

          Praise the Lord!

        • Kendall Fields

          However they couldn’t take people against their will and slavery back then was to pay off debts. People voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts.

        • Greg G.

          Why can’t Christian face the truth about biblical slavery? There were indentured servants who were male Israelis who were released with some livestock after six years unless the master could trick him into becoming a permanent slave using family values. There were also slaves who might have been forced into slavery by debts but that is not necessarily voluntary. But there are others who were bought from foreigners and were not released. They could be bequeathed when the master died. The Israelis servants were not to be treated harshly but the other slaves are exempted from that and they could be treated as slaves. It says exactly that in Leviticus 25:44-46.

          The church tells many lies but the one you are telling here is not even what the Bible says.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The church tells many lies but the one you are telling here is not even what the Bible says.

          https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/63/4a/2a/634a2abf1ef3272763f47428db45b1ad.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          Still so much foolishness from you. How about you move on then.

        • adam
        • Kendall Fields

          The bible mentioned the Midians as becoming a part of Israel also God never said for the tribe of Benjamin to take the women from Shiloh as slaves they did of their own accord. Also the mixed fabrics were not allowed as wea ring mixed fabrics in hot weather is a really bad idea. So come up with a better situation or not at all.

        • adam

          “God never said for the tribe of Benjamin to take the women from Shiloh as slaves they did of their own accord.”

          Of course, they came to this conclusion after praying to God and making offerings.

          “Also the mixed fabrics were not allowed as wea ring mixed fabrics in hot weather is a really bad idea. ”

          Such a bad idea requiring a commandment from God?

          Are you kidding me?

          So come up with a better situation or not at all.

        • Greg G.

          If wearing mixed fabrics was a bad idea, people would not do it. Why make it a law?

          The women of Shiloh were kidnapped for wives.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The bible mentioned the Midians as becoming a part of Israel also God never said for the tribe of Benjamin to take the women from Shiloh as slaves they did of their own accord.

          Reading comprehension not your strong suit either I see. It infers in Adam’s meme that YahwehJesus helped the Israelite’s capture the women.

          But if ya go back to Judges 20:28 we see what the “Lord” is alleged to have told the Israelite’s…

          The Lord responded, “Go, for tomorrow I will give them into your hands.”

          A fairly ambiguous statement that seems to give carte blanche to do whatever.

          Also the mixed fabrics were not allowed as wea ring mixed fabrics in hot weather is a really bad idea.

          Ha ha ha…what a dick head thing to say ya dopey clown.

          It isn’t “mixed fibres”, it’s mixing two fibres in particular, wool and linen in the same garment, and it didn’t apply to all Jews.

          Shaatnez is the biblical prohibition against wearing wool and linen together in the same garment. (Wearing one piece of clothing that is linen and another that is wool at the same time is permitted.) This prohibition against shaatnez is found in Deuteronomy 22:11 and Leviticus 19:19. A combination of any other materials does not create shaatnez.

          The reference to wool refers to wool from sheep or lambs. It does not refer to camel wool, mohair, angora, cashmere, alpaca or vicuna. The reference to linen applies only to fibers from the flax plant, not hemp or jute. However, reprocessed fibers may also contain shaatnez.

          Why Such a Law?

          The law prohibiting shaatnez falls into the category of what is known as a chok, a law that cannot be explained. Various reasons have been suggested, however. The explanation given by Maimonides is that pagan priests were required to wear garments made of wool and linen. The prohibition may have been established to separate Jews from pagan practices. It is interesting to note, however, that the clothing of the priests in the Temple was exempt from this prohibition, giving rise to an alternate explanation, that the prohibition was designed to separate priestly from public practice.

          Another and more colorful explanation is that Abel brought wool as an offering, whereas Cain brought flax. The mixture was lethal and Abel lost his life.

          A more esoteric explanation is that everything has its own spiritual force. By mixing certain items together, these forces are compromised and cannot perform their assigned task.

          Two Armadillo’s.

          So come up with a better situation or not at all.

          Funny that.

        • I thought mixed fabrics were a problem because some textiles were reserved for the priests. I don’t think God needs a rule that “You’ll be more comfortable in cooler fabrics, so I recommend linen after Labor Day.”

          Anyway, the point is that there were lots of ceremonial rules (like kosher eating and sacrifices) that changed. But how could they change? God can’t figure out what his unchanging plan is on the first go? Did he slap his forehead after 1000 years and say, “Damn! I forget to get Jesus down there! What an idiot I am.”?

        • Meepestos

          It’s actually quite astute considering the times and locale when the Book of Leviticus was developed.

        • Kendall Fields

          However even though the law is fulfilled by Jesus upon his death we still need to understand that many things in the laws that are considered are still wrong today.

        • epeeist

          The bible is true

          So your god really did drowned 99.99996% of humanity in a hissy fit.

        • Kendall Fields

          Humanity were deep in their sinful ways and God destroyed them all,except for Noah and his family as they were the only righteous people left.

        • Greg G.

          Geology shows that never happened so don’t worry about defending it as an actual event. You would need to defend it as a moral teaching, but since the teaching destroys the notion of the Bible as a moral guide, defending it would destroy your credibility as a moral person.

        • adam
        • adam
        • epeeist

          Humanity were deep in their sinful ways and God destroyed them all

          I think we can agree that Stalin was a monster. He was responsible for about the same number of deaths as your god, though Stalin kill a much smaller percentage of the world’s population than your god.

          So why do you and other Christians of your ilk rightly see Stalin as a monster while giving your god a free pass?

          Oh, and there is of course absolutely no evidence for a global flood and a huge amount of evidence against it every happening. This is of course sufficient to refute your claim of the bible being true.

        • Kendall Fields

          God destroyed people for their sins. You willingness to not see that just shows your folly.

        • epeeist

          God destroyed people for their sins

          Which of course isn’t an answer to the question I asked.

          At the time of the purported flood the estimate is that there were about 20m people on the planet. Amongst these would have been a large number of children and an even larger number of people who had never even heard of your god.

          So what kind of “sin” had been committed by the those of age 2 that justified their killing? What justified the killing of my ancestors here in England who had never heard of your god? And not only killing but the use of a method of killing the simulation of which is considered as torture?

          As I said, you would rightly condemn someone like Stalin who killed an equivalent number of people. Why do you give your god a free pass? Could it not have done something different that did not involve genocide with the rest of the planet’s biosphere as collateral damage?

          I see that, as usual with creationists, you don’t tackle my point that there is considerable evidence against the occurrence of a global flood, sufficient evidence to show it never happened and hence the bible is false on this matter (and given that the story is a rehashing of the story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a story which has a talking snake and tree of life, isn’t even original).

        • Greg G.

          What justified the killing of my ancestors here in England who had never heard of your god?

          And how did our common ancestors go on reproducing without noticing that they had drowned?

        • epeeist

          My usual question to those committed to the absolute and literal truth of teh bibul is “Which of Noah’s sons married the Chinese woman?”

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          The genetic diversity of humanity would have to come from only five people, assuming the women were not closely related and the sons were those that Noah actually fathered.

          But it is worse for Adam and Eve, who would have the same DNA. Creationists say that there was hyperevolution after the flood because the vapor canopy prevented mutations before the flood. That means Noah and his kin had no genetic diversity beyond the four variations of the two alleles Adam may have had for each gene.

        • epeeist

          The genetic diversity of humanity would have to come from only five people

          All of whom were Semitic. So where do Caucasians, Orientals, Asiatics and Negroes come from?

        • Greg G.

          “From the mutations caused by the cosmic rays that had been blocked by the vapor canopy.”

          That is a near verbatim response I got from a Creationist but I have seen similar things in creationist screeds.

          From Canopy theory (Creation wiki)

          A vapor canopy would also be highly effective in filtering out ultraviolet radiations, cosmic rays, and other destructive energies from outer space. These are known to be the source of both somatic and genetic mutations, which decrease the viability of the individual and the species, respectively. Thus the canopy would contribute effectively to human and animal health and longevity.

          It seems that Creationists are backing away from that claim these days.

          The Collapse of the Canopy Model by Bodie Hodge (Answers in Genesis)

          Explaining the Flood without the Canopy (Creation Today)

          How many creationist arguments do they have to have knocked down before they become ex-Creationists?

          EDIT: From the end of the Creation Today article:

          Conclusion
          It has been hard for many modern creationists to let go of the vapor canopy theory. Dr. Carl Wieland expressed this emotional difficulty, in answering a critic on the Creation Ministries International website. While showing why the canopy theory does not make sense, Dr. Wieland admitted, “Having lectured using the ‘canopy’ idea many years ago, I can certainly understand its appeal. Emotionally, it was hard to ‘let go.’”7 I had similar emotions. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that the canopy theory was not Scripture, but rather a scientific model to aid our understanding. Scriptural analysis and modern scientific understandings both show that the canopy model is not necessary. It seems today that the effects, for which the canopy theory was developed to explain, are actually better explained by other means.

        • epeeist

          “From the mutations caused by the cosmic rays that had been blocked by the vapor canopy.”

          Mutations? But that sounds like…evilution.

        • Greg G.

          When confronted with the problem of the number of species in the world today not being able to fit on the ark, they come up with ur-species. For example, there were two “kinds” of ur-cats, big ones that hyperevolved into lions, tigers, leopards, and the like, and small ur-cats, that evolved into house cats. There was the ur-horse that evolved into horses, zebras, and donkeys. This wasn’t gradual Darwinian evolution though. It all happened within about 200 years and stopped completely.

        • adam
        • “Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S., explains why the model fails biblically and scientifically.”

          Why would they care about what science says? They never have before. (Except to strongarm it into supporting their position, I suppose.)

        • Michael Neville

          Since the vapor canopy wasn’t needed to prop up the Biblical mythology then when it was shown to be nonviable it was discarded to keep evilutionists from saying the vapor canopy doesn’t work. Creationists realize that if one hole could be found in their story then the whole edifice comes crashing down. So they removed a hole.

          This is why creationists keep nitpicking at evolution, the Big Bang, and other parts of reality which contradict their myths. Since one hole will falsify creationism they figure the same thing applies to evolution et al. The self-correcting aspect of science doesn’t appeal to them since correcting errors admits that the errors existed. Also creationists see evolution – creationism as a zero-sum game. If evolution loses than creationism automatically wins. They can’t see any other possibility.

        • Thus the canopy would contribute effectively to human and animal health and longevity.

          It would? What about the other effects it would’ve had? Water vapor blocks the IR from going out–perhaps that would create a Venus-like greenhouse effect. Can ordinary light come in unimpeded to let the plants grow?

          But perhaps that’s the argument done by the anti-canopy Creationists.

        • Greg G.

          Water vapor does not absorb a great deal of light emitted at the sun’s temperature.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5a880de5039b2c522da1e8756a323989c4e45bfe1ac83b40e91b626abe7f9918.png

          When creationists claimed that the vapor canopy was a major contributor to the flood waters, it was pointed out that the air pressure underneath would be just as great as being in water as deep as the vapor would be in liquid form. If it all fell at once, it would be like pulling creatures up from the bottom of the deepest parts of the ocean that explode before reaching the surface.

          When the vapor turned into rain drops, it would release the amount of heat it would take to evaporate it. The kinetic energy of its fall to the ground or sea level would be converted to heat, too.

          Noah’s family would have been like steamed popcorn shrimp.

          It was even worse when an ice canopy in space was proposed.

        • And they continue their pathetic quest of inventing their own reality instead of looking to the experts.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          Ah, but before The Flood, the way the atmosphere refracted light was different than it is now. Hence, why there weren’t rainbows until after The Flood.

          Silly atheists.

        • That’s what I get for trying to attack Christian thinking head on.

        • adam

          “But it is worse for Adam and STEve, who would have the same DNA. ”

          ftfy

          But of course:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cabed70b642dd4e05ad235b84e0aa17bf649485d3dd1ae990d98e27dbf7f5a23.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          As Ray Comfort tells us with all the authority he can summon, females evolved separately from males.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)
        • BlackMamba44

          So all the innocent babies were sinful? There must have been pregnant women among those killed in the flood. Were the fetuses deep in their sinful ways, too? Almost all the animals were killed, too, so not just “humanity.” What were their sins?

        • adam
        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s funny.

        • adam
        • Meepestos

          …Babies, kittens, and puppies ; )

        • Michael Neville

          The terms “innocent bystander” and “collateral damage” are meaningless to Yahweh.

        • Ignorant Amos

          YahwehJesus precision bombs and carpet bombs on whim. It is a mood thing methinks.

        • Meepestos

          Even bunnies? : (

        • Susan

          Even bunnies? : (

          Even worse for the sophisticated theological evolutionists.

          We can console ourselves that the story of Noah never happened.

          But hundreds of millions of years of torturing life forms to death and claiming it is the work of an infinitely “good” agent who plucked reality out of metaphysical nothingness is so much worse than a single global flood.

          The hubris required to claim that it is the work of an infinitely good agent is about as sociopathic a position as I can imagine.

          It’s all so a tiny percentage of select humans can be happy forever.

          And the human claiming it is good seems to imagine that they are one of the select.

          Ick!

        • This is God’s perfect plan? Maybe this is just his trial run, because much of God’s favorite creatures live in deplorable conditions.

        • MNb

          Humans wrote the Bible, humanity is weak, so the Bible is weak too.

        • Pofarmer

          Lemme let you in on a little secret. The Devil ain’t real. Hell ain’t real either.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Hardly even a little secret to my mind either.

          Even the more rational Christian knows the secret, such that it is.

          Kendall has a real bad case of the religious mind virus, no getting away from that fact.

        • Kendall Fields

          Just because you can’t see him doesn’t mean he isn’t real.

        • Pofarmer

          Just because you can imagine something, doesn’t mean it is. Get a grip.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Get a grip.

          Excruciatingly painful to watch, isn’t it?

          Yet in another way, so feckin’ sad.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Just because he can’t be detected by any means but the imagination is an indication that he is imaginary.

        • Rudy R

          The Bible is true, except all the bits that are untrue.

        • Kendall Fields

          And that would be what exactly?

        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          Compare Genesis Chapter 1 to Genesis Chapter 2. They don’t match. Things get created in different order. So one or other or both are untrue.

        • Kendall Fields

          Like what? Come on tell me.

        • Rudy R

          Can I assume you are a believer in Bible innerancy?

        • Kendall Fields

          As humans we will never understand God’s word fully through our sins but we must trust in him and try to understand it by believing in his son Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.

        • MNb

          I would not know why I would trust a product of your childish imagination.

        • Rudy R

          Let’s try this again. Are you a believer in Bible innerancy?

        • Kendall Fields

          Do you believe that the Bible is God’s word?

        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          How about answering Rudy’s question. Are you a believer in Bible innerancy? This question just needs a yes or no answer.

        • Rudy R

          Are you referring to every word in the Bible?

        • Kendall Fields

          Yes.

        • adam
        • Rudy R

          How did you come to that belief?

        • Kendall Fields

          By understanding and reading the Bible. The bible also lets you know when there are parts that are metaphors but focus on the main picture.

        • Rudy R

          So you came to believe God wrote every word in the Bible, because you’ve read and understood the Bible. I’m sure you don’t believe everything you read and understand, so how do you determine which books are true and which ones are not true.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So you came to believe God wrote every word in the Bible, because you’ve read and understood the Bible.

          A claim not in evidence.

          I’m sure you don’t believe everything you read and understand, so how do you determine which books are true and which ones are not true.

          I’m not confident KF has read more than one book. I’m not even that confident KF has even read all of that one book.

        • Kendall Fields

          I believe that all of the books in the Bible and know they are true regardless of how they may seem to us. I trust God that his word is true.

        • Rudy R

          I was referring to other books besides the Bible. How do you determine which books are true and which ones are not true.

        • Kendall Fields

          So what are you trying to get at here? I want to know.

        • MNb

          Demonstrating how silly your preaching is.

        • Rudy R

          Trying to understand why you believe the Bible is the word of God. In your words, you came to believe the Bible is God’s words, because you’ve read and understood the Bible. Is your belief in a book being true or untrue based entirely on your understanding of the book? You could read and understand a post-Copernican book on the explanation of the heliocentric model of the universe, but could come to the conclusion that the book is untrue, based on your knowledge of the pre-Copernican model of the universe. So wouldn’t you agree that someone should not necessarily come to the conclusion that a book is true or untrue based entirely on reading and understanding?

        • Kendall Fields

          Now tell do you believe that the Bible is true?

        • Rudy R

          It’s true in the sense that it depicts how Iron Age inhabitants of the Levant understood reality.

          Again, wouldn’t you agree that someone should not necessarily come to the conclusion that a book is true or untrue based entirely on reading and understanding?

        • Kendall Fields

          And how do you think reality is viewed now.

        • Rudy R

          And again, wouldn’t you agree that someone should not necessarily come to the conclusion that a book is true or untrue based entirely on reading and understanding?

        • Kendall Fields

          No.

        • Rudy R

          Based on that response, your position is that any book you read and understand would be true.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No problem if you’ve only read one book…or part thereof.

        • Kendall Fields

          Then answer me this how do you know the Bible isn’t true?

        • Michael Neville

          Because it’s full of contradictions, myths, fables and lies.

        • Meepestos

          But if it didn’t we wouldn’t have all those denominations. : )

        • Kodie

          Because, Kendall, the almighty powerful god character you believe sends stupid shits like you instead of actually do anything. The bible is only a myth. Grown-ups know that.

        • Kendall Fields

          God lets people make decisions of their own will and most people believe that the Bible is true.

        • Kendall Fields

          Also you are the only one who is an idiot here.

        • Greg G.

          There is evidence to the contrary for most of the Bible. But Rudy is not claiming whether the Bible is true or false, at this point. You are claiming that you believe it is true. Why don’t you show how all the possible answers to the 20 questions can be true. The multiple witness giving conflicting information does not add up to their accounts being true.

        • That’s not really the issue. The bold proposition is yours: “God exists.” You have the burden of proof. If someone wants to go off on a tangent and explain why they think God doesn’t exist, that’s fine, but the enormous claim remains. And the burden is yours. Go.

        • Rudy R

          Like I said, it’s true in the sense that it depicts how Iron Age inhabitants of the Levant understood reality. The books made several claims of the supernatural when a natural explanation would be more probable. There are some historical facts, but most historical references can’t be verified by modern historical scholarship. The Pentateuch and the Gospels were written by unknown authors and since we only have copies of copies of copies of those texts, historical scholarship cannot confirm the accuracy of those claims.

        • Kendall Fields

          Actually many people back then agreed they were written by the person they are ascribed to.

        • And some people thought that Merlin was a real wizard. So what? Let’s use modern scholarship when analyzing the Bible.

        • Rudy R

          Can you name these people?

        • Kendall Fields

          Church fathers if you want to know more look up Inspiring Philosophy.

        • Rudy R

          Do these Church Fathers have names?

        • Kendall Fields

          Yes.

        • Michael Neville

          What are those names? St. Aintgottaclue? Doctor of the Church Dumbass? Bishop Shitferbrains?

        • Rudy R

          And those names are?

        • Kendall Fields

          Tertullian, Irenaus, Papias, and Clement

        • Rudy R

          These guys may have agreed the Pentateuch and the Gospels were written by the person they are ascribed to, but how did they know? They were all born well over 100 years after Jesus’ supposed death, lived outside the Levant and were not historians.

        • Kendall Fields

          Oh yeah Josephus and Tacitus said Jesus was crucified during the time of Tiberius and most of the guys I mentioned were born within 100 years of Jesus’ death. And given that the churches back then were often separated from each other and probably didn’t know each so how did they all come to agreement on something if they never met. Meaning that truth is there.

        • Rudy R

          So what methodology did they use to confirm authorship?

        • Kendall Fields

          Lets see external evidence the fact that they get many names of people and places right and the fact that the person who wrote each of the gospel had several hints towards who they were especially with Luke and John.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Which must mean that Doctor Watson chronicled the exploits of Sherlock Holmes and they are historically accurate. You really are a silly pants.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There is no point in expending anymore effort on trying educate you on your stupidity.

        • Are you referring to the Testimonium Flavianum? It’s not original to Josephus.

          If you had an author write the next day about the supposed miracles of Jesus, the story would be unbelievable. And you’re tap dancing about authors born within 100 years of Jesus??

          Give it up. This story is built on sand.

        • David Cromie

          It is unlikely that KF has ever heard of the Testimonium Flavianum.

        • Agreed, but I figured that she had likely heard of “Wikipedia.” That couldn’t be on a homeschooler’s naughty list, could it?

        • David Cromie

          🙂

        • epeeist

          Well Wikipedia is incredibly biased, it is anti-Christian, anti-conservative and pro-evolution amongst other things.

          Real people know that for unbiased information one should consult Conservapedia.

          (Yes, I know I am not linking to Conservapedia, why give them a click)

        • Greg G.

          Do you think Tacitus went through 80 year old documents from Judea to determine that Pilate had someone name Jesus crucified? “Jesus” was the sixth most common name in the first century. Tacitus usually gives his sources. He may have taken the words of Christians about what they knew from reading Mark.

          The excuses that Bible scholars are using to say the Testimonium Flavianum is authentic or partially authentic are falling away.

        • David Cromie

          The mention of JC in Josephus’s History was an interpolation by later christer apologists in a deceitful attempt to confirm JC’s existence.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Wrong yet again.

          There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named”

          http://www.thenazareneway.com/gospels_second_century_writings.htm

        • Ignorant Amos

          Back when? At a time when people knew no better?

          Historically, most folk think Mohammad wrote the Quran.

          But anyway, you are just plain wrong…as usual. Do you train to be so asinine with just that one head?

          Even better educated Christians know you are being stupid.

          The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] — do not occur once in all his writings” (Christian Records, p. 71).

          These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They simply imply that they are “according” to the supposed teachings of these Evangelists. As Renan says, “They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority.” Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: “They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).

          Give it up, silly pants.

        • Kendall Fields

          Yet science has not provided many answers and just makes guesses that a lot of the time tend to be wrong.

        • epeeist

          Yet science has not provided many answers and just makes guesses that a lot of the time tend to be wrong.

          Did you do any science beyond 5th grade?

          Science has provided answers which show the bible to be false in a number of places, for example the fact that a global Noachic flood never took place. Something that you keep ignoring because it shows your mantra about the bible being true to be a nonsense.+

        • “Yet science has not provided many answers and just makes guesses that a lot of the time tend to be wrong,” Kendall said, sitting in a room typing on a computer, plugged into the internet, and powered by electricity. “Nope–science hasn’t produced a gosh-darned thing!”

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m gonna go out on a limb here and assert that irony is lost on Kendall. I bet ya a pound to a pinch of salt that Kendall’s life is cluttered with answers provided by science that are not guesses. While no answers have been provided by religion, only guesses.

        • Rudy R

          What were those many answers and guesses that science got wrong? Were Einstein, Newton, Gaelio, and even that nameless Catholic priest who developed the big bang theory wrong?

          Do you want to start comparing what the Bible got wrong?

        • Michael Neville

          that nameless Catholic priest

          Georges Lemaître

        • Kendall Fields

          What has the Bible gotten wrong by your standards.

        • Kodie

          Didn’t someone already give you 20 examples?

        • Rudy R

          Jesus’ failed prophesy that the Kingdom of God on Earth would occur in his generation. For a so-called god, that’s an epic failure.

        • Kendall Fields

          His prophecy did not fail for his kingdom still lasts to this day.

        • MNb

          Not on Earth.

          According to Gen. 2:19 men should have one rib less than women.

          According to Gen. 1:25-27 humans are created after the animals.
          According to Gen. 2:18-19 it’s the other way round.
          According to my standards one of the two got it wrong. According to yours both are correct of course – you don’t care about logic.

        • Rudy R

          Yeah, every Christian makes this claim. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be Christians. However, Jesus made a claim that he would return to judge over the world in his generation. Which, according to the reality I live in, he has not.

          “Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

          But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

          Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)

          Commence the knot-tying.

        • Kendall Fields

          You do realize what he was saying there was about the Jewish state disappear not that he would come back but that the Jewish generation would not disappear until the temple was destroyed.

        • Greg G.

          Matthew’s Jesus did not say, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until one of these things take place.” Matthew quotes him as saying, “ALL of these things.” But then Matthew got it from Mark who quotes Jesus the same way.

          The Morphological Greek New Testament for Mark 3:30 says:

          ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη μέχρις οὗ ταῦτα πάντα γένηται

          The word “πάντα” is used 265 times in the New Testament and every time, the word means “all” or “every”. See http://biblehub.com/greek/panta_3956.htm

        • Rudy R

          The scripture I quoted says nothing about the Jewish state. Jesus is explicit about his return. He said that he would return riding the clouds with angels to judge the world and that with the sound of a trumpet he would send his angels to gather his chosen ones from the Earth. This would be no secret, invisible or “spiritual” event. Instead, the whole world would see him in the sky just the whole world sees the light of the sun. This was to happen some time during the generation of those to whom he was speaking. To make it clear to his listeners that this event would not be in the distant future, he told them that some of them who were there listening to him would still be alive to see it.

          The only thing I realize is that you have to tie yourself into knots to account for Jesus’ failed prophesy. Did you get that explanation from your Christian Fathers? And didn’t Jesus die for everyone’s salvation and not just for the Jewish state?

        • Kendall Fields

          Actually Jesus was talking about the Jewish state and how it would fall. Jesus was saying that the Israelites themselves would not disappear until the prophecy came to be meaning even to this day. But you should know Jesus said only the Father will know when the second coming he never said within his generation but he is talking about the Jews in the broadest sense.

        • Rudy R

          Again, the scripture I quoted did not mention the Jewish state. “generation” in the New Testament means generation. When Jesus referred to the Jews, he used the word “Jews”. Jesus also said “this generation” and did not say “that generation”, which would refer to a future generation.

        • Kendall Fields

          Jesus said the only one who will know the end days are God not him and tells them to prepare themselves as you may never know when that will happen.

        • Uh … it describes a God who drowned everyone, demanded genocide, and supported slavery? Or is this a trick question?

          Try to see the Bible from an objective standpoint.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So you think it perfectly acceptable for two daughters to get their father pished then take it turnabout to incestuously rape him?

          Or perhaps you think it a-okay for an omnibenevolent God to smote some poor folk with fire, just because they used the wrong incense?

          Then there is the Shenanigans of King David…you are fine with all that carry on?

          Or the two she-bears God sent to rip apart a bunch of kids for mocking a man for having baldy napper?

          Your fuckin’ silly book is full of this sort of stuff…I don’t believe that you have read the bloody thing at all. Lying bastard that ya are.

        • Kodie

          Just because you’re poisoned in the mind about science just tells me Christians get by on dishonesty and ignorance, because you just sound like you’ve been isolated from reality for the sake of giving your religious superstition a chance to plant itself in your brainwashed head. Why do Christians have to lie about science? Did you ever think they might lie to you? If it’s real, they shouldn’t have to feel so threatened that they fill your head with lies. If they’re lying about science, maybe they are lying that you are saved. Nobody knows what really happens after you die, that’s a trick to control your behavior by making you fearful of something that’s never going to happen.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • David Cromie

          You are, then, an illiterate moron. Those that first read Hitler’s Diaries (written in German) understood and accepted them as true, including the editor of the Times, yet they were a hoax!

        • MNb

          And I know that lots of stuff in the Bible is false regardless of how they may seem to you. As there is no god it doesn’t make sense to trust him.
          Now what?
          Oh wait – you are going to waste your time by praying for me.
          Shrug.
          It won’t make any difference.

        • Greg G.

          Do you believe that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem when Jesus was born, moved to Egypt, then moved to Nazareth? That’s what Matthew says. Do you believe that Jesus and Mary lived in Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem for a census when Jesus was born. That’s what Luke says.

          Matthew makes a big deal of fourteen generations as if it is important with fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen generations from David to the Exile, and fourteen generations from the Exile to Jesus. The first set is backed up by the Old Testament genealogies. The second set omits four names from the genealogies, including three consecutive generations.. The last set has only thirteen generations from the Exile to Jesus, unless you count the Exile itself as a generation. It also lacks the support of any genealogy from the Old Testament. Do you believe Matthew knew what he was talking about?

          Do you believe Jesus was arrested after the Passover meal was eaten as the Synoptic gospels say or before the Passover meal as the Gospel of John says?

          In the gospels, Jesus could heal someone if the person merely touched him. In Acts, Peter could heal people if his shadow passed over them. Do you believe Peter had greater healing powers than Jesus?

        • Greg G.

          After I finished the first paragraph, my computer got the blue screen of death. When I brought it back up, the link to Kendall’s post was off the Recent Comments. A while later, I opened links from Recent Comments in several tabs and saw that MNb had replied to the comment I was looking for. I hit the Reply link to start over and found the paragraph was waiting for me in the comment box. Thank you, Chrome.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Kendall doesn’t know about any of that…not surprising though, not many Christians do.

        • james

          hello Greg

          luke says that the family used to make yearly trips to jerusalem from?
          1. either from nazareth
          2. either from bethlehem

          then when jesus is about 2, they would have to depart to egypt from bethlehem because of herod. come back to judea and head up north to palestine because of herods son.

          either christians have the family avoid jerusalem or not avoid jerusalem every year.

          or do you think this isn’t really a contradiction?

        • Greg G.

          I think it is a contradiction of the worst sort for the apologist because Luke flat out rejected Matthew’s account. I think the Q hypothesis is apologetics. It is meant to explain the differences between Matthew and Luke but it is not the best way to explain the similarities.

          Luke 1:1-4 says he is using other gospels. Most scholars agree that he used Mark but he rejected Mark’s spit miracles. Why would we not think Luke was capable of rejecting pieces of Matthew, too?

          Matthew’s nativity is based on Josephus’ account of Moses nativity in AJ 2 combined with elements from AJ 17 to bring Herod into it. Luke probably didn’t like all the baby killing being associated with Jesus’ birth and based his nativity on the census near the beginning of AJ 18.

        • james

          When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, 20 “Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.” 21 Then Joseph[k] got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee.

          so jesus is returned to israel when he is still a child. now the new danger is archelaus. . judea would include jerusalem and bethlehem and the text says “he was afraid to go there”

          if he was doing yearly trips to jerusalem with a child who may have been between the age range 0-12, how is it possible he was “afraid to go there”

          ?

          the confusion i have is

          1. luke says that the child is taken to palestine after 40 days. one apologist argued that it is possible the child was left in palestine and only the parents did yearly trips, but then the child needs to be in bethlehem in order for the magi to visit him.

          if the child was 2 years old, then he had to be travelling , otherwise you have magi visiting the parents with no child in the house.

          matthew says that the family departed from bethlehem to egypt. apologists need to assume that the death of herod was under a year so they could have joseph visit jerusalem yearly.

          matthew explicitly says that joseph was “afraid to go there”
          this means that it would be a danger to himself too.

        • David Cromie

          There are no problems or contradictions once you realise that the whole story is a myth. By the way, the original text does not mention a virgin, just that a ‘young woman’ would give birth to a ‘messiah’. The deliberate ‘virgin’ mistranslation was probably felt to be more ‘miraculous’, the icing on the cake, so to speak.

        • Greg G.

          The dream warnings to the father is the give-away that Matthew was using Josephus’ account of Moses nativity rather than the Exodus account to make up the fiction using midrash. Another clue is that the order of gold, frankincense, and myrrh that were for temple rituals is the same as the order described by Josephus but different than described in Numbers. Egypt corresponds to Moses and to Hosea for “I called my son out of Egypt”.

          If the wise men from the east followed a star they saw in the east, how did they end up west of their origin?

        • Michael Neville

          The Augustinian census is one thing that makes no sense to me. Why would the census takers want someone to go to their ancestral home? The census was specifically for tax purposes. Roman census takers would go to each home and place of business to get an estimate of the worth of each and determine tax liabilities. Regardless of whether Joseph lived in Nazareth or Jerusalem there would be no reason for him to go to Bethlehem for the census. Other Roman censuses didn’t have anyone go to their forebears’ home town.

          I think the census story was told just to get Jesus born in the “City of David”.

        • Greg G.

          If Joseph was a builder and not a farmer, he may have leased his ancestral farm to tenant farmers. When there was a tax census, he may have had to travel there to make sure his land was not confiscated for not registering it for taxes, or something like that.

          But would he really need to take his very pregnant wife?

          Luke used Josephus a lot so it is reasonable to think he just unrolled AJ 18 to the beginning and based the story on the first excuse he could find to get Mary to Bethlehem to answer the issue of John 7:41-42 about how the messiah could be from Galilee when the prophecies say he was supposed to be descended from David’s branch and from Bethlehem.

        • Michael Neville

          That makes more sense than the hand-waving I usually get when I bring up the census.

        • Greg G.

          I made it up myself to give them the benefit of the doubt. The apologetics they come up with for it are crazy.

          Is it bad English to use three consecutive prepositions? “up with for”?

        • Michael Neville

          Is it bad English to use three consecutive prepositions? “up with for”?

          I take comfort in knowing that English doesn’t have rules, it has fashions, conventions and habits, most of which can be ignored to get the message across.

        • David Cromie

          Punctuation would have solved the problem. Eats shoots and leaves?

        • David Cromie

          There is no 1st cent, CE evidence for any man-god named JC, whether written or archaeological. Josephus’s History was got at, when later christers interpolated fraudulent mention of JC at a later date.

        • Greg G.

          IA posted that Cassius Dio’s history for around the years Jesus was supposed to have been born are missing those particular date ranges. Tacitus’ writings on history is missing the ranges around Jesus’ supposed death. If those had mentioned momentous event that corresponded to the gospels, we should expect the early church fathers to have commented on them extensively and those would be the parts of those writing that were preserved the best. It seems as if it was too embarrassing to admit they knew nothing of this Jesus character.

          I have the link IA cited for that:

          http://www.raphaellataster.com/articles/lataster-jesus-sources.pdf

        • Ignorant Amos

          Why would the census takers want someone to go to their ancestral home?

          Especially one particular ancestor from a thousand years previous.

          Like who knows who their ancestors were from a thousand years ago? Even today with all our modern ways and means it is some task.

          Utter balderdash. A logistical nightmare of epic proportions to even consider the idea.

          .I think the census story was told just to get Jesus born in the “City of David”.

          Definitely. A literary device in order to fulfill prophecy is all it was. It would seem that Bethlehem in Judea wasn’t even a place at the time under consideration.

          Archaeological excavations have shown that Bethlehem in Judaea likely did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 B.C., when Jesus is believed to have been born. Studies of the town have turned up a great deal of Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 B.C. as well as material from the sixth century A.D., but nothing from the first century B.C. or the first century A.D. Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority, says, “There is surprisingly no archaeological evidence that ties Bethlehem in Judaea to the period in which Jesus would have been born.

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

        • I trust God that his word is true.

          Why? Is your reason something that would convince the rest of us?

        • David Cromie

          Reading Aesop’s Fables would be more edifying than ever reading the so-called ‘bible’ could be.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Dr. Seuss too even…“I like nonsense; it wakes up the brain cells.”

          “Preachers in pulpits talked about what a great message is in the book. No matter what you do, somebody always imputes meaning into your books.”

        • Pofarmer

          Like when the story slips into omniscient narrator mode?

        • adam

          “The bible also lets you know when there are parts that are metaphors but focus on the main picture.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86effa5e2bc761ae95f687bf44f1632c13ebd40a54b07502d779f242a887cc3e.jpg

        • adam

          “The bible also lets you know when there are parts that are metaphors but focus on the main picture.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc554b74af68425056b8a4228b7f09490a1e80f6c6bf14f85bbce2e8015a0bfb.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          What a loada ballix.

