Contradictions in the Bible? No, It’s Progressive Revelation!

Contradictions in the Bible? No, It’s Progressive Revelation! February 1, 2019

Did you know that the Quran has no contradictions? This isn’t due to God’s guiding hand but to a clever loophole within Islam called the law of abrogation. If two passages in the Quran seem to conflict, the one written later abrogates (overrules) the earlier one. While Muslim scholars disagree on the number of conflicting passages, this rule is the backstop that resolves such questions.

Christianity also has a contradiction problem. We can see some of those problems when we look at how the Bible reboots its fundamental message. First, God makes a covenant with Noah, and then with Abraham, and then with Moses. Finally Jesus comes, and the rules change again. Jesus redefined murder, adultery, divorce, and more in the Sermon on the Mount. He changed the afterlife from a vague and uninteresting existence in Sheol to the ultimate celebration of a worthy life (or the ultimate punishment of a wicked one). He changed Yahweh from the god of just the Chosen People into the god of everyone. Circumcision and kosher food laws became unnecessary. Sacrifices are gone. The worship day changed.

Even after Jesus, the change continued. Some reboots didn’t take (Marcionism, Gnosticism), but others did (Trinitarianism). But wait—there’s more! Islam was a reboot. Mormonism was a reboot. Reverend Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church was a reboot.

The simplest explanation for the chaos in what is supposed to be the perfect plan from a perfect creator drops the idea of anything divine behind the Bible and chalks it up to a primitive people inventing supernatural stories to make sense of a scary existence. But that’s throwing in the towel, and modern Christians who want to support their belief respond in a different way.

Christianity’s secret weapon: progressive revelation

Let’s see how Christians explain progressive revelation.

The Scriptures testify to a progression of God’s revelation of Himself to humanity. He did not reveal the fullness of His truth in the beginning, yet what He revealed was always true. Each portion of Scripture was built on the previous one. (Don Stewart)

That’s one interpretation. The obvious alternative is that the Bible is (among other things) a 1000-year-long record of the evolution of supernatural thought within a primitive tribe in the ancient Near East. That it changed is hardly surprising—manmade religions do that.

The United Church of Christ embraces the idea of progressive revelation with a marketing campaign built around the slogan, “God is still speaking.” This evolved from a quote from Gracie Allen, “Never place a period where God has placed a comma.”

Okay—show us in the Bible where God makes clear that his perfect plan is a work in progress. Was the Ten Commandments just a first draft? Were the rules against homosexuality temporary? Was God’s plan for marriage a moving target?*

Another source has this interpretation.

God delivered what we were ready for, a bit at a time, when we were ready for it. In other words, his revelation has been progressive. (Tom Gilson)

That’s just what you’d say if you were trying to salvage a contradictory text. Your challenge is showing that this is God’s idea, not yours. Give us the verses in the Old Testament supporting this. Here, let me get you started: God made “a covenant for all generations to come” with Noah (Genesis 9) and then “an everlasting covenant” with Moses (Genesis 17).

Whoops—sorry. Those examples show how God doesn’t dribble out laws but makes them and then says that they are perpetual. Good luck finding the verse that says that God makes laws that he knows he’ll later correct.

And what does “when we were ready for it” mean? How are moderns any more ready to accept a supernatural message than people 3000 years ago?

We know more of God than the Old Testament prophets did: we know him through Christ.

But why stop there? If you like progressive revelation, then take the Muslim update from Mohammed. Or the LDS one from Joseph Smith.

Every student of church history knows that knowledge of God continued to grow long past the time John put down his pen after writing the Revelation.

You mean the doctrinal inventions from the 21 ecumenical councils from the Council of Nicaea in 325 through Vatican II in 1965? Or the many schisms within the Christian church? Or the countless denominational conferences? Yes, those were important for making doctrine. For example, the Bible has no clear statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, and it had to be invented in the first two councils.

But this isn’t an explanation as much as an admission. Much of “Christianity” comes from tradition and debate, not the supposed words of Jesus or God, both of whom are quoted extensively in the Bible. If the Bible were complete and unambiguous, these later interpretations wouldn’t have been necessary.

Why not deliver something useful in the new revelation?

Why would God want to dribble out his message? One answer is that the original audience for the Bible were just too primitive to understand. I’ll admit that the modern Christian message is confusing, but humans living in Palestine 3000 years ago were just as capable of understanding (or being confused by) today’s Christian message as we are.

Contrast that with a different message. The Bible gave us no science or technology that wasn’t part of that culture. That’s a message that might need dribbling out. A culture doesn’t go from the Iron Age to the Computer Age in one step.

When challenged with this, apologists often say that the Bible is a book of God’s message, not a science textbook. It’s hard to believe that basic health rules or a prohibition against slavery aren’t at the top of God’s list of tips to pass on, but let’s forget that. According to their reasoning, it sounds like God would be motivated to reveal the science and technology related to spreading God’s message. Where then is the progressive revelation of transportation or communication technology? As Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar observed, “If you’d come today / You could have reached a whole nation. / Israel in 4 BC / Had no mass communication.”

.
Thanks to a couple of my favorite sources of wisdom, Jesus and Mo and Why Evolution is True, for mentions of this post.

Continue to the fatal objections to progressive revelation in part 2.

I said it, God believes it, that settles it!
— paraphrase of the fundamentalist position,
Robert M. Price, Human Bible podcast

.

*Actually, yes, the Ten Commandments was a first draft, because there were two of them. The Bible doesn’t object to homosexuality in the way that conservative Christians think (here, here). And biblical ideas of marriage were radically more expansive than they would have you believe. Nevertheless, the burden is on the advocate of progressive revelation to show that a constantly changing doctrine is what God planned from the beginning.

Image from Alicia Lee, CC license
.

"History tells us that Paul the Apostle (Latin: Paulus; Greek: Παῦλος, romanized: Paulos; Coptic: ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ; ..."

Silver-Bullet Argument #26: Jesus Was Wrong ..."
"As its value is all down to having faith in the currency, perhaps "In God ..."

A Call for Civil Disobedience: Remove ..."
""And it's Judean People's Front"Pah! Splitters!"

A Call for Civil Disobedience: Remove ..."
"How loud is it's roar in watts RMS/watts Music Power?"

A Call for Civil Disobedience: Remove ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I’ve always thought the thesis of progressive revelation is at odds with a basic tenet of Christianity (and of most religions), i.e. God’s unchanging nature.

    For example, can we really accept that a supposedly all-loving God could put up with his “chosen people” killing, raping and destroying just because “they weren’t ready” to do think and act in a different way?

    Not to mention the many Biblical instances in which God himself not only tolerates, but actually encourages or even orders any kind of cruelty!

    • Nice people though (generally) they are, I’ve come to think less of liberal Christians over tortured explanations such as this. There is just so much that you have to explain away or ignore here.

    • Kevin K

      And, of course, that defense is at odds with a god who would gladly drown all of the puppies, kittens and unborn children in the world just to teach humans a lesson about behaving.

      • …But he won’t ever ever do it againt, he has promised!

        • Kevin K

          He just destroys wicked towns with fire, like Sodom and Gomorrah.

          Something about that story has always bothered me. I get that we call certain acts “sodomy” as a sort of an homage to the behaviors going on in that former-city. But no one has ever been able to explain to me what kind of an act “gomorrahy” is. Inquiring minds want to know. If only to avoid being destroyed in a fireball.

        • I’ve never come across a good answer, either – I’ve read some 19th century writers linked “Gomorrah’s sin” to lesbianism, but there’s no Scriptural or traditional basis for this interpretation, AFAIK.

  • Anri

    Never place a period where God has placed a comma.

    Presumably, the reverse is true as well, that someone should never place a comma where god has placed a period.
    I checked.
    Revelations 22 ends with a period, not a comma.

    • Nice!

      • Phil

        How about; never place a god where there is a question mark.

  • skl

    I’ll admit that the modern Christian message is confusing, but humans living in Palestine 3000 years ago were just
    as capable of understanding (or being confused by) today’s Christian message as we are.

    The believers in the bible have a belief based entirely on
    miracles. Such miracles would have been supernatural surprises
    to those 3,000 years ago just as they would be to those today.

    So, it should not be a surprise that their god’s further
    surprising with seeming contradictions in a progressive revelation seems not to
    surprise them out of belief.

    • Greg G.

      Psalm 77 is lament that God’s mighty deeds are not being done in the psalmist’s day like they were long, long ago.

      • skl

        I don’t see your point.

        Unless you’re implying the Psalmist does not believe in the god
        who showed himself to be god by performing miracles.

        • Susan

          I don’t see your point.

          Shocking.

          How many times are you going to use this crap, skl? How many times are you going to use the same tactics?

          Unless you’re implying the Psalmist does not believe in the god
          who showed himself to be god by performing miracles.

          No.

          You know that.

          You disingenuous weasel.

        • Greg G.

          You are either authentically that dumb or even dumber to act that dumb.

        • skl

          Or maybe you’re implying the Psalmist does not believe in miracles.

        • No! For goodness sake, think a little bit! He’s pointing out that nothing has changed. Just as there don’t seem to be any miracles today — we think it was a 1st century thing — even in the time of the psalmist it was a “thing of the past.” To extrapolate, it’s quite unlikely that the stories of miracles were ever anything more than legends.

        • skl

          Maybe you’re implying the Psalmist believes his god is only
          a legend.

          Or maybe you’re implying the Psalmist believes his god is
          real, and is an omnipotent god – with the exception that this god is not potent enough to do miracles.

          Or not potent enough to do miracles frequently
          in everyone’s lifetimes and to everyone’s satisfaction.

          But then, if miracles were frequent, I guess they wouldn’t
          be miracles.

        • The Psalmist wonders why his god doesn’t do miracles like it used to. Yes, maybe the psalmist does have doubts.

        • Greg G.

          Why not just read Psalm 77? Have you not considered that? They have many translations of the Bible on the internet now.

    • Jack the Sandwichmaker

      Then suddenly God decided he couldn’t do those miracles any more because he preferred belief based on faith.

      • skl

        If this god did miracles every day then they wouldn’t be miracles.