          The Gospels are the final products of a long and creative tradition, and the earliest Gospel (for most Mark, for some Matthew) is customarily dated about forty years after the death of Jesus. During these years not only was old material reworked, expanded, collated, and reinterpreted, but new material was regularly interpolated. Eschatological pronouncements of Christian prophets, ex post facto predictions, Old Testament proof texts, and ethical maxims were attributed to Jesus and thereby “authorized” for believers. ~ John G. Gager, “The Gospels and Jesus: Some Doubts about Method,” The Journal of Religion 54, no. 3 (1974): 256

          Cited from Lataster, Raphael “Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories—A Brief Pseudo Bayesian
          Meta critique of the Sources.” Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 6, no. 1 (2015).

          Lifted from….
          http://www.raphaellataster.com/articles/lataster-jesus-sources.pdf

        • So you are claiming competence in knowing and understanding the Bible? I have found many shifty-eyed religiots make such claims, but few can sustain them. Can you sustain your claims to competence by answering the following easy questions?

          1. How many men were in Jesus’ tomb when the women arrived?

          2. On the way to Golgotha where Jesus was to be crucified, who carried Jesus’ cross?

          3. When Jesus sent his disciples out to spread the gospel message to the cities of Israel, did he command them to take only a staff or to take no staff?

          4. When Jesus and his disciples were walking toward Jerusalem after leaving Bethany that night, Jesus saw a fig tree and cursed it for not having figs. Did the tree wither immediately as they stood and watched or did it wither overnight?

          5. How many women went to Jesus’ tomb on Sunday morning?

          6. After Jesus calmed the sea, he and his disciples went to a land called Gadarenes (Gergesenes in Matthew). How many demon-possessed men came out of the tombs?

          7. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, was he riding on one donkey or two?

          8. How did Judas Iscariot die?

          9. How many days passed after Jesus’ resurrection before he ascended into heaven?

          10. When did Satan enter Judas Iscariot?

          11. When Jesus was being crucified, were the women standing near (at the foot of) the cross, near enough for Jesus to speak to them from the cross, or were they watching from very far away?

          12. Did both of the criminals who were crucified with Jesus revile him or did only one of them revile him?

          13. Who was Jesus’ grandfather on his father’s side?

          14. According to Jesus, is it okay to call someone a fool?

          15. How many blind men did Jesus heal on his way out of Jericho?

          16. When Jesus was being crucified, what did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?

          17. What did Jesus do immediately after his baptism?

          18. Did Jesus believe that bearing witness of himself made the witness true or not true?

          19. Did the women who visited Jesus’ tomb run immediately and tell his disciples that he had risen?

          20. Who bought the potter’s field with the 30 pieces of silver that was payment for Judas’ betrayal of Jesus?

          Test value 10 points. For each answer contradicted by scripture, half a point will be deducted.

        • evenminded

          I assume each of these has contradictory passages. I would be interested in learning of the verses that you have for each.

        • Why don’t we discuss this after our self-declared expert has had a shot at them, rather than giving him ideas 😛

        • Greg G.

          The Bible is The Great Big Book of Multiple Choice.

        • MNb

          While you’re waiting for the response of our self-declared expert you might take a look at the Skeptic Annotated Bible. I’m not saying that that one is the ultimate authority (it isn’t) but it’s very handy for looking up stuff like that.

        • evenminded

          I’ve seen it. I’m just being lazy. So many exist that I have once known and since forgotten. I was just looking for some instant gratification in this case. I’ll be patient.

        • Greg G.

          For #7, I get the mental image of Jesus standing with a foot on each in a Captain Morgan pose.

        • Kendall Fields

          So are you going to answer those questions or someone else is? I have read it and know the word of God is true regardless of your attempts to say otherwise.

        • Greg G.

          It is an exercise for you to answer. It would be helpful if you cite the passage that provides your answer.

        • I’m waiting for you to support your knowledge and discernment by answering them.

          Which “word of god” are you writing about, and which god thingies? What, if anything, do you imagine “true” means in this context, and what intersubjectively verifiable evidence do you have to substantiate your stance?

        • Kendall Fields

          You just have to read and understand the word of God. I put my trust in my God, the one and only, whose Son died to save us from our sins. And if you know so much how about you answer them. I would but I don’t need to entertain you.

        • Kodie

          You don’t know the answers. Nobody is entertained by you, except laughing at how gullible and evasive you are, typical Christian fucking asshole.

        • Kendall Fields

          I do know the answers but I feel that you guys are just so bothering. Do you know those answers?

        • Kodie

          I don’t think you do. You judge us and lecture us and you don’t fucking know. How do you expect this to work, honey? The bible’s right because some know-nothing piece of shit asshole Christian thinks so, based on knowing nothing?

        • Kendall Fields

          I never condemn you to hell but you are the one who is judging.

        • Susan

          I do know the answers

          People with answers generally provide them when asked direct questions.

          but I feel that you guys are just so bothering.

          Because people are asking you to show knowledge on the subject that you are blathering on about?

          Again, people with answers don’t generally respond by blaiming the people who ask questions with being the reason they won’t give the answers.

          Do you know the answers?

          For each one of the twenty questions, there are different, contradictory answers.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

          They are not twenty trick questions. They are reasonable questions in the face of your claims of “understanding the bible” and also your claim that it is “the word of God”.

          You have no answers. Just assertions.

        • Kendall Fields

          Then why don’t you think about why each have different versions? It is based on who the audience is as well as the writers’ using eye witness testimony and witnesses can give different answers. It would be suspicious if all four gospels were the same word for word act same size and length. Also if you want someone who will give you the answers you want so badly look Inspiring Philosophy. Also I read the Bible and even through all the “contradictions” I see very insignificantly little to none at all and that comes using common sense.

        • epeeist

          It is based on who the audience is as well as the writers’ using eye witness testimony and witnesses can give different answers.

          If there are several statements that could be true or false then we have two possibilities:

          1. The statements are “contradictories”, in other words one of them is true and all the others are false.

          2. The statements are “contraries”, in other words one of them could be true but all of them could be false.

          In each case we have, at maximum, one true statement and multiple false statements.

          Given that the above 20 situations have multiple different accounts then plainly the bible contains falsehoods and hence cannot be true.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It is based on who the audience is as well as the writers’ using eye witness testimony and witnesses can give different answers. It would be suspicious if all four gospels were the same word for word act same size and length.

          But this is the word of God we are supposed to be discussing ya moron.

          Remember, that perfect, knows everything, can do anything, nonsense concept you have between your ears.

          Surely such a being could compensate for all these issues you just choose to hand-wave away as the understandable failings of human beings. Otherwise, what choice does a rational thinker have, than to think the bullshit is just no more than that…the ravings of cult lunatics?

        • Greg G.

          If a witness says someone drove west and turned left and witness 2 says that person went west and turned south, they agree without using the same words. If witness 2 said the person turned north, then you have a contradiction where at least one is wrong. That’s what we have in the Bible. Just because you can make something up to make one passage seem plausible to you doesn’t make the passages agree nor does it make them true.

          Matthew and Luke have lots of verbatim agreement with Mark yet they disagree with Mark and with each other on theological grounds, not on eyewitness perspectives.

        • David Cromie

          Kendall is at a grave disadvantage in that she cannot distinguish between fact and fiction.

        • The gospels used eyewitness testimony? Show me. We don’t even know who the gospels. Contrast this with the Gospel of Peter, which says, “But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea.” The Infancy Gospel of Thomas begins, “I Thomas, an Israelite, write you this account.”

          If I were you I’d say, “Who cares? It’s just words on paper. I could write that myself on paper, and no one would believe it.”

          That’s true. And if you say that, you’ve just undercut any claims of gospel authority. Unlike these noncanonical gospels, they don’t begin, “I, Mark, am an eyewitness to all that I relate here,” for example. And if they did, you would dismiss that as just empty claims on paper.

          Even if the 4 canonical gospels did claim to be eyewitnesses (they don’t even do that), so what?

        • Greg G.

          Luke tells you he was not an eyewitness in the first four verses. He thought he had eyewitness testimonies but he rejected and changed the material, mostly for theological reasons. Maybe even for a joke.

          Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

          Luke 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

          was changed from

          Matthew 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

          Matthew 24:41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

          She made a joke where the men were still in bed while the women were working.

          EDIT: I had the wrong preposition.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Again, people with answers don’t generally respond by blaiming the people who ask questions with being the reason they won’t give the answers.

          You have no answers. Just assertions.

          You do realise, at this point Susan, we are dealing with a child…or at least an adult with a childlike mentality?

          The schoolyard Malarkey is a dead give away.

        • MNb

          Actually I don’t – the five, six years old children I have talked to generally said more interesting things than Kendall ever did.
          I realize we are dealing with a guy who is capable of saying “I believe in God” in a million different ways, but nothing more.

        • David Cromie

          Do you know the answer to this question; What irrefutable evidence is there for the real existence of any supposed ‘god’?

        • Ooh! Pick me!

        • Kendall Fields

          Also well done on showing your true colors.

        • Kodie

          Your opinions are worth nothing to me, I don’t even know what you mean. That’s the problem with you, you think people just bow to your authority and credibility. You have none and none.

        • Kendall Fields

          No I think they are important to you otherwise you wouldn’t be replying.

        • Kendall Fields

          I have no authority in the world however the authority is God. You have same amount as I do.

        • Michael Neville

          Do you ever think or talk in anything but meaningless sound bites?

        • Susan

          I have no authority in the world however the authority is God. You have same amount as I do

          But you expect people to accept the existence of something you call “God” and that “the bible” is the word of this “God” on your authority.

          Do you see the problem here?

          What are you claiming and how do you support it?

        • Kendall Fields

          Then tell me how you support that there isn’t a God.

        • Susan

          Then tell me how you support that there isn’t a God.

          I didn’t make that claim. You claimed there is one.

          Define “God” and support your claim that it exists.

        • epeeist

          Then tell me how you support that there isn’t a God.

          An omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent entity is logically incoherent and hence cannot exist.

        • You first. You are the person with the remarkable claim, last time I checked.

        • Kodie

          It’s actually the people who believe in god, many who put a great deal of effort and organization into arguing their point, unlike you, but no credible evidence for god exists. You can’t just point at the world and think that’s sufficiently an argument. Just because little doofy Kendall Fields thinks it is just means Kendall Fields hasn’t had much of an education, and has been thoroughly brainwashed.

          I mean, think about it, stupid fuck. You are brainwashed. When did god tell you he existed? When did you hear from god and can tell us all about it? You heard the stories from other people and adopted their superstition and now you are overly confident and trying your first time at heckling atheists according to the tropes of your cult. We need something new – it’s called EVIDENCE. You are inferior to most Christians who at least offer their functional arguments. You haven’t learned those yet. You think you can even get past us on mere assertions and “Kendall Fields thinks so” – you know who the fuck is Kendall Fields anyway? Some asshole teenager who sneaks onto the computer when teachermom is teaching your 15 other siblings.

        • Pofarmer

          Kodie never hid her colors, and doesn’t need to answer to you. Asshole.

        • Susan

          well done on showing your true colors

          Your true colours have been on display since you got here.

          You’ve made endless assertions without supporting them.

          You’ve claimed to have knowledge that you can’t show is knowledge.

          You’ve dodged the most basic questions about your claims every time they’ve been raised.

          Kodie called you an asshole.

          Because you’ve acted like one consistently.

          I’m always amazed when people act like assholes and then claim victory when someone finally calls them one.

          Behave like that in any discussion on any subject where people are actually interested in honestly evaluating your claims and you will eventually get called an asshole for your dishonesty and arrogance.

        • Kendall Fields

          No I think you are the jerk here. I haven’t shown dishonesty or arrogance but you and your friends have.

        • Susan

          I think you are the jerk here.

          Just another unsupported assertion, Kendall.

          I haven’t shown dishonesty or arrogance but you and your friends have.

          And another one.

          Here is what I accused you of, based on your commenting history to date here:

          1) You’ve made endless assertions without supporting them.

          2) You’ve claimed to have knowledge that you can’t show is knowledge.

          3) You’ve dodged the most basic questions about your claims every time they’ve been raised.

          You could counter any or all of those statements by showing a single example where you’ve done otherwise..

        • Kendall Fields

          If you look at the page itself, you will see I am right. Use the common sense you are so fond of. So tell me what knowledge do I not possess. The Bible is still true in its message also given that the writers of the gospels probably never met except for Matthew and John they often asked people about Jesus and what he has done. So show me evidence that you guys haven’t been jerks putting down cuss words like you are middle schoolers.

        • Michael Neville

          No, we don’t see that you’re right. We see you evading questions. We see you saying the Bible is correct and true without giving any reason why you make such claims.

          So show me evidence that you guys haven’t been jerks putting down cuss words like you are middle schoolers.

          When someone keeps being dishonest and arrogant then they will get called on it. You’ve been called on your dishonesty and arrogance. The name calling is just to bring your attention to people noticing your arrogance and dishonesty. If you don’t like being called a fucking asshole there’s a simple solution. Stop being a fucking asshole and you won’t be called one. Even a fucking asshole should be able to understand that, given enough hints.

        • Ignorant Amos

          So show me evidence that you guys haven’t been jerks putting down cuss words like you are middle schoolers.

          You really are one ignorant fucking arsehole.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBhPDxszukU

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM

        • David Cromie

          As Fry points out, some of the best educated people tend to be those that swear the most, and those that object tend to be those that possess the most restricted vocabulary.

        • Greg G.

          When I was transitioning from Christian to non-Christian, a preacher’s sermon was on why people take the Lord’s name in vain. His conclusion was, “THERE’S POWER IN THE NAME!” and he seemed to say it like that in bold capital letters.

          I couldn’t help thinking, “Bullshit. Oh, that word has the same power as the name of God.”

        • MNb

          “If you look at the page itself, you will see I am right.”
          Done so – and I see you are not even wrong. You are nothing.
          “Use the common sense you are so fond of.”
          I have done that from your very first comment on – it tells me that you’re a total bore, void of any interesting insight. The Dutch expression is a worn out gramophone record.
          “So tell me what knowledge do I not possess.”
          It’s much faster to tell you what knowledge you do possess.
          No knowledge at all.
          You only possess one skill – formulating grammatically correct, but still meaningless sentences.

        • Greg G.

          The Dutch expression is a worn out gramophone record.

          I think Kendall may be too young to have any idea what a “record” is. Or should I say “was”?

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Greg G.

          Vinyl discs? I’m waiting for wax cylinders to come back around.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …and something to play them on too.

        • David Cromie

          And your proof for the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’ is…?

        • epeeist

          I haven’t shown dishonesty

          No? You have previously made a claim that the bible was true. I gave you a counter-example which shows something in the bible that is contrary to the facts, in other words a place where the bible is false.

          And now you are here again making the same claim that the bible is true as though nothing had been said. This is dishonest.

        • Michael Neville

          You may think you haven’t been dishonest or arrogant, others here have a different opinion. Refusing to answer questions or answering them with smarmy questions of your own is both arrogant and dishonest.

          You blew off Hermit’s Biblical quiz, that’s dishonest. You keep saying the Bible is true but you give no reason for us to accept that statement, that’s dishonest. You keep questioning our sincerity, which is arrogant.

          In short, you’re a fucking asshole. If you don’t like being called a fucking asshole that’s your problem, not ours.

        • Meepestos

          The deacon I’m having a chat with wouldn’t call her an a hole, but certainly thinks she is acting like one.

        • MNb

          “I haven’t shown dishonesty or arrogance”
          Agreed.
          You have shown exactly nothing.

        • Kendall Fields

          You have made assertions that have no support.

        • Michael Neville

          I have given examples of your dishonesty and arrogance.

        • Susan

          You have made assertions that have no support.

          Give me an example.

        • Kendall Fields

          That there isn’t a god or that God doesn’t exist.

        • Susan

          That there isn’t a god or that God doesn’t exist.

          When did I assert that?

        • Michael Neville

          As Susan says, if you act like an asshole you will be called an asshole. Quite frankly, Kodie is completely correct when she calls you a fucking asshole because you act just like a fucking asshole.

        • MNb

          Granted – so have you from your very first comment on. You do nothing but delivering boring sermons (no matter how short) totally devoid of any meaning.

        • Greg G.

          Was Jesus arrested before or after the Passover feast? The answer is after Passover in three gospels but before when you get to John. You can’t believe both. It’s like that with the 20 questions. If you give one answer, another passage says something different.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Hence the reason to invent apologetics.

          Word of God, my arse!

        • Kendall will say that by squinting this way or turning the text that way or interpreting this passage some other way, she can maintain her presupposition of God belief. But of course that’s not how an honest person follows the evidence.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Thanks for confirming your unadulterated ignorance and fuckwit purpose for being here. Do us all a favour and bore off, there’s a good child.

        • So basically you don’t have a clue, but plan to make it up on the fly and hope to fool others into accepting that you really do vest belief in this tired old rubbish.

          Brain imaging has confirmed the above, leaving you fooling no-one, not even yourself [http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.full.pdf]. Why not give up the act?

        • Kendall Fields

          I believe that God’s word is true. You are the one believing in the rubbish that there is no God.

        • Kodie

          Your opinion isn’t anything close to an argument. Does your teachermom know you’re on the internet

        • Kendall Fields

          Does your family know you have a dirty mouth?

        • Kodie

          It must be past your bedtime.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Past mine…3:50 AM here…but hey hoo….it’s the weekend and there is red wine to drink…watching Carrier debates….anno, sad bastard.

        • Kodie

          You’re an adult, you can stay up late, you don’t have to wake up and go to church tomorrow. My concern is the lack of good sleep is affecting young Kendall’s thinking abilities, plus being homeschooled and believing just chatter about Christianity is like saying magical words in lieu of having any evidence or even the idea that adult conversations about controversial issues include arguments and not just “I’m Kendall Stupidhead, I believe the bible and you should too or else”. Or else some child up past their bedtime will say it again?

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve my club travel section meeting at 12.30 tomorrow afternoon…as usual…fuck that church ballix….the great temptation is to stay in the club after the meeting and go on the pish.

          Edit: when a say tomorrow, a mean in six and a half hours.

        • Susan

          the great temptation is to stay in the club after the meeting and go on the pish.

          Now, now Paul. Get some sleep.

          You’ll be glad you did. 🙂

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha….a got nearly six hours. Am on shanks pony because driving is out. It’s not looking too promising for a sensible day. Everton play Manchester City, then Liverpool play Manchester United…so plenty of entertainment.

        • Susan

          Well, at least you got some sleep. 😐

          Happy Sunday, Paul. Take care of yourself.

        • Michael Neville

          Why don’t the Rangers and Celtic play any English Premier League teams?

        • Ignorant Amos

          For that very reason. They are in different national football leagues. Rangers and Celtic play in the Scottish Premier League.

          Of course they do play English Premier League teams on occasion, but in European competitions and friendlies, also testimonials.

          Rangers is playing RB Leipzig at this very minute…getting beat 3-0.

        • Michael Neville

          So it’s Liverpool against Manchester today.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Everton beat Manchester City 4-0 earlier. The Manchester United v Liverpool game kicked off 15 minutes ago…no score yet.

        • Greg G.

          You rip him for not knowing things so he rips you for what you do know.

        • Kendall Fields

          Yes little girl your bed time has come.

        • Michael Neville

          If you don’t like the way adults talk then you can just fuck off. And yes, my family knows that I’m a retired Navy Chief and they know how Chiefs talk. So why haven’t you fucked off yet?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Soldiers too Chief, soldiers too.

          Unruly language is part of the coping machinism for service personnel under stress…not something familiar to most.

          Black humour, which we’ve talked about before.

          My heart goes out to the young service personnel today who have to endure such stuff, increasing exponentially. Having to witness so much crap that it drives quite a few of them to suicide. The wall we patrol so they can sleep safe at night.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m fully aware that soldiers swear just as well as sailors and for exactly the same reasons.

          Some years ago I had an argument with someone who didn’t know me well and he started swearing at me. He ran out of steam after about ten or fifteen seconds and I said to him: “I spent twenty years in the military. If you’re trying to shock me I’ve heard it before. If you’re trying to impress me I’ve heard it done better. If you’re trying to insult me that’s not the way to do it.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          “I spent twenty years in the military. If you’re trying to shock me I’ve heard it before. If you’re trying to impress me I’ve heard it done better. If you’re trying to insult me that’s not the way to do it.”

          Brilliant!

        • Meepestos
        • Meepestos

          “My heart goes out to the young service personnel today who have to endure such stuff, increasing exponentially. Having to witness so much crap that it drives quite a few of them to suicide. ”

          Tragic.

          I recall in the sixties many of the male teachers were veterans that appeared to have PTSD in my home town.Some were withdrawn and others the opposite – swearing, losing their cool, breaking and thrown things, and at times hit us. I used to dislike many of them until friends of my father, (my father never talked about WWII or Korea) explained to me the ordeals my father went through as a child during WWII and as a soldier in Korea.

          I can’t believe the lack of respect/information of those that have served nowadays. My father now suffers from the side effects of a stroke – dementia-like symptoms. He carries a photo of his friend in his wallet that served with him in Greek Expeditionary Force in Korea; the only photo he has of him. When we crossed the border into the US, a customs officer went through his wallet and passport for some reason. My father with pride showed (my father gets nervous around figures of authority) the customs officer the photo of him and his friend probably to break the ice so to speak. They laughed and said to him he looked cute with his machine gun and that it must of been taller that him. WTF? I thought to myself and was about to loose it. (My father is short) Instead I let it go, as it went over my father’s head.

          Anyway, though this might be of interest to you:

          http://globalnews.ca/news/3162225/ptsd-what-happens-when-canadian-military-members-ask-for-help/

        • Ignorant Amos

          Thanks for the personal story and link to that article. I’m fairly well versed on PTSD, complicated as it can be. I move in ex-vet circles who do a lot for displaced ex-service personnel. Our government (UK) is failing these folk big time.

        • Kodie

          Why are you offending me with your intrusive questions instead of defending your beliefs? You believe stupid shit, and you haven’t spent any energy arguing that they are correct other than demonstrating over and over that you simply gullibly believe them. That isn’t an argument. Do you fucking know that?

        • Kendall Fields

          Control your mouth little child and tell me how it isn’t correct given that the Israelites are not afraid to say that they had bad rulers and loss battles compared to most other cultures at the time.

        • What is your point about losing battles? If you’re saying that Yahweh got his ass kicked by Chemosh (to take one example), I see that, but I’m not sure how that makes your case.

        • Kodie

          I only got into this fucking idiotic conversation because you decided you had to tell people how to behave. I have zero interest in your superstition, I’m not a child, and go fuck yourself already. If you can’t be interesting and knowledgeable about your subject, there’s no reason to care what you say. Who are you and why do you think anyone cares about your opinion? Of them OR ANYTHING ELSE. You haven’t made any friends here, you haven’t made any points here, and I’m so fucking sick of you telling people how to act. You haven’t earned any respect here at all.

        • Michael Neville

          Got any evidence that your god or any other gods aren’t just figments of your diseased imagination?

        • Ken Campbell

          You belief is based on the concept of ‘blind faith’. This is a problem for most theists, as you fear that a real discussion will show the gaps in your faith and will expose your doubt.

        • Kendall Fields

          Yeah and most atheists have blind trust that the scientists haven’t made any mistakes or not recorded any of their mistakes.

        • That’s curious–I’ve never met one. You might want to rethink that charge.

          Here’s a tip going forward: if you’re new to arguing apologetics with atheists, then good for you for taking your views for a test drive. But you’ve seen that your elementary, shallow arguments don’t convince many atheists who’ve actually thought about these issues.

          Ask more questions. Be more open to change. If your apologetics education has been exclusively from Christian sources, you’ve been poorly educated. Just like in regular school, you need to learn and adapt to new information.

        • Ignorant Amos

          More ignorant ballix.

        • D.M.S.

          LOL.

        • David Cromie

          Atheists merely ask religiots to produce the irrefutable evidence for their favourite supposed ‘god’s’ real existence, but they always refuse. Why?

        • I’ve never seen the word of a god thingie. Just the words of men in a babble of languages, interpreted by the mentally incompetent to match their preconceived ideas about god thingioes no better than the people writing the words. What makes you imagine that anyone should consider your delusions to be different?

        • Kendall Fields

          How are they delusions after all even seeing this world you are saying there is no God? God made this world after all many great scientists have said the world shows that God exists.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your fuckwittery knows no bounds.

        • Ignorant Amos

          How are they delusions after all even seeing this world you are saying there is no evidence for God?

          Fixed that for ya.

          God made this world after all many great scientists have said the world shows that God exists.

          Really? Which god?

        • Is this a “Isn’t the world marvelous?! 🙂 Must’ve been made by God!!” argument?

          If so, why God? Why not some other deity?

          And why are natural explanations insufficient? What unexplainable questions remain that need a supernatural hypothesis?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Is this a “Isn’t the world marvelous?! 🙂 Must’ve been made by God!!” argument?

          Which is lovely if one lives in the human life Goldilocks zone c/w white picket fence.

          Witness some harsh, repugnant shit for any length of time, then get back to me.

        • David Cromie

          It is a version of the old, long since debunked, Argument from Design.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah….these Dudley-Do-Rite Christian types are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land with their religious bilge.

          How’s it working out for the millions of poor souls such as these?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99pQ0KJfdoE

          About 29,000 children under the age of five – 21 each minute – die every day, mainly from preventable causes.
          More than 70 per cent of almost 11 million child deaths every year are attributable to six causes: diarrhoea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth.

          YahwehJesus must be too busy helping helping folk locate their lost keys or handy parking space.

        • epeeist

          Which is lovely if one lives in the human life Goldilocks zone c/w white picket fence.

          Which, as I have remarked before and been ignored, is a very, very tiny piece of the whole cosmos.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed.

          I was referring more to those Christian folk that live in relative comfort in the world and sit spouting stuff like Bob alluded to, as in, “Isn’t the world marvelous?! 🙂 Must’ve been made by God!!” It ain’t marvelous for the majority, it’s a struggle to survive.

          But of course, in that bigger picture that needs repeating, yours I mean, is that the universe, and most of this planet, is gravely inhospitable to mammalian life.

        • Michael Neville

          Everything in this world is explainable by natural causes. No superstitious nonsense is needed to explain how anything got here. We now know that thunder isn’t caused by Thor beating his hammer on mountains. We now know that tsunamis aren’t caused by Watatsumi, the Japanese ocean dragon, fighting demons. And we also know that humans weren’t created by Yahweh playing with mud.

        • Meepestos

          What! You mean the rainbow is not a mode of transportation for Iris and links the gods to humanity? ; )

        • Michael Neville

          Of course not. The rainbow is the Bridge to Valhalla that Heimdall guards.

        • Meepestos

          Blasphemy! I now have to make some sacrificial cakes to save you from the wrath of one of the Greek gods. No Greek Thyme-honey yogurt cheesecake for you. ; )

        • Michael Neville

          Oh no! I’ll have to immerse my sorrow in a large glass of aquavit.

        • Meepestos

          Oh my! I feel bad now. Shhhh… I’ll put aside a cake for you. Hera won’t notice; forums aren’t her thing… Elpizoume ; )

        • David Cromie

          That bridge is getting a bit crowded, what with all the pot of gold seekers as well.

        • Rudy R

          Please share the list of great scientists that have said the world shows that God exists.

        • Michael Neville

          There’s Tut-Tut-Tut and Whatshisname and also You-Know-Who. –W.S. Gilbert The Mikado

        • Kendall Fields

          Let’s see Einstein, Newton, Gaelio, and even the Catholic priest who developed the big bang theory. Even through all of their science work, they still believed in God.

        • Greg G.

          But none of them showed that God exists. Newton is famous for the work that omitted God from his equations. Same with LeMaitre. Galileo disagreed with the Church. Newton wasn’t even a Trinitarian. Einstein used the word God as a metaphor, He believed in Spinoza’s god which was just another name for the universe.

        • David Cromie

          Einstein was an atheist!, Who is Gaelio’? When everyone was a RC, their advances in the field of science were made in spite of their religious beliefs.

        • epeeist

          Let’s see Einstein, Newton, Gaelio, and even the Catholic priest who developed the big bang theory.

          To be blunt about it, you are a fucking liar. You might try this reply by me to one of your posts in which I point out that it was a Soviet physicist who produced the first exact solution to the Einstein field equations and another Soviet physicist who actually produced the Big Bang theory.

          As for Einstein, his position on religion was complex and one could best characterise him as a pantheist. As it was he didn’t think much of the bible. In a letter to Eric Gutkind he says:

          The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

          As for Galileo, you really want to name him after he was tried for heresy by the RCC and sentenced to life long house arrest for his scientific views?

        • Greg G.

          Newton’s greatest contribution to Christianity was showing that the Trinity reference in 1 John 5:7 was a forgery.

        • I’m guessing she has Newton and other pre-modern scientists in mind.

        • Ellabulldog

          religion is childish superstition…Einstein

          pretty smart guy, I don’t appeal to others because I knew the same thing as a kid but if you want to appeal to a scientist he is one of the smartest.

          of course scientists are human and die and fear it just as any other so they also are susceptible to the lies of religion.

        • Kendall Fields

          Actually Einstein said science without religion is stupid and religion without science is blind. You can’t have one without the other. Also a Catholic priest was the one to make the Big Bang theory and even told Einstein that his physics was way off. And he said the Big Bang theory shows that their is a God.

        • Ellabulldog

          read Einstein’s full quote …

          a Catholic priest discovered the Big Bang good for him. That is no proof of any god. It does mean the bible is bulls..t though right? Not sure how the priest reads Genesis and can actually believe the Bible.

          so Genesis is bull right? so the bible is wrong right?

          all fable

        • Kendall Fields

          And how can you not believe in that Genesis is true given that it describes the same way scientists say the universe was created.

        • Ellabulldog

          religious nuts hate the Theory of Evolution precisely because the science behind it destroys the bible’s claims.

        • Kendall Fields

          So you believe that Charles Darwin was absolutely correct and made no mistakes or didn’t record them?

        • Ellabulldog

          his theory holds, any mistakes will be and are discovered by science

          you don’t think Evolution happened? Over billions of years?

        • Kendall Fields

          Yet have we been around for billions of years? No we haven’t and if “evolution” happened God guided it.

        • Ellabulldog

          now you can’t even read a simple sentence.
          “We” have not been around for billions of years. Modern humans are a small blip on the timeline of this Earth, so insignificant in the timeline of the Universe.

          If “Evolution” happened? sending you to the dunce corner.
          God guided it? which god? the one that doesn’t exist
          there is no evidence proof or any logical reason for the existence of any god

          only human superstition

        • Kendall Fields

          Yes Mr. dunce God does exist as the world itself is the evidence. There is no real evidence of evolution since we don’t see it happen and generally make only guesses.

        • epeeist

          There is no real evidence of evolution

          You might want to have a look at this site, then you can tell us there is no real evidence…

        • David Cromie

          If I turn over a rock, will I find this supposed ‘god’ of yours hiding underneath? Or do I need to crack open a nut?

          Since neither will suffice, where else am I supposed to look? If your argument for a ‘god’ is based on assertions made in the so-called ‘bible’, that constitiutes a circular argument, and is thus fallacious! Where do we go from there?

        • Michael Neville

          How is the world evidence that Brahma made it?

          There is no real evidence of evolution since we don’t see it happen and generally make only guesses.

          You probably believe this nonsense. Reality disagrees with you.

        • Have you even ever looked at any evidence for evolution, or you just know it does not exist?

        • Kendall Fields

          I have but we still run on data that Darwin had and you really think he was actually correct. He could have made mistakes and we could be running on the mistakes a guy in the 19th century made.

        • No, no, no, no, no. If you honestly believe that the Theory of Evolution is based only on Darwin’s research and data, then I imagine you have about 150 years of data to catch up on.

        • Kendall Fields

          Oh I have done my research and scientist still do rely on Darwin’s research.

        • Greg G.

          They have much more and better evidence than even Darwin had. The evidence points to evolution. Evidence for evolution was known before Darwin, but they didn’t have a mechanism until Darwin worked out natural selection.

        • Not to mention we now have genetic material and DNA. Darwin never even imagined these advances. All of it supports the ToE. Nothing in 150 years has even come close to disproving it.

        • OK, I can see you are not even going to attempt to be honest or use facts. Have a good day. Goodbye.

        • Kendall Fields

          Goodbye so long farewell. I pray you come to your senses.

        • I hope you wake up before it is too late.

        • Kendall Fields

          I pray you do.

        • Michael Neville

          “I’ll pray for you” is Christian-speak meaning “fuck you!”

        • MNb

          Well, even if there is a god he won’t listen to someone who violates the 9th Commandment again and again.

        • MNb

          I have little doubt that that “research” of you consists of reading creationist lies.

        • BINGO!

        • Kodie

          You haven’t done any research, you are a parrot.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sucking up all the Kool-Aid in sight by the looks of things.

        • Michael Neville

          You are a liar. You’ve either not done any reading about evolution or you have but are lying about what you read. Either way, you’re a fucking lying asshole.

        • Susan

          I have done my research.

          Give us an example.

        • Show us. And make it some source besides Answers in Genesis or Creation Research Institute or other Christian site.

        • epeeist

          Oh I have done my research and scientist still do rely on Darwin’s research.

          Liar. I gave you this link to a web site which contains hundreds of pages and references to several hundred research papers. How much of this site still relies on Darwin’s research and data?

        • David Cromie

          I suppose you can read English, sort of, but you certainly fail to comprehend it, big time!

          Now, about my question posed to you regarding the real existence of your supposed ‘god’, is there any chance of a cogent reply, with irrefutable evidence, before the end of this century? If you do not understand the question, please let me know, and I will try to put it in simpler English for you.

        • Why is this hard? No one cares about what Darwin said.

          No biologist compares his results against the Great Darwin to see if they are acceptable.

        • David Cromie

          Christers can always rely on the good, old, ‘god’ of the gaps!

        • Kendall Fields

          Science based on his theory which still isn’t a statement but a theory.

        • epeeist

          Science based on his theory which still isn’t a statement but a theory.

          Sigh, the standard piece of equivocation about the word “theory”.

          In science “theory” is the gold standard, it describes something that has been critically tested and has large amounts of evidential backing.

          Does evolution happen? Yes, we have seen it both in nature and the laboratory, it is a fact. What Darwin’s theory in its modern form is a description of the way that evolution happens and, as I said, it has been critically tested and has a huge amount of evidence in its favour.

        • In science “theory” is the gold standard, it describes something that has been critically tested and has large amounts of evidential backing.

          One clarification: a scientific theory is an explanation. Contrast this with a scientific law (f = ma, for example) which has no explanation.

          A popular way for apologists to confuse themselves is to imagine that theories graduate to laws when they are more mature, but, as you note, a scientific theory is as good as it gets.

        • David Cromie

          No, but like all good scientists he left the door open for others to build on his seminal work. Which they have done, to great effect!

        • Michael Neville

          Darwin wrote Origin of Species 150 years ago. He was wrong in some things he wrote, for instance his ideas on “inheritance” have been replaced by genetics. However his basic idea of natural selection is still part of modern biology.

        • Wow. No one cares what Darwin said. “What Darwin said” is in the bin of History of Science–an interesting discipline, but not one relevant to our discussion today. We go to modern biologists, not Darwin, to find out about evolution.

        • Michael Neville

          Thank you for showing that your ignorance of Genesis is exceeded by your ignorance of evolution and the Big Bang.

        • MNb

          It doesn’t. It already begins with Gen. 1:1 which says that the Earth was formed before light. Scientists say it’s the other way round.

        • Kodie

          Christianity is a hell of a drug.

        • Which scientist claim that Genesis was correct?

        • Kendall Fields

          Haven’t you noticed that Genesis is very similar to the way scientist nowadays say the Universe was made.

        • Nope, not at all. It see no similarities whatsoever. Can you give me a link to the many scientists you say support the account. Because I find that current science actually contradicts the Genesis story.

        • Kendall Fields

          Look at the Bible and you see the formation of the Universe and Earth are very similar. Also the days mentioned in the Bible could very well be days in Gods’ eyes.

        • Holy mackerel. Here is a list for you:

          1. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite.
          2. God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day, and how could there be “the evening and the morning” on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?
          3. God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. We also know this is NOT the case in reality.
          4. God lets “the earth bring forth” the plants on the third day, but before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes. Impossible by scientific standards.
          5. God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used “for signs”. Nope.
          6. God makes two lights: “the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night.” But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to “rule the night”, does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky?

          Not only does the story not even come close to what science has revealed about how and when things came to be, it is flat out WRONG about many things, and impossible in other points. It is very sad to me that you did not know any of this, and continue boldly claiming things as fact when the could not be further from the truth.

        • Kendall Fields

          Sure sure. Actually the sun and moon were already there but you couldn’t see them. Light and Dark were already created and the plants formed and given that the Earth was covered with clouds before the Sun and moon were shown they still existed. It comes out wrong through your understanding but you have to use your knowledge of which you have very little.

        • Greg G.

          Genesis 1:16 (NIV)16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

          What is the lesser light that governs the night? The moon is not a light, it is a reflector.

        • Michael Neville

          The moon is also often visible during daytime.

        • Meepestos

          During nearly everyday, the moon is visible except for when it’s close to a full moon or new moon unless you live in the Pacific Northwest
          ; )

        • Michael Neville

          That is the biggest mish-mash of bullshit I’ve read in a long time. You are really reaching to try to explain away the obvious contradictions between the Bible and reality. And don’t tell someone else they’re ignorant. There’s too much of the beam in your eye versus the mote in other peoples’.

        • Pofarmer

          That was just down the rabbit hole .

        • David Cromie

          Isn’t it amazing what happens in a superstitious, brainless, scientific void!

        • epeeist

          That is the biggest mish-mash of bullshit I’ve read in a long time.

          Well yes, the well known tactic of “if the evidence contradicts the bible then make something up”, also known as “lying” or “breaking the ninth commandment”.

          But as we have seen Kendall is a serial liar.

        • So you are saying the Bible is lying and you are going to rewrite it?
          You are a piece of work. You can’t even be truthful about the words in your HOLY BIBLE…pathetic.

        • David Cromie

          Superstitious beliefs and delusions as a consequence of them, have everything to do with your pseudoscientific spin on Genesis. Nor does your nonsense provide any proof for the real existence of the supposed ‘god’ of the so-called ‘bible’. Lemaître agrees!

        • Ignorant Amos
        • David Cromie

          I detect no science in your reply!

        • Uh … no?

          The 6-day model isn’t at all like what science says. In fact, we haven’t gotten a single bit of new science from the Bible.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are one bug nutty bat shit crazy religitard.

          How about you support this shite you are spouting with some examples c/w citations?

        • adam

          Nope, but if you read the Veda’s they are spot on with string theory.

        • Pofarmer

          Yeah, except it really doesn’t, like, at all.

        • Greg G.

          No, it doesn’t.

        • Michael Neville

          Genesis talks about proton-antiproton production and lack of CPT (charge, parity, time) symmetry? I don’t remember that. Nor do I remember anything in Genesis about electroweak unification or deuterium (²H) and helium (⁴He) production. This all happened during the first three minutes of the universe.

        • You need to read scientific journals with the eye of faith, brother.

        • Ignorant Amos

          More ignorant ballix ya silly fool..

          According to your silly yarns, the light came first…the Sun came four days later…but a day after he allowed the land to produce vegetation and fruit bearing tree’s, without any rain. That’s not how scientists have discovered these things could possibly have come to be.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Scientists don’t know how the universe was created, doofus….no one does.

        • adam

          Because Genesis doessnt describe the same way science says the universe as created. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b48f9914ee139f5237384e2c30e3f3270972ace993cbb6c2d2680d37abae6b56.jpg

        • epeeist

          Also a Catholic priest was the one to make the Big Bang theory and even told Einstein that his physics was way off. And he said the Big Bang theory shows that their is a God.

          Liar and liar. He actually told the pope not to use the theory to promote creationism.

        • Michael Neville

          Georges Lemaître never mentioned any gods in his scientific papers.

        • I’m sure that is true also for Gregor Mendel (friar and pioneer in genetics).

        • MNb

          Three times liar. I already told you that Georges Lemaitre was not the first to postulate the Big Bang. Three years before atheist commie Alexander Friedmann did.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’ve already been told that the Russian, Alexander Friedmann, postulated the expanding universe model before Catholic priest George Lemaître, by five years apparently.

          Not that it matters. Lemaître’s theory had bugger all to do with his religious beliefs and he said as much.

          By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître’s theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope’s proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.

        • epeeist

          You’ve already been told that the Russian, Alexander Friedmann, postulated the expanding universe model before Catholic priest George Lemaître

          I used to think that you could divide creationists into two, the dim bulbs who didn’t know any better and the smarter ones who should know better but for whatever reason still embrace creationism.

          These days I am sure that there is one thing both sets have in common, they are both dishonest, choosing to lie and ignoring anything which runs counter to their fundamentalist ideology.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No, it was Einstein that told Lemaître that his physics was off.

          “Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable”….”Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious.”

        • The BBT in no way even remotely points toward a God, much less your version of God.

        • Kendall Fields

          Actually it does why do you think the person who made it was still a Catholic priest after he made it.

        • Greg G.

          Georges Lemaître

          By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître’s theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope’s proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory. When Lemaître and Daniel O’Connell, the Pope’s science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology. While a devout Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion, though he also was of the opinion that these two fields of human experience were not in conflict.

          He didn’t believe in creationism, either.

        • Because it was a long time ago and leaving the church was heresy? Not to mention there has been much more supporting information found since then.

        • Kendall Fields

          Actually that happened in the 1900s and the priest even told Einstein that his physics were wrong. Leaving the church and adopting something that goes against church doctrine(aka heresy) are two things entirely. Look him up and you will find out.

        • Someone already showed you that it was Einstein who said the priests physics were off.
          Either way the fact that it was a priest who came up with it, or the fact that he remained one after putting forth his hypothesis has nothing to do with that fact that we have learned an enormous amount since then, and it all points to God not being needed for it to occur.

        • Kendall Fields

          Actually no the priest was the one who told that to Einstein and his name is Georges Lemaitre. And it does show that God is necessary.

        • I am sorry, you are incorrect:

          Lemaître’s proposal initially met with skepticism from his fellow scientists at the time, and even the supportive Eddington found Lemaître’s notion “repugnant”. Einstein was initially unwilling to accept Lemaître’s idea of an expanding universe, although he did appreciate Lemaître’s argument that the static-Einsteinian model of the universe could not be sustained indefinitely into the past, commenting “Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable”.

          http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html

        • Kendall Fields

          Well but people still agree with Lemaitre as back then they called Einstein’s grasp abominable.

        • That is true. It still does not mean that it proves God in any way shape or form, and Lemaitre warned people not to make that connection.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Well? You are wrong. You’ve been wrong since you got here. Everyone can see how wrong you are and we are all just laughing at your embarrassing ignorance and foolishness at this point ya clown.

          Who called Einsteins grasp of physics abominable?

          Citation please or is this more of your airheadness?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha ha…due to the vagaries of Disqus I’ve just seen your citation which I independently just cited.

          It doesn’t matter to Kendall. Kendall is not one bit interested in the right way of things. The silly fecker prefers to wallow in their own ignorant fuckwittery.

          Kendall was pointed out the error yesterday,…

          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/bad_atheist_arguments_i_just_reject_one_more_god_than_you_2_of_2/#comment-3101214365

          …but doesn’t much care for accuracy, so continues to lie. So just a sad pathetic bastard at this point.

        • Which would be fine, just be upfront about it instead of trolling and wasting everyone’s time.

        • Greg G.

          I already posted this to you. You must have missed it:

          By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître’s theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope’s proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not just you that has pointed this wee observation Greg…it takes a special kind of imbecile that tries as hard as Kendall to remain so ignorant.

        • David Cromie

          There is nothing about the universe, or its origins (whatever that might be), to show that any supposed ‘god’ was necessary, or even present, at the time. Lemaitre agrees!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Actually, no, it fucking well wasn’t.

          If you show your work you wouldn’t look like such an arsehole.

          Cite your source or give it up already.

          In the meantime….

          Lemaître’s proposal initially met with skepticism from his fellow scientists at the time, and even the supportive Eddington found Lemaître’s notion “repugnant”. Einstein was initially unwilling to accept Lemaître’s idea of an expanding universe, although he did appreciate Lemaître’s argument that the static-Einsteinian model of the universe could not be sustained indefinitely into the past, commenting “Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable”.

          http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html

        • MNb

          Something Georges Lemaitre exiplicitly denied, stupid liar. Plus neither Lemaitre’s physics nor his god even included god. Physics and math never do.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Lying is against Kendall’s religions rules…BUT, special dispensation is allowed if one is lying for Jesus.

        • MNb

          “Look him up and you will find out.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          If you followed your own advise you would
          1) know his name (Georges Lemaitre) and
          2) know that he explicitly advised against using the Big Bang to argue for your god.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No he didn’t, it was Einstein that said Lemaître’s physics was wrong and you’ve already been told so. Stop lying.

          At this time, Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître’s theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled him commenting “Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable” (“Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious.”)

          Deprit, A. (1984). “Monsignor Georges Lemaître”. In A. Barger (ed). The Big Bang and Georges Lemaître. Reidel. p. 370.

        • adam

          “Stop lying.”

          It is the only evidence for “God” that Kendall can present.

        • MNb

          Actually you’re a liar – there was not one person who made it, but at least four. An atheist commie was first, the catholic priest became second (and explicitly denied that his Big Bang Theory made him remain catholic); I don’t know about the other two.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric

        • Ignorant Amos

          Probably for the same reason the pope remained a Catholic after Lemaitre briefed him on his findings.

          You really aren’t very good at this, are you?

        • adam
        • MNb

          And many more scientists, even christian ones (like the catholic Georges Lemaitre) say that you can’t use science to show whether a god exists or not.

        • Michael Neville

          Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. –Pierre-Simon Laplace

        • epeeist

          God made this world after all many great scientists have said the world shows that God exists.

          Which great scientists? If you look at the data only about 7% of the leading scientists in the States are believers and only about 3% of those in the Royal Society here in the UK.

          EDIT: Oh, and the majority of philosophers are non-believers too.

        • What people say is not intersubjectively verifiable evidence. It is an opinion. And everyone, even “great scientists” may be delusional in their opinions. That occurs when their opinions are not supported by intersubjectively verifiable evidence.

          Earth exists because of the laws of physics acting in our Universe, and the age of our universe which meant there was sufficient star dust to form an accretion disc. No god thingies were required. If there are thingies you would call god thingies somewhere in this universe, they formed according to the laws of this universe.
          Earth will eventually be burned up by the laws of physics, and the Universe, and everything in it, including any god thingies if there are god thingies, will eventually come to a cold dark end, because of those same laws.

          In order to demonstrate that there are non-delusional god thingies in this universe, you would first need to prove that there are intersubjectively verifiable attributes necessary and sufficient to qualify some thingie as a god thingie. I don’t think that you can do that. Instead you are introducing fallacies. That assuredly weakens your case.

        • Kendall Fields

          So you are saying some random explosion happened and everything is all fine and dandy. God is required for how did lifeforms emerge and if there is no God there would be no such thing as a clear morality for everyone. Scientist make more guesses and end up being wrong than most other people. God made this world and only he will decide the end. And I am not introducing fallacies and you haven’t shown any.

        • Greg G.

          Quantum events happen. What are the chances of a bunch of them happening at once, given no time limits? It would be inevitable.

        • MNb

          The Big Bang was not an explosion. Thanks for demonstrating your scientific stupidty; not that we ever doubted it.

        • No. I am saying that an old star star blew up. It contained all the elements above boron we find in the solar system. We know that, because the Big Bang formed only hydrogen, helium, beryllium, lithium and perhaps a little boron. Everything below that was produced through fusion, in stars. Our sun formed from the debris of that star and eventually grew massive enough to ignite. The gravity field of the debris and the sun caused the accretion disc to form planets. One of them was the Earth. Eventually it cooled enough and collected enough hydrogen and oxygen from space to form water. While we have found more amino acids in space than we have in Earth, we don’t yet know whether life formed on Earth or elsewhere. We do know that within a few hundred thousand years of Earth being able to have liquid water, that we see indubitable proof of the emergence of bacterial activity, and we know that these ancient bacteria live on in the mitochondria of all subsequent life forms.

          From our genetics we can trace the development of life forms, and we can confirm the genetic clock from the geological record and radioisotope dating.

          Absolutely nothing beyond normal laws of physics, as expressed through chemistry. No god thingies required or even possible. Indeed, the Core Theory (From Sean Carroll’s “Core Theory” expresses everything that any human has ever experienced, has no term for god thingies, and nobody has yet suggested where a god thingie could be inserted into it without rewriting all of physics. Unlikely to happen at this stage. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fd3dd06051c1c69807f24489a59312175f63c43fbba4743e74846db6cf663fd1.jpg

          There is no such thing as a “clear morality” for everybody, or we would not have as many moralities as there are people, and you would not have learned yours, as every other humanoid does, from your family and society, based on the same behaviours as we share with our social cousins, the other great apes.

          Scientific “guesses” are based on intersubjectively verifiable observations, include a mechanism, are provisional, and unlike imaginary god thingies can, like all real things, be rebutted through intersubjectively verifiable evidence. When a “scientist” makes a guess about something which does not meet these standards, then it is not a “scientific guess” and might be as asinine as those made by any common or garden religiot.

          About a billion years from now, Sol, a well understood main sequence star will become hot enough to boil Earths oceans, and even if we, or some cosmic event have not eliminated life before that, this will almost certainly eliminate any life forms that may have survived until then. Again, nothing to do with god thingies.

          You haven’t yet shown any intersubjectively verifiable attributes which might suggest that any god thingies are anything but imaginary, so no matter how fervidly you might vest belief in them, there is no reason to take your ranting about them anymore seriously than we would take the idea that the universe is operated by angry fairies with good reasons to loathe humans – which does seem rather more likely.

        • Kendall Fields

          Scientists say that but they still run on their assumptions and if there is no God then none of this would be formed. There is one clear morality but people generally don’t want to admit that. If you suggest that by pure coincidence that all of this formed without a Creator guiding it, then that is stupid.

        • The idea that “all of this” formed “by pure coincidence” is the opposite of what I said. It is a strawman created by you. Creating strawmen is indubitably stupid.

          I said that “all of this formed” through the action of underlying physics, which still operate, which have left evidence allowing us to determine how and when things have happened and to project how things will continue to happen in the future. This is what science does, and it makes god thingies completely unnecessary.

          You are forced to lie about “morality” because you have no way to explain your assertions and no mechanism to explain your claims. Again, I made statements which you have not, and cannot rebut. For example, many religiots consider drinking wine for pleasure as wrong, while many others consider it necessary for their sacraments. If there were “one clear morality” both could not be correct. Some regard making images morally unforgivable, others regard it as the highest from of worship. If there were “one clear morality” both could not be correct. Some religions consider genital mutilation necessary, others regard any mutilation criminal. If there were “one clear morality” both could not be correct. Some religions regard marrying relatives necessary for a marriage to be valid, others regard marriage to relatives a a sin. If there were “one clear morality” both could not be correct. Some religions regard cannibalism as a crime, others regard it as a sacrament. If there were “one clear morality” both could not be correct. Some regard bombing children justifiable. Others regard bombing children a crime. If there were “one clear morality” both could not be correct. These contradictions prove that there is not, “one clear morality” but many moralities and far from clear. Telling lies denying what any idiot can see for themselves is stupid, and some might even regard that as a moral crime and have rules against it.

        • Kendall Fields

          I am just stating facts and there is one morality however people often follow the wrong. So you are the one who is telling lies.

        • Who would accept an argument like this? Don’t your Christian friends demand evidence to back up claims like this?

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are just spurting brain farts. Facts require evidence in support, something you appear totally ignorant about. That’s because you are a stupid cockwomble.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Michael Neville

          No, you’re not “stating facts”. You’re giving your unevidenced opinions on subjects you know little or nothing about.

        • BlackMamba44

          little or nothing

          I’m going with “nothing.”

        • adam

          “I am just stating facts and there is one morality however people often follow the wrong.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86effa5e2bc761ae95f687bf44f1632c13ebd40a54b07502d779f242a887cc3e.jpg

        • adam

          “I am just stating facts and there is one morality however people often follow the wrong. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9bfb7cbb09a39ae8911c3879d7def113ab5277eb302961e16b02b2a649a0e7d6.jpg

        • Kodie

          You are the absolute picture of ignorance. Whatever lies you’ve been told, you believe are true, and here you are, just repeating them, with no substance or support, that whatever anyone else says must be the “lie” because it simply doesn’t agree with what you already believe. Maybe it’s not your fault, because you are naive and sheltered and don’t have a fucking clue about the world in reality, but your beliefs represent a fantasy, and you should really go fuck off now, because nothing you say is credible or new or consistent with reality. Or even an interesting version of the same fictional story we’ve heard by better and smarter than you and still don’t believe. If you can’t support your beliefs to us, you are merely pressing us constantly with assertions and protests.

          That is basically whining and nothing else. You are not only ignorant about reality, you seem to be so very far behind understanding what other people are saying to you that all you can do is spit and whine. If you don’t want your bubble burst, go hide under your teachermom’s apron and she’ll dry your tears.

        • David Cromie

          A mere opinion, based on superstitious ignorance, is not a statement of ‘fact’!

          Do you really think that before the OT existed, or the supposed Moses, and his 10 commandments, there was no morality in existence?

        • Pofarmer
        • David Cromie

          Have these three wise monkeys given up just seeing evil, and are they now free to hear and speak it freely as lying christers are wont to do?

        • adam

          “I am just stating facts and there is one morality however people often follow the wrong.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/831e274b356c03b8778b1d9672b8ab244560e2fda7a4cd57b0436d5bda02694f.jpg

        • MNb

          You hardly have stated any fact and the ones that did were at least partly and often totally wrong.

        • Kendall Fields

          Also I am stating the truth as the Bible even discusses mankind following other gods. Also physics runs on the assumption that the universe was formed by mere coincidence of gravity. That is dumb in of itself.

        • Something in physics sounds dumb to you so therefore it doesn’t work that way?

          My aren’t you the big girl.

        • I’d suggest that you not try to articulate what you imagine that physics says, because it is completely apparent that you don’t have the first clue about physics, including the fact that physics does not attempt to say what is, but instead establishes models which make testable predictions about significant things.

          And I have a message for you from the angry fairy.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d8c871139a7ab7ff7db3577b1d7a89bfff070fde9d2cc6c51281127a10cd7482.png

          PS based on the millions of thingies that people have assumed to be god thingies, and your idea that there is just one god thingie, Bayes’ theorem allows us to conclude that your continuing inability to provide the intersubjectively verifiable attributes necessary and sufficient to
          qualify some thingie as a god thingie confirms that your god thingies are almost certainly imaginary every time you post, because P(B)=P(B|A)P(A)+P(B|not A)P(not A) so that, even if we assume that P(B|A)=1, P(A)=0.000,001 or less, meaning that the probability of your correctly identifying some thingie as a god thingie, not knowing any intersubjectively verifiable attributes sufficient and necessary to qualify any thingie as a god thingie, is vanishingly small.

        • Kendall Fields

          There is a God and you using that doesn’t mean anything. There are angels but not fairies. Also if there is not God there would be no such thing as right and wrong.

        • How do you know there are no fairies?

          We know that you are lying again, and are perfectly capable of imagining a fairy, because if you could not imagine a fairy, you would have no way to assert that the postcard addressed to you is not from a fairy. We also know that you are imagining a god thingie, because you keep talking about one. But knowing that you have imagined a fairy, and a god thingie, what intersubjectively verifiable evidence do you have that informs us that you are not merely imagining your god thingies? After all, billions of humans have imagined billions of god thingies, just as billions of people have imagined god thingies. We know that it seems reasonable that small elusive people might be possible, because it is simply a matter of size (and perhaps wings) that separates fairies from humans. You have not told us what separates god thingies from humans, so they seem a lot less likely.

          So was it right or wrong to call me a fool (“dumb”)?

        • Kendall Fields

          Well if yo want to know what your fairies are they are most likely demons.

        • So, no ideas about faeries, demons, gods or whether calling somebody a fool is a right or a wrong thing to do, despite insisting that there was just one clear morality. Seems you have proved that you were lying about that too.

        • Kendall Fields

          There is one morality however demons are not gods and nor will they ever be. So you seem to be the one lying.

        • Michael Neville

          How about some evidence that (a) demons exist and (b) there’s “one morality”? These are put up or shut up questions.

        • Greg G.

          How do you know a fairy from a demon from an angel? You have never seen one. A demon could look like an angel as easily as it could look like a fairy, if they existed.

        • Lots of empty claims. Why should I believe them? I shouldn’t, unless you have evidence and argument.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There are angels but not fairies.

          How do you know, and what method do you use?

        • Greg G.

          what method do you use?

          If a warm, fuzzy feeling inside, it’s true. If it makes him feel bad, it’s false. It’s infallible.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Please tell me why you think this person is wrong…

          Have you ever wondered if fairies are real? I’m here to tell you, my friend, that indeed they are. Knowing that these otherworldly beings are real, perhaps you’re wondering how to find them. Where are they? An easy and quick answer would be . . . everywhere. However, if you are a novice to this world, perhaps you need a little more advice than that. ~ Nicole Canfield

          https://exemplore.com/magic/How-to-Find-Real-Fairies

          …and then apply the same method to your own mumbo jumbo, then you’ll realise why I think you are away with the fairies.

        • adam

          “Also if there is not God there would be no such thing as right and wrong.”

          yet with YOUR “God” there can be nosuch thing as right and wrong…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/60865103a336b5d68f96eb3254e706491af8f8a5dbd80dafef9edf2beab0319d.jpg

        • MNb

          There is no god and you repeating over and over again that there is doesn’t mean anything.
          There are no angels and no fairies.
          Smart people – ie not you – can decide for themselves what’s right and what’s wrong without your or any god just fine.

        • David Cromie

          What, in your opinion, is the difference between an angel and a fairy?

          Where is your falsifiable evidence for the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’?

        • adam

          “Also if there is not God there would be no such thing as right and wrong.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fc08e92607fbb10ca5d9fec66168d9bf582a2748fa716fdb4283c37e046c25e1.jpg

        • Meepestos

          She looks better that the one I saw in a church nailed to a polished mahogany cross minus the holes in the hands.

        • My partner thought she looked better before I adjusted her loincloth and hair to make her fully Disqus compliant 😛

        • Meepestos

          I’m from the days when you wouldn’t see any genitalia due to hair : ) When I was a prepubescent looking at Playboy Magazines, it drove me crazy wondering what was under there and later where the orifice was located. Ironically I found out in an Anglican phamplet on reproduction.

        • Hair today, shorn tomorrow…

        • Darn the rules of civility.

        • It is the height of futility
          Imagining nubility
          Lessened in febrility
          By a veneer of gentility
          Or even that virility
          Is reduced by senility
          When we know that puerility
          Attracts tactility
          Which enhances fertility
          Whether clothed in utility
          Or wrapped in docility
          Intimating pliabiliity
          No matter how subtility

          Envoi!

          Darn the socks, civility’s folly
          When it imagines it is jolly
          To bury all the joys of Molly
          Leaving all quite melancholy.

          ©Hermit 2017 Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

        • Ignorant Amos

          Loving the postcard from the Good Fairy…that’s made my day.

        • A personal postcard from an actual fairy responding to things people have said should be much more compelling than a contradictory old book largely irrelevant to anything or even a talking donkey.

        • David Cromie

          Indeed, and I had no idea that sky fairies were so attractive!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed. There is no reference for scale.

          Anyway, the sort of fecker that would nail such a thing of beauty to a cross, needs a good shoeing.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Also I am stating the truth as the Bible even discusses mankind following other gods.

          That’s because Old Testament Hebrew’s started out polytheistic, ya cretin.

          Deuteronomy 32:8:
          When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind, he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly [the sons of God].

          Hebrew poets took over the old Canaanite motif of the assembly of the gods, presided over by El, which we find in the Ugaritic poems, and they made Yahweh the central figure, identifying him with El and sometimes giving him this name. We read of his assembly in several passages. In the 82nd Psalm, for example, he speaks fiercely to the other gods:

          “God (elohim) was standing in the congregation of El; amid the gods (elohim) he was holding judgment. ‘How long will you just unjust judgments and show favour to the wicked?”

          http://vridar.org/2008/04/27/how-polytheism-morphed-into-monotheism-a-first-step/

          Also physics runs on the assumption that the universe was formed by mere coincidence of gravity. That is dumb in of itself.

          What’s dumb itself is that that is what you believe.

        • Michael Neville

          You really should learn what the Big Bang is about before you start sneering at it.

        • adam

          “Also I am stating the truth as the Bible even discusses mankind following other gods.”

          And Spiderman even discusses other humans with super powers.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8638fdedfe8fad3b245ca0981085794967c878d6bfba020d03d8b426a1c98936.jpg

        • David Cromie

          What on earth are you rambling on about?

        • MNb

          “Also physics runs on the assumption that the universe was formed by mere coincidence of gravity. That is dumb in of itself.”
          Physics doesn’t run on that assumption at all, so you are the dumb one.

        • Discussing physics with this loon is like discussing advanced calculus with a macaque. It isn’t that it won’t understand, it is that you know before you start that it doesn’t have the capacity to understand.

        • Kodie

          Animals understand a lot more math and physics than English.

          https://media.giphy.com/media/26gshBmMiuB33qHS0/200.gif

        • Many christers hold different beliefs, and hate each other for it, not just because your babble is full of contradictions, but because there are so many versions of the babble that there are multiple choices possible for every word contained in it.

        • Kendall Fields

          The Bible doesn’t have any contradictions as i have read it multiple times. Also we don’t hate each but if we teach the wrong thing that will hurt all of humanity.

        • MNb

          No. Gen. chapter 1 saying that the animals were created first, humans next and chapter 2 saying it was the other way round is not a contradiction at all.

          “we teach the wrong thing that will hurt all of humanity.”
          Agreed. That’s why christianity has caused so much hurt and suffering.

        • The Bible doesn’t have any contradictions as i have read it multiple times.

          And there’s no chance that you’re not seeing them because of your worldview? Or are you the only one of us who doesn’t have biases?

          Here’s one of my favorite contradictions: In the 4 gospels, was the Last Supper the Passover meal, or was it the night before the Passover meal?

          Also we don’t hate each but if we teach the wrong thing that will hurt all of humanity.

          Tell that the the Cathars. And the Anabaptists. And the Catholics killed by Protestants during the Thirty Years War and vice versa.

        • David Cromie

          As you are semiliterate, I doubt that you even know what a ‘contradiction’ actually is.

        • Kendall Fields

          Also to that fact we believe there is one God whose Son died for all of humanity however we differ on things that involve questions on his divinity and relation to God.

        • You are wrong about this too, but more to the point, you still haven’t said what intersubjectively verifiable attribute or attributes are necessary and sufficient to qualify a thingie as a god thingie, but I will say that anything that demands human sacrifices has an ethical system which is inferior to that of most modern human adults, and so is unworthy of recognition as a god thingie; so it seems that you have disqualified your god thingies from consideration as gods.

        • MNb

          Please, Hermit, you cannot expect from Kendall to understand a comment full of words like “intersubjective”, “verifiable”, “necessary and sufficient” etc.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A was thinking the same the first time Hermit used them, but thought wtf? This could be fun.

        • Having suffered his interpretation of physics, I totally understand. Perhaps he could ask his keeper to show him how to abuse Google?

        • Kendall Fields

          It wasn’t a human sacrifice but a willing sacrifice of the Son of God who walked the Earth and died to save all of humanity from their sins. God never made a human sacrifice and is always worthy no matter what you or I think.

        • Ignorant Amos

          More lies or ignorance.

        • David Cromie

          Both!

        • adam
        • More rubbish. The Levant is full of the bones of sacrifices, human and animal. The babble incorporates numerous references to same. You haven’t yet articulated any attributes allowing us to determine that any god thingies exist, let alone your weird god thingies, so, as I showed, the odds are millions to one that you are wrong about any claims you might make about god thingies. In any case, I think you will find that your horned god thingies supposedly plan to have have humans tortured in their presence “forever”. Would you say that human torture is more disqualifying than human sacrifice or less so?

        • Kendall Fields

          God exists because of this world as without a God this world would not form especially the DNA in each creature. Nature cannot follow as how do you explain the start of single-celled organisms.

        • You can’t even follow simple science like the start of the Universe, how on earth are you going to recognise that what you thinlk of as “life” is a portmanteaux of emergent properties and that neither DNA nor a membrane is a prerequisite, but that even simple tars produced in the Miller-Urey experiment display many of the emergent characteristics of life (cf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0f5f/206ecdf0775b38c57e78897bbf6cd008f3d6.pdf.
          The process is so predictable that we know that with an earth sized reactor under the conditions of early earth, that life will arise many times in a number of forms within a few hundred-thousand years, with no god thingies needed at all.

        • Kendall Fields

          I don’t think you can understand that as the complications to for advanced life show a God is necessary but besides that fact God is the source of the world and besides the universe itself without God there would be no morality and morality would only be defined by those in power.

        • Michael Neville

          For the bazillionth time, what’s your evidence to support the existence of your god, let alone that your god is necessary for the creation of the world? After you’ve shown your god exists, then we can discuss if the immoral, sadistic, narcissistic god portrayed in the Old Testament could possibly be the source of any kind of morality.

        • We’ve been through this wriggle already. Despite repeated challenges and claims from you that there is only one morality and that it is “clear”, you still haven’t been able to tell me whether calling me a fool was good or bad – and your horned god thingies plan to have humans tortured forever in their presence. Even Jeffery Dahmer had better morals than that. He rendered his victims unconscious before raping and torturing them.

          Poor messed up you.

        • Kendall Fields

          God punishes those who deny him and though you may forsake him he will not forsake you. Hell is a place of punishment for those like Lucifer where the fires remind you of your sins. God always gives you a chance to change, For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”. Also we are all fools when we do not see God’s glory and say that nature is there because of some random explosion.

        • Kodie

          You poor uneducated sheltered brainwashed dummy. It’s obvious how little you know and how you’ve been trained like an animal that you don’t need to know anything else.

        • David Cromie

          You are very fond of gobbledygook, are you not!

          But you are not much good at proving the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’. Concentrate on the latter, and show that you have at least half a brain.

        • MNb

          “God punishes those who deny him”
          and rewards who worship him.
          Unfortunately there is no substantial difference between god’s punishment and god’s reward.

          “Hell is a place of punishment”
          So is Heaven to me, especially if that means sharing eternity with stupid ignorants like you.
          If your god loves me so much he won’t send me to heaven neither to hell.

          “and say that nature is there because of some random explosion”
          See what I mean? The Big Bang was not a random explosion. Listening to stupidities like this one forever and ever makes Heaven a punishment in my eyes.

        • So in your pantheon, your gods thingies are in hell? That explains so much. Your dark horned god thingies are not loving, but murderous, with bad tempers and no social graces.

          I have no “sins” and reject your unhealthy guilt projection. My ethics are vastly superior to those of any god thingies.

          PS “Lucifer” is simply the Latin name for Venus, “the bright and morning star” (and evening star) which is also identified with the so called “Jesus”.

        • Kendall Fields

          So what you are saying you have never had a wrong thought cross your mind? That is a bad lie. There is only one God and the demons in hell are angels who rebelled and were sent there as punishment. You claim your ethics to be superior but that itself is a lie.

        • Why on earth would I say something so asinine? Only somebody with a broken brain would have “wrong thoughts”. The rest of us are more fortunate.

          So is that a yes? Calling somebody a fool is fine in your exceptionally clear morality which you apparently are too stupid to answer questions?

          Ummm, Revelation 14
          They, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”

          So tortured forever in front of your horned god thingie, the Lamb, the so called “Jesus”. Who you have now said is in hell. Where you no doubt hope to go. The good news is that this is all total nonsense. There is nothing after death. Death is the end.

          I wouldn’t torture anybody for anything. Not even momentarily. So I’m way better than your vile god thingies.

          And then Revelation 22
          “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

          And Isaiah 14
          How you have fallen from heaven,
          morning star, son of the dawn!
          You have been cast down to the earth,
          you who once laid low the nations!

          So “Lucifer” and “Jesus” are the same person. I guess you missed the prize for bible knowledge and comprehension. Fool.

        • Kendall Fields

          Different meaning Isaiah talks about how Lucifer fell while John discusses Jesus as being the true light. Jesus is not in hell only the angels who rebelled against God are in Hell aka Lucifer(Satan) and the fallen angels. It isn’t asinine as everyone has problems in their lives and through Jesus, our Lord and Savior we are saved. Besides I have answered questions however your dumbfounded questions are just laughable at best and stupid at least.

        • Greg G.

          Are you sure there is a difference? Who incited David to take a census?

          2 Samuel 24:1 (NRSV)1 Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.”

          1 Chronicles 21:1 (NRSV)1 Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel.

        • But both are the bright morning star – which we know as the planet Venus. And if A = C and B=C then A=B. Fool. Which BTW Your Lucifer-Jesus god thingie said not to call people. Matthew 5:22 “anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” Where your horned lamb will be watching people being tortured forever. The strange things some people imagine are loving.

          I don’t think you are so much saved as invested in reason-impervious delusions.

        • Kendall Fields

          You make it sound like Jesus and Lucifer are the same person. Such an evil mind you have. I pray for you.

        • Kodie

          The more you write, the more illiterate you seem to be. You don’t get reading comprehension, you can’t form an argument, you don’t get symbolism, things just keep flying way over your head, and you think you’re keeping up with “I’ll pray for you”. How sheltered you are. I suggest you tell your teachermom you want to go to real school, unless the real world scares you. You’re absolutely broken in the brain over your superstition. It’s debilitated you.

        • Greg G.

          The Bible refers to the same light in the sky, the planet Venus, and calls it “morning star” and “fallen from heaven” once and quotes Jesus admitting to that title, “Morning Star”. You make it sound like you don’t believe the Bible.

        • Michael Neville

          I pray for you.

          Christianspeak for “fuck you!”

        • The christers so-called “bible” says that they are. Are you saying that in your view the “bible” is incorrect?

          Please don’t pray for me. A massively significant 7% increase in poor outcomes was observed in a scientific study of intercessory prayer (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567). This suggests that you should only pray for people whom you seek to harm.

          Then again, the fact that the bible shows that the prayers of the so-called “Jesus” are not effective (John 17:20-23) suggests that it is all total nonsense.

        • Kendall Fields

          No my Bible is correct but you are just twisting the words to suit your objective. I do not seek harm towards those who hate my Lord and Savior and I will continue to pray and Jesus’ pray was effective as we are all still Christians regardless of what denomination we call ourselves. So it would seem your words utter nonsense.

        • Kodie

          It would seem you have traded brains with a bug.

        • “As for the contents of his skull, they could have changed place with the contents of a pie and nobody would have been the worse off for it but the pie.” – Mark Twain

        • Does it bother you that even believers can’t get the story straight? New independent churches are popping up daily, unwilling to consent to another denomination’s interpretation of the Bible. How clumsy is God that he can’t even get his unchanging message out there?

          If that doesn’t bother you, you don’t understand the problem.

        • You haven’t understood the so-called “bible” (it just means book). I didn’t twist anything. I showed two quotations and pointed out that the referent is the same. The fact that you don’t like what it says is your problem, not mine, fool.

          Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

          He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

          He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”

          Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

          [Emo Philips, https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/sep/29/comedy.religion]

          “So it would seem your words utter nonsense.” [sic] Did you mean this to communicate something other than your words being utter nonsense?

        • Kendall Fields

          No I can read scripture you can possibly know it better than me but you do not know the verses’ meaning whether with context or without and twist its meaning to suit your objectives. Just like Satan.