        • Jack the Sandwichmaker

          When he only did them 2000 years ago, they’re not miracles either, just stories.

        • wtfwjtd

          “When he only did them 2000 years ago, they’re not miracles either, just stories.”
          This. Even if all of those bits and fragments of the New Testament are absolutely authentic, and precisely translate exactly what the original (unknown) author intended to write down, what we are still left with is…ancient stories and claims of the supernatural, nothing else.
          Jesus kinda slipped up when he promised that those after him would authenticate his fantastic claims by doing “greater works than these.” The fact that no such thing has happened for 2,000+ years now, is in itself more than sufficient reason to dismiss the whole thing as a fraud.

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          A miracle is an event outside of the understood laws of physics, supposedly, but not always, performed by a deity at the behest of a follower, the only way they stop being miracles is when when understand how they happen, you know like rainbows. And it is remarkable how they have become less and less common as our knowledge of the universe increased, also with better recording equipment.

        • skl

          … it is remarkable how they have become
          less and less common as our knowledge of the universe increased, also with better recording equipment.

          What might help is a timeline of bible miracles. It could
          give a sense of how common miracles were in the 3,000 to 4,000 years of bible history.

        • James A. North

          optical illusion. When I first glanced at this toast I saw a fat Osiris in the dark parts, or a long-armed T-rex. Then my eyes readjusted to see what everyone else sees. (Old maid or young maiden?; goblet or couple?; rabbit or duck?; etc.)

        • See with the eyes of faith, my brother–it’s Cheesus, the all-loving god of grilled cheese.

          Or maybe see with the eyes of your stomach.

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          Cheesus Chrust!

        • Greg G.

          What might help is a timeline of bible miracles.

          Let us know when you have finished it.

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          if we accept the bible, which i will do for this particular question, i can think of a good number of major miracles that occurred in the 30 year (to be generous) span of Jesus’s life

          magic star guiding people
          walking on water
          water into wine
          raising the dead
          healing
          rising from the dead
          horde of zombies

          even accepting that the presence of the son of god (or god himself or a mixture of both and an strange spirit creature) may have been a high point, you still have all the miracles that the catholics claim substantiate there saints that happened, given the number of catholic saints that means the rate must have been fairly decent for a while

          there has not been a substantiated miracle in the last century, so there would appear to be a slight drop off

          However all of this is fiction, as these things did not happen, but your own suggestion proves my point.

        • skl

          Not talking about the 30 years, or actually 3 years, of
          Jesus’ miracle working. Talking about a timeline of miracles for the
          3,000-4,000 years of Genesis through Revelation.

        • Kit Hadley-Day

          excellent, you have defined the research you need to do to get a baseline, now why don’t you go do that and come back when you have an answer? though i will point out that any non 0 number is going to represent a whole lot more than we have seen since the invention of the camera (and unless you are going to lump ‘creation’ as a single miracle, then every single atom of the universe counts as a miracle, poofed out of nothing by a space wizard can only be a miracle)

      • WCB

        In Islam, everything is a miracle.

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

        Al-Ghazali wrote that when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the
        cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire, a claim which
        he defended using logic in Islamic philosophy.

        Properly speaking, however, these are not laws of nature but laws by
        which God chooses to govern his own behaviour (his autonomy, in the
        strict sense) – in other words, his rational will.

        In Christianity, occasionalism was debated after Descarte’s attempts to describe how a soul and the material Universe interacted. By Leibnez and others. If my soul wants to lift a coffee cup in the material world, it is God that does the lifting. Problem, what if John wants to lift a knife to torure Jane? If Jane is tortured, isn’t God then complicit in her torture? Or how about Allah if a terrorist picks up an grenade and kills innocent people as an act of terrorism, if we take al Ghazali seriously?

        Insha’allah! Isn’t theology fun?

  • Lex Lata

    MARY MAGDALENE: We talked about this. Many times.

    JESUS: Well, okay, but–

    MARY MAGDALENE: Seriously. You need to write this stuff down. You’re sharing literally the most important message in human history. Oral lectures in front of a few local crowds for a few years ain’t gonna cut it long-term.

    JESUS: Look, have you seen my schedule? Between the healing and the speeches and my war on figs, when am I supposed to have time to write?

    MARY MAGDALENE: If you don’t leave a clear, complete, authentic, first-person record of the good news, there will be centuries–possibly millennia–of disagreement, doubt, discrimination, and even persecution and bloodshed.

    JESUS: C’mon, no need to get melodramatic–

    MARY MAGDALENE: Write! It! Down! The last thing the world needs is a bunch of disputed, inconsistent, overlapping, second-hand narratives of uncertain provenance, open to all kinds of interpretations.

    JESUS: Um, actually, that’s kinda my Plan A.

    MARY MAGDALENE: . . . . You’re washing your own nasty feet tonight.

    • Greg G.

      JESUS: C’mon, no need to get melodramatic–

      https://i1.wp.com/arnoldzwicky.s3.amazonaws.com/RubinDramaticExit.jpg

    • skl

      MARY MAGDALENE: If you don’t leave a
      clear, complete, authentic, first-person record of the good news, there will be
      centuries–possibly millennia–of disagreement, doubt, discrimination, and even
      persecution and bloodshed.

      Yeah. Just think. If only we discovered an autobiography of
      Jesus, or transcripts of his speeches in his own (authenticated) handwriting, or
      even if his followers had just written the gospels and letters a bit earlier
      like, say, 33 a.d., no one in 2019 would be having contentious debates on all
      this Christianity stuff.

      • I hear you. The Jesus argument would still be laughably unbelievable even with the original Jesus diary.

    • Michael Murray

      JUDAS: If you’d come today you could have reached a whole nation. Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.

      • Jack the Sandwichmaker

        Or think if he’d just stuck around for 2000 years, going around and telling the church off whenever they make major mistakes.

        • epicurus

          Even the 40 days he spent with the disciples post resurrection instructing them, according to Acts, could have covered a lot of ground. 40 days of really intensive study could have laid down a whole program and dealt with big issues that would come up later. Jesus could have told Peter how to deal with Paul. He could have settled the faithworks thing, etc.

        • He could’ve made sense of the Trinity thing (or, knowing that it would come up, debunk it).

        • epicurus

          Yes, 40 days would be plenty of time to deal with all the future problems of doctrine, ethics, and procedure that have divided the church and scared away sceptics.

        • wtfwjtd

          Yeah, I always thought it a little suspicious when I was a Christian, that “God” could never be bothered with hashing out the details, but only seemed to operate with a (very) broad brush. But he demanded that humans be *very* detail-oriented, as one little slip could earn one a one-way ticket to eternal torture.

        • Susan

          I always thought it a little suspicious when I was a Christian, that “God” could never be bothered with hashing out the details, but only seemed to operate with a (very) broad brush. But he demanded that humans be *very* detail-oriented, as one little slip could earn one a one-way ticket to eternal torture.

          Me too.

          I also learned to find it very suspicious that there was never any sort of god explaining that to me.

          It was always just humans. Who did exactly what you describe above.

          Hmmmmm……

        • Pofarmer

          Humans do seem to spend an awful lot of time making excuses for an all powerful diety.

        • Susan

          making excuses for an all powerful diety

          And making demands on behalf of an all powerful deity.

        • Pofarmer

          Good point. From the “Why won’t you atheists all just sit up and shut down” playbook. “We’re not hurthing anybody.” Uhm, yeah, yeah you are.

        • wtfwjtd

          That’s the rub, isn’t it? I mean, I can mostly abide the excuses easily enough, but when it comes to using the government to enforce those demands made on behalf of _____ (fill in the blank with the god du jour), now we’ve got a problem.

          Funny how most Christians don’t see it that way.

        • C’mon–it’s not like he’s omnipotent.

    • Phil

      “the war on figs” Nice!

  • RichardSRussell

    Alternative explanation: God used to be mighty once, but he’s running down.

  • Benny S.

    Was the Ten Commandments just a first draft?

    What has always puzzled me is:

    What were the established and dictated laws that were laid down BEFORE the Ten Commandments? Pre-Book of Exodus, there’s nothing concrete and comprehensive written down in “God’s Word”. We do see vague hints about things that make God angry enough to destroy complete cities (or the entire world for that matter) because of his hatred toward the evils people do, but God never explicitly explains to humankind what exactly is considered “evil’ prior to the Ten Commandments — a period of time that supposedly covers quite an expanse of history.

    It seems like the God of Genesis was really just a petulant being who got angry and punished on a whim, while his dying victims last breaths argued: “Well, gee God, how were we supposed to know how to behave? You never gave us a definitive clue about what was morally right vs. wrong. I hope someday you can make a “Top 10″ list of proper behavior and find someone to put it in a book for the benefit of humankind. Preferably sooner rather than later, because it isn’t justifiable for you to continue destroying us for actions that we’re unaware of being morally wrong.”

    • Kuno

      Yeah, if “You shall not kill/murder” wasn’t a thing before the Ten Commandments, what was God’s problem with Cain?

      • After all, “don’t sex your sister” wasn’t a thing before God gave that rule, so incest wasn’t an obstacle to populating the earth. Your observation follows from the same logic.

    • Greg G.

      Moses killed an Egyptian and ran away for forty years. Apparently the Egyptians had objections to murder. I wonder where they got that idea if God hadn’t yet given Moses the Ten Commandments?

      • WCB

        https://face2faceafrica.com/article/42-ancient-egyptian-laws-that-might-have-inspired-the-ten-commandments

        The 42 commandments found in the Egyptian Papyrus of Ani and predating the OT. The Egyptians had their own commandments and no need of Yahweh to hand them any.

        • Greg G.

          26. I have not cursed God/Goddess

          I take it that cussing goes back at least four millennia.

        • Susan

          The 42 commandments found in the Egyptian Papyrus of Ani and predating the OT

          Amazing how many of those commandments made sense. Not all of of them but it’s not surprising to see superstition in ancient Egypt.

          Things like:

          I have not polluted the water.

          I have not taken food from a child.

          I have not terrorized anyone.

          I have not behaved with violence.

          So much more impressive than “the 10 commandments” that christians go on about.