        • Again you lie.

          Can you show what I allegedly “twisted”?

          How about “fool”? You called me one (“dumb”). Does that mean that you disagree with Lucifer-Jesus, and think it is morally acceptable to call people a fool?

        • Kendall Fields

          I have not lied but you have. Jesus was called a morning because he is bright than no other while Lucifer was described a being the most beautiful of all angels but rebelled as he wanted the throne of God and was cast down to Hell along with his followers as a punishment. And if someone is being a fool anyone will say that you are being a fool. So when you tried to make Jesus and Satan the same individual just shows your twisted methods.

        • epeeist

          I have not lied

          You have lied constantly and consistently while you have been posting here. You have been shown passages in the bible which are mutually contradictory, you have also been shown that other passages describe things which have not happened. And yet in the face of such evidence you lie and lie again saying that the bible is true and the evidence is wrong.

        • Repeating a lie with added delusion and a footstamp does not stop it from being a lie. If the so called “Jesus” is the “morning star”, and it does say, “is”, not “like”, and the so-called “Lucifer” is the “morning star”, and it does say “morning star”, not “like the morning star”, then either the people who wrote this bunk lied, or they meant that your “horned god”, “Jesus” and your “fallen angel”, “Lucifer”, are indeed the same thing. When you try to pretend that explicit language is not explicit, you are lying. When you claim that you cannot see your lies, you are lying. When you try to claim that somebody forcing you to acknowledge that you are lying, is lying, you are lying.

          And if you look at the upvotes, you will see that everyone not invested in your delusions knows that you are the liar, and that your ongoing inability to answer about foolishness proves that you are experiencing massive cognitive-dissonance. Poor you.

        • Greg G.

          Repeating a lie with added delusion and a footstamp does not stop it from being a lie.

          But the footstomp is the most effective support possible for this handwaving.

        • I’m not sure “effective” should ever be used with a foot-stamp outside of dancing 🙂 Not having a functioning brain, it is all this pathetic object has to throw against his interlocutors, and as we have an entire book of idiocy to throw back at him, he is onto a hiding to nothing – and too stupid to realize it and withdraw. If there really were god thingies, I’m sure they would swat these armies of cognitively chronically under-endowed champions before they embarrassed themselves and the objects of their veneration through drenching both in ridicule.

        • Kendall Fields

          You just keep repeating yur lie over and over that Jesus and Satan are the same person shows your evil.

        • Kodie

          As long as you’re going to pray anyway, you should pray for better reading and communication skills. In hundreds of posts, you’ve said the same thing over and over, and I don’t know what you expect people to get from it, other than that you are a superstitious sheltered child who is probably on the internet without teachermom’s permission, and showcase your inferior intellect.

        • adam
        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          What’s your evidence that it’s a lie? According to your propaganda, both Jesus and Satan are “the morning star.” Two things given the same name are quite likely the same thing.

        • Oh, I’m not the “evil one” here.

          “Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD” [Ezekiel 20:25-26]

          Such loving god-thingies you have.

        • Kendall Fields

          Actually you are as those verses are about God saying mankind offered up polluted gifts and sacrificing their children idolatry and since they did that will know him as a powerful judge rather than a gracious father.

        • Take the beams out of your eyes. That is supposedly a god thingie explaining why he was “evil”. It doesn’t matter why he was “evil”. The point is that he was, by any standard, “evil”.

          When you dishonestly omit the bad and exalt the good you are a liar.

        • Kendall Fields

          God isn’t evil but he was saying how people view sacrificing their children as appeasing God which you would recognize if you read it. God is good all the time.

        • Michael Neville

          Your god is definitely evil. He kills people just because he can. That’s evil, not matter how much you try to hand-wave your god’s murders away.

        • adam
        • God is good all the time.

          Which is just what the Dark Lord would like you to think, if he were masquerading as a good god. Doesn’t this world, with its disease and poverty, look more like the handiwork of an evil god who gives us enough good just to tease us and not commit suicide than an all-good god?

          And how do you explain God being good all the time when it sure doesn’t look like it. Aren’t we created in God’s image? Shouldn’t we have the same idea of morality? Why does God do crazy shit like drown everyone in the Flood?

        • Read the Bible. God demanded child sacrifices. Hermit gave you the verses.

          How moral does he sound now?

        • adam
        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Did you miss the “Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good” part?

        • adam
        • adam
        • Lucifer was described a being the most beautiful of all angels but rebelled as he wanted the throne of God and was cast down to Hell along with his followers as a punishment.

          Where does it say this in the Bible?

          What the Bible does make clear in the book of Job was that Satan was simply God’s helper. He was on God’s side. Explain to me how the story of Satan morphed over time.

        • Greg G.

          Have you figured out whether the Lord or Satan incited David to take the census yet? God through a temper tantrum with a plague that killed thousands. The plague ended when David bought the,land on a hill you build an altar. Solomon built the first temple there. It’s told in two places. Did the Lord cause it or did Satan? The Bible says both. How do you decide?

        • adam
        • you do not know the verses’ meaning whether with context or without and twist its meaning to suit your objectives. Just like Satan.

          Or just like the honest Christians in the 44,999 other denominations besides yours.

          What does it say that God can’t get his message out clearly?

        • Kendall Fields

          Also anyone can say that and still be wrong just like you.

        • Saying that somebody is “wrong” is not actually the same as proving it. Which means that you are indeed wrong – need I say, as usual?

          Do you anticipate receiving a prize for consistency?

        • Kendall Fields

          No but do you.

        • MNb

          Still you’re ahead of Hermit for this price – your lies are very consistent.

        • epeeist

          Do you anticipate receiving a prize for consistency?

          He expects a reward in heaven for Lying for Jesus.

        • That is the really weird part. At some level he does not. We know this because, when we ask religiots to tell us what they think their god thingies want us to do, those who are not too frightened of being challenged on their answers to respond (like this shifty eyed christer), will proceed to tell you what they want us to do. What is interesting is that, when they do so, they engage all the modules required to determine whether you think they are lying. Which they won’t do when you ask them what they or any other person or organization might want them to do. Which strongly suggests that religiots are aware that they are making up their god thingies. In turn, this suggests that their psychosis might be curable. Even more interesting, the ever declining levels of church attendance across developed countries, suggests that the conditioning may in any case be self-limiting. If we do not blow ourselves to bits first, or die of the catastrophes our massive overpopulation is making inevitable, we or our AI, will probably be capable of curing this issue within five to fifteen years.

        • Greg G.

          The two passages were written by different people in different times with different influences and motivations. If they were inspired by God’s, they would not have applied remarks about Venus to Jesus and Satan. Problem solved.

        • adam

          we are all still Christians regardless of what denomination we call ourselves.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c95e927c4e95d2cffdd3ef1e9366cb46bfed529f568bfad72911e50e30e88468.jpg

        • That’s a great Jesus quote. Not only did he fail to get everyone to believe, even within his church there is dissension–45,000 denominations and counting.

          Oopsie.

        • It is why we need the term “christer”.

          Five useful neologisms for dealing with religiots 🙂

          Christer, noun: Anyone vesting belief in any aspect of the so called “Jesus” (not a Hebrew or Aramaic name, but a transliteration of the acronym Yeshu, or י = Yimaḥ ש =Shĕmo ו = Wezikhro from ” ימח שמו וזכרו(נו) ” or “(Y’mach Sh’mo V’Zichro(no))”, meaning, May his name and memory be obliterated) or in the beliefs of Saulus/Paul’s “christ” (not even a name at all, but a Greek translation of “anointed one” later confused with Chrestus, a Jewish insurgent of the mid first century in Rome ). Christer originated because the christers hate each other too much to agree about what makes a person a “christian.” So there is a new term on the block which is defined to be all inclusive.

          Religiot, noun: Anyone who vests belief in any god thingies or forces or “the supernatural” or regards themselves as being affiliated to any deistic or theistic religious organization. Religiot orginated because Religiots cannot agree between themselves on the meaning of religion, and because there was no all inclusive word for people who are not atheistic.

          God Thingie, noun plural, God Thingies: God thingies are anything claimed as possessing attributes qualifying them to be regarded as deities by anyone at any time, including by referring to any god thingies as deities without proving that such god thingies possesses such attributes, or indeed identifying what non-imaginary attributes would be sufficient and necessary to regard god thingies as deserving of being regarded as deities. In this Universe things may occur as objects (comprised of energy or matter) about which intersubjectively verifiable predictions may be made or as imaginary objects for which this is not the case. Until somebody explains what intersubjectively verifiable evidence there is for an attribute or attributes qualifying something possessing such an attribute or attributes as a deity, and then shows intersubjectively verifiable evidence that a particular god thingie or thingies exist and possesses those attributes, all god thingies will remain imaginary. God thingies are plural not only because mankind has introduced hundreds of thousands of such god thingies (billions if we include the various forms of object and ancestor worship) all of which are equally as valid only as imaginary objects, at least until the above conditions are met for one or more of them, but also because until the attributes of such a god thingies are fully qualified, it cannot be known whether or not such a god thingie is congruent with other god thingies.

          Goddities, noun: From “god oddities”. Goddities are god thingies where their supporters though repeatedly challenged, still cannot provide any evidence that their god thingies possess any attributes that earn them the right to be regarded as deities and where they are prima facie ridiculous, in that they cannot assist their supporters in any way in this process, no matter the cost to their followers of their belief.

          kefálalia, noun: *from Gk “κεφάλαιο” [kefálaio] (i.e. the majuscule letters) and Gk “λαλια” [lalia] (i.e. speech). kefálalia is used to describe the random use of capitalization, rather as echolalia describes the random repetition of others’ words. In other words, the syndrome of inserting random capitals into sentences, a usually reliable indicator of religiosity, conservatism, AGW denial and other symptoms of mental deficiency, with differential diagnosis facilitated by the fact that the condition is exacerbated by opposition.

        • That’s quite a list! Have you added these words to urbandictionary.com?

        • I’d never thought of Urban Dictionary as a repository for serious contributions to the language. Done.

        • So they liked goddity and god thingies and rejected the others as too complicated. Sigh 🙂

        • So now christer, god thingie, goddities and kefálalia have been accepted. And religiot was just resubmitted.

        • adam

          “You make it sound like Jesus and Lucifer are the same person.”

          No, Satan is the nice one:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6338978c6b29942e8e6cc4e04bc6517afb92c7978e8906e8a1c1ad7a3a29d209.jpg

        • Christians assure us that the serpent was Satan, and the serpent brought us wisdom. He was the Christian Prometheus.

        • David Cromie

          It is a pity that Yahweh did not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That could have saved mankind from a lot of misery and untold evil. But then, that was not the evil ‘god’s’ Great Plan for humanity!

        • adam

          No Lucifer is much nicer and kills MUCH fewer people.

        • your dumbfounded questions are just laughable at best and stupid at least.

          Remember the adage about throwing stones while living in a glass house?

          Give us an argument. Why is Christianity correct and the other religions not? Do you even have an answer for yourself?

          Or if you have nothing, tell one of your elders to come here and do what you can’t. Is there a respected person in your church community who’s great at apologetics? Tell them to come here and present and defend their beliefs.

        • Aha–Yahweh as a Jawa. He was of the desert, wasn’t he?

        • Burning mountain. It seems likely that each mountain had its own Yahweh (one of the 70 sons of El) and his Asherah, and that the Hebrews worshipped many, known as “Yahweh of Place and his Asherah”. A number of sources have identified that Yahweh as being synonymous https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c8e0283b0e64de2ad5ede2a6f8fef650d0f7537f07c67f0250452f6ff397aea.png with the gods of Halal-‘l Badr (vide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hala-'l_Badr).

          Here is an alternative Jawa god thingie 🙂

        • Greg G.

          So what you are saying you have never had a wrong thought cross your mind? That is a bad lie.

          Hermit never said that. There is no such things as “sins”. It’s is a contrived religious method to make you feel guilt about things that are not bad. Lust is not the same thing as adultery. Anger is not the same thing as murder.

          You claim your ethics to be superior but that itself is a lie.

          I have no plans to burn people in my basement. I don’t blame my creations for their faults. I doubt that you do, either. Both of us have superior ethics than your god does.

        • MNb

          Nope. You’re the liar. You lied about the Big Bang and about Georges Lemaitre.
          Now you lie that Hermit is saying he never had a wrong thought. He is saying that having a wrong thought is not a sin.
          Also you lie that he claims his ethics to be superior. He claims that his ethics to be superior to those of any god thingies.

        • Michael Neville

          According to your own propaganda, your boss god, Yahweh, is a sadistic, narcissistic bully who kills people just because he can. He condones slavery and orders sexual slavery and genocide. That sort of behavior is not moral.

        • Wow–enough with the evidence-less claims, OK?

          Do you find the equivalent claims from a Mormon or JW or Muslim or Scientologist compelling? If not, then don’t annoy us with them.

          Is there a reason–y’know a reason with evidence–why we should accept your claims? Then give us this reason. Otherwise, you’re a time waster.

        • Michael Neville

          Poor Kendall Fields, when faced with reality he keeps retreating to GODDIDIT without offering a shred of evidence to support his claim.

        • MNb

          Nope. Jesus did not die for me. It’s up to me to decide that and I say no.

        • Greg G.

          That is enough to qualify a person as a Christian but that makes Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-23 the biggest prayer failure of all time since there are 45,000 denominations. You all need to be united enough in your common agreement that it would impress the world to make the prayer fulfilled.

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

        • adam

          ” That is dumb in of itself.”

          Ok, but I would have said IGNORANCE, but be dumb if you want. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c25d529dc939c17c5a9074e45baa4974edd4fc21477cf6d46edd2a0c567ff5e5.jpg

        • adam

          “The idea that “all of this” formed “by pure coincidence” is the opposite of what I said. It is a strawman created by you. Creating strawmen is indubitably stupid.”

          But usually it is the VERY BEST ‘evidence’ that the ‘faithful’ have.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • adam

          “. There is one clear morality but people generally don’t want to admit that. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/878b8e07d2b942087c85ac234890ad18b3e8f811594bc275918c5d05cbe88467.jpg

        • Fascinating, thanks.

        • Don’t like scientists much, do you? Since science is behind your computer and the internet and electricity, I’d have thought that you’d admit that science does a pretty good job, all things considering.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/60865103a336b5d68f96eb3254e706491af8f8a5dbd80dafef9edf2beab0319d.jpg ” God is required for how did lifeforms emerge and if there is no God there would be no such thing as a clear morality for everyone. ”

          Then even you admit there is no God/

        • adam

          ” and if there is no God there would be no such thing as a clear morality for everyone.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/60865103a336b5d68f96eb3254e706491af8f8a5dbd80dafef9edf2beab0319d.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          That quote is the stupidest thing to use as mankind cannot determine what is right and wrong solely. So please don’t say stupid things.

        • adam

          “That quote is the stupidest thing to use as mankind cannot determine what is right and wrong solely.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86effa5e2bc761ae95f687bf44f1632c13ebd40a54b07502d779f242a887cc3e.jpg

          Yep, to be truly EVIL, you need a God…

        • Stupid things? What’s stupid is simply stating your dogma and expecting other to accept it. If you want to make an argument, you need to back it up. “Kendall sez so” isn’t much of an argument, sorry.

        • Pofarmer

          Then why in the World does Human morality look pretty much exactly what we would expect from evolved Primates?

        • Really.

          Back into the swamp we go with an interlucutor who cannot or will not even answer simple questions.

          How do you think you know what is “right and wrong”?

          For example should you call somebody a “fool”?

        • Kendall Fields

          You are the one making conjectures and stupid comments.

        • adam
        • What is the “conjecture” or “stupid comment” you imagine exists in the question, “should you call somebody a “fool”?” ?

          And you called me “a fool” (“dumb”) So, were you “right” or “wrong” when you did that?

        • Kendall Fields

          Well if you want to debate it yes as your are saying stupid things.

        • The fact that you refuse to answer even simple questions but go on and on making unsupported and unsupportable assertions proves that you know that your position is based on nothing but bullsh1t and that you are too great a coward to acknowledge your dishonesty which is totally apparent to everyone not invested in your beliefs.

          Human moral behavior, like those of all the apes, are based in sympathy, education, and social ties, and learned from relatives and their community. The very fact that we share our behaviors with apes, who, unlike you are smart enough not to waste time on religion, is enough to prove that.

        • Kendall Fields

          So you agree with apes? Wow that is dumb. Also I have asserted my points and where does our sympathy come from if there isn’t a God given that animals don’t have a lot of sympathy.

        • Dammit, girl, you are an ape. Look it up. Learn something.

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

        • MNb

          Were creationists capable of learning there wouldn’t be any creationist left on short term.

        • MNb

          It’s dumber to agree with you than to agree with apes.

          “given that animals don’t have a lot of sympathy.”
          You show less sympathy than my dogs.

        • We know that brain scanning shows that religiots simply project their own opinions when asked what they think their god thingies want. You seem to be doing this when you appear to be comfortable with refering to other’s as fools despite your so-called “bible” saying the opposite.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgm7syvbLaM

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m_192a6kLg

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk

          We evolved these capabilities in order to be able to live in groups which is a more successful strategy than living alone for animals which need to raise their young over extended periods, particularly when they taste delicious to a rather wide range of stronger and more nocturnally competent predators.

        • Kendall Fields

          Man you have got to be really messed up when you think like that.

        • Kodie

          Why do you think anyone respects Kendall Fields’s uninformed opinion over science? You have an ego bigger than god’s!!!

        • Greg G.

          You have been presented video evidence of animals expressing empathy and fairness, grief, and cooperation. If you can’t change your mind, are you sure you still have one?

        • Nice analysis!

        • adam
        • Wow–killer argument! Nicely done.

        • MNb

          Beware – KF might think you’re serious.

        • Sarcasm can be a dangerous tool, I suppose.

        • MNb

          I am rather messed up like Hermit than stupid, ignorant and lying like you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Any day of the week.

        • One has to have a functional brain to think at all and one has to accept evidence to think honestly.

          So far you haven’t provided evidence of either.

        • Kendall Fields

          You haven’t provided evidence and just posted lies.

        • Oh for piy’s sake. A video of chimp behavior proving that we share behaviours is evidence.

          So is the repeatedly cited paper alluded to above.

          Epley N, Converse BA, Delbosc A, Monteleone GA, & Cacioppo JT (2009). “Believers’ estimates of God’s beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people’s beliefs”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106 (51), 21533-8 PMID: 19955414.

          Please attempt to support your accusation that I “just posted lies”, because right now it looks to me as if you are, as usual projecting nastily, but remarkably unsuccessfully, even for a cognitively challenged shifty-eyed christer.

        • adam
        • Yes. I know that, and you know that, but Kendall is in denial (which is one of the pernicious effects of the psychosis his parents inflicted on him, calling it “religion”).

        • adam

          i think she is JUST a troll.

        • Kendall Fields

          Again another stupid comment comment and those scientists are could very well be just as untrustworthy as any person yet I am not telling you any lies. Yeah but do we throw poop at each other and do they all speak different languages to each other.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Be a good child and fuck away off ta the toddlers table would ya?

        • Kodie

          We’re just laughing how stupid and uneducated you are. Such arrogance, like a Christian, but you are a pitiful pathetic know-nothing. Sorry, you are one of “god’s” losers. Why would an omnipotent being choose to reflect himself in MORONS like you? That’s how I know there’s no god. You are a perfect message for atheism.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m starting to think we should be careful. I don’t think Kendall Fields is playing with a full deck.

          I thought for sure Bob would’ve banhammered his/her arse by now, if just for the maintenance of the sanity of those having to read the cockwombles moronic drivel.

        • Greg G.

          KF seems to be able to spell and use punctuation pretty well so he/she seems somewhat educated but lacks the ability to do critical thinking. Could be a Poe.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not pretty well, my 7 year old grandson kids fair better….But KF isn’t being held back, then must a Poe….Or just a trolling arsehole.

          Best ignored at this point.

        • Michael Neville

          My guess is trolling arsehole. However that and a Poe are not mutually exclusive.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Thinking a wee bit about this, I’m wondering what it is KF would be Poeing?

          An ignorant knuckle dragging creationist fuckwit of an asshat.

          If so, KF doing an excellent job…nomination for an Oscar. If not, what else could it be?

        • Greg G.

          A stereotypical Poe USES randomly capitalized WORDS, mispeled words, and excessive punctuation!!!

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s KF defo out then….apart from the misspelled words of course.

        • If not, what else could it be?

          A time waster?

        • Unlike your endless unsupported yammering, science is based on evidence. In this case the evidence is overwhelming that religiots lie about their god thingies, and that the common ancestor of humans and apes developed the modules that continue to determine behaviours.for apes and humans.

          So, I have shown to anyone with a working brain that as always, your beliefs are unsupported, unsupportable and fallacious, and that as always, your attacks on others are invalid and wrong. If you were smart enough to understand this, you would not be making yourself and your beliefs a laughingstock all over the Internet.

        • Kendall Fields

          We are not descendants of monkeys and instead of saying that on coincidence find me the original monkey ancestor to provide your proof.

        • Here is your award.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8f4151b551cd1b12c103b7210dd37173de3569ad26d75dee26b3d99337ccc2ad.png

          Nobody claimed that “We are descendants of monkeys”. Idiot.

        • Kendall Fields

          Congratulations I don’t won’t it and you deserve it more than anyone right here and now. I pray that you find help.

        • You make it so obvious that you share some 28% of your DNA with cabbages that it is almost possible to forget that you also share some 96 percent of your DNA with your cousins the chimpanzee. To put this into perspective, the differences between you and humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

        • Kendall Fields

          Anyone could say that but if you say that then find that original creature you say I share relation with. If you have beloved evidence, then show that to me.

        • About 2,940,000,000 base pairs out of some 3 billion in your DNA confirm what I said. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics for confirmation. If you have difficulty reading, start here. Once you can read, you can learn more about human evolution here.

        • Kendall Fields

          Yawn. Scientists will say that but do you believe they are trustworthy?

        • Susan

          Scientists will say that but do you believe they are trustworthy?

          What is that thing you are typing on, Kendall? How do you think it works?

          Have you ever taken antibiotics? Or gone for a ride in a car or on a plane?

          Seen satellite images of galaxies?

        • I don’t vest belief (usually the assignment of a truth value in the face of compelling confounding intersubjectively verifiable evidence, or occasionally the assignment of a truth value in the absence of sufficient intersubjectively verifiable supporting evidence) but accept evidence. The evidence is that somebody trained in the sciences who tells lies will not be employed in the sciences for very long.

        • Kendall Fields

          So you believe that they are right even though they run on “evidence” from the past that could very well be false?

        • Again, I do not vest belief in anything. Intersubjectively verifiable evidence allows us to evaluate projections made by any field of science – including evolutionary genetics.

          Evidence is evidence. It may be misleading, it is not going to be “false”.

          So far, every branch of science which relies on the modern evolutionary synthesis, from computer science and electrical engineering to geology, paleontology and genetics, has confirmed its explanatory and predictive ability. If the evolutionary synthesis is ever shown to be ineffective or incomplete, scientists will be very happy, because it will mean that a better theory has replaced it. That has not happened, and I doubt that, at this stage, it is going to happen..

        • Kendall Fields

          Yawn. Come up with something better than evidence this evidence that.

        • Pure trolling… and you know it.

          The real question is whether, if the christer trolls knew the bible better would it stop them?

          “Do not be a witness against your neighbor without cause, And do not deceive with your lips.”

          “A cause” would be evidence.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/94565d7a36f6e1976f34c40653743f185ca3900a6058912bf7698d81b39c473b.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          You are the only “troll” here but it is a waste of time to discuss the falsehoods of a person who hates my God. However, both religion and science combine together to form one substance and that is all that matters.

        • Kendall the liar. Delusional and in denial to the last. I don’t hate any imaginary things, though I hate the effect that belief in imaginary things has done to far too many people. I rejoice that you are giving up wasting your time on Disqus. Don’t let the door catch you on the way out.

        • Kendall Fields

          Yawn. Come up with something better but I am not wasting my time on Disqus but I am saying you are annoying, a liar, and foolish. God isn’t imaginary and never has been. So take your cue to leave.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I am saying you are annoying, a liar, and foolish.

          And EVERYONE is saying that is you, now will ya do one and fuck away off with yer inane verbal diarrhoea, there’s a good infantile cretin.

          Now…has anybody seen Bob?

          Bob? Bob? Bob?…there’s a fuckwit running loose in yer place that can’t find the way out.

        • MNb

          “I am saying you are annoying, a liar, and foolish.”
          From you that’s a compliment. I would only start worrying if you wrote something positive about me.

        • Kodie

          Bob, it’s time!

        • What a shame there’s no evidence to back up your claim.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’re feeding!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Do ya think Kendall has noticed?

        • Greg G.

          How does Kendall know that “it is a waste of time to discuss the falsehoods of a person who hates my God”? He has never tried doing it yet.

        • Kendall Fields

          Keep up with your own lying and it will bit you in the back.

        • Susan

          Keep up with your own lying and it will bit you in the back

          The problem Kendall, is that people commenting here (and lurkers observing) can point out and see your lies. No one is idly accusing you of lying. You are providing the evidence.

          For instance, while you were corrected about the original source of Big Bang Theory, you continued to repeat your misunderstanding and ignored the well-supported links people provided.

          Your understanding of biology and morality have the same problems.

          No one here accused you of lying without supporting it.

          But you accuse people of lying without doing a thing to support it. Which is consistent with every move you’ve made here. You make statements without taking responsibility for them.

          You’re either a boring troll or a sincere christian.

          Either way, your dishonesty is evident.

          If you’re a boring troll, you’re just another useless internet participant.

          If you’re a christian, your actions are leading more people away from Jesus.

          What are you trying to accomplish here?

        • Kodie

          Feel free to stop wasting your time pretending you know how to engage with adults. You don’t. Your religion is a scam, your suspicion of science is just your brainwashing is so thorough and complete. Don’t hang around wasting your time being a stupid shit so we can laugh at you.

        • Michael Neville

          Notice how the apologists always go to “you hate God!” That they can’t figure out that hating a figment of someone else’s imagination is just silly shows how little they understand the atheists they’re trying to convert.

        • Pofarmer

          I wonder if they hate Vishnu?

        • David Cromie

          It would be very difficult to ‘hate’ something that has never been proved to exist! On can, on the other hand, hate the actions of those that do believe in a supposed ‘god’, when the outcome is genocide, the Crusades, wars, and murder, etc., over the centuries.

        • MNb

          Kendall the liar just above:

          “If you have beloved evidence, then show that to me.”
          When somebody does show it to Kendall the liar he suddenly writes

          “Come up with something better than evidence this evidence that.”
          It’s likely you are too stupid too notice it yourself, but I do.

        • epeeist
        • David Cromie

          ???

        • I know, right? What is this obsession with evidence and science and stuff? It’s not like we have anything to show for it.

          I just believe stuff according to what I want to be true. Look–I just believed unicorns into existence.

        • Kodie

          It might help if you explained what you mean instead of dropping these little idiot turds out of your keyboard. If you think some evidence from the past could be false, tell us exactly which evidence you think might be false and why you think so. That’s how adults have a discussion.

        • David Cromie

          You are right, so why would anyone be taken in by a book of fables, legends and folklore, which can be securely demonstrated to be mostly based on Pagan originals. This book is otherwise known as the ‘bible’? The theologian Karen Armstrong, a christian, has written intelligently on these matters (I seem to remember her saying, some years ago, that she used to be a nun, if my memory is correct).

        • MNb

          If you think scientists aren’t trustworthy then why do you turn on your computer? It was invented by scientists.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s Satan at his work with Kendall’s idle hands…that wee devil Satan gets into all things sciency don’t ya know?

          Maybe Kendall is an Amish or Mennonite on an extended Rumspringa holiday.

        • Greg G.

          The DNA evidence shows that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas.

        • Michael Neville

          the differences between you and humans and chimps

          I see what you did there. Well played.

        • Greg G.

          Nobody claimed that “We are descendants of monkeys”.

          I would say that. Humans are apes. Apes are descended from Old World monkeys after they split from New World monkeys. If the common ancestor between Old World monkeys and New World monkeys was not a monkey, then monkeys evolved twice.

          All land-dwelling vertebrates, and even air-breathing sea creatures, are fish that are/were specialized for living on land. It’s cladistics.

        • We shared common ancestors. The fact that monkeys and apes evolved from common ancestors does not mean that apes are descents of monkeys, or that monkeys stopped evolving.

          We all descended from the Haplorrhini which then evolved into the Platyrrhini and Catarrhini c 30MYbp with the Catarrhini dividing into the Cercopithecoidea (Old World monkeys) and Hominoidea c 25 MYbp with Proconsul africanus a likely ancestor of the greater and lesser apes including humans. From this division the gibbons (15 MYb), orangutan (13 MYbp), Pan (10 MYbp) and Gorillas (7MYbp) all speciated before the Hominini evolved.

        • Greg G.

          We didn’t evolve from any monkey species that is still extant, but if the common ancestor of apes and Old World monkeys was still around, it would be called a monkey. That species would be more closely related to the New World monkeys of the time than any modern Old World monkey species is to any modern New World species. Any definition of monkey that includes New World Monkeys and Old World monkeys would include ancestors of the last common ancestor of apes and Old World monkeys.

        • I have to diosagree. We have to go back to the early Haplorrhini for a common ancestor, and those were more mouse like than monkey like (of the order of 30g).

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8f185f1f19d3a9c6db59e7d8448a033d071adc26e9f6f8637678b07aa82965a4.jpg

          Also video at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8057977.stm

          See http://evolutiebiologie.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html

        • Greg G.

          And I disagree with that. From Haplorhini:

          Haplorhini (the haplorhines or the “dry-nosed” primates, the Greek name means “simple-nosed”) is a clade containing the tarsiers and the simians (or anthropoids). The name is also spelt Haplorrhini.[2] The simians include catarrhines (Old World monkeys and apes including humans), and the platyrrhines (New World monkeys).

          Haplorhini includes tarsiers and simians which is way too old.

          From Simians:

          The simian line and the tarsier line diverged about 60 million years ago (during the Cenozoic era). Forty million years ago, simians from Africa colonized South America, giving rise to the New World monkeys. The remaining simians (catarrhines) split 25 million years ago into apes and Old World monkeys.

          and

          The simians are split into three groups. The New World monkeys in parvorder Platyrrhini split from the rest of the simian line about 40 mya, leaving the parvorder Catarrhini occupying the Old World. This group split about 25 mya between the Old World monkeys and the apes. “Monkeys” are a paraphyletic group (in other words, not a single coherent group).

          The last common ancestor between New World monkeys and Old World monkeys was about 40 million years ago. If that was not a monkey, then monkeys separately evolved in Africa and in the Americas. But even if we allow that, the last common ancestor between Old World monkeys and apes was 25 million years ago. Surely that was a monkey that apes evolved from, thus humans evolved from monkeys.

          Edit addition:
          Victoriapithecus macinnesi is from about 22 million years ago, about 3 million years after apes split off the line.

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Victoriapithecus_macinnesi_skull.JPG/250px-Victoriapithecus_macinnesi_skull.JPG

        • Tangent: this site provides the age of the common ancestor between any two genuses. Here is the difference between man (Homo) and pigs (Sus):

          http://timetree.org/search/pairwise/homo/sus

        • MNb

          According to cladistics “we shared common ancestors” that fact does mean that. But in the end it’s just semantics – and will fly way above Kendall’s head anyway.

        • It is an epistemological issue and is actually quite important in the sense that “monkeys” are not a modern taxonomic identification. As my daughter learned, Some Girls Find Out, Charming Pretty Knights Don’t Lie. Or Species, Genus, Family, Order, Class, Clade, Phylum, Domain, Life. In other words, we need to be careful about the taxonomic use of words and the level at which things appear.

          Here we are:
          Kingdom: Animalia
          Phylum: Chordata
          Clade: Synapsida
          Class: Mammalia
          Order: Primates
          Suborder: Haplorhini
          Infraorder: Simiiformes (monkeys, apes)
          Parvorder: Catarrhini Old World anthropoids
          Superfamily: Hominoidea (apes)
          Family: Hominidae (great apes and humans)
          Subfamily: Homininae
          Tribe: Hominini
          Genus: Homo

          And here are the catarrhine (narrow-nosed) or Old World anthropoids:
          Kingdom: Animalia
          Phylum: Chordata
          Clade: Synapsida
          Class: Mammalia
          Order: Primates
          Suborder: Haplorhini
          Infraorder: Simiiformes (monkeys, apes)
          Parvorder: Catarrhini (Old World anthropoids)
          Superfamily: Cercopithecoidea (Old World monkeys)

          And platyrrhine (“flat-nosed”) or New World anthropoids:
          Kingdom: Animalia
          Phylum: Chordata
          Clade: Synapsida
          Class: Mammalia
          Order: Primates
          Suborder: Haplorhini
          Infraorder: Simiiformes (monkeys, apes)
          Parvorder: Platyrrhini (New World anthropoids)
          Multiple families extant.
          Family: Callitrichidae
          Family: Cebidae
          Family: Aotidae
          Family: Pitheciidae
          Family: Atelidae

          As you can see the difference between humans and monkeys occurs at the parvorder and family level, while the term, “monkey” refers to two taxonomic groupings differentiated at the parvorder and family. Both the apes (including humans) and monkeys are simian anthropoids, as are all the monkeys, but the apes (and hence our ancestors) being paraphyletic to monkeys, are not monkeys.

          Indeed.

        • Greg G.

          Both the apes (including humans) and monkeys are simian anthropoids, as are all the monkeys, but the apes (and hence our ancestors) being paraphyletic to monkeys, are not monkeys.

          But the apes descended from simian anthropoids that looked like monkeys, walked like monkeys, and quacked like monkeys.

          But go back a level from the Parvorder to:
          Infraorder: Simiiformes (monkeys, apes)

          Before apes evolved, the infraorder was totally monkeys, which apes descended from.

        • No it wasn’t and isn’t “totally monkeys” as monkeys were a later evolutionary development and identify members of a family or parvorder.

          As I posted yesterday, our last shared ancestor with monkeys is a 30 gram (about an ounce) creature with a snout like a rat…

          Here: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8f185f1f19d3a9c6db59e7d8448a033d071adc26e9f6f8637678b07aa82965a4.jpg

          Source: http://evolutiebiologie.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html

        • Greg G.

          I pointed out that the fossil you showed is our last common ancestor with tarsiers, which is also the last common ancestor between tarsiers and all monkeys. Actually, it is not likely to be the actual LCA but it is probably closely related to it. It’s from about 60 million years ago. We need to look at something in the 30 million year range.

          The FOXP2 gene is irrelevant. 50K years ago is long after the split between modern humans and Neanderthals. We need to look at something older than 25 million years old.

          Your argument seems to be that apes and Old World monkeys evolved from Old World notmonkeys.

          The oldest ape and monkey fossils I can find are Oldest Fossil of Ape Discovered which shows that the split was before 25.2 million years ago.

          I expect the last common ancestor between Old World monkeys and apes had a tail. That means it will look like a monkey by any standard use of the word. The LCA species would have with Old World monkeys had at least two daughter species that evolved into extant species. But that LCA is younger than the LCA for macaques and colobus monkeys. You now have to argue that all of our common ancestors with Old World monkeys after the macaques and colobus monkeys diverged are notmonkeys.

        • “I pointed out that the fossil you showed is our last common ancestor with tarsiers, which is also the last common ancestor between tarsiers and all monkeys.”

          Which is what I am trying to say. That that little creature has our talus. Monkeys do not.

          You may be correct that we have later relatives. But if we do, they will have that Talus which is why they are different from the species that evolved into monkeys.

          None of the rest actually contradicts anything I am saying. “Monkey” is descriptive, not a genetic clade.