          There is much less emphasis on offending the gods and much more on behaving like a decent human being.

    • Apparently something was on God’s naughty list, because he destroyed the world in a flood because of evil.

      • wtfwjtd

        “Apparently something was on God’s naughty list, because he destroyed the world in a flood because of evil.”

        Just not murder, lol…!

    • Pofarmer

      Well, God punished you and then you were supposed to figure out why.

      • wtfwjtd

        It’s kinda hard to learn much of a lesson when you’re dead, which seems to be God’s favorite method of punishment. Some teacher.

        Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water…

        • Pofarmer

          Throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be kind of mild for the OT god.

        • Greg G.

          Ye Olde Floode was just giving Ye Olde Earthe a bath.

          Unfortunately, almost all life got thrown out with the bathwater.

      • TheNuszAbides

        Perfect sense! Why else would we be granted extra-crinkly brains – and free will to boot?

  • The “God is still speaking” campaign reminds me if Randal Rauser who, in “God or Godless” (a debate with John Loftus) seems to say that it took God until the mid-nineteenth century to get it across to humans that slavery was wrong. Essentially it says that the Old Testament (and even the New) is just plain wrong in some places because the authors didn’t understand what their god was trying to tell them.

    Okay, sure. That’s better, I suppose, than the fundamentalist insistence that the book is 100% consistent from beginning to end. But it leaves us with the very valid question that is often asked, about the difference in a world with this god or without it.

    • Greg G.

      Maybe in another few centuries, God will finally get it across to us that the Sabbath is supposed to be on Tuesday.

    • 66 books with 40 authors over 3 continents and 1500 years and one miraculously consistent message! (Or so they’d have us believe.)

    • sandy

      I’ve said this before but if God ceased to exist tomorrow at 2pm, how would you know? IMO this world already looks like a world without a God or one that does anything.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        This is a great question. I may borrow it some time.

    • Kuno

      I once had a discusson with a fundie telling me that God didn’t prohibit slavery because it was part of civilisation back then and he wouldn’t go against that. I pointed out that gay marriage and abortion are part of civilisation now so what is the problem with those. For some reason the conversation stopped after that…

      • Greg G.

        God didn’t prohibit slavery because it was part of civilisation back then

        But God did prohibit coveting your neighbor’s slave but not slavery itself. It’s like God listened to slave owners but not slaves.

  • Jack the Sandwichmaker

    How does “Progressive Revelation” explain Jesus deciding that stoning is no longer the appropriate punishment for adultery? Why was stoning adulterers necessary when God gave the original order, but no longer necessary in Jesus’s time?

  • sandy

    “And what does “when we were ready for it” mean? How are moderns any more ready to accept a supernatural message than people 3000 years ago?”

    I have always thought that this to be an intriguing question to put forth to Christians. My guess is moderns aren’t ready and never will be ready to accept an update from God/Jesus that would be added to the bible. The bible is done, finito. Imagine someone, anyone or Christian leader saying they have received word from God and the message needs to be added to the bible. Anyone going to take this serious enough to start a campaign to have the message accepted as canon? I don’t think so. So, if Christians wouldn’t accept a message today, why on earth do they accept the supposed word of God handed down thousands of years ago to tribal nomads in the age of ignorance and superstition?

    • Imagine someone, anyone or Christian leader saying they have received word from God and the message needs to be added to the bible. Anyone going to take this serious enough to start a campaign to have the message accepted as canon?

      The continued popularity of cults might challenge your hypothesis.

      • sandy

        Yes I thought about that as I wrote and you have a point but my hypothesis was that an updated new “God’s message” wasn’t ever going to make into the bible as a revision or addition or a new gospel.

  • wtfwjtd

    FWIW, the fundamentalist cult that I grew up in gave credence to the idea that God spoke directly, as in out-loud, to the various characters in the Bible (and of course to Christians in the New Testament), and it was OK to believe that. When he quit doing this, or the precise cut-off date that God no longer did it, was always shrouded in mystery. Not to mention, the*why* he quit doing it was also a source of mystery. Alas, inquiring minds want to know..

    • Chuck Johnson

      The audio and video appearances of God are even fewer now that video-capable cell phones are commonplace.

  • WCB

    We have always had new prophets popping up here and there. For example, the New Apostolic Reformation types. Proclaiming that they have apostles and prophets today through whom God speaks. I do remember about 25 years ago, there was a brief flurry of people who thought Martin Luther King was a prophet whose best speeches should be added to the New Testament. That caused a bit of a stir among the orthodox Christians.

  • Jim

    Yes: The Ten Commandments were a “rough draft.” Ya see…Moses dragged the tablets down the mountain and saw people worshiping the wrong fucking god, so he smashed the tablets in a fit of rage. God had to replace the tablets with another set. But it’s funny that the second ten commandments do not match the first ten commandments.

    This makes belief in the Bible ridiculous.

    • Kevin K

      No more ridiculous than Joseph Smith losing parts of his translation of the golden plates and having to start over … and then the “retranslated” stuff was substantially different from the first go-around.

      Oh wait …

      • Jim

        How true. And hilarious.

  • Cozmo the Magician

    It aint that the buybull doesn’t have ‘science’ it is that EVERY claim the bible makes that has to do with knowledge of the real world is 100% wrong. Bats are NOT birds. Snakes cant talk. The earth aint flat. There is no 1/2 a snow globe over the earth. No pillars. No windows in the none existing snow globe. And PI sure as fuck aint 3 (ok, dats maffs but thought I would throw it in) Oh yeah, and SUN does NOT go around the EARTH.

    That is just a short list.

    Oh wait.. it DOES give a sorta recipe for an abortificant, but it is just as likely to kill the mother along with the contents of her womb.

  • Chuck Johnson

    “Progressive Revelation” ?

    Almost, but not quite true.
    It’s really cultural adaptive evolution. – – – That’s progressive revelation with the superstition removed.
    God-beliefs hinder human cultural adaptive evolution.

  • Grimlock

    I recently saw a list of premises or important foundational assumptions for reading the Bible. One of them was, literally, that the Bible doesn’t contain any contradictions. If something looks like a contradiction, that’s solved if you dig deeper.

    Sigh.

  • Kevin K

    Progressive revelation leads to There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.

    The last prophet.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Until next time…

    • Well, in that case, Allahu Akbar, I guess.

      • Kevin K

        I have used that exact argument to Christians who have trotted out the progressive revelation thing from time-to-time. Oddly, it always seems to send them fleeing into the night.

        • Greg G.

          Then use Joseph Smith on the Muslim, Mary Baker Eddy on the Mormon, L. Ron Hubbard on the Christian Scientist, and Leah Remini on the Scientologist.

  • Jim Jones

    > If two passages in the Quran seem to conflict, the one written later abrogates (overrules) the earlier one.

    How do they determine dates? AFAIK, they’re written down in order of length of text.

    • I don’t know. The religious leaders I think have agreed on the dates of the chapters (and, yes, I believe the chapter order in the Quran is biggest first, not oldest first).

      Unfortunately, the less pleasant chapters (killing-wise) came later.

    • Jack the Sandwichmaker

      Who thought ordering by length was a sensible way of order scripture?

      • Greg G.

        Who thought ordering by length was a sensible way of order scripture?

        Those who had to write out the text by hand. They had to make it fit the the number of pages by altering the size of the letters. It was easier to judge with smaller pieces near the end.

        ETA: The groups of epistles in the Bible are like that, too, except that the Firsts, Seconds, and Thirds are grouped together by size.

      • Jim Jones

        Beats me. Maybe law books should be written that way. For giggles.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Actually, yes, the Ten Commandments was a first draft, because there were two of them. ”

    Actually there are 613 commandments in the old testament, not just 10. The old testament has god handing down these 613 commandments in bits and pieces at various points.

    But the old testament ( in Exodus 34:14-28) DOES call one group from the 613 commandments the “ten commandments”.

    These are the commandments that the Bible calls the ten commandments:

    01 Thou shalt worship no other god.
    02 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
    03 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.
    04 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day rest.
    05 Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.
    06 Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
    07 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
    08 Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.
    09 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
    10 Thou shalt not seeth a kid in his mother’s milk.

    Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

    ^^^^^ this is the first time the words “the ten commandments” appears in a Bible verse.

    • Yep, this is the second 10 Commandments.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        And according to what the Bible says:

        Thou shalt have no other gods.
        Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
        Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD in vain.
        Remember the Sabbath day.
        Honour thy father and thy mother.
        Thou shalt not kill.
        Thou shalt not commit adultery.
        Thou shalt not steal.
        Thou shalt not bear false witness.
        Thou shalt not covet.

        are NOT the ten commandments. They are commandments, and there are 10 of them, but the Bible never calls that group of commandments the 10 commandments.

        • Jack the Sandwichmaker

          Actually, there are 11 or 12 of them, but Christians decided they were the 10 commandments and had to find a way to combine them in to 10 (and can’t agree on how).

        • C_Alan_Nault

          Actually, there are 613 of them in the old testament. Do a Google search.

          ” Christians decided they were the 10 commandments and had to find a way to combine them in to 10 (and can’t agree on how)”

          That should not be an issue for them; the Bible specifically lists & names the 10commandmentsin Exodus 34:14-28. The commandments in Exodus 34:14-28 are the ONLY ones the Bible calls the 10commandments.

          Sadly many Christians haven’t read the Bible & are not familiar with the Bible itself, they only know the bits they are spoonfed in Sunday school& in sermons…( you know,the NICE bits,not the parts about slavery being OK, the correct way to rape a woman without incurring god’s wrath, eating feces,drinking urine, offering your virgin daughters up to be gang-raped because you area righteous man… those parts).

        • Thebob

          If you’re going to post them get them factually historically right, it is Thou shalt not MURDER, the Hebrew word used is MURDER not kill murder…But hey, if everyone followed those rules, God or no God, we wouldn’t need Lawyers or Police and the Tolerant would really be Tolerant…

        • C_Alan_Nault

          If you want to get them factually ( according to the Bible/Torah) correct ( no historical evidence for them), it should also be pointed out that these commandments were for the Hebrew people when dealing with other Hebrew people.