          FOXP2 was a joke. You mentioned “quacked like monkeys” so I mentioned the development of the pharynx as monkeys cannot quack, only humans can.

        • Greg G.

          Which is what I am trying to say. That that little creature has our talus. Monkeys do not.

          Having a particular ankle bone seems like an arbitrary factor to distinguish monkeys from apes even if it were so. Functional anatomy of the calcaneum and talus in Cercopithecinae (Mammalia, Primates, Cercopithecidae) says that monkeys do have a talus.

          The order Primates includes more than 200 extant species with a great variety of body sizes, appearances and habitat preferences (MacDonald, 1991;Campbell, 1998). Consequently, the group exhibits a significant variety of locomotor behaviours, which imply differences in bone structure and morphology, and both calcaneum and talus reflect such different types of locomotion (Gebo, 1993; Ankel-Simons, 2007).

          The Big Question: Is ‘Ida’ really the missing link between humans and animals? discusses the talus bone in a 47 million year old primate so the trait would likely be in its cousins that led to us.

          I think the same reluctance of humans to call humans “apes” is behind the reluctance to call apes “monkeys”. In cladistics, apes are tailless monkeys the same way that humans are hairless apes. Having the idea that monkeys evolved three times or more just to maintain the notion that apes are not monkeys is kinda wacky. There is no need to have “monkeys” being paraphyletic. We’re all land-specialist fish, after all.

          Sorry I missed the FOXP2 joke. I get it now. I like it.

        • My daughter at four knew the main visible difference between apes and monkeys, tails. But there are a host of anatomical differences which have accumulated over time. That is not the main issue here. That is that taxonomy matters and that genetics matter, arguably more than taxonomy does. Both place “monkeys”, a descriptive, rather than a taxonomic term, on their own branches of the simian anthropoid family tree we share.

          Humans are apes. Aside from the Asian orangutan, we are more closely related to the other African apes than the other apes are to any monkey. All us apes are more closely related to monkeys than to, say, planaria, or mushrooms, though we are related to them too.

          We know this because measuring only substitutions in the base pairs of genes shared between humans and other apes, the genetic difference between individual humans today is around 0.1%, while to the chimpanzee and bonobo they are about 1.2%. The distance between any of the three of us to gorillas is about 1.6% and to the orangutan some 3.1%. Meanwhile, all the great apes, including the human and the orangutan, measured on the same basis, differ from the rhesus monkeys by about 7%.

          As we know that genetic distances correlate strongly with the time to the last common ancestor, this confirms that, even if we had possessed prehensile tails and monkey taluses, that humans belong in the ape branch of the simian anthropoids, not in either of the monkey branches, which evolved separately.

        • Greg G.

          The terms “monkey” and “ape” came about long before DNA was discovered, so it didn’t play a role in the distinction. The distinction may have become better defined with taxonomy.

          To a gorilla, we are exactly the same distance as a chimpanzee is in time and genetics. to orangutans, we are as distant as chimps and gorillas. To a macaque, we are the same distance as any other Old World monkey except for other macaques and colubus monkeys. It is the same with every taxonomic distinction. Every species, genus, or family could make the same type of claim about the rest of the primates. Making that one split that happened 25-30 million years ago more important that every other split doesn’t make much sense.

          The etymology of the words “ape” and “monkey” are different but they both referred to monkeys as apes were not known. Now “monkey” means any simian that is not an ape while. Until recently, the word “ape” excluded “human”. I agree that humans are apes but I think apes are also monkeys.

          But since “monkey” includes all non-ape simians, the non-ape ancestors of apes would be monkeys, too, as I have argued before.

          But many languages do not make a distinction between “ape” and “monkey”, according to Google Translate. Below are two example of “Human did not evolve from X” where X is either “monkey” or “ape”. See if you can tell the difference:

          인간은 원숭이에서 진화하지 않았다.
          ingan-eun wonsung-ieseo jinhwahaji anh-assda.

          인간은 원숭이에서 진화하지 않았다.
          ingan-eun wonsung-ieseo jinhwahaji anh-assda.

          It seems that the distinction between apes and monkeys is language-specific, which renders the argument that humans did not evolve from monkeys just word-play, the way puns don’t transport well across languages.

          [Fortunately, I copied this post to clipboard before I tried to post to Disqus. Disqus choked and it was not saved when I reopened the comment.]

        • Kodie

          To a gorilla, we are exactly the same distance as a chimpanzee is in time and genetics. to orangutans, we are as distant as chimps and gorillas. To a macaque, we are the same distance as any other Old World monkey except for other macaques and colubus monkeys.

          Ok, how far am I from a cat? *

          * 0-3 inches.

        • The difference is that cats are descended from goddesses and know it. Humans are not. Which is why cats sometimes permit us to serve them, and occasionally acknowledge our worship of them.

        • Kodie

          My cat can’t figure out how to get in or out of the kitchen if the refrigerator door is open. I don’t worship her.

        • It does not matter what you may think, your cat’s opinion is different.

        • Kodie

          If I talk to her in extremely intentionally condescending baby-talk, it’s her favorite, and I feel bad that she has no idea. I once thought her name for me might be something like “lady” but now it is closer to “what-are-you-eating”. I share a couple things I know she likes, but most stuff she won’t. She won’t eat a tomato but she still wants to know, so I put it to her mouth and love to watch her horrified face recoil from the tomato. Eeets-a-toe-maaaaay-toe, don’t-you wannt to eeeet tha toe-maaaaaa-toe? I never deny her curiosity! But she never learns.

        • That is because, like most god thingies, she has no functioning brain. My cat (a Maine Coon) is smart for the species, but we still figure that she has about three active neurons – and at least one of them is sleeping at any given time. But she does know her name, and might respond to it if she feels like it (otherwise it is “talk to the tail), and is always aware of her high status, so that communicating with humans – or border collies – requires great condescension on her part.

        • Kodie

          I called my cat to the room with a totally different name in the condescending voice and she came from another room to see what’s happening anyway. If I lean over and put my hand at the level to pet her back, she is a slave to the gesture. I am a catheist – they’re not goddesses, they’re simple-minded beasts! Soft and lovable and waiting to eat us when we die, but dumb!

        • It is the same in the languages I know. It is hard to find languages that differentiate as English does.

          Ahv for monkeys and apes in Estonian
          Singe for monkeys and apes in French
          მაიმუნი for monkeys and apes in Georgian
          Aff for monkeys and apes in German
          πίθηκος or μαϊμού for monkeys and apes in Greek
          маймыл for monkeys and apes in Hebrew
          Aap for monkeys and Apes in Nederlands
          मर्कट for monkeys and apes in Sanskrit (there are many other possible words but this is the most usual).
          обезьяна for monkeys and apes in Russian

          I think we are saying precisely the same thing.
          We need to adhere to the genetics and morphologies which (today) underpin the taxonomic tree.

          In English, I don’t think it is sensible to refer to our ancestors as monkeys. We are indubitably great apes, and our ancestors have been apes for as long as apes have existed. Ape and monkey are a descriptive terms used for two groups of relatives who have speciated from a common ancestral line and are all, like us, simian anthropoids, but monkeys are further from all the great apes, including humans, than any great apes are from each other.

          And then there is that talus, shared by the great apes and adapted for terrestrial, rather than arboreal locomotion.

        • Greg G.

          I think we are saying precisely the same thing.
          We need to adhere to the genetics and morphologies which (today) underpin the taxonomic tree.

          Yes, that is a more objective method but it doesn’t justify making apes separate from monkeys any more than it would for one species of macaques to separate macaques from other monkeys.

          In English, I don’t think it is sensible to refer to our ancestors as monkeys. We are indubitably great apes, and our ancestors have been apes for as long as apes have existed. Ape and monkey are a descriptive terms used for two groups of relatives who have speciated from a common ancestral line and are all, like us, simian anthropoids, but monkeys are further from all the great apes, including humans, than any great apes are from each other.

          And then there is that talus, shared by the great apes and adapted for terrestrial, rather than arboreal locomotion.

          I don’t think it is sensible to not refer to our ancestors as monkeys. There are a set of features that distinguish orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans from other types of monkeys just as there are a set of features that distinguish macaques and colubus monkeys from apes and other Old World monkeys.

          Choosing a particular weight bearing adaptation as a distinguishing feature of apes and monkeys underscores that the ancestors of apes did not have that adaptation which makes the descriptive term “monkey” descriptive of them.

          Those features which justify separating apes from the other primates does not justify saying apes are not monkeys any more than the features that justify separating macaques from other primates justify not calling them monkeys. a sufficiently intelligent hypothetical macaque species could make a stronger argument that they and their macaque cousins should be separate from monkeys on the basis of having a greater genetic divergence from apes and other Old World monkeys than the genetic divergence of apes and other Old World monkeys.

          We can find objective reasons to separate apes from other monkeys, or even humans from other apes, but every one of those differences separate us from all other mammals and vertebrates, too. That could be done for every species, or genus, at least. But that breaks down the whole system of taxonomy. Why be inconsistent with taxonomy just to say apes are not monkeys and neither are their ancestors?

          I have enjoyed this debate because I have learned a lot from it! <80)>

        • I was taught that English provides specific and general words for similar things and that it is an error to use a more generic word when there is a more specific one available and it is an egregious error to use a more specific, but inappropriate, word when a more general word is required.

          We are agreed that taxonomically, genetically and morphologically we are apes. We are not monkeys. I think we also agree that that apes and monkeys have common ancestors who are primates, that primates are divided into the Strepsirrhini (extant lemurs, pottos and lorises) and the Haplorhini (extant catarrhines and platyrrhines). The catarrhines contain simians (monkey like from πίθηκος, including New and Old World monkeys) and anthropoids (man like from ἀνθρωποειδής, including all the apes).

          So at every time that apes have existed there has been a specific word for our ancestors that was not monkey. For all the time that monkeys have existed, the human ancestors have not been monkeys. It is only when we go far enough back up the family tree that neither apes nor monkeys existed but earlier more lemur like primates, from which the Strepsirrhini and Haplorhini descended, that you want to use a precise, but non-technical word, that does not ever mean lemur like, to describe these primates, when there is a perfectly good, common English general word, the primates, which was selected by the taxonomists (who wrote the books), to do the job.

          I don’t get it.

          It has been real, and it has been fun, but have the great monkey word wars been real fun? Hopefully educational anyway 🙂

        • Verisimilitude

          Still the brightest, most knowledgeable poster on the block, Hermit, I see.

          Do you carve a notch in your keyboard for every ignoramus you slaughter?…nah…you’d have no keyboard left!

        • Thanks. See greetings and wishes above. Very few ignoramuses are worth memorialising.

        • Happy New Year Verisimilitude. Love and wishes from the US to you and yours. 🙂

        • Greg G.

          Is Verisimilitude in Asia?

          Chúc Mừng Năm Mới!

        • Here’s a mnemonic tip to remember the rough outline of this classification:

          Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species becomes:
          Please Come Over For Gay Sex

          I suggest Kendall write the mnemonic on her hand to help remember it. Or write it on a note to pass to a friend.

        • Michael Neville

          I suggest Kendall write the mnemonic on her hand to help remember it. Or write it on a note to pass to a friend.

          Or have it tattooed backwards on her forehead so she can read it every time she looks in a mirror.

        • I suspect that this is more memorable than my daughter’s version, which was probably inspired by a surfeit of Hayao Miyazaki and such when she was supposed to have been engaged with Khan Academy,

        • MNb

          What daughter learn at school does not necessarily reflect the latest scientific state of affairs, as I can testify as a teacher physics.
          And taxonomic use of words doesn’t change empirical facts.
          So shrug.

        • 1) She homeschooled to 10. Now in Grade 8, she remains a very gratifying A+ student.
          2) Excellent work.
          3) The trouble is that “monkey” is descriptive, not taxonomic, while the talus and genetics are the empirical facts that you appear not to like very much, as, small as they are, they demolish your thesis.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!

          1) Congratulations. Not by any means does that contradict that what daughters learn at school doesn’t necessarily reflect the latest scientific state of affairs.
          2) What excellent work? Even if I like undeserved compliments I’m still curious what the compliments are about.
          3) This is the funny part.

          “you appear not to like very much”
          Did all the interaction with Kendall affect your cognitive skills? This appearance is nothing but a product of your overheated imagination. That you are guilty of a category error doesn’t mean I am. Like or not like doesn’t apply to empirical facts. You’re silly.

          “they demolish your thesis”
          Please, please explain me how they demolish my thesis that taxonomic use of words don’t change empirical facts like Homo Sapiens and Saimiri Sciureus having lines of ancestors that go back to a common one. Will be great fun. If I lump them all together and call them flubberwutchies, how does that change that empirical fact?

        • 1) The point was that even a preschool child understands that most monkeys have tails and no ape does, except as an anomalous development throwback.
          2) I apologise for any confusion to which my phrasing may have inadvertently contributed. No compliment was intended. I referred to the field of STEM education as “excellent work” (at least if you can make a living at it). I wouldn’t have commented on your performance, not knowing how competent (or otherwise) you might be. Although, after this latest post, I do wonder if you haven’t perhaps spent way too much time around male adolescent hominini.
          3) A category error on my side this is not. We agree that the evidence of the taxonomy, sustained by phylogenetic and genetic analysis remains the same no matter what words are used and irrespective of what your opinion of it may be, and no matter how divorced from accepted definitions your assertions that humans are descendants of monkeys, rather than that monkeys and apes (which includes humans) share ancestors, may be. While your recasting of your argument from “humans descended from monkeys” (redefining monkeys from their own branches of the primates to all primates) to “taxonomic use of words don’t change empirical facts” about which there is no disagreement (except perhaps grammatical), but leaves me thinking that it still appears that for some reason, you don’t much like the standard articulations, and this is greatly reinforced when you propose the neologism, “flubberwutchies” for the well known order of primates now 55 to 70 billion years old, and although the nomenclature is admittedly not quite so ancient it does remain sufficiently well well established to leave attempts to redefine it looking quixotic, if not quirky.

        • MNb

          “leaves me thinking that it still appears that for some reason, you don’t much like the standard articulations,”
          That’s still just the product of your overheated imagination. I already told you once that you may make this catgegory error, but I don’t; you only show how strong your prejudice is when you refuse to accept it. Plus it makes you brilliantly neglecting the point of my

          “and this is greatly reinforced when you propose the neologism, “flubberwutchies””.
          That point was: Fucking nomenclature has zero fucking impact on the fucking empirical fact of common ancestry so when talking the latter I don’t fucking care about the first.
          As you have written nothing new and thus make me just repeat what I wrote the previous time this will be my last comment on this topic. You may have the last word, but I won’t read it.

        • I’ll be generous twice over, pretending to accept your assertion that you will not read this and granting the last word to the person most deserving it.

          Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, “Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.”

          “What giants?” asked Sancho Panza.

          “Those you see over there,” replied his master, “with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length.”

          “Take care, sir,” cried Sancho. “Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone.” [Don Quixote, Miguel de Cervantes, Part 1, Chapter VIII. Of the valourous Don Quixote’s success in the dreadful and never before imagined Adventure of the Windmills, with other events worthy of happy record.]

        • David Cromie

          Do you have any particular ’empirical facts’ in mind?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Stellarly so….

        • Kendall Fields

          And I refuted your claims.

        • No you did not. Refutation requires intersubjectively verifiable evidence overturning a claim. Which I have provided in spades at every stage of rebutting every one of your asinine statements. You have not provided evidence of anything apart from your confused state and cognitive incompetence, let alone a rebuttal based on such evidence.

        • Kendall Fields

          Yes I have and I pointed out your wrong answers. I don’t try to gloat and say I am smarter like you do.

        • Greg G.

          You have only claimed that Hermit had wrong answers. You have not shown why your claims were right. Hermit has provided lots of evidence. You just say, “uh-uh”.

        • MNb

          It’s a simple fact that Hermit is smarter than you are. And that’s not a compliment for Hermit.

        • I think a rather less intelligent than the average or garden rock may share that distinction ;-P

        • I have provided overwhelming evidence for every point I have made, including on this issue, a video you can watch that shows our relatives exhibiting the same behaviors as underpin our moral capacity and a peer reviewed article which shows that religiots who have been studied are simply projecting their own opinions onto their god thingies when explaining what they imagine their god thingies would like people to do. In other words, the evidence I have provided supports the claims I have made.

          While you have repeatedly said you disagree with the provided evidence, you have never attempted to show why your beliefs should be given greater weight than the overwhelming evidence, showing not only that your beliefs are delusional, but that you know them to be delusional. In doing this you have proved that your god thingies are disinterested in how people perceive them, so powerless that they are not entitled to be regarded as god thingies, or non-existent. Most likely the latter.

          At this point anyone who has read what you have been writing knows that you are an idiot. I am simply kind enough to ignore the fact that you have not once acknowledged being repeatedly shown to be wrong and clueless, and that you called me a fool (“dumb”) and then refused to answer whether you thought that this was a right or a wrong thing to do, sufficiently to try to get through to you that you are seen as an ignorant, dishonest troll, providing you an opportunity to apologize and stop embarrassing yourself.

        • Kendall Fields

          Yeah and your evidence means little.

        • Michael Neville

          When you start providing evidence to support your claims and assertions then maybe you’ll be in a position to criticize someone else’s evidence.

        • Michael Neville

          You better not say you’re smarter than Hermit because you’re quite obviously not.

        • I don’t try to gloat and say I am smarter like you do.

          … but she is smarter than you.

        • David Cromie

          You seem to be labouring under a total misunderstanding; to say ‘I disagree’ is not a rebuttal. But why would anyone expect someone with an IQ below the moronic level to understand that?

        • Kodie

          You denied, rejected, refused, and disagreed, but nobody saw you refute anything. You asserted, claimed, repeated your assertions, but nobody saw you support them either.

          Please, you are so far below the intellectual capability to try whatever you’re trying to do.

        • MNb

          You don’t understand what the word “refute” means. Hint: it doesn’t mean “Kendall Fields refuses to accept science because he doesn’t understand them”.

        • A retort is not a refutation.

          Who teaches you this stuff? Why don’t you get that person to jump in and defend both their teaching of you and their apologetics?

        • Greg G.

          When scientists are caught being untrustworthy, they don’t get to be scientists. When preachers are caught being untrustworthy, they shed some tears and beg for forgiveness and go on being preachers. You should fact-check your preacher some time.

          People who are kept in cages often throw poop at people. Throwing poop is rare in the wild. Apes have been taught sign language, including Koko the gorilla shown in one of the videos in one of Hermit’s posts. A young chimpanzee learned sign language from the other chimpanzees and didn’t care to talk with humans very much until a new student began to work there. The chimp seemed fascinated with her signing. The girl’s brother was deaf so she had been signing her who life. The chimpanzee was bored with the other students who were not yet good at sign language.

        • Greg G.
        • MNb

          If you think scientists so untrustworthy you shouldn’t use internet. Scientists invented it.

        • do we throw poop at each other

          We throw bombs at each other. Poison gas. Plague-carrying corpses.

          Who’s uncivilized now?

          What does it say about your argument that all you can give us is a petulant claim. You’ve got no evidence. You sound just like a Scientologist or Muslim–why should we believe you?

        • Pofarmer

          “and do they all speak different languages to each other.”

          Pretty much, yes.

        • adam

          Which lies?

          Where’s your evidence?

          Oh, I forgot you dont have any, you have ‘faith’.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b23b2e7cd1bc09dec5b20c13ff961e710e7387e252ee87d90048e9613ef5f461.jpg

        • adam

          “So you agree with apes?”

          No we disagree with you and your an ape.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bca283b184a19a25e111da8b494fdc37c9755f40c487a5e82f0e923b5911bf95.jpg

        • adam
        • Kodie

          You are only saying empty things.

        • adam
        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Yes, mankind can determine what is right and wrong. You consider the consequences of what could happen. If one is brought up on religion where you are told what is right or wrong, it is harder to develop that ability but it is possible.

          If you mess up and someone is harmed, it is better to apologize to the person and ask the person for forgiveness, instead of pretending to have asked an invisible person for forgiveness.

        • That reminds me of the time I borrowed $20 from you. Remember that? You asked for it back after a week, as promised, and I didn’t have it. But I had something better: I had asked God for forgiveness, and he gave it to me.

          Which was a win-win-win. Praise God!

        • Greg G.

          You can just owe it to me as long as you don’t try to cheat me out of it.

        • MNb

          That reaction is the stupidest thing to write as it shows that your religion has ruined your empathy. So please don’t say stupid things.
          Oh wait – every single comment of yours is utterly stupid, even if you are lying.

        • Michael Neville

          So show some evidence that your sadistic, narcissistic, immoral thug of a god is the source of morality.

        • adam

          “as mankind cannot determine what is right and wrong solely”

          Mankind HAS TO determine.

          God’s have no morals

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3d75f40886a30963d29f96e7ac5c05cad2aeb7bf5d71b350bbea60643eeff355.jpg

        • David Cromie

          The really stupidity is to think that there were no morals before the so-called ‘bible’ was cobbled together from pre-existing Pagan myths, legends, and folklore. Had there not been a moral conscience, without Yahweh, mankind would probably have wiped itself out. Pagans realised that their survival depended on cooperation, not internecine warring, in other words, they understood, however imperfectly, the importance of the Golden Rule.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ya can’t expect a rhubarb like Kendall to understand such a concept David…too brainwashed.

        • Pofarmer

          there would be no such thing as a clear morality for everyone.

          There certainly isn’t. So, therefore, there is no God. THank you.

          Scientist make more guesses and end up being wrong than most other people.

          Homeschooled?

        • adam

          ” Scientist make more guesses and end up being wrong than most other people.”

          As a ‘person’ eating from a science created food supply, on a science created computer, through the science created internet, in a home, office or apt created by science, you display the utmost in hypocrisy.

          What has ‘faith’ created?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6b5240f53deb4a0141b0d9196de29540d1f8931a4c8d5713b9547eca65cbd2f.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f661dbb0086fe8af53b2ce2c5f79fee4d79a39be875ddded1bf36ba78fc4b5cf.jpg

        • adam

          “So you are saying some random explosion happened and everything is all fine and dandy.”

          So you are saying God happened and everything is all fine and dandy?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38a372d179f379b51cdb5f1c227e4a5bd6dd543347d09566c2aedd943b72e754.jpg

        • adam
        • Kendall Fields

          What you just said was one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard.

        • Your explanation is actually the stupid and intellectually stunted one. Humans have an innate need for things to make sense, and they also think they are special. The reality is, if the universe was unable to produce life, we would have no way of ever knowing it because we wouldn’t exist to observe it. Therefore, life adapted to what it was given to work with, it was not “created” with life in mind.

        • Greg G.

          What you just said was one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard.

          You should listen to yourself.

        • MNb

          He doesn’t have time to listen to himself – he only listens to the voice in his head he calls “God”.

        • MNb

          Of course it is. It’s because you have no idea what an argument actually is.

        • You have theology, nothing else. What we need are evidence and arguments to make the intellectual case that Christian claims are correct.

        • adam

          “You just have to read and understand the word of God. ”

          To know that it is bullshit.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/878b8e07d2b942087c85ac234890ad18b3e8f811594bc275918c5d05cbe88467.jpg

        • adam
        • Kendall Fields

          So you answer those questions or do you just try to downplay God in order to appease your friends.

        • This test was obtained from http://exchristian.net/3/. I copied it here, because christers tend to lie about the test, claiming that it is somehow “invalid”, despite its demonstration that any answer they make-up is as much a matter of their projection as any other. Which is the entire point.

          1. How many men were in Jesus’ tomb when the women arrived?
          Luke 24:4 states that there were two men dressed in shining garments in the tomb.
          Mark 16:5 states that there was one man dressed in white in the tomb.

          2. On the way to Golgotha where Jesus was to be crucified, who carried Jesus’ cross?
          Matthew 27:32 states that Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus’ cross to Golgotha.
          John 19:17 states that Jesus carried his own cross to Golgotha.

          3. When Jesus sent his disciples out to spread the gospel message to the cities of Israel, did he command them to take only a staff or to take no staff?
          Matthew 10:10 states that Jesus commanded his disciples to not take a staff.
          Mark 6:8 states that Jesus commanded his disciples to take only a staff.

          4. When Jesus and his disciples were walking toward Jerusalem after leaving Bethany that night, Jesus saw a fig tree and cursed it for not having figs. Did the tree wither immediately as they stood and watched or did it wither overnight?
          Mark 11:13-22 states that Jesus cursed the fig tree on the way to Jerusalem from Bethany but only found it withered away the next morning.
          Matthew 21:19-20 states that the fig tree withered immediately while the disciples and Jesus watched.

          5. How many women went to Jesus’ tomb on Sunday morning?
          Matthew 28:1 states that Mary Magdalene and the “other” Mary went while Mark 16:1 claims that Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb while Luke 23:55-56 and 24:1,10 depicts more than three women going to the tomb.
          John 20:1 states that only Mary Magdalene went to Jesus’ tomb early Sunday morning.

          6. After Jesus calmed the sea, he and his disciples went to a land called Gadarenes (Gergesenes in Matthew). How many demon-possessed men came out of the tombs?
          Matthew 8:28 states that two demon-possessed men came out of the tombs.
          Mark 5:2 states that one demon-possessed man came out of the tombs.

          7. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, was he riding on one donkey or two?
          Matthew 21:7 states that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on two donkeys.
          Mark 11:7 states that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one donkey.

          8. How did Judas Iscariot die?
          Acts 1:18 states that he fell on the ground in the field he purchased and his guts spilled out.
          Matthew 27:5 states that he hung himself out of remorse for betraying Jesus.

          9. How many days passed after Jesus’ resurrection before he ascended into heaven?
          Acts 1:3 states that Jesus ascended back to heaven forty days after the day of his resurrection.
          Luke chapter 24 depicts Jesus as ascending back to heaven on the following day of his resurrection.

          10. When did Satan enter Judas Iscariot?
          John 13:27 states that Satan entered Judas during the last supper.
          Luke 22:3 states that Satan entered Judas at least a few days before the Passover occurred.

          11. When Jesus was being crucified, were the women standing near (at the foot of) the cross, near enough for Jesus to speak to them from the cross, or were they watching from very far away?
          Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55 and Luke 23:49 all state that the women were standing far away from the cross, and watching from a great distance.
          John 19:25 states that the women were standing near the cross, near enough for Jesus to speak to them when he told his mother “Woman, behold thy son!”

          12. Did both of the criminals who were crucified with Jesus revile him or did only one of them revile him?
          Luke 23:39-42 states that only one of the criminals mocked and reviled Jesus.
          Mark 15:32 and Matthew 27:44 state that both criminals mocked and reviled Jesus.

          13. Who was Jesus’ grandfather on his father’s side?
          Luke 3:23 states that Heli was Joseph’s father.
          Matthew 1:16 states that Jacob was Joseph’s father.

          14. According to Jesus, is it okay to call someone a fool?
          Luke 24:25 depicts Jesus calling two men fools and in Galatians 3:1 Paul calls the Galatian Christians foolish while in 1st Corinthians 15:36 he calls a type of man who questions a fool.
          Matthew 5:22 has Jesus saying that it is not okay to call someone a fool and anyone who does is in danger of going to hell.

          15. How many blind men did Jesus heal on his way out of Jericho?
          Matthew 20:30 states that there were two blind men.
          Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35 state that there was only one blind man.

          16. When Jesus was being crucified, what did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?
          Mark 15:23 states that the soldiers gave Jesus wine and myrhh.
          Matthew 27:34 states that the soldiers gave Jesus vinegar and gall.

          17. What did Jesus do immediately after his baptism?
          John 1:35,43 and 2:1 state that he called his disciples and attended the wedding at Cana.
          Mark 1:12-13 state that he went immediately into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil for 40 days.

          18. Did Jesus believe that bearing witness of himself made the witness true or not true?
          In John 8:14, Jesus said, “Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true.”
          In John 5:31, Jesus said, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.”

          19. Did the women who visited Jesus’ tomb run immediately and tell his disciples that he had risen?
          Mark 16:8 states that they fled the tomb in fear and said nothing to anyone.
          Matthew 28:8 states that they ran immediately to tell Jesus’ disciples what they had seen and heard.

          20. Who bought the potter’s field with the 30 pieces of silver that was payment for Judas’ betrayal of Jesus?
          Acts 1:18 states that Judas bought the potter’s field.
          Matthew 27:6 states that the chief priests bought the potter’s field.

          The “ranking” is very well done and completely accurate:.
          0-1 CLUELESS
          2-4 TYPICALLY IGNORANT
          5-10 SOMEWHAT INFORMED
          11-14 STUDENT OF CHRISTIAN ORIGINS
          15-17 SCHOLAR OF CHRISTIAN ORIGINS
          18-20 MASTER OF CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

          Some of the above examples are more than ordinarily interesting

          4) Has the so-called “jesus” cursing a fig tree that could not have been in fruit and which belonged to somebody else, showing ignorance, temper and a lack of respect for the property of others.

          6) Has the so-called “jesus” miraculously discovering a large herd of swineherd tended pigs in the Palestine, and allegedly infecting them with demons that caused the total loss of the herd.

          7) Has the so-called “jesus” sending his band to steal from somebody. This also demonstrates the cherrypicking of OT writings as post-hoc “prophesy”, and confirms that the author of Matthew 21 was working from a Koine version of Zechariah 9:9 and was unfamiliar with Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, because the Koine introduces the misreading of “riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey” for “a foal and a mare” which would not have been made by anyone familiar with the text.

          13) The alleged genealogy is a late fiction,

          14) If I had a dollar for every time a christer has called me a fool 🙂

        • Ignorant Amos

          2. On the way to Golgotha where Jesus was to be crucified, who carried Jesus’ cross?
          Matthew 27:32 states that Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus’ cross to Golgotha.
          John 19:17 states that Jesus carried his own cross to Golgotha.

          Apparently even this is nonsense.

          Nobody carried their cross. Especially in that part of the world where wood was at a premium.

          No…only the cross member was carried apparently for a number of obvious reasons.

          In some cases, the condemned was forced to carry the crossbeam to the place of execution. A whole cross would weigh well over 135 kg (300 lb), but the crossbeam would not be quite as burdensome, weighing around 45 kg (100 lb). The Roman historian Tacitus records that the city of Rome had a specific place for carrying out executions, situated outside the Esquiline Gate, and had a specific area reserved for the execution of slaves by crucifixion. Upright posts would presumably be fixed permanently in that place, and the crossbeam, with the condemned person perhaps already nailed to it, would then be attached to the post.

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

        • The Palestine had a lot more trees then than now, and the traditional christer “cross” is stylized, as not all crucifixions used a cross-piece at all. From descriptions and the evidence of the Giv’at ha-Mivtar crucifiction, when Rome did use a cross-piece, it was usual to for the condemned to have to drag it around, before they were whipped, with a lacerating flagrum, a short thonged whip with sharp objects woven into the thongs, before tying (or perhaps nailing through the wrist, a procedure for which there is no evidence) the traitor (which is what crucifixion was reserved for, although a run-away slave was seen as a traitor and could be crucified too) to the cross piece and nailing the legs through the calcaneous (heels) to the vertical, ensuring a rather gruesome and exceedingly painful death, which could be greatly extended by providing a peg as a seat, allowing the condemned to support their weight by sitting if the crucifixion were performed head-up.

          So your post is correct, and I almost mentioned it myself, except that the Roman legionnaires were ingenious in their executions (for example, Josephus writes of them nailing rebels to crucifixes in “a variety of (amusing implied) positions”, which they then strung along the walls of Jerusalem), and Seneca described a mass execution as, “I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with their head down to the ground, some impale their genitalia, others stretch out their arms”, so it is only an improbable story, rather than an impossible one, that a prototype (if there was one) might have had to drag a bloody great lump of wood around before being tortured to death on it. What is sure is that anyone executed by Roman Soldiers would be dead before being cut down (if they were cut down, the Romans liked to leave rotting bodies as a cheerful warning) and, the Romans being very good at symbolism, would dispose of the remains by feeding it to the dogs if they had no wolves handy. As the soldiers would have to wait for the victim to die before leaving, the literature attests that unless very annoyed at the condemned, they often accelerated the process by means of fracture of the tibia and/or fibula, stab wounds to the heart, genitals or anus, blows to the chest, or a smoking fire accelerating asphyxia.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yes, I’ve read all about that stuff in more than a few articles. Probably from the same sources you’ve used as a lot of your data is very familiar. There was no hard and fast procedure for crucifixion. The surroundings dictated the event in many executions. The deviancy of the method varied on what sort of evil bastard was in charge.

          As you point out, wood was a premium resource at the time. The upright would have been a static pole called a stauros, implanted in the ground securely at the execution site and available for re-use.

          The cross member, or patibulum being hauled to the site by the guilty party doesn’t seem to be supported, historically. Regardless, the poor bugger would have been secured to the beam on the ground, by what could’ve been either tying or fastening by nails. If indeed that was what indeed happened during the Passion. This two member system was called the crux compacta, but of course, I’m an ahistoricist, so doubt all of it.

          The crux immissa (†), as oppossed to a crux commissa (T), seems to have been developed from the issue of where to place the superscription, aka titulus above Jesus head. It seems that this practice

          But using a tree or just an upright, or stauros aka crux simplex, was also a regular occurrence, as it turns out.

          The Alexamenos graffito is an the earliest depiction of the crucifixion and it is a piece of mocking Christian graffiti from a couple of centuries after the events in the story. It depicts a crux immissa. An earlier piece of graffiti showing the earliest depiction of Roman crucifixion apparently dates earlier and depicts a crux commissa.

          If wood was such a rare commodity at the time, common sense tells us that the stauros used would naturally be a plain upright. But who knows, it is interesting that the “how many angels can dance on the point of a pin” question isn’t settled by scholars either.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_of_Jesus%27_crucifixion

        • Excellent summary. Thanks.

          As I regard the entire set of fables as a syncretional concoction produced in Rome, divorced, distorted and deliberately disconnected from historic events and people, with prior sources eliminated and tainted by christers to the extent that any prototypes there may have been are inaccessible, I don’t spend much time on it.

          My comments were addressing crucifixion generally, based on snippets I have run into in the historical and medical arenas. The article you found does mention Plautus and Plutarch referring to the condemned dragging a crosspiece, but generally I am sceptical of any document transcribed by religiots, particularly christers, for which we do not have alternate sources.

        • Greg G.

          with prior sources eliminated and tainted by christers to the extent that any prototypes there may have been are inaccessible

          Actually, the sources appear to be extant. See what various scholars have found as sources for the gospels:

          New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M. Price

          The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory), by R. G. Price

          How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity, by R. G. Price

          Note that one is R. M. Price and the other two are R. G. Price.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Also, R.M. Price’s, “The Christ-Myth Theory and its Problems”, goes into some detail…though probably not as much as those you’ve cited. Still, it is a good all round book that covers a lot of bases.

          I’ve just finished re-reading it last night.

          https://www.amazon.com/Christ-Myth-Theory-Its-Problems/dp/1578840171

        • Greg G.

          The PDF at the first link is the heart of “The Christ-Myth Theory and its Problems“. The book corrects a few typos and quotes many of the verses cited.

        • I’m familiar with them.

          I can see what you meant and would add that, in my experience, the best academic connector of these syncretic fables to their likely sources is Robert Eisenman (particularly his works from the mid 90s forward).

          I do not think however, that anyone, has made a persuasive case for a physical prototype of “Jesus” beyond the mythical. He seems to have sprung from so many sources that trying to tie any single prototype to a particular part of the myth is a task that would require parsing the indistinguishable, like the Sisyphean task of taking cross sections of Lincoln’s famed homeopathic pigeon shadow soup with a microtome. By the time the slicing of the extraneous has been completed, there is nothing there to see. Especially when we try to couple Saulus/Paul’s cosmic messiah, to any kind of physical entity without causing riots in one bunch of religiots or another. A challenge that, even with the plasticity of an oral tradition, third century Rome found impossible to overcome. 🙂

        • Greg G.

          I think Paul was reading the Old Testament about the Suffering Servant, and other verses in the books he quotes most often, as a hidden history. I lean toward him thinking of that Jesus as a historical person from the line of David but probably before Isaiah’s time. He insists that he didn’t learn about Jesus from other people but got it from the scripture. Apparently, ideas that popped into his head while reading scripture were revelations from Jesus.

          Galatians 1:11-12
          11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

          Romans 1:1-2
          1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,

          Romans 16:25-27
          25 Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever! Amen.

          1 Corinthians 2:6-7
          6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.

          This can be confirmed by seeing that everything Paul about Jesus can be found in the scripture. So in 2 Corinthians when he says his knowledge is not inferior to the “super-apostles”, he thinks their information comes from where he got his information.

        • Greg:

          On a tangential topic, you’d provided evidence recently that R. G. Price says that every single story/anecdote in the gospels is a parallel to a story either in the OT or in other mythologies from the surrounding cultures. (Or something similar.)

          In past posts, I’ve made a big deal about the decades of oral history (the time from events until those events were documented). We all understand how oral history distorts things, so this argued for changes in the story.

          By contrast, RG Price seems to be saying that oral history is simply an extraneous and unnecessary supposition. We don’t need to hypothesize oral history to explain why the gospels are a-historical. Correct me if I’m misremembering.

          Here’s the part that is bugging me: Price seems to be imagining a scholar writing a gospel with copies of other gospels, the OT, and maybe stories from other cultures. That’s it. But didn’t the guy come from a Christian community? Didn’t that community have a particular idea of the gospel story that he was documenting? That is, he wasn’t just making it up to please himself; rather, he was recording his own Christian community’s gospel story (with perhaps a little of his own flair thrown in). And now we’re back to a community’s own flawed and embellished story (which was a bit different from the Christian story in Antioch or Alexandria or Damascus).

          Thoughts?

        • Greg G.

          From The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory:

          I hope to demonstrate the following key points:

          * The Gospel of Mark was written in reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE
          * The Gospel of Mark was written as an allegorical fiction
          * The author of Mark was a Christian follower of a Pauline sect
          * The author of Mark was familiar with the letters of Paul
          * The Gospel of Mark is not based on any prior narratives about Jesus
          * Almost all the scenes in the Gospel of Mark are symbolic and/or literary allusions to the Hebrew scriptures
          * The author of Mark regarded the earlier Jewish oriented Christ movement as a failure

          So RGP explicitly says he does not think Mark had any narratives about Jesus but he did have Paul’s epistles. But that is from an earlier writing and I think you may be thinking of How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity. He doesn’t mention that Mark had any oral history.

          I had come to similar conclusions from New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M. Price, which is the heartof The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems though RG Price takes it much deeper.

          The Jews used midrash to come up with new theological ideas from their scriptures by combining different elements in new forms. The Greeks had mimesis which is similar but with other types of writings to create new stories. The Romans had imitatio which is like mimesis but the come up with Roman ideals.

          I would add the Homeric epics to RGP’s list for Mark. Mark wrote in Greek so we know his intended audience was at least literate in Greek and possibly educated in Greek. He used Latinisms and Aramaicisms but he explained the Aramaicisms and not the Latinisms, which means his intended audience knew Latin but not Aramaic, and not Hebrew either, as many Aramaicisms are the same as Hebrewisms.

          I have read that the point of mimesis was that the reader would recognize the reference. The movie “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” is better when you are familiar with Homer’s Odyssey so you can recognize the references. Mark has many references to the OT but if his intended audience did not know Hebrew, they would have to know them from the Septuagint. If they were literate in Greek, they would know Homer’s writings. A list of writings from an ancient library was found with six or seven hundred copies of Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad but less than one hundred of the next highest number of copies of any other work which gives an indication of how popular Homer’s writings were and how most people would be familiar with them. Virgil used Homer’s writings to come up with the Annead using imitatio.

          I haven’t come to any conclusion about Mark’s motives for writing the gospel but I doubt that he expected people to believe in an actual Jesus. The epistles don’t say that anybody knew Jesus unless one reads the gospels into certain epistle passages. Many scholars have noted that the disciples are portrayed negatively but a Pauline Christian would see Paul feuding with the Jerusalem Christians in Galatians. The three primary disciples in Mark are the three named in Galatians. Sometimes I think Mark may be explaining why the Jerusalem Circumcision faction became so scarce after the destruction of Jerusalem because the women were afraid to tell the disciples to go to Galilee.

          I don’t think there was any need for oral history in Mark. The link to RMP shows a literary source for very nearly every passage in Mark. The only part missing is the parables from the end of chapter three to near the end of chapter four. But The House Divided Against Itself could be based on Isaiah 49:24 and Psalms of Solomon 5:3 LXX. The Parable of The Sower likely comes from 4 Ezra 8:41-44 and Sirach 40:15. I think they can be explained as stories from the OT LXX.

        • Very helpful, thanks.

          I don’t think there was any need for oral history in Mark.

          In principle, yes, I see your point. But I’m trying to figure this out in practice.

          The author of Mark could’ve come out of his study after a month’s work and say, “Hey, guys! Check out this cool gospel I wrote! I think it adds a lot of detail to the Jesus story that’ll really solidify our story.”

          Of course, maybe he didn’t care about an existing church that he had to satisfy, so he could write whatever he wanted. But wouldn’t he have been part of a Christian community? Wouldn’t there have been some inertia, some constraints on what he wrote? If he simply wrote a cool gospel story that explained things nicely in his mind, then maybe he’s the inventor of Christianity as much as Paul.

        • David Cromie

          Nor did the Scholastics ever finally settle the question of whether women and dogs have souls, as far as I know, but the misogyny thread still runs strongly throughout religiot thinking!

        • epeeist

          Nor did the Scholastics ever finally settle the question of whether women and dogs have soul

          Well women have smaller brains than men and fewer teeth, not forgetting that women are incomplete or deformed men…

        • Of course, ignoring the fact that genetics tells us that the Y chromosome simply makes some tweaks to the basic plan, the basic plan being female.

        • David Cromie

          The ‘cross’, as christers represent it, was already a Pagan symbol, and well known to the then population as such. It has no inherent christer symbolism or magical properties!

        • Meepestos

          Brings to mind the Chi-Rho is a combination of the Greek letter chi (X) and rho (P), which are the first two letters of the Greek word for “Christ,” and so when put together represent “Jesus.

          There are Orthodox Greeks that claim the Chi Rho cross-like symbol was used, before Constantine the Great adopted it, to discreetly identify themselves amongst each other in order to avoid confrontation with Roman soldiers, as they knew it had the looks of a pagan origin (many argue it is pagan) and thought the “disguise” would fool the average roman soldier that they were not Christians.

        • David Cromie

          The ‘fish’ symbol was used in much the same way by early christers. It is still used as lapel badges, and car stickers, by christers even today.

        • Meepestos

          I think pagans also used it as a fertility symbol.

        • In any case, the christers cross is a borrowed Egyptian symbol, the ankh, which I think was quite likely projected back to a crucifixion. My own guess as to its derivation, if it isn’t a “sacred knot” or “sacred bow”, is the aortic arch, the lungs and the testis rather than the more common sandal strap and male-female symbology. Any of these interpretations makes the christer symbol more interesting.

        • Greg G.

          Compare the iconography of Isis natans and Maria natans images.

          EDIT: May be NSFW.

        • Michael Neville

          the Koine introduces the misreading of “riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey” for “a foal and a mare”

          Thank you for this explanation. I’d wondered how anybody could ride two donkeys, unless they were a trick rider at a rodeo or something like that.

          http://www.theequinest.com/images/fantastic-horse-11.jpg

        • Greg G.

          But if they are not the same size, one must take the Captain Morgan pose.

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/32/Captainlogo_2005.PNG/150px-Captainlogo_2005.PNG

        • My pleasure. Your picture is a perfect representation of the growth of the amazing legend of the christer’s “Jesus” (not actually a name). Indeed, it works so well that I spent a little time with it 🙂 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c9466c1fadb1d6f65f6aa232e2307761d234e592278d0504e02e1ab835d2bdfd.png

        • Michael Neville

          I’m impressed.

        • Thank-you 🙂

        • Kendall Fields

          Actually that fig tree bore no substance which should have formed in the time of Passover and did not belong to anyone. Also the demons chose to go into the herd Jesus said only go and given that Jesus was revered by many people they probably offered him their animals meaning not stolen. Also your answers are just grasping at straws at this point.

        • David Cromie

          ???

        • Michael Neville

          Another non-answer from a Christian apologist. Just the usual “I got nuttin'” response we’ve come to expect from the type.

        • Greg G.

          Why wouldn’t Jesus go around killing fruit trees? He wasn’t going to be around long enough for them to fruit. What’s the worst anyone could do to him, crucify him?

        • Greg G.

          You accuse others of grasping at straws when you are making shit up. Neither Mark nor Matthew say the tree did not belong to anyone. But when you say, “which should have formed in the time of Passover”, you are lying because you are contradicted by the story.

          Mark 11:12-25 (NRSV)12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it.

          The Gospel of Mark was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. He has Jesus get mad at the fig tree, then he goes to Jerusalem and throws a temple tantrum, and later the disciples notice that the fig tree has withered. It is a syllogism:

          Jesus gets mad at tree > tree withers
          Jesus gets mad at temple > readers recall the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem

          Matthew missed Mark’s point because he didn’t like spit miracles and miracles that were not immediate. Luke was so uncomfortable with the story, he omitted it.

        • Pofarmer

          Yes. Jesus was so revered by so many people in his lifetime that literally nobody noticed.

        • Who’s grasping at straws?? You’re the one who never brings evidence. Yes, you make bold statements, but they’re all backed by nothing. You haven’t even left the starting line.

          Learn how to make a coherent argument. If you really don’t know, ask. We much prefer a humble student to an arrogant know-it-all (who doesn’t know much).

        • Greg G.

          The bible also lets you know when there are parts that are metaphors

          Too bad it doesn’t tell you which parts are myth. It’s not that hard to tell.

          Why don’t you understand that Genesis is a bunch of metaphors? Serpents can’t talk. Paul and Revelation suggest that the serpent was Satan. But why did God punish Serpents if it was Satan in a serpent disguise? Should you go to prison if someone robbed a bank wearing a Kendall Fields mask? If God is that easy to fool, Satan would blaspheme the Holy Spirit with a Kendall Fields mask and you end up in He’ll.

        • David Cromie

          Has it not ever occurred to you that the scribes of the so-called ‘bible’ had an agenda? That they did, is proved by the fact that they cast about for anything that might seem to support it, such as latching on to already well known myths, legends, and folklore, to adapt for their nefarious purposes. Thus Pagan myths and legends, from any source, that were current at the time were readily to hand, to dupe an already superstitious, illiterate for the most part, people.

          This adaptation was not achieved in one fell swoop, but took centuries to achieve, by continuous editing, interpolations, and deletions, using the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus, both dating from the 4th cent. CE, as their starting points. The preposterous myth of the Israelites wandering for 40 years in the desert was not added to the OT until the 8th cent. CE, for example!

          Read the Epic of Gilgamesh, as an introduction to Genesis, for example.

        • Ellabulldog

          the bible is fable, fiction, written by ancient people

          it is NOT fact

          it was not written by any god or transcribed by any god
          it was written by men to get other men to believe in a god

          it it illogical, contradicts itself, has no evidence for it besides it’s own wild claims

          Christianity is popular because of European aggression, war, colonization and genocide. Love did not get people believing in Christianity but much killing helped it grow.

          It is cultural brainwashing.

        • Kendall Fields

          Actually Christianity grew in many places around the world after Europeans left and many Europeans took the time to convert people. The Bible doesn’t have any “contradictions” also given that Atheism grew since they caused more deaths than all other centuries combined. The Bible is true with God giving men the ability to write about the history of man and how a tiny nation produced the savior of the world.

        • Ellabulldog

          study a map of religions around the world and it clearly shows how religion is cultural

          men could write before the bible and there is no savior of the world

          you are thoroughly brainwashed

        • Kendall Fields

          Actually there are reports that there was an ancient form of Hebrew meaning that the first five books could have been written back then. You are so very blind when you say that Jesus is not the savior of the world.

        • David Cromie

          Why would humans, created in the image of a supposed ‘god’, need to be saved from the wrath of that same ‘god’`? Is this supposed ‘god’ of yours a full time player of cat and mouse games?

        • You are so very blind when you say that Jesus is not the savior of the world.

          It’s kinda hard to blame Ella for that. You’ve done nothing to back up this incredible claim.

        • The Bible has loads of contradictions. What I think you mean is that there is no contradiction so gaping that a clever apologist can’t find some nutty rationalization to allow shallow-minded Christians a poor reason to not change your mind.

          Atheism grew since they caused more deaths than all other centuries combined.

          Oh? Name me one person killed in the name of atheism.

        • David Cromie

          Only if you can supply the irrefutable evidence for the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’, and thus its connection with the real world.

        • I don’t believe there is a God, so no. I don’t believe it’s Zeus’s word, either.

        • adam
        • Ignorant Amos

          The Bible is fiction.

          The similarities between the stories and characters in the Bible and those from previous mythologies are both undeniable and well-documented. This would be obvious if it weren’t for early indoctrination of these beliefs into children, which usually makes them unassailable as adults.

          http://scq.io/9eQh9UbN#gs.VtqLxTo

        • adam

          MAGIC

        • adam
        • adam

          “There is an actual view of God”

          Please demonstrate

          ” All Christians view God as the all mighty creator whose son died for humanity ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/878b8e07d2b942087c85ac234890ad18b3e8f811594bc275918c5d05cbe88467.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          Mankind brought sin upon ourselves. We all have wrong thoughts and do wrong things. However God still decided we are worth saving and deals with sinners for their sins but with justice. However you are too blind to see it.

        • adam

          “Mankind brought sin upon ourselves.”
          “There is an actual view of God”

          Please demonstrate

          “Mankind brought sin upon ourselves. ”

          How?
          Adam and Eve were too ignorant and innocent sin by themselves.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ad9800ce923b31295afed0a2d2a97d756340d851163d91fe88dc7cbe5bcb82af.jpg

          ” However God still decided we are worth saving ”

          ONLY a VERY FEW are worth saving

          “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:14”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9bfb7cbb09a39ae8911c3879d7def113ab5277eb302961e16b02b2a649a0e7d6.jpg

          “However you are too blind to see it.”

          ONLY because you are too dishonest to answer my questions.

        • Kendall Fields

          Satan chose to to make Adam and Eve sin however they made that decision of their own will but blamed others rather than face the consequence. Jesus discusses how the path to God is so difficult that many people will refuse to take it. The father, the son snd the holy spirit are different from each other but make up God. He’ll is the punishment for those who don’t repent of their sins and accept Jesus but they make that choice of their own free will. But it would seem your dishonesty runs as deep as Satan’s.

        • adam

          “Satan chose to to make Adam and Eve sin”

          Not what the bible says, there is no mention of Satan in the story of Adam and Eve, only the serpent that God put in the garden.

          Notice how God was so stupid that he didnt put up a guard on his MAGIC tree until after his creation ate from it. After which he carries a human GRUDGE. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/51119f60ed8be3b4f9b33feb816268f23d444e5e8a2c78bedaf9c0ec98403362.jpg

          “Jesus discusses how the path to God is so difficult that many people will refuse to take it. ”

          Yep, so MOST will be tortured for ETERNITY for the short, short, short,short,short ‘crime’ of being innocent and ignorant of what good and evil were.

          “The father, the son snd the holy spirit are different from each other but make up God.”

          Nope, they are THREE claims of GODS

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/48f64686cc56c93e340da908278a26b5ca4234795178a430344b7c7698c95824.jpg

          ” He’ll is the punishment for those who don’t repent of their sins and accept Jesus but they make that choice of their own free will.”

          I didnt choose to be born with ‘sin’, so its not free will.

          And you havent demonstrated Hell to be anything but IMAGINARY as well.

          ” But it would seem your dishonesty runs as deep as Satan’s.”

          Satan? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05cafdf4e54d70a9410dfd45f846304eb9891592e53b7561d59d1be03b899362.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          For someone who reads the Bible, you should what happened after Adam and Eve ate that fruit.

        • adam

          I do know the story.

          there is no mention of Satan in the story of Adam and Eve, only the serpent that God put in the garden.

          Notice how God was so stupid that he didnt put up a guard on his MAGIC
          tree until after his creation ate from it. After which he carries a
          human GRUDGE.

          And according to YOU:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7786df5050a13684367f90eb753b953b17c746ef048fe8e05b1f3a989a977fd3.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          Whaaaa?

          Just because someone reads the story of Pinocchio it doesn’t mean a wooden marionette turned into a wee boy.

          So asinine with just the one head, amazing.

        • Greg G.

          If one believes in a talking serpent, how can Jiminy Cricket be doubted?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Well, Jiminy Cricket is a minced oath for “Jesus Christ”.

          Like Jesus not being part of the original yarn, Jiminy wasn’t in Carlo Collodi’s original yarn either. That was a different talking cricket.

        • Greg G.

          I never read the original story by I always suspected Jiminy was a Disney creation. When I first learned that those words I was allowed to say were mutated cuss words, I guessed Jiminy Cricket was one as I knew that one from before I saw the movie.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not too shabby for the anthropomorphism of a conscience…to be a blaspheme as well a mean.

        • MNb

          God is imaginary.
          Satan is imaginary.
          Hell is imaginary.
          Sin is imaginary.
          Adam and Eve were imaginary.
          The list is growing.

        • Greg G.

          He has cited Noah’s Flood, too.

        • Kendall Fields

          So what you are saying is that hell doesn’t exist because you can’t see it?

        • adam

          No, I am saying you havent demonstrated Hell to be anything but IMAGINARY. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c3ffebdb7906ffe7b4d64bfb9f2332a11f7812fccde7faeda89bcd09ec0cd03e.jpg

        • BlackMamba44

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ef9ec253dcfa1be3f8285a876eeffbc3f659eaa745d122b7653a9d810fa5c029.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/00a47830629f19028c24a6573b883b095d0f5827798555876afe1c482970f275.jpg

          How could Adam and Eve know that what they did was wrong when they had to eat the fruit to know the difference between right and wrong.

          Blamed others? Who are these others?

        • Kendall Fields

          God told them not to eat it but they chose to listen to Satan. Also God is slow to anger and takes action when the sin is full which gives many people a lot of time to do the right thing. So Satan isn’t greater than God. Also you need to write out your own answers rather than use those awful posters.

        • Kodie

          You need to shut the fuck up with your idiotic nattering on your bullshit. You have an imaginary friend, you believe a myth, and everything out of your stupid head is nonsense no one who is an adult should cling to. You post 99 short nothing posts asserting your basic claims and not supporting any of them, and filling my mailbox with your dumb childish shit. If you have a fucking argument instead of just plain garbage spewing about your dumb myth belief, lay it out ONCE, and actually engage in a fucking conversation. It’s so annoying to see your dumb posts just stating dumb biblical bullshit as though it is a fact, with no evidence or supportive argument,

          SO I suggest you get the job done here and stop telling other people what THEY need to do. You are full of it, and obviously have a lot of nothing to say a million different separate times.

        • Kendall Fields

          You need to control your mouth and speak like a civilized adult. Ihave read the Bible and I know it is true.

        • epeeist

          Ihave read the Bible and I know it is true.

          Given you make a universal claim then all we need to do is provide a single instance where of something in the bible is contradicted by the facts, for example yet we can definitively say that the Noachic flood didn’t happen.

          Thus your claim is false.

        • Myna

          You need to control your mouth and speak like a civilized adult

          Tone troll.

          Ihave read the Bible and I know it is true.

          I have read the Bhagavad Gita, and I know it is true.

        • Kendall Fields

          Really well tell me why do you believe that it is true. Also it is not being a “troll” but simply saying that the person’s language should be managed.

        • Myna

          Really well tell me why do you believe that it is true.

          I see irony flies right over your head.

          Also it is not being a “troll” but simply saying that the person’s language should be managed.

          I didn’t say “troll”. I said “tone troll.”

        • Kendall Fields

          Go ahead tell me and it doesn’t matter if you call me a “troll” or “tone troll” I am just saying the truth.

        • Kodie

          Stop telling people how to behave, you bossy empty-headed piece of Christian shit. You might stop being hostile and actually say something substantial that we could discuss like civilized adults, as you like to think you are. You are not. You are passive-aggressive, you just keep yammering and making blank assertions without backing them up, and well, I get impatient from that sort of dumb shit. Why should we play your game? Say something worth listening to, and we could discuss, but you say hundreds of repetitive comments that back up none of your claims, and we should be polite, you littering asshole?

        • Kendall Fields

          Your anger burns for whatever reason but I pray that you can change your ways.

        • Kodie

          You really can’t even read? You’re spamming your Christian prosyletizing without any substance. You have made over 100 posts that don’t substantiate any of your claims and I didn’t say anything until I just couldn’t take it anymore and call you out on your rudeness. You’re rude. You’re a littering spamming rude inconsiderate fucking asshole. Pray if that will keep you away from the computer for a long time. Otherwise, don’t worry about my problems before you solve your own.

        • Kendall Fields

          You provide very little evidence yourself.

        • Michael Neville

          Kodie’s responding to you. When you give zip point shit support for your preaching then it’s difficult for anyone to give evidence to rebut your evidenceless bullshit.

        • Kodie

          Evidence for what?
          This is your disqus profile. We get it, you’re a Christian. You don’t have to post hundreds of times what you believe without posting any evidence or supporting arguments for your claims. I hope your teacher-mom takes away your computer privileges, you are really just some spamming Christian troll. A lot of other Christians have actually been able to keep up a conversation with us. You seem to be relying on being an irritant rather than an educator. I have evidence that you’re a pest and not an interlocutor.

          Maybe you’re bad at listening or paying attention, but that’s my complaint with you. Stop saying the same thing we already fucking heard you. Apparently, you can’t hear us, you are programmed to ignore challenges and questions and pretend you’re bratty bossy spamming and telling others how to behave (OR WHAT?????) is “polite”. You’re not polite. You’re not conducting yourself like a civilized adult. I suspect you are a child of maybe 15.

        • Kendall Fields

          I suspect upon your foul language you are an 8 year old.

        • Kodie

          So you admit you’re a home-schooled sheltered teen with no life but your fantasy gives you so much purpose, all you can do with it is post the same shit over 100 times in an hour.

        • Kendall Fields

          So you admit that you are an eight year old child with a lack of respect for adults as well as a lack of civilized manners.

        • Kodie

          I don’t respect you.

        • Kendall Fields

          And I extend the same to you.

        • God can’t handle naughty words? I imagine that he’s tougher than that.

        • MNb

          That’s still infinitely more than you have provided in all your comments combined.

        • Kendall Fields

          I pray that you find peace with God one day.

        • Kodie

          God doesn’t exist, that’s your imaginary friend you like to tell us about but can’t substantiate. Stop repeating yourself hundreds of times, we already heard you. Isn’t there a street corner in your town with no crazies on it yet?

        • Kendall Fields

          How can you say God doesn’t exist when you look at this world?

        • Kodie

          Because that’s normal.

        • Kendall Fields

          That isn’t normal.

        • Kodie

          It’s pretty normal not to attribute magical superstitions to normal natural things.

        • Kendall Fields

          Who made the world then?

        • Kodie

          Why do you think it was someone?

        • Kendall Fields

          There has to be creator otherwise why do we live on a planet near a sun that is not completely dangerous for now and have a book that describes the beginning in the same way scientist say the world was created. After all, it was a Catholic priest who made the Big Bang theory and another scientist who thought about it said it would prove the existence of a creator.

        • Yeah, good question. And why did the hole in the ground fit the puddle so well?

          http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking

        • epeeist

          And why did the hole in the ground fit the puddle so well?

          This one always amuses me. It ignores the fact that humans can’t live on the earth without artificial support except in very specific temperature ranges, atmospheric pressures, on land and not at sea etc. It also ignores the rest of the cosmos.

          In other words, the universe is fine-tuned for life providing one only considers the minuscule portion of the earth where we can live and ignore the rest. I can’t be arsed to do the calculation but the ratio of the volume of earth’s biosphere to the volume of the visible universe is ridiculously small.

          It also implicitly assumes that the universe is fine tuned for us, whereas AFAIR 90%+ of the biosphere is bacteria. One might as well conclude that the universe is fine tuned for bacteria, black holes (there are many more of them than humans and they will last longer) or pubic lice (they can’t survive without us).

        • epeeist

          There has to be creator otherwise why do we live on a planet near a sun that is not completely dangerous for now

          Well yes, given that it didn’t exist for billions of years after the Big Bang, didn’t support human life for billions of years after that it still doesn’t support human life except in particular latitudes where there is land and not sea, ice, desert or high mountains.

          After all, it was a Catholic priest who made the Big Bang theory

          Actually the first person to produce an exact solution of the Einstein field equations was a Soviet physicist Alexander Friedmann. His solution was later independently rediscovered by Georges Lemaître. Both solutions were compatible with an expanding universe but neither were the “Big Bang” theory, this was produced by another Soviet physicist who emigrated to the US, namely George Gamow.

          So once again you produce something that is factually incorrect.

          another scientist who thought about it said it would prove the existence of a creator.

          So which scientist would this be?

        • MNb

          I assume he means Fred Hoyle – and also that he has no idea who that was.

        • epeeist

          I assume he means Fred Hoyle

          You mean Fred Hoyle the atheist?

          Personally I have some doubt that he has heard of Lemaître by name never mind Fred Hoyle.

          Amusingly enough the Pope Pius XII had to be persuaded by Lemaître and the papal science adviser not to proclaim the theory as validating creationism.

        • MNb

          Something he certainly is not aware of.

        • Michael Neville

          One reason why Hoyle liked Steady State cosmology was it did not require a creator. Hoyle was an atheist.

        • MNb

          “it was a Catholic priest who made the Big Bang theory”
          Before him an atheist commie called Alexander Friedmann.

          “and another scientist who thought about it said …..”
          And some more scientists who thought about said it didn’t. Plus that catholic priest (his name is Georges Lemaitre btw) said it didn’t as well.

        • Michael Neville

          Lemaitre never mentioned any gods in his scientific papers.

        • Michael Neville

          I see the Big Bang and the creation of solar systems are two more topics you’re ignorant about.

          a book that describes the beginning in the same way scientist say the world was created.

          Do you honestly think that a 2500 year old creation myth some Hebrew priests stole from the Babylonians actually describes the creation of the world? You’re even more stupid and ignorant than I thought, and I thought you were quite stupid and ignorant.

        • What’s that supposed to mean? The atheists here typically accept the standard scientific consensus view (which includes unanswered questions).

          There was no “Who.”

        • Michael Neville

          So what would the world look like if there was no god? Be specific in which parts would be missing or changed. Justify your answers.

        • MNb

          How you can say your god exists when you look at your stupidity and ignorance?

        • MNb
        • David Cromie

          Let us have the irrefutable proof of the ‘truth’ that would convince anyone with half a brain, that your supposed ‘god’ actually exists outside of your mind.

        • adam
        • Ignorant Amos

          Tone trolling is a logical fallacy.

          Kendall Fields: [natters a lot of idiotic shite and incoherent fuckwittery]

          Kodie: You need to shut the fuck up with your idiotic nattering and your bullshit.

          Kendall Fields: Now, now, let’s have some civility.

          Kendall Fields came in one statement too many.

          The majority here quite like Kodie’s particular commenting style…I can’t remember when she has been off base either.

          You don’t get to decide what words others use Mr. Sea Lion.

        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          That should be delusions of mediocrity.

        • Kodie

          Anyone who calls me their child who didn’t give birth to me is really a piece of work.

        • Michael Neville

          You no write the English good. If I were you I’d be more concerned about looking like an illiterate ignoranus (no, that’s not a typo) than about someone using “naughty” language. In other words, stop tone trolling and pay attention to what you’re writing.

          I have a Hindu friend who believes the Vedas are true. There are Muslims who study Medieval Arabic so they can appreciate the truth of the Quran. So why are Hindus and Muslims wrong about their sacred writings and you’re right about your favorite book?

        • MNb

          We know that the Bhagavad Gita is true exactly like you know the Bible is true.

        • adam
        • David Cromie

          I have read Harry Potter, and I know it is truth.

        • Michael Neville

          If you don’t like the way adults talk then go back to the kiddies table. Whining abut tone will get you no points on this blog, so either grow up or go away. Your choice, whiner.

        • Michael Neville

          If you don’t like the way adults talk then go back to the kiddie table. Whining about strong language will get you no points here. So either grow up or get out, your choice.

        • Kodie

          Did you say something worth listening to, idiot? No.

          Still no.

        • Kendall Fields

          Sure thing idiot but your comments have no meaning.

        • Kodie

          I saw about a hundred empty bullshit claims from you in a very short time, and I don’t think you should post that much unless you have something to fucking say, and then don’t tell other people how to respond to you, when you were rude first.

          Really, have some fucking consideration, you asshole.

        • Kendall Fields

          I pray for you as your comments continue to show your unrighteous anger.

        • Kodie

          It’s righteous anger. Go pray and ask god why he needs a nitwit like you to speak for him, and don’t come back here until you have an answer. You have some fucking nerve telling other people how to behave when you’re such a nasty spamming asshole.

        • Kendall Fields

          God wants everyone to go speak his word regardless of whether or not they are a “nitwit”. Also control your mouth.

        • Kodie

          God doesn’t want anything. Control your fucking impulse to tell everyone else how to behave before you take care of yourself. God didn’t make you boss of me.

        • Kendall Fields

          He didn’t make me boss of anyone but his wants all of his people to preach his word to others. And again control your mouth.

        • Kodie

          You’re not preaching, you’re blathering. You know, we’ve heard of Jesus from better-spoken Christians than you, and we still didn’t think the arguments were any good. This must be your first time, but you don’t have to repeat your “preaching” over 100 times, we fucking heard it the first time. You have nothing else to say? We normal functional adult humans don’t find your words magical spells that will transform us into Christians. You have a fantasy, go pray a long time before you come back and stop telling everyone else how to behave. Or what? Seriously, if I keep trying to tell you where you’ve erred and you keep responding, I don’t get what I’m doing wrong. I talk the way I fucking like, and if you don’t fucking like it, you can go on not liking it, but you’re not my boss.

        • Kendall Fields

          You cannot be righteous without God despite our repeated attempts. Jesus died for all people on Earth that they might be saved. Also do you speak to your elders with that mouth of yours as you can be fired for doing doing that.

        • Kodie

          You keep telling us nonsense about your imaginary friend, why do you think that applies to anyone who doesn’t share your delusion?

          Don’t worry about me, do you preach all day at work instead of do your job? No, you’re a homeschooled Christian teen who just got on the internet for the first time. You can’t preach all day at your job, just so you know, you’ll get fired for being disruptive.

        • Kendall Fields

          You are so sad my child but I pray for you and hope you can act like an adult rather than a eight year old child.

        • Kodie

          I’m not going to talk to you anymore, because you’re such a self-absorbed fucking asshole who can’t stand anyone else to speak, and see how many more times you have to post your one-line little unsubstantiated immature fantasy to me or other people before you get banned for being a spammer who offers nothing to discuss.

          Bye!

        • Kendall Fields

          Go my child and become a better person. I pray that you become a better person for all.

        • Kendall Fields

          Some people can’t stand the truth like you.

        • al kimeea

          says an apparent adult with an imaginary friend like toddlers

        • Kodie

          Isn’t the real Christian disease being as pompous and condescending of others as possible, thinking we can’t cope on earth without some supernatural intervention, thinking they have exactly what everyone else needs. I feel like that is at the heart of their need to control policy, on one hand to protect their privilege, but on the other hand patronizing the lost broken people they think everyone else must be – because without their fantasy, they believe they would be lost and broken. Why don’t they all just go fuck themselves?

        • al kimeea

          Dinna forget arrogance in the first degree disguised as the humble-brag.

          They prolly would fuck themselves if they weren’t so busy spreading the good news to assuage their guilt over thinking about oingo-boingo

        • Michael Neville

          Captain Cassidy at Roll to Disbelieve calls this behavior being the “designated parent”.

        • David Cromie

          I suppose KF is, in a metaphorical sense, fucking himself by not providing any proof that his imaginary friend is not a delusion.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Why don’t they all just go fuck themselves?

          But then we’d have no one to take the pish out of.

        • Pofarmer

          Why don’t they all just go fuck themselves?

          That would be a sin.

        • Kodie

          Oh yeah, superstition.

        • Michael Neville

          act like an adult rather than a eight year old child.

          The projection is strong in this one.

        • adam

          “ou are so sad my child but I pray for you and hope you can act like an adult rather than a eight year old child.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/102697e7faecdc67306ad919c76a1e01e698f44fbed89fa96dcc85012ac3ce5f.jpg

        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          You cannot be righteous without God

          Since your god isn’t righteous himself that’s a non sequitur. According to your own propaganda your god is a sadistic, narcissistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. He kills people just because he can. He condones slavery, sexual slavery and rape. He either commits genocide himself or orders it.

          Nope, that doesn’t sound in the least bit righteous to me.

          Also do you speak to your elders with that mouth of yours as you can be fired for doing doing that.

          Fuck off, tone troll.

        • Myna

          It’s only righteous if Yahweh does it, see?

        • This is an atheist blog, not Miss Manners.

          We welcome Christians here. But instead of focusing on decorum, I suggest you focus on interesting, provocative, thoughtful arguments either for Christianity or against some atheist argument. Earn respect with good arguments and you will be treated with respect.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I suggest you focus on interesting, provocative, thoughtful arguments either for Christianity or against some atheist argument.

          KF is just not that clever enough.

        • MNb

          “Jesus died for all people on Earth”
          So what? I didn’t ask him to.

          “as you can be fired”
          Prophecy: you will be fired from this site long before Kodie.

        • David Cromie

          Could you explain the link between your supposed ‘god’ and ‘righteousness’?

        • adam

          ” Jesus died for all people on Earth that they might be saved. ”

          So then why is ‘faith’ needed?

          Is your Jesus such a failure that he needed ‘wishful thinking’ from his ‘believers’? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/be9ad80377d2f7d542c39315a6b70be646984bfd3420248a29eceac035f8b7f2.jpg

        • adam

          “You cannot be righteous without God despite our repeated attempts.”

          Well you can IF you are willing to murder gays:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc554b74af68425056b8a4228b7f09490a1e80f6c6bf14f85bbce2e8015a0bfb.jpg

          Because THAT is what God wants.

          As well as a bunch of other killings, which I bet you oppose your OWN God on…..

        • Myna
        • Kendall Fields

          Yawn. Come up with better answers.

        • Myna

          zzzzzzzzzzz

        • Kendall Fields

          Really. Act your age.

        • Michael Neville

          Stop tone trolling. That’s a form of whining and nobody likes a whiner. So stop whining about how people are reacting to your bullshit.

        • Myna

          zzzzzzzzzzz

        • Kendall Fields

          So sad of you.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re pretty sad. Now make an actual point instead of whining about what others are saying.

        • MNb

          Yes, it’s sad that your only value on this blog is being a remedy for insomnia.

        • Myna

          zzzzzzzzzzz

        • Kendall Fields

          Really act like an adult.

        • Myna
        • Kendall Fields

          Wow that is a dumb card. You should find another one.

        • Myna

          Give it up, already.

        • Kendall Fields

          No how about you lost one.

        • Myna

          Give it up…

        • Kendall Fields

          How about you.

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • David Cromie

          ???

        • Ignorant Amos

          A grammar issue…the numbnuts meant to say…

          “No, how about you? Lost one.

          I think.

          But what I really think is that the bloody nuisance is played out and has nothing to add to any conversation at this point, not that they had to begin with. Just an ignorant knuckle dragging clusterfuck, cluttering everyone’s inbox with inane crap.