          So the commandment meant you shall not murder another Hebrew, you shall not bear false witness to another Hebrew, you shall not steal from another Hebrew, etc.

        • Thebob

          Very well could be, speaking on your last part, but that is just your opinion…”no historical evidence for them” them?

        • Greg G.

          “no historical evidence for them” them?

          Leviticus 25:44-46 says that Hebrews servants were not to be treated harshly while other slaves could be treated “as slaves”. Exodus 21:20-21 shows that slaves could be beaten to death without penalty. That allows a foreigner to be murdered but not a Hebrew.

        • Thebob

          THEM? WHO THE FUCK IS THEM, Hebrews?

        • Greg G.

          WHO THE FUCK IS THEM

          It was copied from your post. You were saying it was just the opinion of C_Alan_Nault that the laws only apply to the Hebrews. I gave an example where the law applies to Hebrews only.

        • Thebob

          But your example was wrong…And my first post was asking who was the them he was referring to, which neither of you actually answered, until just now. And that is his opinion…

          Here lets try this again “If you want to get them factually ( according to the Bible/Torah) correct ( no historical evidence for them),

          “get them factually”, who is them? “no historical evidence for them” again who is them? Them could be referencing several things as the poster did not make that very clear…

        • Greg G.

          The “them” refers to the Ten Commandments. Despite a great deal of archaeology in Egypt, there is no evidence that there were large numbers of Israelis in Egypt and evidence of absence where there should be evidence is evidence of absence. There has been a great deal of archaeology in the Sinai and no evidence of a large number of people wandering there for many years. The archaeology in Israel for that time period shows no disruption of culture as if a new culture had replaced another. It shows very similar cultures except some sites had pig bones and some did not, meaning the Hebrews were just Canaanites with a different dietary restriction.

          So that means there was never an exodus, which means the stories in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua are fiction. So the Ten Commandments did not come from those stories.

        • Thebob

          Just cause archaeological evidence has not been found as of yet, does not mean it does not exist…And I will refute your claim that Sinai region has not been dug to extent of other locals like Egypt…But as of Sept 2018 new Archaeological digs, Archaeologists may have found historical evidence for the biblical account of the Exodus near the River Jordan. Time will tell though…
          “Those archaeologists’ claims that the Exodus never happened are not based on evidence, but largely on its absence. They assert that we’ve combed the Sinai and not found any evidence of the mass of millions of people whom the Bible says were there for 40 years. That assertion is just not true. There have not been many major excavations in the Sinai, and we most certainly have not combed it. Moreover, uncovering objects buried 3,200 years ago is a daunting endeavor. An Israeli colleague laughingly told me that a vehicle that had been lost in the 1973 Yom Kippur War was recently uncovered under 16 meters—that’s 52 feet—of sand. Fifty-two feet in 40 years!” – Richard Elliott Friedman, Th.D from Harvard, is the Ann and Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia and the Katzin Professor of Jewish Civilization Emeritus of the University of California, San Diego, and was a visiting fellow at Cambridge and Oxford and a Senior Fellow of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem.

        • Pofarmer

          Richard Elliott Friedman Doctor of – Theology.

          Lol.

        • Greg G.

          It is not just the lack of evidence, it is the lack of evidence where there should be evidence. If I think there is a rhinoceros in my house, there should be apparent evidence of it, Not finding any such evidence is evidence that there is no large mammal in my house.

          If there is 52 feet of sand over there, there is 52 feet of sand missing from somewhere else. Sand dunes move. It is not like there is no evidence of people and animals in the Sinai for a few thousand years, it is just that there is none to support the Exodus account or anything like it.

        • Thebob

          Yet, there is no verifiable evidence that we evolved from Ape’s yet you don’t refute that claim…Seems to me you are selective on your evidence…Or biased…Or you view things with a closed mind; but thankfully most real scientists don’t have close minded views and follow where the evidence leads, instead of making the evidence fit a predetermined narrative…

        • Greg G.

          OK, the change of subject appears to be a concession.

          There is plenty of evidence that humans and apes come from common ancestors. The physical symmetries between humans and apes is the first clue. The fossil evidence shows even greater similarities. Scientists created a hierarchical tree of life forms based on that. Then the DNA evidence came in and the hierarchical tree created from that matches the tree from the physical comparisons. What are the chances?

          DNA evidence shows that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to gorillas and gorillas are more closely related to humans than to orangutans.

          Then they discovered endogenous retroviruses embedded in the DNA, that is, viruses that inserts itself in a DNA strand so that a cell will produce the virus. If it happens to infect an egg or a sperm cell and happens to be broken, it can be passed on with fertilization and reproduction. The chance of a retrovirus inserting to the same place in a strand of DNA in two different specimens and having them both reproduce it is very small but humans have ERVs in the same place so it is probably from the same ERV of a common ancestor. We share many ERVs in the same DNA sites as chimpanzees. We also share ERVs sites with chimpanzees and gorillas.

          The Theory of Evolution implies common descent which explains many things about the reality of biology that were never part of the original narrative.

        • Thebob

          We share 50% of DNA with a Banana…But lets keep going, We have less pairs of Chromosomes than Apes…and if you actually look at the pairs, they are very similar, I believe it is Human pair 2 are the combined pairs on Ape’s 2&3 Chromosomes, which does account for the 1 less pairs we have vs. Ape’s…But, with this notion, Evolution actually promotes Racism; as the theory goes, We came out of Africa, therefore African’s are the least evolved of humans…This narrative was also used by the likes of Margret Sanger; to justify not allowing the “undesirables” to reproduce, which makes sense that the Founder of PP, placed 90% of PP clinics in Black communities…But hey I don’t believe that, that is your Science and Evolution…With that notion all you are is really an evolved Rock…with brains to match…

        • Greg G.

          No, troll. humans in Africa continued to evolve, too. There is nothing to stop evolution just because some part of the population went somewhere else.

        • Thebob

          Exactly…thanks for confirming that…

        • Thebob

          “There is nothing to stop evolution” Are Psychopaths then an evolved form of Human’s dropping off those pesky “feelings” that seem to plague humans?
          With that then, if Psychopaths turn serial killer, isn’t then just natural progression? Natural Selection?

          How about Pedophiles then? They can’t help they evolved to be Minor Attracted Persons now is it?

          Are “Furries” then regressive evolution? You know cause they think they are an animal trapped in human form?

          Simple deduction Evolution Out of Africa came all Humans, Black people have dark skin because of more melanin? Right?
          While White people have less, but evolved that way, so either You are right or you’re wrong either White people evolved out of Black people or They both “evolved” at the same time…You can’t have it both ways…If Evolved at the same time then Out of Africa IS BUNK…And pretty much then the entire Evolution of Humans is bunk…If they didn’t then White people to Asians are “more” evolved than the original…But, unlike you I don’t believe in Races, Color differences sure, but human’s are human’s are human’s….Unlike Dogs and Foxes which can’t interbreed even though they are both tech. Canine…And just like Humans and Ape’s cannot interbreed…

        • Greg G.

          You are not even good at trolling.

        • Pofarmer

          That’s kinda the whole basis for Darwin.

        • Thebob

          Also, how did we get to that 98% shared DNA with Chimps anyway, do you know/understand the process they did to come to that conclusion?

          I do I do!!!, you can even fact check this…

          They compared the billions of lines of “code” in both genomes, the single letter similarities where EZ to tally. But the Differences were not.
          The researchers only compared the Similarities and ignored the differences…So we do share 98% of our DNA with a Chimp if they exclude the 1.3 billion lines of mismatched sections of the genome.
          While only comparing the 2.4 billion lines of similar genome.

          So yes, we have 98% common DNA if you exclude 18% of Chimp genome and 25% of Human genome…

          Also note to mention 98% of DNA is junk, only 2% really does any switching with genes…

        • Greg G.

          Trolly trolls troll.

        • Thebob

          Darn you got me, yet you still can’t refute any logical refute to you…

        • Greg G.

          I can and I have refuted the arguments you present. I don’t care to play Gish Gallup with a troll.

          If you presented your best argument, and it was crushed, why go to your second best argument? If you did not start with your best argument, you failed from the start.

          William Lane Craig realizes your arguments are crap. He prefers the arguments of Alvin Plantinga. he has claimed that cumulative effect of Plantinga’s two dozen or so arguments for God favor the existence for God. If any one of the arguments actually proved there was a god, he would just tout that one. The cumulative weight of the failure of the top two dozen or so arguments for a god argues better for the non-existence of any gods.

          Many seem to think the best argument for a god thingy is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It usually has something like “It is possible that a maximally great god thingy exists” near the beginning. Then it says something like “Since it is possible that a MGGT exists”. But they smuggled in the fallacy of equivocation with the word “possible”. In the first statement, “possible” means we do not know that it is impossible for the MGGT to exist. In the second, “possible” means that it is actually possible for the MGGT to exist. If that meaning is used in the first statement, then it is obvious that the conclusion is assumed in the premise. After that, everything follows logically.

          So if we jump to the conclusion and throw the Problem of Suffering at it, we can say:

          1. A thingy that would not permit unnecessary suffering is greater than a thingy that allows unnecessary suffering.
          2. For suffering to be necessary, it must accomplish something that is logically possible to accomplish.
          3. A thingy that can accomplish everything that is logically possible to accomplish is greater than one that cannot do everything that is logically possible to accomplish.
          4. If a thingy can accomplish everything that suffering can accomplish, then all suffering is unnecessary.
          5. Suffering exists in this actual world.
          6. Therefore, there is no thingy in this world that is both capable of preventing all unnecessary suffering and capable of making all suffering unnecessary.
          7. Therefore, there is no Maximally Great God Thingy in this world.
          8. A thingy that exists in all possible worlds is greater than a thingy that exists in all but one possible world.
          9. Therefore it is impossible for a Maximally Great God Thingy to exist.

          So the basic premise of the KCA – “It is possible that a Maximally Great God Thingy exists in some possible world” – is a false statement as it is actually impossible that a Maximally Great God Thingy exists in any possible world.