        • David Cromie

          I suppose we should not expect cogent language, or opinions, from semiliterate subscribers to superstitious delusions, who cannot even provide irrefutable evidence for the real existence of their favourite supposed ‘god’.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope.

          I’m surprised the banhammer hasn’t fell already.

        • MNb

          Sometimes I regret BobS’ high tolerance.

        • Ignorant Amos

          When it’s a complete waste of space like KF…for sure.

        • I asked this before: drop the schoolyard taunts and focus on good arguments. You have something useful to add to the conversation, don’t you? Do so, either by providing arguments for Christianity or against atheism or by responding to individual points in the post.

          Respect is earned. You’re the newcomer.

        • adam
        • MNb

          Still too hard for you to grasp.

        • Kendall Fields

          Also don’t try to act dumb.

        • Myna

          Give it up.

        • Kendall Fields

          Why don’t you.

        • Michael Neville

          You first. Except that you are dumb, so no act is required.

        • adam
        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Bingo!

        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          That one never gets old.

        • adam
        • MNb

          Really. Set the example yourself. If you can’t, be grateful that Myna tries to descend to your childish level.

        • David Cromie

          Delusions repeated ad nauseum tend to be soporific!

        • adam
        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          Come up with better things to respond to. Your tired come-to-Jesus preaching is not inspiring.

          You keep forgetting that we’re atheists. We don’t accept that your Jesus even existed, let alone is a god. For that matter, we don’t believe that any gods exist. And we’re perfectly happy with that. We do not have a god-shaped hole in our psyches crying out to be filled.

          So you have to give us some reason to think that your Jesus isn’t a figment of your imagination and your Bible isn’t a collection of myths, fables and lies. So far you’re not even close to doing this.

        • Kodie

          That’s all I’m saying too. There were hundred or so short posts with nothing to really discuss, just matter of fact, the bible is real and you’re all going to hell, and I’ll pray for you. This is what Kendall Fields thinks is “civilized discussion.” I suggest Kendall Fields get a nice piece of cardboard or several, some cheap paint or markers, and start scouting a street corner to make their way as a professional religious loony.

        • Pofarmer

          and start scouting a street corner to make their way as a professional religious loony.

          Probably his day job.

        • Kodie

          Doubt it, I think they are some homeschooled sheltered Christian teen who is jogging around the block in their new internet sneakers.

        • adam

          “You cannot be righteous without God despite our repeated attempts.”

          Of course she can…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae97f946c372f0c383b185246d5fb96c16e496e1fda9fbce601351eac4aab4df.jpg

        • Pofarmer

          Kendall. Fuck you. Make an actual point, or leave.

        • David Cromie

          All your raving christer BS might begin to make sense if only you could adduce the evidence for the reality of your favourite ‘god’s’ existence. This would be in your own best interests, as someone claiming to be interested in ‘truth’, so why the continued delay?

        • adam

          “He didn’t make me boss of anyone but his wants all of his people to preach his word to others.”

          And looks at what a DISMAL FAILURE your ‘God’ is.

          THIS is absolutely the VERY BEST it can do. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4e5e587289bac5ccc1992d78778c7358acb676a2e909c99b3508dce327e1cd29.jpg

        • MNb

          God doesn’t want anything.
          You want something and because you’re an insecure dipshit you try to give your words more weight my attributing them to an imaginary sky daddy.
          Kodie will control her mouth as soon as you have learned to control your keyboard. Trust me, I know her.

        • adam

          “God wants everyone to go speak his word regardless of whether or not they are a “nitwit”.”

          Why does your God want you nitwitting ignorance across the internet?

        • Kendall Fields

          Also your anger is not righteous.

        • Kodie

          Did you think you did anything right? You are oblivious to your own rudeness.

        • Kendall Fields

          How am I being rude? I think you are the one being rude with your foul language.

        • Kodie

          I told you the first time – is this something about idiots like you that you can’t remember how many times you already posted that you couldn’t read what I wrote the first time? I only wrote to you once you had already posted over 100 times the same fucking bullshit. How much of that spam do you think we need, and then you told Adam how to post, and so I thought, who the fuck are you, Kendall Fields, why should anyone obey you? So I said so – THE FIRST TIME AND EVERY OTHER TIME SINCE THEN.

          Why do you think anyone should obey you?

        • Kendall Fields

          No one should obey me but I can tell you that your foul language doesn’t help you in the long run.

        • MNb

          Your annoying preaching won’t help you even in the short run.

        • epeeist

          I only wrote to you once you had already posted over 100 times the same fucking bullshit.

          Lying bullshit at that. Note how he doesn’t respond to posts which show his “holy bible” to be false.

        • adam

          “I pray for you as your comments continue to show your unrighteous anger.”

          No it is very righteous anger.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2cc44055c5339231f0c74be689bfcd26b4a683baa74097f02aaa9746f70099e4.jpg

          Bible God is a MONSTEROUS Evil

        • MNb

          That’s still more meaning than all yours together.

        • MNb

          You need to learn that you don’t get to tell others what they need to and what they don’t need to.

        • al kimeea

          I’ve read the same holey book and it ain’t so

        • Kendall Fields

          Then you do not have faith.

        • al kimeea

          Ya think? Oh right…

        • Kendall Fields

          Yes God gave me and everyone else on Earth a brain to think.

        • al kimeea

          and a Holey Book which teaches people not to use it

        • MNb

          Exactly. That’s why we don’t need faith.

        • David Cromie

          Then try using your brain to do some critical thinking, and you will be surprised at the results. This is a well tested method for dispelling debilitating delusions, and restoring the brain to its proper function.

          I am still awaiting your answer to my question.

        • adam

          “Yes God gave me and everyone else on Earth a brain to think.”

          And YOU ‘think’ the world is MAGIC.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04570f3531aa4e675333fdcce29973e95d6ad5b518125333d607badb96b99c03.png

        • adam
        • But why is the Bible true? Just because you’ve read it and something just tells you so?

          You need to do better than that.

        • adam
        • adam

          “You need to control your mouth and speak like a civilized adult.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b0173e6212126b858e8799fa9dbed1de77779860f88d71b21835fcf8aec276b1.jpg

        • Pofarmer

          Lol. And then you go on and do exactly what Kodie is complaining about, and tone trolling as well. If you want to have an adult conversation engage as an adult, Otherwise, STFU and GTFO.

        • adam
        • adam

          “God told them not to eat it but they chose to listen to Satan. ”

          Nope, AGAIN a TALKING SNAKE.

          Satan wasnt created until later in the story.

          “So Satan isn’t greater than God”

          Then why is “Satan” ruling over God’s planet?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/653b6943a28ae8005630392dd73efb5fd0d79bf342b084cd63eb7ef315d15dba.jpg

        • BlackMamba44

          YahwehJesus told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

          The serpent (not Satan. He isn’t in the OT) told them no they wouldn’t; they would learn the difference between good and evil.

          Did they die or did they learn the difference between good and evil?

          Answers? You’re not asking questions.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fd0718f2b37aef4be8341ddda3e888505f140042585db9e2bf7f168f1e79155c.jpg

        • Greg G.

          The serpent (not Satan. He isn’t in the OT)

          Satan appears at the beginning and the ending of Job as a provocateur of God, but only does what God wants. Sometime after the writings of the pairs of Samuels and the Kings but around the time of their Readers Digest version the Chronicles, Satan became a bad dude.

          2 Samuel 24:1 (NRSV)David’s Census of Israel and Judah24 Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.”

          1 Chronicles 21:1 (NRSV)The Census and Plague21 Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel.

          Satan is just God when he is drunk.

        • BlackMamba44

          I have tried so many times to read completely through the OT. For some reason I just end up taking a nap.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah, that YahwehJesus fella is a lousy lying fecker.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Myna

          Also you need to write out your own answers rather than use those awful posters.

          You really ought to have prefaced that by saying it is your opinion. The comment does not “need” to meet your standards of reply.

        • BlackMamba44

          I thought the exact same thing but am having too much fun with these “awful posters” to worry about her opinion of them. 🙂

        • Greg G.

          I enjoy the posters and especially how you and adam are tag teaming them.

        • BlackMamba44

          I am terrible with words. I also tend to be too wordy. Memes get the point across very well.

        • adam

          “Memes get the point across very well.”

          I think that they can be, at times, the most effective method to get a point across.

        • Greg G.

          But you are awesome with Disqus names.

        • BlackMamba44

          Why, thank you. BlackMamba (I just call her Mamba) is the name of the kitty in my avatar. Her mama, a very sweet feral cat that came with my house, gave birth to her in the crawl space. Mamba’s been playing fetch since she was 8 weeks old and she woofs under her breath when something outside spooks her. And I always wanted a black cat. 🙂 We have a very special bond.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …and the 44?

        • BlackMamba44

          My age at the time I decided on the Disqus name.

          EDIT: I think. I joined Disqus in October 2013 but must have changed it to this name sometime after December 2014.

        • Greg G.

          I guessed that there were 44 Kobe Bryant fans ahead of you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Fair one.

        • Kendall Fields

          Read the bible but it would seem you don’t that.

        • Myna

          but it would seem you don’t that.

          Ah, but what a friend we have in proofreading. It would seem you don’t DO that.

        • Kendall Fields

          That is rich but it doesn’t matter in this situation however technology does mess up a lot.

        • Myna

          Technology is only as effective as the brain utilizes it.

        • Kendall Fields

          Sure.

        • Kendall Fields

          However, technology will fail you more than the brain God gave you.

        • Michael Neville

          Do you always talk in smarmy sound bites or do you occasionally use that brain you supposedly have to write something intelligent and intelligible?

        • Kodie

          Kendall hasn’t made any comment so far that wasn’t smarmy or spammy, and is incapable of substance and depth.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nearly all idiotic smarmy soundbites and of KF’s couple of hundred upvotes, nearly all are by KF…what a right fuckin’ rhubarb we have here.

        • adam

          “However, technology will fail you more than the brain God gave you.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04570f3531aa4e675333fdcce29973e95d6ad5b518125333d607badb96b99c03.png

        • adam

          “That is rich but it doesn’t matter in this situation however technology does mess up a lot.”

          But NOTHING like magical claims from people like yourself.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62da10177de8c12d9feedf1a0ff3d448ed929feef887a1192640edb3a8a15953.jpg

        • MNb

          I have read Revelation. Hilarious. Comedy Gold.

        • Reading the Bible will help with what?

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • Pofarmer

          Nice job blowing up “free will” btw.

        • adam

          “God told them not to eat it but they chose to listen to Satan. ”

          Not Satan, but a MAGICAL talking snake put in God’s garden by God.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c16373740f3fbbd90db552ffc42d7d89dee7edf48b5d7491a41b83ff636c1e00.jpg

        • adam
        • Kendall Fields

          Also you seem to forget many people chose the path of sin is because it is easy.

        • Greg G.

          Romans 3:19-20 (NRSV)19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For “no human being will be justified in his sight” by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

          Paul said that the law is too difficult to be justified. The whole point of Christianity is that it is easy. You just have to be gullible enough to believe. You shouldn’t believe what the pulpit shovels.

        • adam
        • MNb

          Only christians like you can sin.
          I don’t sin, because sinning is acting against the will of god. However there is no god, so I can’t act against his will.
          You can sin by acting against what you deceitfully have told yourself what the will of god is.

        • Ignorant Amos

          According to Christianity, youse are ALL sinners anyway, so pah!

          https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cb/df/11/cbdf1148f49360532c2d2813fb38f21a.jpg

          Like I said, dim & dull.

        • Greg G.

          Genesis says it was a serpent. If it was actually Satan, why did God punish serpents? If God is so easily fooled, Satan could blaspheme the Holy Spirit in a Kendall Fields mask and you would not be forgiven.

        • adam

          “But it would seem your dishonesty runs as deep as Satan’s.”

          My ‘dishonesty’, which you havent demonstrated appears to be just as IMAGINARY as your Satan.

        • adam

          “There is an actual view of God”

          Please demonstrate

        • al kimeea

          There’s another godbotherer around here claiming that Hell isn’t really part of the Holey Book or baby Jebus but written by people and added later to the original Greek and Hebrew, ignoring that Greeks and Hebrews are also people.

          Regardless, this paradox leads to;

          – the other master of incoherence is dishonest

          – you are dishonest

          – both of you are

          Having read the BuyBull from cover to cover, I’ll take door number 3 Monty.

        • Kendall Fields

          It is Bible and it appears you do not understand it.

        • al kimeea

          What’s to understand? Augustine says it is written as a parent to a child.

        • Kendall Fields

          Also Hell is a place of fire but it reminds people of their sins. Satan also doesn’t want to be there and so he wants to make mankind suffer as well.

        • adam

          “Also Hell is a place of fire but it reminds people of their sins.”

          Please demonstrate such a “Hell”

          “Satan also doesn’t want to be there and so he wants to make mankind suffer as well.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c171754e3c84292e74c0e8cbe7e7c6b520f8a07ee5484fca121ed74628a4117.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          Satan is suffering for his own crimes against God so he isn’t a good guy.

        • adam
        • Kendall Fields

          Satan caused all the problems on Earth. So God is wrong for punishing sin?

        • adam
        • Ooh, ooh! No, let me do it!

          “So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am Jehovah” (Ez. 20:25–6).

        • adam

          So, let me see if I get https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/25868c89df190f1a1b0c4fea7ddc7591c0d18461fcd81749e02a9ccebceaab91.jpg this…

          The bad guy is not the ones with the horns?

        • BlackMamba44
        • Ordinary, human, fallible teachers can graduate 100% of their students.

          God is omnipotent and omniscient–what’s his excuse?

        • adam

          “Satan caused all the problems on Earth.”

          Satan caused all the problem on God’s Earth.

          How is that possible?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e3e29abefc3ed6eac44a97e1d5165f1abdd1b5de91c060a1a646d1eef8328bf6.jpg

        • MNb

          Ah. The guy who punishes more than two million by killing them is the good guy.
          Got it.

        • Kendall Fields

          So the US killing many Japanese and Germans to stop them makes them the bad guys?

        • MNb

          So those more than two million killed by your god were trying to kill your god, who tried to stop them from trying? How does that work?

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s been a while since we’ve had one this dim & dull hasn’t it?

        • Michael Neville

          Definitely hasn’t given any thought to what his beliefs actually entail.

        • Greg G.

          The Bible is just an EULA. Scroll to the bottom and check “I Agree”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And then they think they can go to a place where they can engage with folk that actually have read the “terms & conditions”…hilarious stuff.

        • MNb
        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m going to paraphrase….”bwaaahahahaha”.

          Edit: The link gets me to a Kevin K comment, not Robin….was that intentional?

        • MNb

          No. Something went wrong badly.
          Ah – I’m just blind and stupid beyond any imagination. Until now I thought that that Kevin K comment was from Kendall! I had to read it twice to realize it.
          Incredible how my brain can fuck things up. It’s not the first time I see things that aren’t there. It worries me, because it seems to happen more often as I grow older.
          If you ever need evidence that senses are unreliable and need to be checked against the senses of other people bookmark this very comment of mine.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Welcome to my world chum.

        • Greg G.

          But the Allies didn’t kill all the people the Japanese and Germans were trying to kill, too, like God did with the flood.

        • Michael Neville

          So why doesn’t your omnipotent god rein Satan in? My guess is because they’re both imaginary characters who don’t exist.

        • adam

          Either that or Satan is the good guy who is more powerful.

        • Kendall Fields

          God still gives Satan a chance to repent just like everyone else however it is up to you to do right.

        • Why? Revelation makes clear that Satan won’t repent. And Satan obviously knows what’s in Revelation.

        • adam
        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7786df5050a13684367f90eb753b953b17c746ef048fe8e05b1f3a989a977fd3.jpg

          I see, he will help people get a good parking spot, but on the real important manners God is busy watching ESPN and cant take the time to bother…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1ff8c567e4ff76c46de4ebae90b80341c25f2607da2ec21a4181a532c332d80f.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          That doesn’t answer the question. Why doesn’t your magic sky pixie, who’s supposed to be all good and all powerful, stop Satan from doing evil? Is it that the magic sky pixie isn’t all good and/or all powerful? Or is it because your magic sky pixie and Satan only exist in your imagination?

        • Satan caused the problems? Then why original sin?

        • BlackMamba44
        • adam
        • Infinite punishment for finite crimes? God certainly does move in mysterious ways. What a jerk.

        • MNb

          Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.
          It’s a natural phenomenon.
          Hell is a supernatural place and hence can’t be a place of fire.
          You don’t make sense.
          Try again.

        • Greg G.

          Is there an infinite amount of oxygen and fuel to keep the fire going?

        • BlackMamba44

          Since you hate pictures so much…(don’t you know a picture is worth a thousand words?)

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b2bd928d5c03f73e0d6580e361a0bd670b10a4b0611991f2aeda77e0a3329f8e.jpg

        • adam

          “However God still decided we are worth saving and deals with sinners for their sins but with justice.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a3413a33baa2d47fc0584e5617079165f9663cf01676fb2d09a66de702970a9c.jpg

        • MNb

          No god, no sin, no need to get saved.
          There is nothing to see.

        • Kendall Fields

          Then who created the world? Who made this world into the shape it is today? If there is no god, then why do good and evil exist?

        • MNb

          Nobody created the world.
          Nobdoy made this world into the shape it is today.
          Good and evil exist because humans like to use these labels for their ethical judgments.

        • Mankind brought sin upon ourselves.

          How does this work? Why should you be punished for Adam’s sin?

          This perfect plan of God’s sounds like the invention of primitive Iron Age people.

        • Pofarmer

          “deals with sinners for their sins but with justice. However you are too blind to see it.”

          Nah, what we see is that in the vast majority of cases it just simply doesn’t happen. People holding other people accountable for their actions is what we see.

        • Kendall Fields

          Sure but not for you.

        • Pofarmer

          Not for me what?

        • adam

          Tell us Snowflake how you see into the afterlife and experience this ‘justice’ https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30b33306f99e73e286217bc4a1289abbde6a857fe9e5c0346f51bdc8295878ee.gif

        • Ignorant Amos

          They just won’t think things through.

        • adam

          If they do the delusion just disappears…

        • Greg G.

          Are you accusing Pofarmer of something he should be held accountable for? Eating cheeseburgers, maybe? That breaks one of the Ten Commandments in one set of them.

        • Greg G.

          However God still decided we are worth saving and deals with sinners for their sins but with justice. However you are too blind to see it.

          Who is blind? Babies are born with painful diseases. What sins did they commit and what is the justice?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Fuckwittery Kendall Fields style.

        • adam

          “However God still decided we are worth saving and deals with sinners for their sins but with justice. ”

          How is it just for punish people for the way ‘God’ creates them.

          In that case, it is ‘God’ who needs to experience justice.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/878b8e07d2b942087c85ac234890ad18b3e8f811594bc275918c5d05cbe88467.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          All Christians view God as the all mighty creator whose son died for humanity however denominations are formed whether through arguments between leaders or differences in salvation or the divinity of Jesus.

          Like a said, “dim & dull”. You really don’t know as much as you think you know.

          Most of denominations occur because of arguments rather than theological differences.

          Also, arguments over theological differences…but mostly money.

          If you think we were united because of trying to impress people then you are sorely mistaken.

          Did you miss the bit where you were told that we know you aren’t united?

          You’re a little bit thick really, aren’t you?

          Two armadillo’s.

        • Kendall Fields

          Still short sighted. Christians are united through Christ however to make the church on earth whole again requires many tvings however money is not one of them.

        • Greg G.

          But that is a completely different meaning than what Jesus meant in John. It doesn’t make the rest of the world think he is divine.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Still short sighted.

          Spoooiiiinnng!

        • MNb

          “Christians are united through Christ”
          And I love how christians have demonstrated that union for say 17 centuries. Example:

          http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/giordano-bruno-executed

        • The Thirty Years War comes to mind for me. It was a good ol’ Protestants vs. Catholics love-in that killed two percent of the entire world’s population.

          God be praised.

        • MNb

          Alas the Thirty Years War was a bit more complicated than that. It ended with catholic France fighting the catholic Habsburgians on German soil.
          Which makes Kendall’s point only worse, I suppose.

        • Michael Neville

          There is an actual view of God

          There are some 45,000 views of God, ranging from Pat Robertson’s fundamentalist, politically conservative god to John Shelby Spong’s vague, deist god. Note that both Robertson and Spong call themselves Christians.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Some would say there are as many God’s of Christianity’s as there are Christians. Some a lot more different than others apparently.

        • Kendall Fields

          Still short sighted.

        • Michael Neville

          One of these days you’re going to give an honest rebuttal instead of meaningless sound bites. But you’ll have to become a whole lot smarter before you can do that.

        • Pofarmer

          Don’t hold your breath.

        • Greg G.

          >Exhales< Whew!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Christians only agree on a few basics, barely enough to be classified as Christians.

          Not even that much agreement, the only thing they all agree on is the part of their label that is the word “Christian”.

        • MNb

          Unfortunately for you Clint doesn’t seem to have any view – he wrote about the views of believers.
          So try again.

        • Kendall Fields

          Nope you need to.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh fer feck sake…we have another dim and dull one in you methinks.

        • Kendall Fields

          Like yourself?

        • MNb

          So much for Kendall the hypocrite complaining about others not providing explanations.

        • adam

          “Allah is Arabic for God however our differences separates us. So try again.”

          You mean the God of Abraham?

          You worship a different God of Abraham or what?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/130fd73d4d1fb8d44561582f5da3d25a01a3ce6610d72d62008d60c7e7067449.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          God will only accept one religion not all three. If Jesus is not the son of God, then Christianity is wrong. God is different depending on how we view the relation between him and Jesus and whether or not Muhammad is actually a prophet.

        • adam

          “God will only accept one religion not all three.”

          Please demonstrate how you know this is true.

          ” If Jesus is not the son of God, then Christianity is wrong.”

          Immaterial spirits dont have children, so christianity IS wrong.

          “God is different depending on how we view the relation between him and Jesus and whether or not Muhammad is actually a prophet.”

          Really, how does this ‘God’ change to meet that view?

          Or is it really more like this:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4e3bbea2d1e4d81dbd3798980be2ee8b39f893fee5d1d2b81b76b5e7ba184e1.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          How foolish and so blind of you. I pray for you.

        • adam

          Foolish NOT to believe in MAGIC?

          “God will only accept one religion not all three.”

          Please demonstrate how you know this is true.

          Then demonstrate that this “God” of yours is anything but IMAGINARY.

          ” If Jesus is not the son of God, then Christianity is wrong.”

          Immaterial spirits dont have children, so christianity IS wrong.

          “God is different depending on how we view the relation between him and Jesus and whether or not Muhammad is actually a prophet.”

          Really, how does this ‘God’ change to meet that view?

        • Kendall Fields

          Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

        • adam

          “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

          No, that is Gullible and Stupid.

          Flying Invisible Pink Unicorns.

          Shiva
          Zeus
          Thor
          etc, etc, etc…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b4daa8eb8f6cdde7dc6cef1fd33a8d0acc554ea42510fdbeea6ee4c3b3b5a9c2.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          Nietzsche is just as blind and unrighteous as anyone else. However, he still faold in many aread.

        • adam

          But what you dont know is that I actually met Jesus in a mental ward,

          Two of them.

          And one Napoleon

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1a147603f3f8ddd5bac7404ea18a3b3d893f7c6ad238d9482d931013803dff1d.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          All you can do is show cards but not provide good explanations.

        • adam

          I gave you good explainations.

          I actually met Jesus in a mental ward.

          Insanity is believing your hallucinations are real, and religion is believing that others hallucinations are real.

          It is YOU, who CANT provide good explanations.

        • Kendall Fields

          That is not Jesus Christ the son of God if he met you in your dreams that is more than likely. But your lies are sadly mistaken.

        • adam

          “That is not Jesus Christ the son of God if he met you in your dreams ”

          Wasnt my dreams, but a hospital mental ward, like I said.

          “But your lies are sadly mistaken.”

          What lies?
          You’ve not demonstrated that I have lied.

          “God will only accept one religion not all three.”

          Please demonstrate how you know this is true.

          Then demonstrate that this “God” of yours is anything but IMAGINARY.

          ” If Jesus is not the son of God, then Christianity is wrong.”

          Immaterial spirits dont have children, so christianity IS wrong.

          “God
          is different depending on how we view the relation between him and
          Jesus and whether or not Muhammad is actually a prophet.”

          Really, how does this ‘God’ change to meet that view?

        • MNb

          Explanations for what?
          There is no god, so your god doesn’t need to be explained.

        • MNb

          So much for Matth. 7:1. Funny how you violate some of the most important words of you Big Hero.

        • adam

          “God will only accept one religion not all three.”

          Please demonstrate how you know this is true.

          Then demonstrate that this “God” of yours is anything but IMAGINARY.

          ” If Jesus is not the son of God, then Christianity is wrong.”

          Immaterial spirits dont have children, so christianity IS wrong.

          “God
          is different depending on how we view the relation between him and
          Jesus and whether or not Muhammad is actually a prophet.”

          Really, how does this ‘God’ change to meet that view?

        • Yep, that’s faith. Why would believing without evidence be a good thing? It certainly isn’t a good thing when crossing a busy street.

        • Kendall Fields

          How foolish of you.

        • MNb

          Not seeing and yet believing when crossing a busy street is foolish indeed.
          Yet you think it a virtue.

        • MNb

          Try that when walking a tightrope above the Niagara Falls. Then we’ll know how blessed you are.

        • Greg G.

          A Christian tried to argue that the Bible says not to believe on faith. One of the verses he cited was two past that one so I pointed this one out to him.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Greg G.

          “I pray for you” is Christianese for “fuck you!”

        • MNb

          You are free to waste your time as you see fit.

        • Greg G.

          At least we agree that at least one of the two religions are wrong. There are many other religions. We agree that nearly every one of them is wrong. That shows that humans have a tendency to be wrong about religion. But each religion has adherents that believe they have absolute certainty that theirs is the right religion. So absolute certainty about religion by its adherents is as good an indicator as any other that a religion is wrong.

        • Kendall Fields

          People are wrong as we have strayed from the path of righteousness and only through the grace of God and the sacrifice of his son we are saved. You are just as bad as those you put down.

        • Greg G.

          Are you certain of that? I am not the one who is claiming certainty. I am only awaiting some unambiguous evidence.

        • Kendall Fields

          You actually are.

        • adam

          “People are wrong as we have strayed from the path of righteousness”

          Are you one the right path:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc554b74af68425056b8a4228b7f09490a1e80f6c6bf14f85bbce2e8015a0bfb.jpg

          “and only through the grace of God”

          BUT, you have not demonstrated that this ‘God’ of yours is anything but IMAGINARY.

          “God and the sacrifice of his son we are saved.”

          If we are ‘saved’ why is anything more needed?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a87a9a131b668e45054b7bc51c1685306bf874cafb9126fcf8203ace8c765be8.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          You can quote it but you will never understand it.

        • Kendall Fields

          So tell me then have you seen other places in the Bible that say it is wrong because I have?

        • Greg G.

          Just because the Bible says it is wrong does not mean it is wrong. The Bible says it is wrong to eat shellfish and pork in some places but disagrees with itself later. It also says to not trim your beard or sideburns.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Bible God says child sacrifice is a no-no, but then takes part in it.

        • The Bible God says child sacrifice is a no-no

          He has his moods. He’s OK with it sometimes.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Jephthah’s daughter being a good example.

        • adam

          “So tell me then have you seen other places in the Bible that say it is wrong because I have?”

          Where does God say it is wrong?

          So then: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1fe90d396e4d4703c73fc5e1ae60cbd0e56aa66a2d4f8519d7b044c62dd6be56.jpg

        • Kendall Fields

          Also do you know the reason for those verses rather than bad efforts?

        • adam

          Do YOU?

        • Kendall Fields

          Yes. But you don’t.

        • adam
        • BlackMamba44
        • MNb

          The only one who isn’t just as bad as those he puts down is you? How remarkable.

        • Ellabulldog

          god is different depending on the culture where you were born.

          if YOU were born in Iran you would be a Muslim, and with your easy to brainwash mind I would think you could have been turned into a suicide bomber. Look at your fervent beliefs and those of a fervent Muslim today. Should scare you….

          wasn’t so long ago that Christians were killing others for non belief

        • Greg G.

          wasn’t so long ago that Christians were killing others for non belief

          … or even a conflicting Christian belief.

        • Kendall Fields

          Atheists killed far more people in a short timespan than what religious people did combined over the previous centuries. What should scare is that people don’t believe that a God doessn’t exist despite evidence to the contrary.

        • Ellabulldog

          I have debunked that so many times I don’t care to again. Check my history. Pick up more books besides the bible. Learn some history. Learn how to take facts and use your own mind to understand what happened.

        • Kendall Fields

          Sure you have. P.S. No

        • Ellabulldog

          several times, ignorant theists think atheism is more than just a non belief in their stupidity

        • Kendall Fields

          So ignorant atheist how do you think the world was created.

        • Ellabulldog

          not how a stupid several thousand year old book describes it…

          an honest person says we don’t know

          theists are all liars or so brainwashed they don’t know better. Which are you?

        • Kendall Fields

          Then I could extend to the fact that all atheists are liars but I don’t. An honest person would say there is a God given how the world is described the same way as what scientists say.

        • Ellabulldog

          that made no sense…an atheist makes no claims other than religions have no evidence

          science if there is a god will prove one, has not happened
          at least it will be honest about it

        • Kendall Fields

          Look at the world itself and you will see your evidence. But evidence isn’t necessary as how do you explain the fact that there is good and evil in the world.

        • Kodie

          When I look at the world, I see no evidence of there being a god. I can’t believe anyone is that gullible and uneducated to think there is a god. It tells me you are not a deep thinker, it tells me you are immature and helpless and can’t think for yourself. Your short little statements only tell me that you don’t have anything to support your beliefs but pure incredulity. You think we’ve never heard any of these shallow protests before? The evidence for believers is plenty, but your only “evidence” for there being a god is that you are brainwashed and try to counter-respond rather than respond. Where is the evidence from go? The world? You have nothing else to say?

          You have been brainwashed in a cult of superstition and know nothing outside of it, and it’s drilled into your head to be suspicious of anyone who doubts you or argues against you. They are lying to you, sorry. They are the dishonest ones, and you are the victim and the pawn of the cult. You are saying nothing new, nothing honest, nothing deep, nothing thoughtful, nothing thought-provoking. Plenty of other Christians have actually done their research and aren’t just bland empty-headed prudes who can’t believe anything they didn’t suck from the teat of their cult.

          But you are fucking stupid. Fucking boring and fucking stupid. Fucking immature and fucking boring and fucking stupid. That’s when I look at the world and consider there are so many Christians and other theists, why and how they got to believe something so bullshit. You really wanted to know the fucking answer, and that’s it. I look at the world and I don’t just leap to your favorite bullshit conclusion. I think people who do are fucking brainwashed immature and gullible. Yes, that means most of the world is. If you can’t explain what you mean, then there is nothing here to draw on but your immature boring stupid bullshit short statements of incredulity, not even scratching the surface of an argument, not even scratching the surface of an interesting dialogue, not even scratching the surface of a sincere and honest desire to engage in a discussion. You just want to blab and blather your stupid shit when you should make sure your teachermom knows how you spend your time on the internet, you dumb fuck.

        • Michael Neville

          Kendall Fields isn’t here to have a discussion with us. He came here for the specific purpose of proselytizing to the heathens and apostates. Trouble is, he’s doing a very bad job of it.

        • Meepestos

          Let alone a sunday school teacher ; )

        • Greg G.

          Life is adapted to eek out an existence on a veneer of the surface of a small planet among billions of galaxies. Some things are beneficial for survival and comfort and we call it “good”. Things that are detrimental, we call “bad”. Some bad things are worse than others, so we call them “evil”. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

          SPLURT!!!!

          http://cdn.cultofmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/post-1574-image-944dcf0f83c9a598aef8e0a71f70fabd.jpg

          That’s a new keyboard ya owe me.

        • Greg G.

          Is it too late to apologize?

          Note to self: Send Ignorant Amos a new coffee-proof keyboard.

        • adam
        • In other words

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fea4b0904c2c6be8f0801320e59d398b34b55f08ae191562418aaf2a8ae56f57.jpg

          We know you have an imaginary god thingie. But you still have not answered what intersubjectively verifiable attributes your alleged god thingie possesses that qualifies it as anything more than purely imaginary.

        • MNb

          “what intersubjectively verifiable attributes”
          Kendall knows.

        • Kendall Fields

          God is not imaginary as without hi this world not be formed.

        • Kodie

          Are you able to be at all more specific? Are you at all able to recognize how shallow and meaningless your mere opinion is to us, without any arguments or evidence from you to support these vivid delusions you’re having from your thorough brainwashing? In other words, do you know anything or are you just a brainwashed puppet? And not a very good one. I keep asking you why god would rely on your inferior message-telling…. I mean, dopey people like you coming here with this weak shit over and over is one of the reasons I find god hard to believe in. I know you look at this world and you’re impressed by the handiwork, but I think that just means you’re dumb as a bag of hammers.

        • And what role did this god play that was not effected by gravity? What was the total energy expended by this god thingie and how do you know?

        • Kendall Fields

          The father of the big bang theory, who is a catholic priest by the way, as well as other scientist sy that an expanded universe proves the existence of an almighty God. It doesn’t matter about energy as God could have very well been the Big Bang or he created it as he said in Genesis let there be light.

        • Kodie

          They say that? You have absolutely no fucking clue how idiotic, uneducated, and sheltered under the apron of your teachermom you sound. Are you 15ish?

        • 1) “This world” is not the Universe, and vice versa. Earth is a minor planet, rotating around a minor star, one of about 500 billion stars in our galaxy, one of some 500 billion galaxies.

          2) If your claim is that your god thingies created the Universe then your problem is to explain: when, because we now know that the Feynman Integral Paths project back into negative time beyond the big bang, eliminating the requirement for “creation” (see Krauss, “A Universe from Nothing”); how, because if they are not outside the Universe they could not create it, and if they are outside the Universe they can neither perceive nor influence the Universe without destroying it; how you know they are there if they cannot influence the Universe; why think they deserve to be regarded as god thingies if you do not, and cannot know their attributes; and even, here they came from, because if they did not, as everything we know in our universe did, evolve to suit the rules of our universe, then how did they evolve, what did they evolve from, what guided their evolution, and is this guiding influence still resulting in the evolution of god thingies, or has the process stopped, in which case, what changed to prevent it?

          3) The Russian cosmologist, Alexander Friedmann, developed a dynamic cosmological model of general relativity which included all three Friedmann geometries and the Big Bang in 1922, five years before Georges Lemaître, and some 75 years before it was confirmed through observations of the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background.

          4) Georges Lemaître specifically rebutted the claim that the Big Bang had any theological implications, recognising, as you apparently do not, that rebuttal of the singularity (as has been done) would then eliminate the justification for god thingies which are, like yours and that of your unidentified, “other scientist”, dependent on that claim.

          5) So are you saying that being “the Big Bang” is a necessary and sufficient qualification for some thingie to be regarded as a god thingie?

          6) The alleged god thingies of the mutually and reality contradictory fables of so-called “Genesis” were ignorant of physics and the order in which things instantiated on Earth. Are you asserting that these primitive stories are about non-imaginary god thingies, and if so, on what do you base this claim?

        • MNb

          Forget it, Hermit. Kendall doesn’t understand 10% of what you write.

        • Others do. And so he has to live with the knowledge that the more he says the more high quality rebuttals will occur, meaning that he is effectively anti-proselytizing (whether or not he understands the articulation).

        • Greg G.

          Ah, so you ARE writing these responses for my benefit. I enjoyed being reminded of Feynman’s path integral.

        • For anyone interested. It may be useful in addressing other more articulate loons.

          These may be of some use, but using them on Kendall would be like swatting flies with a steam hammer.