          Now you can start wondering just how potent your god thingy actually is. Those unanswered prayers you like to forget about are simply because nobody capable of answering them hears them. It explains why praying to a milk carton is just as effective as praying to a god thingy.

        • Thebob

          If everyone was happy all the time, we would not know what Joy or Happiness are at all…And Free Will, the Will of Humans to choose their fate…If a God or Super Natural Thingy, didn’t allow that, then once again life would be pointless and meaningless…..

          Shame, like Happiness is a good thing; Just like Fear begets Bravery…

          And again I pose the counter argument, lack of evidence where evidence of species evolving into another species should exist, is proof evolution is just a claim a guess; humans way of guessing at our creation or beginnings…Until the day Science observes a dog evolving gills to become a new species,dog-fish, evolution is just a bogus claim as you claim a Higher Power is…

        • epeeist

          Until the day Science observes a dog evolving gills to become a new species,dog-fish, evolution is just a bogus claim

          I’d be careful with all that straw, a stray match could cause an enormous conflagration.

          Oh, that’s genuinely what you believe that the theory of evolution says?

        • Thebob

          “Oh, that’s genuinely what you believe that the theory of evolution says?” What is that exactly?
          That is genuinely what the theory of evolution states, yes. I can even elaborate that the current evolution model actually supports the Biblical Flood and Noah’s arc, that Canines have a common ancestor, Noah took 2 of every KIND not 2 of every animal, 2 of a Kind, 2 of a Kind of Canine, 2 of a kind of Horse…there are thousands of different animals, but there are only a couple hundred Kinds of animals…And with that , they probably would have been babies on the Arc. Evolution in regards to natural selection is partly true, but a new species or new kind of animal, evolution does not create that…

        • epeeist

          That is genuinely what the theory of evolution states, yes.

          No, this is the standard creotard distortion of the TofE. I suggest that you look at an actual course on the subject rather than rubbish presented by phony organisations like AiG.

        • Thebob

          considering I have studied, Genetics, biology, human anatomy, physiology, radiation physics, some other sciences…I think I have a good grasp already on the subject…Basic premise is at some point earth cooled, with then formed puddles, not sure how with out an atmosphere, but formed puddles which some how turned into some gelatinous goo that spawned the first simple forms of life… basically rocks evolved into life with out the earth even having an atmosphere yet…And other than an Insurance company I don’t know what AiG is…

        • epeeist

          Basic premise is at some point earth cooled, with then formed puddles,not sure how with out an atmosphere, but formed puddles which some howturned into some gelatinous goo that spawned the first simple forms of life

          Given that this is a crude and inaccurate description of abiogenesis and not evolution I rather doubt your claim to have studied “Genetics, biology, human anatomy, physiology, radiation physics, some other sciences”. This doesn’t surprise me given that I have never yet come across an honest creationist.

          However I”m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, here is a new paper on human evolution, perhaps you could provide us with a detailed critique of it.

        • Thebob

          Doesn’t surprise me you are an asshole; whose bias is showing…

        • epeeist

          Doesn’t surprise me you are an asshole; whose bias is showing…

          Ah, it deleted into personal insults quite quickly didn’t it.

          Given your inability to answer questions put to you then colour me not surprised.

        • Thebob

          More condescending tone…you asked me to prove you’re example of evolution is wrong, when it has yet to be proven FACT…Can’t disprove something that has yet to be proven…

        • epeeist

          you asked me to prove you’re example of evolution is wrong, when it has yet to be proven FACT

          And it never will be, I would have thought with your extensive knowledge you would have known that we don’t prove things in science.

          What is apparent here is that from your initial, ludicrous and wrong claim about what the theory of evolutions states to your avoidance of actual papers on the subject is that your claims to have studied the subject is simply bogus. As I said, you show less knowledge and understanding than a child in primary school here in the UK.

        • you show less knowledge and understanding than a child in primary school here in the UK.

          The popular delight in pseudoscience and anti-science makes one embarrassed to be an American.

        • Aside: I don’t know if you heard about the measles outbreak in Washington state. That’s happening in a county a few hours south of me. And then a few years ago, it was pertussis (whooping cough), in a county a few hours west of me.

          The lesson is that liberals can think stupid, too.

        • Thebob

          Since my example seems to just get blown by, what is your simple explanation of evolution, explain like you’re talking to a 5 year old….

        • epeeist

          what is your simple explanation of evolution, explain like you’re talking to a 5 year old….

          No, just someone who has utterly and absolutely no clue as to what they are talking about.

          To be blunt, you show less understanding of the subject than that expected of an 11 year old here in the UK.

        • Thebob

          “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

          Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.”

          https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

          Pretty much the gist of what I said…

        • epeeist

          Pretty much the gist of what I said…

          Except that it isn’t of course. No mention of “kinds” (whatever they are) and definitely no mention of an “arc” (sic).

        • Thebob

          You’re bias is showing…or is that bigotry?

        • epeeist

          You’re bias is showing…or is that bigotry?

          No, all I am showing is a basic understanding of the subject, something that obviously lack.

        • epeeist

          I note you have something to say on the divergence of Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes which best estimates put some 6.4 million years ago.

          Here are a few papers which discuss the topic, perhaps you could say why they are wrong:

          Dating primate divergences through an integrated analysis of palaeontological and molecular data

          Evolutionary history of chimpanzees inferred from complete mitochondrial genomes

          Robust time estimation reconciles views of the antiquity of placental mammals

          Bayesian estimation of species divergence times under a molecular clock using multiple fossil calibrations with soft bounds

          Primate molecular divergence dates

          A molecular phylogeny of living primates

          Given your extensive background in biology I am sure you can tell us why the biologists who produced these papers are wrong.

        • Thebob

          Predetermined outcome, they fit the evidence to fit their outcome….It is called Biased Science instead of what science should be which is Objective…

        • epeeist

          Predetermined outcome, they fit the evidence to fit their outcome.

          Nah, that’s just hand waving. I was expecting a detailed critique given your claimed “expertise” in biology.

        • Natureboi

          I am laughing maniacally.

        • Greg G.

          Bullshit. Suffering isn’t required to enjoy an orgasm.

        • Natureboi

          If a God or Super Natural Thingy, didn’t allow that, then once again life would be pointless and meaningless…..

          Why did God create cancer, over 10,000 diseases and natural disasters that kill millions?

          Until the day Science observes a dog evolving gills to become a new species,dog-fish,

          Cue maniacal laughter.

        • Thebob

          I don’t know, I am not God…I’d say, all things in moderation, cancers and most diseases are caused by our Choice in Life Style…in-fact 90% of all diseases and cancers are attributed to life style choices…eat too much you will get fat and probably get cancer and/or diabetes…Gluttony is a sin…Drink too much Alcohol you will most likely get liver problems among other issues…Drink too much Soda, kidney stones, getting fat obese..etc…etc..

          You attribute these to God with out including the Human Factor, which is free will, free choice to follow God or not…Free to choose to eat yourself to death or not…Free to choose to have sex as much as you want or not. There are Consequences for Actions.

          Maniacal laughter, you think you were once an Ape…LMAO

        • Natureboi

          Why would God create a world that has leukemia, polio, Down syndrome, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornados, volcanos and malaria?

          How are those “lifestyle choices?”

          Even if as you claim that 90% of death, evil and suffering is “our lifestyle choice,” why would an omnipotent creator leave 10% wide open to chaos and mayhem?

          Why do we have the 10% of non-lifestyle choices that kill us in the first place?
          Do you have a logical, rational explanation for why a creator would intentionally create that deadly 10%?

        • Thebob

          Everything happens for a reason; my personal belief…Why does it have to be God, why can’t as it is said in the Bible, that God’s creation was corrupted…It was human’s who did it, the corruption…But you don’t believe in this mumbo jumbo, so I can only say that All things will be revealed one day.
          If God does not exist as you say, then neither does Evil; those things you speak of are then just blind chance…not even luck as luck or unlucky would imply a super natural force, which you don’t believe in either…

        • Natureboi

          Everything happens for a reason

          True.
          Nature allows viruses, cancer, genetic anomalies, severe weather and tectonic plate movement. That’s why we have Ebola, Down syndrome and natural disasters that kill millions.
          However, there is no purpose in those horrible things.

          God’s creation was corrupted…It was human’s who did it, the corruption

          Am I to accept the “explanation” for all the horrors that would already naturally occur in a natural environment is because Adam ate fruit?

          Is this your “explanation for all these horrors?
          Really?
          And God is powerless to correct this so-called “corruption?”
          Really?

          For a creator to create those horrors that kill can mean only one of two things:

          That the “creator” totally screwed up and doesn’t care, or
          There is no creator and we are all subject to the whim of a natural environment devoid of an overseer.

          Only one makes sense.

        • Thebob

          Hey, you actually asked an engaging question…”because Adam ate fruit?” Nope, he didn’t eat a fruit, Eve had sex with Lucifer and Adam, the first three-some…but I also don’t believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, just that Adam was the first created in God’s likeness…Nothing about him being the first human ever…

          If there is a Creator, might not be that he screwed up, that as it says in the bible, Lucifer corrupted man, whom then corrupted the Earth…eventually leading up to the flood, All Life was corrupted….but with that since some life was saved or allowed to exist that corruption was continued which lay the foundation for Jesus and his self sacrifice…

          I get what makes sense is that, if there is no God there is no Evil and if there is no Evil then only humans are to blame; which really is the case either way you look at it…Every Action has a Consequence good or bad…Those things you speak of could just be the consequences we face…

          Scientific Fact, the Earth was once pretty much the same Temp all over the globe even higher than it is today, about 88 degrees F all over the planet…Science says this, not my opinion…With that, Plant life was everywhere, there were no Ice Caps north or south, the Time frame when this happen doesn’t really matter only that it did happen…My opinion, or theory on this is, Post Flood a few thousand years, the Earth is still Healing from that Flood which caused a massive ice age after the flood, cooling the earth and now She is just warming back up to what the earth was intended to be; which is completely out of our control; again Science says the main driving factor of our Weather and Temp is the Sun actually the Entire Solar System is effected by the Sun…When the Earth shows cooling so do Saturn and Jupiter, when the Earth shows warming so does the other planets…NASA data, not mine…

        • And Thebob jumps the shark.

        • Natureboi

          Free to choose to have sex as much as you want or not. There are Consequences for Actions.

          What??
          How did you get to sex????

          CREEPY

        • Thebob

          All things in moderation, food, drinking, and yes even sex, life style choices that lead to disease and cancers…

        • Maniacal laughter–you think you’re not an ape! LMAO

          Someone slept through Biology class.

        • Thebob

          Been down this direction already…That is your claim, not mine. I don’t believe humans evolved from an Ape, yet you do…Hence why human life means nothing to you, except your own pathetic life; yet you are not better than cattle; actually that is exactly what you are a Sheeple; now run along with the rest of your humanimal herd…

        • Been down this direction already…That is your claim, not mine. I don’t believe humans evolved from an Ape, yet you do

          We’re at an impasse, my friend! I think evolution makes sense, and you think it’s crap.

          Dang—if we could just find some way to resolve this dilemma. We’re two laymen who can’t agree . . . isn’t there some authority, maybe a collection of tens of thousands of highly educated people who could speak as experts on this subject?

          Hence why human life means nothing to you, except your own pathetic life

          Wrong again.

          that is exactly what you are a Sheeple

          Ah, so it’s me who’s the sheep! I apparently had it quite backwards.

        • Thebob

          Does what we believe change what is True?

        • How do we discover what is true? Science never proves anything true, but it provides pretty compelling evidence that it does a good job.

        • Thebob

          2+2=4 is pretty true…claiming we evolved from an ape ancestor is a claim with no truth behind it, other than some commonalities…

          Throw a brick up and it will fall down is pretty true also, but that does not prove that a mystical force (gravity) is pulling it back down or that said force exists…I could claim it is a super natural pixie that is the force, both are equally “true” as neither can be proven or unproven…

          Do you believe in object truth? That there are certain objective morals?
          Is murder of an innocent person always wrong at all times?

        • epeeist

          I could claim it is a super natural pixie that is the force, both are equally “true” as neither can be proven or unproven…

          Your difficulty is that your “supernatural pixie” predicts nothing, isn’t testable and definitely isn’t falsifiable. Whereas as Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the bending of light by massive objects, Einstein rings, gravitational lensing and micro-lensing, gravitational waves, time dilation, the change of muon lifetimes…

          All of these predictions have been put to the test and the results agree with the theory.

        • Thebob

          With out Tragedy no one would know what Joy is….Still my magical pixie, could be gravity, I just didn’t get to name it…

          “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Einstein

          “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein

          “The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.” Einstein

          “Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting different results.” Someone said…
          Evolution is that insanity…it’s gotta be there, just keep looking, that missing link, we just gotta keep looking to prove this…just keep digging…and digging and digging…expecting a different result…

        • Thebob

          Please explain how “Free parameters” are used in the Theory of Gravity? These “Free parameters” are values that allow for “tweaking”, which ensures that observations match an initial hypothesis…Hmmm that sure as hell sounds like a predetermined outcome is ensured, no matter what the observation data says…Or JUNK SCIENCE…to fit a JUNK THEORY…

        • epeeist

          Please explain how “Free parameters” are used in the Theory of Gravity?

          Which theory of gravity and what free parameters are you referring to?

        • Where are you going with this? You’re saying we should turn from science to something really reliable, like religion?

        • claiming we evolved from an ape ancestor is a claim with no truth behind it

          And your education in biology is what? I wonder if it backs up your confidence.

          Throw a brick up and it will fall down is pretty true also, but that does not prove that a mystical force (gravity) is pulling it back down or that said force exists…I could claim it is a super natural pixie that is the force, both are equally “true” as neither can be proven or unproven…

          We’re clearly dealing with a formidable intellect here.

          Do you believe in object truth? That there are certain objective morals?

          I see no evidence of objective moral truth (that is, things that are valid and binding whether or not there are people to appreciate them). Convince me that it exists.

          Is murder of an innocent person always wrong at all times?

          I think so, but that’s not objective moral truth.

        • Thebob

          Just following K.I.S.S. principle.

          “I see no evidence of objective moral truth”
          Yet “Is murder of an innocent person always wrong at all times?
          I think so, but that’s not objective moral truth.”

          Murder is objectively a wrong thing to do or it isn’t?

          I will try to KISS this…Murder is wrong for all peoples, cultures, and times or it isn’t?

        • Just following K.I.S.S. principle.

          Here’s a tip: if you need a doctorate to be a practitioner in a field, those of us who don’t have one should be a little humble in our ability to overrule the consensus view. Next time you feel the urge to tell the world that the consensus view in a field that you don’t understand is wrong, better lie down until the feeling goes away.

          Murder is objectively a wrong thing to do or it isn’t?

          As far as I can tell, it’s not. Didn’t I already answer this?

          I will try to KISS this…Murder is wrong for all peoples, cultures, and times or it isn’t?

          Murder is, by definition, wrong. So let’s try to rephrase your question: the killing of an innocent person is wrong for all peoples, cultures, and times or it isn’t?

          And guess what? You get the same answer as before: I think so, but that doesn’t make it an objective truth.

        • Thebob

          If you need a Doctorate to explain and even get a simple grasp of atheism; you’re failing already…

          Just another “nice” way of trying to say religious people or spiritual people are stupid…Very very ignorant of you…also NOT TOLERANT at all..

          “OBJECTIVE TRUTH: To say that a statement is “objectively true” means that it is true for people of all cultures, times, etc., even if they do not know it or recognize it to be true.” Google says you’re wrong…

          Therefore the death of innocents, aborted innocent babies, is murder and their deaths are on your hands…As you either fail to do anything or you just don’t care, either way, inaction, is acceptance of murdering the most innocent we have…You truly are a detestable person then..

        • I’m wrong because why?

          If we disagree on a definition, then tell me the definition you’re using and let’s move on.”Ha! You’re using the wrong definition–what an idiot!” is no argument.

          I’ve already defined objective morality and said that I see no evidence for it. You got any? Go.

        • Thebob

          Google it: actually here I did it for you again “OBJECTIVE TRUTH: To say that a statement is “objectively true” means that it is true for people of all cultures, times, etc., even if they do not know it or recognize it to be true.” Google says you’re wrong…

          To expand on this topic also, 4 of the most recognizable names in Science were all “theists” or theist’s beliefs…
          Einstein, Darwin, Newton, and Curie….

        • I accept that definition (and basically stated it here https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2019/02/contradictions-in-the-bible-no-its-progressive-revelation/#comment-4334406386 ). Where does that make me wrong?

        • Thebob

          That murder is objectively wrong, as you stated…

        • Didn’t state that.

        • Thebob

          “Murder is, by definition, wrong. So let’s try to rephrase your question: the killing of an innocent person is wrong for all peoples, cultures, and times or it isn’t?

          And guess what? You get the same answer as before: I think so, but that doesn’t make it an objective truth.” ~ You

          Everything after but, is just your opinion…which means nothing…So either your statement is or isn’t but really doesn’t matter whether you recognize it or not!!!

          If if’s and but’s were candy and nuts, we would all have a merry Christmas…
          if only we could prove God doesn’t exist, but, science says this, if that is true, but only if that were true…

        • Everything after but, is just your opinion

          Correct! And that’s true for you as well. You have opinions about morality and so do I. Every moral point on which we differ, I think you’re wrong. And—whaddya know?—you think the same thing.

          Doesn’t sound like objective moral truth to me.

          if only we could prove God doesn’t exist

          Not my project. I have, however, provided much evidence at my blog that God doesn’t exist.

          yet you are still for killing unborn humans…the most innocent of us all…rather pathetic view and sick really fucked up and sick…

          Personhood is a spectrum. It’s a person when born, but it’s not a person 9 months prior, and it’s a spectrum in between.

          But why are we onto another topic? Are you throwing in the towel on objective morality?

        • Your name makes me think of the Báb, a prophet in the Bahai religion. No connection?

        • Thebob

          No, just Thebob, not even my name or even close to it…Just an online handle…

        • Greg G.

          But saying murder is wrong is like saying bachelors are not married. It is just by definition.

          What about gray areas of killings? Suppose you were trapped in a submarine at the bottom of the sea. Everyone will die of oxygen deprivation and carbon dioxide poisoning before the rescue sub arrives. Would it be objectively immoral to kill half the crew so the other half survives? The longer you wait to kill, the more oxygen is consumed, so more must be killed.

          Tell us what is objectively moral in this situation and how you determine why it is objectively moral. If give your opinion or base it on your feelings, it is not objective.

        • epeeist

          To expand on this topic also, 4 of the most recognizable names in Science were all “theists” or theist’s beliefs…

          Einstein, Darwin, Newton, and Curie….

          Einstein:

          It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in apersonal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

          and

          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

          Darwin:

          I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.

          and

          In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (&more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind

          Newton I will give you, but he refused to take clerical orders because he did not accept the idea of the trinity. He was in fact a heretic of the Arian persuasion.

          Marie Curie said of her husband, “Pierre belonged to no religion and I did not practice any.”, she was in all probability an agnostic.

          So, 1 out of 4 and even that one wasn’t an orthodox Christian.

          We can play this game all day though, how about Dirac, Feynman, Weinberg, Crick, Higgs, Pauling. All Nobel prize winners, all atheists.

        • Thebob

          I beg to differ…also you didn’t post the whole quotes for Einstein….

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/06/26/did-historys-most-famous-scientists-believe-in-god/#2556077e4f21

        • epeeist

          I beg to differ…also you didn’t post the whole quotes for Einstein….

          And yet you have produced nothing to show I am wrong. As for your Forbes link, he quote mines the second of the quotations I give for Darwin, leaving off the clause about agnosticism being the most correct description of his state of mind.

          He also notes that Marie Curie was an agnostic.

          So once again it seems that you are wrong, what a surprise.

        • Thebob

          No, I only claimed they were NOT ATHEISTS!!!!! Never said anything about being Christian…So, once again it seems YOU ARE IN THE WRONG!!!