          Disproof of unattributed god thingies

          Mankind has invented hundreds of thousands of god thingies, definitely millions and perhaps even billions if ancestor worship is taken into account. In order to prove the existence of one or more of these god thingies, we would need to identify the attributes sufficient and necessary to earn that god thingie the right to be regarded as a deity. Until then set theory, Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity suffice to build a model of the Universe removing the need to address god thingies:

          1) Real things are things about which predictions can be made which can be validated by means of intersubjective verification (definition).
          2) Imaginary things are things that can be imagined (definition).
          3) The Universe consists of all things which can be experienced, real and imaginary (definition).
          4) All things that can be experienced in the Universe are real, imaginary or both (corollary 3).
          5) All imaginary things in the Universe may be placed in the set of imaginary things (tautology).
          6) All real things can be imagined (corollary 1).
          7) All things in the Universe may be placed in the set of imaginary things (MP 6 + 5).
          8) For each object in the set of imaginary things which is a real object, the object must possess at least one attribute identifying the object and therefore it can be predicted that the object possesses at least that attribute (MP 7 + 1).
          9) Any object that does not have at least one attribute identifying the object is not a real thing (MT 8 + 1).
          10) Anything that can detect any property of any thing can be detected (Quantum Mechanics observer effect).
          11) Anything outside the Universe is incapable of determining anything about objects inside the Universe, because if it could determine anything, it could be experienced and would be inside the Universe (MT 3 + 10).
          12) Nothing outside the Universe can determine anything inside the Universe (Contradiction 11).
          13) Nobody to date has been capable of providing intersubjectively verifiable evidence of attributes possible in this Universe which are necessary and sufficient to ensure that a god thingie qualifies to be regarded as a deity. (Conclusion from Internet survey on Disqus over the course of many years cf infra).
          14) No attributes which are not possessed by existing real things have been identified as necessary to explain any intersubjectively verifiable observations. (physics, cosmology, biology, medicine etc.).
          15) God thingies hypothesised by humans to date are almost certainly imaginary things, because there is no intersubjectively verifiable prediction that can be made about the attributes of god thingies (MP 8 + 13).
          16) God thingies hypothesised by humans to date are almost certainly imaginary things, because there is no intersubjectively validatable necessity for any attribute which might be possessed by hypothesized god thingies which are not already possessed by real things (MP 8 + 14).
          [v0.5]

          =====================================
          Questions in God Survey

          1) What attributes make your god thingies deserving of being regarded as gods and why?
          2) What evidence do you have that possession of these attributes is necessary and sufficient to regard a thingie as a god thingie?
          3) What evidence do you have that such attributes may exist in this Universe?
          4) What evidence do you have that your god thingies possess such attributes?
          5) What evidence do you have that other thingies do not possess these attributes?
          6) What evidence do you have that your god thingies exist?
          7) What evidence, however hypothetical, might lead you to change your mind over any of the above?
          8) Can you provide a single falsifiable prediction made by the alleged existence of your god thingies that would be falsified if they did not exist?
          9) Consider that anything that has a significant effect upon the Universe may be detected through its affect upon things in the Universe. If there is evidence that your god thingies have affected the Universe, where can that evidence be evaluated? If there is no evidence your god thingies have affected the Universe, then why should they be regarded as deities?
          10) Why should anyone take your ideas about god thingies seriously if you don’t know enough about them to be able to answer the simple questions above about them?
          [v 0.42]

        • MNb

          I prefer the questions
          11) If you define your god as an immaterial/ supernatural/ transcendental entity who is supposed to interact with our material/ natural reality (like “God created the Universe”, “God hears your prayer” and “God loves you”), which means does he/she/it use and which procedures does he/she/it follow? Note that these means and procedures can’t be material/ natural as this would violate your definition.
          12) If you define your god as an immaterial/ supernatural/ transcendental entity, which method do you use to separate correct claims about said god from incorrect ones?

          No apologist even ever tried.

        • I like your questions, but the existing 11 has the virtue of relying on definition (which is always good) and existing quantum physics (via 10) which is better as it raises a contradiction. The mere possibility of something learning prohibited information about a particle would cause collapse of the wave function for that particle. As the particles in our Universe have not evaporated, we know that this has and is not happening.
          12) Should be useful but most religiots take recourse to faith, and, or, gnosis.

        • MNb

          “And so he has to live with the knowledge ….”
          Eh no – he isn’t capable of acquiring that knowledge. He just drops his jaw, shrugs, moves on and repeats his stuff ad nauseam.

        • David Cromie

          You are being far too generous!

        • Kendall Fields

          Actually when you think about Genesis you can actually see it matches up with the creation of Earth and the Universe.

        • Kodie

          Actually when you think about reality, everything from the bible is myth and superstition.

        • Michael Neville

          Actually when you know about the Big Bang and the creation of the solar system you can actually see they have no similarity at all with the 2500 year old myths some Hebrew priests stole from the Babylonians and put in Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis.

        • Greg G.

          Actually, when you think about science and Genesis, they don’t match but it is funny that believers think they do match.

        • Yeah. On acid.

        • epeeist

          The father of the big bang theory, who is a catholic priest by the way

          You really are an absolute fucking liar. How many times have we done this now? And yet you come back repeating the same thing as though nothing had been said.

          The complete epitome of intellectual dishonesty and lack of integrity.

        • Pofarmer

          That’s so wrong, that, gah. These folks can’t even be honest with themselves, which is the worst kind of dishonesty.

        • MNb

          Liar Kendall keeps on lying.

          “The father of the big bang theory, who is a catholic priest by the way”
          The father of the BBT was atheist commie Alexander Friedmann, three years before Lemaitre formulated it independently. Moreover Lemaitre himself made explicitly clear that his BBT did not prove the existence a an almighty god.
          You’re a disgrace for your own belief system every time you violate your very own 9th COmmandment.

        • epeeist

          Liar Kendall keeps on lying.

          Yep, a lying liar who is destined for the bad place for continually breaking the ninth commandment.

          How many times have we been round the “Belgian priest” loop? I have pointed out Friedmann’s precedence three times now and I know that others have too. And he still keeps on pressing the reset button and repeating the same lie as though nothing had been said.

          Creationists, have you ever come across one who wasn’t lacking integrity or honesty.

        • MNb

          This is why I formulated MNb’s Law: every creationist is lying until proven otherwise.
          It has happened a few times that some intelligent creationist criticized Evolution Theory on a point I don’t know and understand anything about. Always when some knowledgeable person cared to answer the creationist appeared to be lying. Always.
          It’s a truly sorry bunch.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Kendall Fields

          Also how did gravity exist in the first place if a creator did not make it. That means there is a God.

        • Greg G.

          How did God exist in the first place if a creator did not make him? How did that creator exist in the first place if another creator did not create him? ad infinitum

        • Uncaused virtual particles instantiate and collapse continuously in any empty space. Where no preexisting space-time exists, such an instantiation will result in establishment of a Universe, which will evolve laws, potentially including gravitational laws, as its energy levels decrease due to inflation, as it crosses the Planck boundaries.

          That doesn’t mean there is, or is not, a god thingie, because, unless you can show what intersubjectively verifiable attributes are sufficient and necessary to qualify some non-imaginary thing as a god thingie, we will not know if such thingies are compatible with the instantiated Universe.

          Besides, if it were true that some imaginary thingie is needed to establish gravity, then a “demon” or “fairy” is just as likely as a god, and if a god, it might well be any of the billions of god thingies people have worshipped. Unless you have some other reason for making your claims you have not yet divulged.

        • epeeist

          Uncaused virtual particles instantiate and collapse continuously…

          Shorter sentences containing words with not more than two syllables required. Even then it is unlikely to be absorbed.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Probably best to use just pictures.

        • epeeist

          Probably best to use just pictures.

          Perhaps one of the new Ladybird books for adults. Buy him one of those and you could double the size of his library.

        • Kendall Fields

          God created beings, not gods, but beings to watch over the Earth but they became corrupt and are tried to overthrow him. They were not meant to be worshiped but they became prideful like Lucifer and tried to remove God. Plus scientists say that yet haven’t been anywhere to truly explore it.

        • Kodie

          Do you know how uneducated you are?

        • Michael Neville

          His ignorance knows no bounds.

        • David Cromie

          Asking an idiot to diagnose/recognise his/her own idiocy is futile, as KF insists on proving.

        • epeeist

          Do you know how uneducated you are?

          It is perfectly possible to be uneducated and intelligent. However what we have here is someone who is both uneducated and stupid. Besides being a serial liar of course.

          EDIT: Clarity

        • Greg G.

          But you don’t know that a super-god didn’t create God, and neither would God if he existed.

          An omnipotent being, or just a sufficiently powerful being, could make a clam think it was omnipotent and omniscient, yet hide from the clam for ineffable reasons. God could be a clam in a higher cosmos with delusions of grandeur from its creator.

        • Susan

          But you don’t know that a super-god didn’t create God and neither would God if he existed.

          Exactly.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc

        • Greg G.

          Yep, it’s gods all the way up.

        • David Cromie

          If this supposed ‘god’ created everything that exists, then it must have created itself, supposing it actually does exist. I wonder how that works logically. Or are we, as Descartes seems to believe, just figments of the supposed ‘god’s’ imagination? In other words, ‘god’ thinks, therefore we are. Does a supposed ‘god’ just think itself into existence? What a tangled web mere belief weaves for credulous religiots!

        • Greg G.

          A horse walked into a bar. The bartender says, “aren’t you a horse?” The horse replied, “I don’t think so,” and vanished in a puff of logic. But that’s putting Descartes before the horse.

        • MNb

          Then your god is not a being and incapable of accomplishing anything, like creating beings.

        • That means there is a God.

          This statement is redundant since you’ve already assumed a creator in your first sentence.

          But you added the sentence anyway. That means you didn’t understand that this is circular reasoning, which is a fallacy. Now you do. Don’t make this mistake again, if you want to be taken seriously.

        • Michael Neville

          What’s your evidence that your imaginary god has anything to do with the formation of the world? Be specific.

        • This is your theology. This tells us nothing useful. You do understand how evidence fits in, right? And how you’re using none?

        • David Cromie

          Your proof?

        • 1deplorablesob

          Your attempt to discredit religion by creating your own off the cuff is self defeating but then again failure is your Forte

        • Greg G.

          Unicorns are not imaginary as without them, these marshmallows would not be formed.

        • David Cromie

          I was wondering where they all came from.

        • Who thought unicorns are imaginary?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4npajXFWcc

          And how would we have rainbows if unicorns were not there to sh1t them out?

        • I think that’s where cotton candy flavor comes from.

        • David Cromie

          🙂

        • Accretion disk that turned into a solar system? Or is this a trick question?

          If you meant, “How did the universe come to be?” then science doesn’t have an answer. But it’s not like religion has one either. Christianity says one thing, and Hinduism says another–all without evidence. When science has a consensus view, it’ll be based on evidence and therefore believable. Y’know, unlike religion.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Actually, despite the Big Bang, there is no reason to imagine that the Universe has not always existed, as we know that the Universe has zero energy over its entire existence and that as Lawrence M. Krauss has shown, the Black Bang was not a singularity, as Feynman path integrals in negative time can be used to project directly through it. See “A Universe from Nothing”.

        • MNb

          “we know that the Universe has zero energy over its entire existence”
          We actually don’t know that, but yeah, it’s totally possible.

        • I possibly should have put a “probably” in there, but the argument is so elegant and the probability so large as to approach unity in odd months 🙂

        • TheNuszAbides

          no reason to imagine that the Universe has not always existed

          i find entertainment an excellent reason. sadly, we see organized religion take storytelling a step too far …

        • David Cromie

          Where is this verifiable ‘evidence’ that is adduced without circular arguments?

        • epeeist

          Atheists killed far more people in a short timespan than what religious people did combined over the previous centuries.

          Nice piece of sleight of hand, one should of course use percentages of the population rather than absolute numbers. You also need to show that atheists who killed people did so in the cause of atheism in the way that, say, the Cathars were killed in the cause of Christianity.

          Oh, and this is rich coming from someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible in which god kills 99.99996% of humanity in a hissy fit with the rest of biosphere being wiped out as collateral damage.

        • TheNuszAbides

          one should of course use percentages of the population rather than absolute numbers.

          advances in kill-tech oughtn’t be ignored either.

        • Kodie

          Why are you afraid of not believing in god?

        • David Cromie

          Both Hitler and Stalin were christers! The Chinese had their indigenous belief systems, which did not suddenly disappear overnight when Mao came to power. Just because someone was not raised as a christer, does not automatically make the person an atheist.

        • Stalin was raised by orthodox priests who only threw him out of the seminary when he was unable to raise the final examination fee to become a priest. So he went off and became a revolutionary instead. I think we can be sure that the influence of the priests kind charity remained with him, and shaped the balance of his life which is why he is fondly remembered as the father of the USSR >;)

        • adam
        • Actually it’s a method of theology, not just a person (kalam means “speech” in Arabic). He apparently thinks that it’s the same basic god that is established by this. I remember once reading an article of him talking to some Muslim scholars in Turkey using this, adding on the Trinity at the end.

        • Kevin K

          I’m sure every one of those scholars is now an evangelical Christian…

        • Ha ha. Yes, no doubt.

    • A reasonable question! I do like to critique Christian analyses like this occasionally. I like to see if I’ll come across anything that makes me pause (this becomes ever more infrequent), and it’s good to throw this out into the blogosphere for the entertainment and edification of the community.

      • Kevin K

        I’m not against fisking these things in principle. It sharpens your own thinking…when the arguments presented aren’t PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times).

        This is not just bad argumentation, it’s horrendously muddled thinking. Honestly, who reads this stuff and is swayed by it? (Don’t answer that question, I already know — the world is “average”, which means half the people you encounter are less-so.)

  • Sophia Sadek

    The Christian deity is even smaller because it only exists in the Christian imagination.

  • Michael Neville

    Every single one of those other entities is an object inside the universe. God, on the other hand, according to Christianity is the creator and sustainer of the universe, the author of the story.

    The Hindu concept of Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. It is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. Looks like “God” has a Hindu competitor.

    • Ficino

      I always thought that, too.

      Aristotle at least had the cojones to announce that his first Unmoved Mover thinks nothing but its own thought and performs no actions toward the universe at all. Muslim and Christian theologians who glued Aristotle and neo-Platonism into their neo-bronze age religion did a very slick job but left us with a “God talk” that cannot, as far as I can see, be coherent.

    • Could it be that Bannister isn’t familiar with Hinduism? Wait, isn’t that something he faulted atheists for? Oh dear…

  • MNb

    How does Bannister mean that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is inside our Universe? The FSM created it! Just read the Gospel:

    “On the seventh day of floating around infinite nothingness, after six days of rest, the FSM said, ‘Let there be a Universe, or something!’ And there was a Universe, or something not terribly far off. And the FSM saw that it was pretty damn good, especially the bits with a light sauce.”

    Of course The FSM is inside and outside, above and under, left and right, before and after the Universe – plus he is neither. That’s the Mystery of the FSM! Beats christianity.

    • Ficino

      Is the FSM material, i.e. made of matter, i.e. made of sphagetti? Or is the spaghetti part a metaphor and actually the FSM is Pure Act in the Aristotelian sense? Or are both true at once?

      These mysteries are so deep, I don’t have enough faith to deny the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      • rubaxter

        Who are you to immantize the eschaton, to borrow from Bill Buckley…

        • Stop immunizing the escutcheon (injecting stuff into the keyhole). It makes the locks sticky and difficult to turn.

  • Jim Jones

    > God, on the other hand, according to Christianity is the creator and sustainer of the universe, the author of the story.

    Bullshit.

    Deuteronomy 23

    23:12 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:
    23:13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:
    23:14 For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.

    If he can get shit on his shoes he isn’t ‘outside’.

    • It doesn’t say he can be touched, just see their crap. Of course, there are many places in the Bible that do seem to indicate a far less “transcendent” God. For instance, when he can’t beat soldiers in iron chariots.

      • Pofarmer

        Where he wrestles with, is it Jacob?

        • No, that was somewhere else (Genesis 32:22-32, Google tells me), while this was Judges 1:19.

        • Pofarmer

          I’m just saying that there are plenty of instances in the Bible where God is basically anthropomorphized.

        • Oh yeah, for sure. I don’t think the Jews thought originally he didn’t have a body, etc. Even in the New Testament there is a part (the Book of Revelation I think) that mentions him having a body. Of course you could say that’s metaphor, but there’s no real indication of this.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Don’t the Christians think God had a body when the Romans nailed him up?

        • Yep, but apparently not otherwise. Don’t ask me how they resolve that, or came up with it to begin with.

        • Pofarmer

          Because the God in the NT was pretty clearly God’s son.

        • Yes, without the Trinity it makes more sense.

        • If there ever was a Jewish so-called “Jesus” (not a name) prototype, this claim, in so far as it went past all Jews being “sons of god”, more than anything else in the so-called NT, would have had him coming after the authors with a sword baying blasphemy.

        • Pofarmer

          or came up with it to begin with.

          Combination of Greek and Jewish thought and theology.

        • Yes, probably.

        • Michael Neville

          Earth Jesus had a body but when he became Heaven Jesus he ditched the body in a closet or something like that.

    • T-Paine

      Apologist: “Duh, don’t you get it you filthy atheist? When I’m arguing for the existence of God – it’s obviously the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Greatest Conceivable Being Ever God of the Philosophers and not the Abrahamic god depicted in the Old Testament Bible. That’s why you’ll never see me refer to the Old Testament to argue for the existence of God – because the Abrahamic god is not the god who’s existence I’m arguing for!

      Keep in mind you’ll never hear me admit this before, during, and after the debate. Why? Because Christian Apologetics, that’s why!

      • MNb

        And once I have shown that this Omni-what’s-it-god exists indeed it’s time for something completely different. I’ll show you that this Omni-what’s-it-god is the Abrahamic god depicted in the OT and the NT. Why? Because Christian Theology, that’s why!

        • T-Paine

          And when I do, I would not provide any of the arguments I did for the existence of the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Greatest Conceivable Being Ever God of the Philosophers – in fact, I won’t use any arguments, at all! Do you know what I would appeal to? Yes, you’ve guessed right, you godless heathen – FAITH ™! The very thing to appeal to despite evidence and not because of evidence! So throughout the debate, I just established to my Christian audience that a god other than the Judaeo-Christian god exists! Why? You know why!

          Checkmate, Atheists!

      • Herald Newman

        Are there any arguments that actually lead to the Christian God? Otherwise, Christian apologetics is a giant bait-and-switch.

        • T-Paine

          All the arguments I’ve heard of presuppose the truth of the Bible, divinity of Jesus etc.

        • Pofarmer

          Are there any arguments that actually lead to the Christian God?

          I’ve never seen it successfully pulled off.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not to anyone other than certain flavours of Christians, but to those lot, success indeed.

        • More to the point, “Is there any intersubjectively verifiable evidence that actually leads to any non-imaginary god thingies”?

          After all, anything can be imagined – and argued. And anything that can be argued can lead to any desired outcome (Although that may require insane axioms, weird logic, and, unless simplistic and limited in scope, cannot be significant, complete and closed). Evidence is a different kettle of fish entirely.

        • MNb

          The empty tomb.
          However I don’t claim “success”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Was there even a tomb? Are we to believe the nasty Roman authorities tortured a rebel upstart and crucified him for sedition, would go all soft and allow such a thing? Or is it a fanciful literary plot in a story? The empty tomb is theology.

          Paul says Jesus went into a grave, no tomb.

          Lot’s do claim “success”…and successful it has been.

        • MNb

          You’re asking the wrong guy. HN asked a question, I answered it. I didn’t claim it was a successful answer. Even if Jesus went into a tomb and even if that tomb was empty I don’t think it is, because of David Hume’s On Miracles.
          Your comment is a bit silly. For one thing you focus on the irrelevant part – for the pro-christianity argument not “the tomb or grave” issue matters, the “empty” issue does.

        • Greg G.

          Isaiah 53 says “he was buried with the rich” so that implies a tomb.

        • T-Paine

          Not necessarily – burial implies enterrement, also.

        • Greg G.

          But burial with the rich would imply something more than mere burial, especially when you are just making up a story based on certain scriptures such as Isaiah and Deuteronomy.

        • Herald Newman

          Except that Isaiah 53 isn’t about Jesus…

        • Greg G.

          It wasn’t until Jesus was invented using points from Isaiah.

          The first Star Wars movie, long before they added A New Hope to the title, was not about Rogue One when it was produced, but Rogue One was conceived to make Star Wars about it.

          Every verse in Isaiah 53 is quoted or alluded to in the New Testament.

        • Michael Neville

          Just like Rogue One was a retcon of A New Hope, the Gospels was a retcon of Isaiah.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And with the wicked.

          I don’t see how a tomb should be assumed. What was happening to dead Hebrews during the 8th century BCE.

          I did find a reference to tomb burials during the 7th century BCE.

          A group of burial caves or sepulchers has been found at Ketef Hinnom, west of Jerusalem. They apparently belonged to aristocrats of the seventh century B.C.E. The caves were cut from the limestone hills. Each had a low, round entrance that led into a larger room. Within this room were benches carved from the rock, each of which had been slightly hollowed out to accommodate the shape of a body.

          But it would be by no means a routine. The whole Exodus yarn has no tomb burial facilities.

          Rabbinic legend stressed the antiquity of inhumation by relating that Adam and Eve learned the art of burial from a raven which showed them how to dispose of the body of their dead son Abel by scratching away at a spot in the earth where it had interred one of its own kin (PdRE 21).

          Archaeology reveals no distinctively Israelite burial practices during almost the whole of the biblical period. The Israelites continued to use modes of burial employed in modern-day Israel long before the conquest. It follows that it is risky to draw firm conclusions about Israelite religious beliefs on the basis of specific burial practices, e.g., the provision of grave goods or lack of them, communal or individual burial, and so on, since any or all of these may have been dictated by immemorial custom rather than by consciously held conviction. The law says relatively little about burial, and where it treats the subject, the concern is to avoid defilement by the dead (Num. 19:16; Deut. 21:22–23). The dead do not praise God, they are forgotten and cut off from His hand (Ps. 88:6, 10–12), and in consequence mourning and the burial of the dead are at most peripheral matters in Israelite religion.

          Not that it matters to the big story. Joseph of Arimathea had to be invented to get Jesus into a rich persons tomb and not a paupers midden and even that is not what happened to the crucified. Not getting buried straight away and being eaten by the birds was the worst that could happen to a dead Hebrew and was part of the punishment The tomb yarn is to fulfil the prophecy in line with Isaiah 53.

          The Septuagint words it a bit differently…

          And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death; for he practised no iniquity, nor craft with his mouth.

          The whole Malarkey in the gospels seems contrived.

        • Greg G.

          When Isaiah 53 was read in the context of first century Jerusalem, there would be tombs for the rich but not for the poor.

        • We know from a vast range of sources that “exodus” did not happen. It was made up by the Akkadian priests as a memeplex intended to divorce the Hebrews from the Egyptians who had previously controlled the Levant. The Hebrews are the Canaanites. They never were slaves in Egypt. They did not return, because they never left. They worshiped some of the seventy sons of El, the Yahweh and their Asherah.

        • Otto

          Well the Roman’s went all soft and let Barabas go (a murderer and enemy of the state), they really had a soft spot ya know…

          (pay no attention to the fact this looks like the Jewish tradition of scapegoating…)

        • Ignorant Amos

          Well the Roman’s went all soft and let Barabas go (a murderer and enemy of the state), they really had a soft spot ya know…

          Literary motif for theological purposes?

          (pay no attention to the fact this looks like the Jewish tradition of scapegoating…)

          Which is exactly what it is supposed look like.

          Barabbas…Bar abbas…son of the father…another name for that other goat that got sacrificed.

        • Otto

          I always thought that was a weird story even when I was a kid and a believer.

        • Greg G.

          Mark explains many of the Aramaic words. He explains the name Bartimaeus as the son of Timaeus. It is strange to use an Aramaic prefix with a Greek name. Jesus opens his Gethsemane prayer with “Abba, Father” to associate those words. It seems strange to pray in Aramaic and use the Aramaic word followed by the Greek word but Paul used the phrase in Romans and Galatians. So Mark’s readers should understand that Barabbas means “Son of the Father” when he is introduced.

          The Mocking of Jesus that immediately follows Barabbas is so similar to the Mocking of Carabbas from Philo’s Flaccus VI that it appears that Mark changed the first letter to invent the name and the story.

  • Re: How can you dismiss religions without understanding them?

    Also known as: the Courtier’s Reply.

    • rubaxter

      I’d imagine they don’t see the humour in the old “Looks like dog shit, smells like dog shit, tastes like dog shit, good thing I didn’t step into that dog shit…” wheeze?

    • wtfwjtd

      “Re: How can you dismiss religions without understanding them?

      Also known as: the Courtier’s Reply.”

      It also smacks of rank hypocrisy. Bannister has dismissed them without a second thought, but that’s cheating if an atheist does it.

      Do I detect a hint of a double standard here?

    • Ellabulldog

      all religions are cultural brainwashing..so they are easy to dismiss

      Courtier was correct, never heard of him.

      I don’t have to be a proctologist to know crap is crap:)

      • Greg G.

        The courtier is in the tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes. The courtier’s reply is “the material of the clothes is so fine that they are invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent.” If you can’t see God, it is because you are blind because you lack knowledge, not that God doesn’t exist. I think PZ Myers originated the name for the fallacy of directing an atheist to this book or that philosopher.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I think PZ Myers originated the name for the fallacy of directing an atheist to this book or that philosopher.

          I remember at the time, PeeZee came up with it after the numerous critiques from holy rollers, aimed at Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion in that Dawkins was not qualified in neither philosophy nor theology enough to be taken seriously.

        • David Cromie

          “…Dawkins was [ ] qualified in neither philosophy nor theology enough to be taken seriously”. If so, what chance do superstitious, semiliterate, and deluded christers have?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Exactly.

          As Dawkins said himself, “Most of us happily disavow fairies, astrology, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology.”

          The Courtier’s Reply.

          Time stamp 5 mins 18 seconds.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBaAJcv7Vxg

      • Michael Neville

        The Courtier’s Reply is a type of logical fallacy, specifically an ad hominem, in which a respondent to criticism dismisses the arguments of the critic by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.

        • Ellabulldog

          thanks I had looked it up after:)

          I can look at the bible and in a second realize it is fable, even as a kid.

          Others want to overwhelm people with their analysis of it..

          Smart people realize the bible is nonsense.
          Superstitious people are working really really hard to make it work.

          Even when religious people get to discuss it in depth they win in a way because the discussions confuse the issue to such a degree most religious people give up. They then will rely on authority or popularity if they are even interested in wondering if what they were taught is true.

        • Meepestos

          “I can look at the bible and in a second realize it is fable, even as a kid”

          And in part this is why Sunday schools and indoctrination occurs ; )

          I recall a priest telling me, it’s better to spend more time indoctrinating the girls than boys nowadays, as there are more single moms to “spread the word”.

        • Ellabulldog

          well a pretty girl can get a guy to be religious or at least pretend, everything humans do is based on sex, then money or power. The last two help get the first.

          but I wonder if science shows women to be more conformist and less rebellious? I think they like to keep the culture thing going at least. Part of how they are raised?

          I’m a guy so I can’t speak from that angle.

          My sister is very Catholic even though she isn’t stupid. Same parents I had. Same church.
          She met her husband at church. He is very religious. I think it works for her. Not sure if she “really” believes but she knows I do not. She won’t have conversations like many have on this site. I think she knows she can’t win the argument so she avoids it. Just easy to go along with what you are told and not think about it, or just figure it works so why change it up.

        • Meepestos

          I think the culture thing is important to a great extent. I once fell in love years ago with a Jewish woman, that was an agnostic, but she just couldn’t accept the notion of raising her children without a Jewish father. All worked out though, as I met a wondeful compassinate and caring independant woman; she credits the Lutherans for her atheism, which we did not know of each others until shortly after we married. We never discuss our lack of beliefs nor much about religion, as it is not of importance to us. Also religion rarely affects us, as we live in a community where it is kept out of the public square; tact and manner seems to prevail where we live though there is the odd JW we see once in a blue moon.

        • Ellabulldog

          you lucked out I married a Jew:) , but she is not religious.
          she likes the cultural part as that is what she grew up with
          so we were married by a Rabbi.
          I was raised Catholic.

          The Rabbi was fine with me not believing. He got paid for the show. It was all just for the cultural part. I did not care. Her wedding I was just an accessory:)

          Now Catholics force people to convert if they want a Catholic wedding. Just a legal contract in the end anyway.

          My kid learned the dreidel song last year in school and came home and said he did not know any Jews. So he had no idea his Uncle, cousins, and his own mother were Jewish. It was quite funny.
          He is being raised agnostic. He is still too young to understand though.

        • Michael Neville

          I have a brother who my other brother and I agree is the most intelligent of the three of us. He’s also the only one of the three of us who’s still a believer, a Catholic no less.

        • Ellabulldog

          It may work for him. Is his wife Catholic? Has his life gone well for him? Does he make business contacts at church? Would he lose business, friends or his wife if he stopped believing?

          I have Catholic family. It is just habit with them. They assume everyone is Catholic. They are nice people and smart. I guess they think why rock the boat if all is going well. It is hard, very hard to come out to family as a non believer. If things are going well there is no reason to change things up.

          Of course he may be a diehard believer. Indoctrination does work on some more than others.

        • Michael Neville

          My brother and his wife are both true believers. Until quite recently he kept trying to bring me back to “Mother Church”. Finally years of requests and swearing have convinced him that proselytizing me is a futile effort.

        • Pofarmer

          My wife’s whole family is that way, but they haven’t really tried the proselytizing. I think they know intuitively that the conversation wouldn’t go well for any involved. After the incident at the marriage counselors my wife chooses not to bring it up.

        • Ellabulldog

          well having relatives myself that are I understand why, I just wish they would snap out of it.

          but I don’t talk to them about it and they don’t bother me.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Compartmentalisation has a lot to answer for in my opinion.

        • TheNuszAbides

          well a pretty girl can get a guy to be religious or at least pretend,

          i have only anecdotes to go by, but it hardly seems coincidental to me that a variety of late-conversion stories [mostly to RCC but a few to LDS & Judaism]

          include [whether actually mentioned within the story or not, and invariably *not credited* with the conversion itself] a “great catch” of a partner who just happens to have believed in Yahwehjesus all along …

        • Kodie

          It kind of sickens me. They are always trying to make girls be “good” but they don’t care if they spend that time making boys learn to be fearful or modest or the least bit concerned with their salvation. Girls have to be chaste and modest and behave correctly to keep boys and men from stumbling, and here you have some priest talking about single moms. At least from my innocent kind of brain, it’s strategically more important to keep girls religious because they raise the children. That’s still sexist and sick to me, but that makes a lot of strategic sense.

          But if this load of bullshit were correct, they wouldn’t have to try to be strategic and load their superstitious guns with bullets aimed only at girls and only at little toddlers who can’t defend themselves with critical thinking. No, I don’t think girls lack critical thinking but we are raised to diminish our ambition, and let boys lead us, and to desire very much to be married, or to feel rejected if we aren’t married by a certain age, and to want to bear children for these men, and to feel unwomanly if we don’t want to, and to sacrifice careers for the “more important job” of mothering, or set them aside maybe to be picked up later or not, to martyr ourselves. And see how they are strategically lining things up for later, by seizing on girls in their youth to be burdened with this superstition, and the boys are not.

          You know why – societally, most people just don’t, at the very least, find religion/Christianity/Catholicism, to be anything worse than wholesome. Boys grow up to be men who are preoccupied with their careers and not at all with raising their children, and women grow up to want it all, but can’t have it and give up half of themselves to be the sole caretaker of their children (and if not stay-at-home, still doing the majority of childrearing, in addition to their full-time job). That’s already a sickening trend in society. They don’t just need single moms, they need all girls when (not if) they are moms, to guide their family to take church seriously.

          Even though the church holds that the family is owned and led by the men, they acknowledge and bank on the idea that the women are delegated a lot of responsibility, not just what groceries to feed their family or how to work out the budget for school clothes, and all that mundane details their important husbands are too busy to think about, but their children’s religious upbringing. By making the boys/men rather complacent and agreeable about religion, but the girls/women prioritize it, they are ensuring the family gets to church.

          The tl;dr version is “wife says ‘children need to get to church’ and husband, while reading the sports scores in his newspaper, says ‘that sounds fine, whatever you think is best, babe'”. As in, no husband peripherally raised Catholic while his sisters were trained directly is going to protest too much if the wife thinks it’s important. See Pofarmer for the ultimate counter-example.

        • Greg G.

          That’s still sexist and sick to me, but that makes a lot of strategic sense.

          It shows they are not worried about souls at all, only preservation of the church.

        • Meepestos

          A thorough and “well put” post.

          “They are always trying to make girls be “good” but they don’t care if they spend that time making boys learn to be fearful or modest or the least bit concerned with their salvation. Girls have to be chaste and modest and behave correctly to keep boys and men from stumbling”

          My mother once said to my Greek father, she was so happy she didn’t have girls cause she couldn’t bear to watch them be brought up in such a paternalistic and chauvinistic family setting. I’ve heard Turkish women in Greece that are Muslims express the same thing in bakeries; they don’t know I speak their language.

          I heard growing up, Greek men telling their boys to go out have sex with as many women as possible before you get married then curse and berate the women that enabled this even those that fell for the guise of romance offered by the male just to get laid.

          I recall during the junta in Greece, my mother having to have the restaurant provide a chaperone in order to protect her “reputation” – to avoid her looking like a single mom or worse a whore if without the accompaniment of a brother, cousin, or father. More liberal owners would provide a chaperone, but not those that were ultra Christian conservatives especially those that backed the dictatorship.

          As a teen, I had to pretend that my girlfriend was my cousin in order to save her reputation; both families knew damn well we were a pair. Later in life she married her second choice, but that had more to do with family status then religion. At least she was spared the arranged marriage thing, as her father was relatively liberal so to speak for his upbringing. I still see him once in a while, he is in eighties and at times slips out his affection he had for my mother. I suspect they had a thing for each other, but culture, religion (my mother wasn’t orthodox) and timing, prevented their union. To this day when I visit his daughter that is now in her late 50s, I’m to address her as cousin in front of her husband even though he knows we had an affair, and I’m expected to call her mother and father, uncle and aunt. She calls my mother “aunt”.

        • TheNuszAbides

          My mother once said to my Greek father, she was so happy she didn’t have girls cause she couldn’t bear to watch them be brought up in such a paternalistic and chauvinistic family setting.

          wow, no offense to your mother but that’s twisted. like, halfway to Stockholm Syndrome type stuff. as though it’s a relief to only have sons who learn nothing but positive reinforcement for such an emotionally/mentally toxic tradition? “at least my children only profit from the paternalistic and chauvinistic family setting”? on a purely practical/fatalistic level i totally get it. on the level of a mother’s love, it’s tragic irony.

        • Meepestos

          I concur.

        • MNb

          “Girls have to be chaste and modest”
          I dislike this as well. I’m not made for chaste and modest women, but for strong ones with outspoken views.

      • Hah, sorry. Courtier wasn’t a person. The Courtier’s Reply is a logical fallacy basically stating that unless you know everything about a topic, you cannot criticize or disprove that topic. As far as I’m aware, PZ Myers coined the term – http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/

        • Ellabulldog

          ah, I gave it a look but did not research it that far. mostly to understand what it was. I liken it to someone that says I can’t know that a coach should have called a different play because I have never been a professional football player or coach:)

        • Pretty much that. The worst part of the Courtier’s Reply is that there’s never enough you can research to be adequate for the person making the reply. It just doesn’t matter. If you’re not a PHD in the topic with a perfect understanding of all ancient languages, you’re not good enou