        • epeeist

          Ah, an argumentum ad litteras maiusculas, colour me convinced.

          Yours was the claim, that the four you named were theists. It turns out that three out of the four were not and the other was a heretic.

        • Thebob

          Feynman “It is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely.

          That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty… Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth.”

          sorry to burst your bubble but Feynman was not an Atheist…a Christian, he wasn’t either but def. not an atheist…

        • epeeist

          sorry to burst your bubble but Feynman was not an Atheist…a Christian

          Well he wouldn’t have been a Christian given that he was Jewish, but he referred to Judaism as “ancient superstition” in his autobiography.

        • Thebob

          I said, A Christian he wasn’t, so post the full quote or don’t bother quoting me…

        • Greg G.

          He pointed out that Feynman wasn’t Christian but was Jewish by geneaology, perhaps culturally, so he was a Jewish atheist.

        • Thebob

          Yet, all those you mentioned at the end all built off the 4 i mentioned…And again Darwin, continued in his belief till he died, again not a “Christian” but he was NO ATHEIST…

        • epeeist

          And again Darwin, continued in his belief till he died

          You did read the extract from the letter I quoted in which he repudiates any belief in Christianity? You can find it in its entirety in the Darwin Archive.

          Once again you show yourself to be good at hysterical shrieking, but pathetic at producing evidence for your claims.

          he was NO ATHEIST.

          Nice try, but your dishonesty is obvious. Your claim was that these people were theists, something that is obviously false.

        • Thebob

          nor were they atheists…which you failed to prove…

        • epeeist

          nor were they atheists…which you failed to prove…

          And another piece of creationist dishonesty. It was your claim that the people you named were theists. I don’t need to prove that they were atheists, just that your claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, which of course it doesn’t.

        • Thebob

          Which you didn’t do!!! Thanks once again…what is that saying, lack of evidence is evidence where evidence should be…FUCKING DUMBASS

        • epeeist

          Which you didn’t do!!! Thanks once again…what is that saying, lack of
          evidence is evidence where evidence should be…FUCKING DUMBASS

          You mean statements by Einstein, Darwin and Curie themselves don’t show they were not theists?

        • Pofarmer

          Wow. Just Wow.

        • Thebob

          And to quote your Link, “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.” does not say he is an atheist either…Only refutes the bible…

        • Thebob

          When Charles Darwin turned his attention to writing about human descent in 1871 he attempted to narrow the fossil gap between human beings and higher primates by presenting persons with intellectual disabilities — “idiots” in the language of the day — as evidence in support of the theory of evolution. This paper explores the four ways that Darwin used persons with intellectual disabilities in The Descent of Man: 1) as intermediate rung on the evolutionary ladder connecting humans and primates; 2) as exemplars of the inevitable waste and loss produced by natural selection acting upon variability; 3) as the floor of a scale representing the “lowest”, most unfit variety of any species when individuals were rank ordered by intelligence; and 4) as atavistic reversions to extinct forms whose study would reveal the characteristics of earlier stages of human evolution. Darwin’s strategic use of intellectual disability is brought to bear on the controversy regarding the mental state of Darwin’s last child.

          Critics, including, to Darwin’s chagrin, Alfred Wallace, the co-discoverer of the theory of natural selection, believed that evolution could not explain the special case of human development. As early as 1841 they had thrown down the gauntlet by asking evolutionists to produce “a talking race of monkeys, or a mute race of men” (Taylor 1841, 19).

          http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/96/96/

          This further backs my statement from earlier that Evolution supports and further’s racism…The out of Africa theory…

        • No one cares what Darwin said … except modern-day Creationists who think that atheists today are bound by the words of the great man.

        • epeeist

          Much as it is fun poking creationists I have a suspicion that Thebob has just about outstayed his welcome. All he has left is personal insult, not that he had much to start with.

        • Thebob

          Further proof, that Evolutionists are race pushers…”At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian [aborigines] and the gorilla. (Darwin, 1981(1), 201)” BOOM Darwin likening Black’s to being closer related to Gorilla’s…

        • epeeist

          Further proof, that Evolutionists are race pushers…

          Ah, so because Darwin uses racist language all those that accept the theory of evolution must be racists. There is no level of dishonesty that creationists won’t descend to is there.

          https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/150/e5a73d10dbbf668234da460df2d1b2bf.jpg

        • Thebob

          “accept the theory of evolution must be racists. ” that isn’t what I said…but it is used and was used to push race class and other races are superior than others, which is just NOT THE CASE as we are one Race HUMAN…These are you IDOLS not mine…From the likes of Darwin to PP founder Sanger, whom very much used evolution to push her agenda that certain peoples were undesirables which included mentally ill/retarded to blacks and brown people, which this plan was adopted by the Nazi’s in the mid late 30’s whom those same Nazi’s gave Sanger the highest Civilian Award for this…

        • epeeist

          which this plan was adopted by the Nazi’s in the mid late 30’s whom
          those same Nazi’s gave Sanger the highest Civilian Award for this…

          As the saying goes, citation required.

          Given that any books on evolution or “Darwinism” were banned in Nazi Germany I find it unlikely.

          But let’s assume that it is true. Does this mean that the theory of evolution is false?

        • I’d explain the difference between science (evolution) and policy (eugenics), but why bother? You’re determined to misunderstand.

          But get your own house in order first. Yahweh was the one who focused on the Chosen People and who insisted on avoiding mixing races.

        • What is your point? Some scientists were Christian; therefore … what?

        • Thebob

          Marie Curie, again not an atheist!!! and only more agnostic after her mother passed away..

        • Thebob

          Steven Weinberg, admits that God is a logical possibility for the Universe. and a quote “I believe that there is no point in the universe that can be discovered by the methods of science.”

          Einstein said that he didn’t believe in a God who was concerned with human affairs, who intervenes in human life, but a God who was simply an abstract principle of harmony and order.
          Which also explains your hate of natural disasters…

        • Why quote these other scientists? If you have a problem with them, don’t take it up with us.

        • epeeist

          a quote “I believe that there is no point in the universe that can be discovered by the methods of science.”

          Ah, dishonest creationist quote mines an interview, now there is a surprise. You missed out the following sentence:

          I believe that what we have found so far, an impersonal universe in which it is not particularly directed toward human beings is what we are going to continue to find. And that when we find the ultimate laws of nature they will have a chilling, cold impersonal quality about them.

          Einstein said that he didn’t believe in a God who was concerned with human affairs, who intervenes in human life

          Exactly:

          I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

          So, not a theist then.

        • Thebob

          Not all you just “hear” what you want to hear, speaking on Einsteins, he doesn’t believe in a God that intervenes in human affairs like you mentioned about disease and natural disasters…He states faith in a God of Harmony or Natural Law…again NOT AN ATHEIST….

        • Greg G.

          Google it: actually here I did it for you again “OBJECTIVE TRUTH: To say that a statement is “objectively true” means that it is true for people of all cultures, times, etc., even if they do not know it or recognize it to be true.” Google says you’re wrong…

          Now we see who has the wrong definition of “objective morality”. You gave the definition of “objective truth”.

        • Greg G.

          If you need a Doctorate to explain and even get a simple grasp of atheism; you’re failing already…

          Atheism is a position one thing and one thing only. Atheism is the position that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief in god thingies. That is it.There is no need to write a thesis and defend it.

          If you want to disprove atheism, you just have to provide sufficient evidence for god thingies.

          If you hold a belief in god thingies with insufficient evidence of such, then you are gullible.

        • Phil

          “a mystical force (gravity) is pulling it back down” Wow you got something right through ignorance! This force was the best available tried and tested description of gravity by Mr Newton. Then came along Einstein with a better model, also tried and tested and repeatable. Now if you can repeatably test your hypothesis that it is down to super natural pixies or even a god, you get a Nobel prize for physics and a lot of admirers for your insight. Until then it is just pure hogwash.

        • Thebob

          Can’t cause it can’t be proven…That is my point thanks for backing that up…

        • Phil

          What are you saying? Things that can’t be proven can’t be proven? Duh! And you accept what you say is pure hogwash.

        • Phil

          “2+2=4 is pretty true” Yep you got that right through ignorance. It can’t be any different because that is what the number 4 is defined as, ie 2 X 2. As daft as using 1 = 1 as an example. Duh!

        • Thebob

          Oh man you got me!!! OH NO!!! ignorance of factual match….you’re fucking stupid stfu…

        • epeeist

          Thing is, it isn’t true, for example, in modulo 2 arithmetic. However I didn’t bother raising it because the OP is as thick as pig-shit and wouldn’t understand what modulo 2 arithmetic is.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          at least 2+2 = 2*2 = 4 is still correct modulo 2, if you interpret 2 and 4 as usual. what “becomes wrong” are things like 2 != 4, not equations. with the usual interpretation of 2 and 4 (“even numbers”) all you get is 0+0 = 0*0 = 0 (“the sum/product of two even numbers is even”).

        • Sherson?

        • Greg G.

          you are a Sheeple

          Even Jesus uses that term about you.

        • Pofarmer

          Is there an embesheeple?

        • Greg G.

          I stand corrected. That is probably what Jesus said.

        • Thebob

          Dumbass…but no I am the Sheep Dog, whom keeps the wolves from the flock of sheeple like you…

        • Greg G.

          Oh, look. The imsheeple thinks he is a dog. When Jesus referred to people as dogs, he meant it as an insult.

        • You need to work on your metaphor. You can’t have two groups of sheeple. And who are the wolves??

          But your concern, Sheep Dog, isn’t the wolf but reality. I wouldn’t want to have to argue your position.

        • Susan

          I don’t know, I am not God

          That’s all right. No one is. It’s an imaginary, shape-shifting concept. But imaginary.

          cancers and most diseases are caused by our Choice in Life Style

          Cancers and most diseases existed long before anything resembling a human existed.

          Even in the case of humans, most humans in history had limited lifestyle choices. They ate, drank and breathed what was available.

          For many humans who exist today, that is still the case.

          So, no.

        • Pofarmer

          So.

          Much.

          Brainwashed.

          Stupid.

        • Thebob

          Refute THE FACTS all you want, I believe Harvard or some Uni like them did this study…Not my data or information…Even 1000 years ago, the Cause may not have been known, but the Diseases are still the same…Living in filth and excess eating drinking etc..etc..still applies…Now at least in the US, even our poor eat like kings or better…doesn’t change the Facts…Life Style Choices lead to 90% of disease and cancers…

        • Pofarmer

          You can get kidney stones from too much broccoli, fer fucks sake.

          You think historically, the number one killer has been lifestyle choices? Look up primary causes of death before Germ Theory and Penicillin.

          Good Lord.

        • Thebob

          Still life style choices…living in filth is a life style choice…Which is where MOST diseases come from…Living UNCLEAN life style…

        • Thebob

          Number one killer in 20th century was, Atheist Leaders of nation states, that account for well over 100 Million deaths probably well over 200 Million, far exceeding any disease, with exception to the black plague, again caused by life style choices, those choosing to live in filth…

        • Pofarmer

          Let the hate flow through you. Good. Good.

        • Thebob

          what hate?…IDGAF how you live your life…nor do I hate you or anyone like you….Don’t agree with you one bit, but hate, not even close…You live your life, I will live mine, as long as you leave me and mine alone we will leave you alone to wallow in your filth…

        • Pofarmer

          Yeah, I can just feel the Christian love. You can’t even see it.

        • Greg G.

          You live your life, I will live mine, as long as you leave me and mine alone we will leave you alone to wallow in your filth…

          That would be fine if Christians did that but they don’t which is why people need to put up resistance. Nobody asked you to read these blog comments but you. Nobody is keeping you here but you.

          Your right to swing your fist ends at the next person’s nose. Your right to practice religion ends when you try to practice it on someone else.

        • Thebob

          You’re projecting what you do to people like me…I will agree with you on a point. Religion sucks…I actually do not like religion at all…I am a spiritual person who believes in a higher power, God, a creator. Does not make me, in a religion…But I digress as that concept means nothing to you the likes of you..

        • Thebob

          “Your right to swing your fist ends at the next person’s nose. Your right to practice religion ends when you try to practice it on someone else.” LMAO, actually it doesn’t, as you have a free will or right to choose to listen to someone trying to practice it on you or not…

          There is no right to swing a fist, unless it is in self defense…That is you infringing on another’s Right…which is exactly what your ilk do when you don’t get your way, atheists resort to violence, as there are no consequences to stop that action, the end justifies the means and means justify the end…

        • Greg G.

          There is no right to swing a fist, unless it is in self defense…

          You can swing your fist anywhere you want as long as you are not affecting other people. It is not self-defense when you swing at someone who is not attacking you.

        • exactly what your ilk do when you don’t get your way, atheists resort to violence, as there are no consequences to stop that action, the end justifies the means and means justify the end…

          Citation needed.

        • epeeist

          Number one killer in 20th century was, Atheist Leaders of nation states, that account for well over 100 Million deaths

          People like Stalin and Pol Pot were moral monsters, let’s get that out of the way for a start off.

          During the purges Stalin killed about 0.8% of the population of the USSR. However your god killed 99.99996% of the population of the world with about the same proportion of the rest of the biosphere. While some humans may commit genocide only your cunt of a god commits omnicide.

        • epeeist

          Number one killer in 20th century was, Atheist Leaders of nation states

          This is, of course, a lie:

          https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/20th-century-death/

          EDIT: missing context

        • Pofarmer

          You think “Thebob” cares about something as namby pamby as the truth?

        • epeeist

          Of course not, he is a creationist.

        • Fascinating!

        • Greg G.
        • Thebob

          “Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs That Drove the Third Reich, historian Richard Weikart convincingly argues that Hitler was neither, and that as an adroit politician he often made mutually exclusive statements to appeal to various sectors of German society.”

          Stalin: Wikipedia disagrees with you..
          “As he grew older, Stalin lost interest in his studies; his grades dropped,[38] and he was repeatedly confined to a cell for his rebellious behaviour.[39] Teachers complained that he declared himself an atheist, chatted in class and refused to doff his hat to monks.”

          “Stalin called for an “atheist five year plan” from 1932–1937, led by the LMG, in order to completely eliminate all religious expression in the USSR. It was declared that the concept of God would disappear from the Soviet Union.” Again wikipedia…

          But then you may ask, why didn’t God stop all of this or why doesn’t God stop all tragedy, Free Will…free will of humans to decide for oneself. With out it, God wouldn’t be God, just a slave master with a horde of mindless zombies who cannot think or act on their own…And the promise of eternal life for our souls…Our Physical life is temporary filled with temporary things that ultimately mean nothing; as we will have no use for them once the physical life is no more…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Free Will”

          Your ‘god’ supposedly told men to cut off part of their penises, and not eat shellfish, nor get tattoos or cut hair or beards, but is an advocate of ‘free will’?

          Pull the other one..it has bells on.

        • Thebob

          Find an unbiased source…that doesn’t include your bigotry…

        • Greg G.

          Only an actual bigot would describe a refutation of bigotry as bigotry.

        • Show me one person who was killed in the name of atheism.

          I respond to this flabby claim here:
          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/04/stalin-was-a-mass-murderer-and-im-not-too-sure-about-myself-genocide/

        • Thebob

          And the Lord is Good…and since you don’t believe, you really should stop using Western Christian terms, like Good Lord, and OMG and Dear God and any of the other words you have misappropriated…

        • Pofarmer

          Are you this big of an idiot in person?

        • Thebob

          You can have your opinion, does that make you an idiot? As I can have my opinion as well…But really if God does not exist, why use the Language? Might be cause Western Culture is directly tied to Christian morals and values? If not then don’t adopt that language into your None Christian Culture; which lacks moral code…

        • Pofarmer

          So, add moral philosophy to the list of things you know shit about.

        • Greg G.

          We all have a right to an opinion but we should take the responsibility to base the opinion on reality. If we do not take responsibility for our rights, they are worthless.

        • Thebob

          What rights? You have none unless your “God” the State gives them to you..

          My rights, are granted by God and no man can take them from me, nor will I give them up freely like you do..

        • Greg G.

          If you have to imagine things to base your rights on, you do not have rights.

        • Do you live in the US? If so, the US Constitution gives you your rights. You can imagine other rights from God and do whatever you think those rights allow you to do (stone atheists, for example), but the state will punish you.

        • epeeist

          If not then don’t adopt that language into your None Christian Culture; which lacks moral code…

          You do realise that the “moral code” of Christianity was so shitty that they had to steal ethical systems from the Greeks, not once but twice, firstly from Plato and the neo-Platonists and then from Aristotle. Neither Plato or Aristotle were Christians…

        • Thebob

          If that is what you believe….your ethics your morals come from nothing and therefore are nothing and ultimately mean nothing…

        • epeeist

          If that is what you believe….

          What has belief got to do with it?

          Just look up the biographies of people like St. Clement, Origen, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, all of them were Platonists. Then look up details of the Scholastics, all were followers of the ethics of Aristotle.

          Where do you think the “Christian virtues” come from? There’s nothing in the bible about them, that’s because they derive from the virtue ethics of Ancient Greece.

        • Thebob

          that is what you believe…as you were told to believe that..

        • epeeist

          as you were told to believe that..

          Ah, so once again you have no answer when someone produces some actual facts. Your knowledge of ethics seems to be as extensive as your knowledge of science.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “that is what you believe…as you were told to believe that..”

          Pathetic deflection.

          Facts are stubborn things, and your disbelief doesn’t dissolve them.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “your ethics your morals come from nothing and therefore are nothing and ultimately mean nothing…”

          Nope. That’s YOUR KIND’s, and it’s even worse than that for YOUR KIND, because your basis isn’t even nothing, it’s mythical.

          Our ethics are based on *well-being*, leaving out any need for superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Poppycock.

          Otherwise you’d be off Inquisitioning rather than impotently trolling here.

        • Thebob

          BTW, you can die from drinking too much water…

        • Phil

          So what choice do babies that die in tsunamis have? Or those that die horribly and painfully from disease? They must have been really wicked.

        • epeeist

          Cue maniacal laughter.

          Yeah, like all creotards he runs away when challenged on his ridiculous straw theory of evolution.

        • Phil

          Trouble is ‘science’ sees evidence of evolution every day. The mutation of the flu virus. Mutation of bacteria producing antibiotic defeating strains that then become the predominant version with the original antibiotic strain dying out. You conveniently forget about the time it takes for multi-cellular organisms to evolve and stupidly demand complex evolution in the space of a lifetime. Ignorance must be bliss.

        • Thebob

          LMAO, that isn’t my claim that is YOUR Evolutions claim…We have had this “idea” for many life times…still waiting for proof…

        • Phil

          You really have no idea what evolution is. Ignorance must be bliss.

        • Hilarious! You think that proof is what scientists deliver.

          Moron.

        • Thebob

          NO that is what you claim and what science claims MORON!!!

        • epeeist

          NO that is what you claim and what science claims MORON!!!

          No, you stupid cunt that is not what science claims. We have been through this at least twice before but you are apparently too stupid to understand what you are being told.

        • Thebob

          And you’re faith is in science to be correct, which they are not remotely…All guess work…

        • epeeist

          All guess work…

          You came here claiming to have knowledge of a whole variety of topics including biology, anatomy and radiation physics. Under probing you have demonstrated that this is untrue. To put it charitably your knowledge and understanding of biology, physics, science more generally, its methodology and philosophy is almost non-existent. The same is true for other subjects such as logic and mathematics.

          So why should we pay any attention to your opinion, uninformed as it is?

          We don’t talk about sin too much on the site, but you commit a serious one, that of deliberate and unapologetic ignorance. Despite the wealth of information in places like museums and libraries, in bookshops and on the web sites of major universities you simply avoid learning anything.

          At the beginning of his Metaphysics Aristotle writes:

          All men by nature desire to know.

          It may have been true in Ancient Greece but it certainly doesn’t apply to you.

        • Thebob

          All I heard was blah blah blah, I am a stupid cunt…blah blah blah, I am an intolerant cunt, blah blah blah, I am smarter than you and still a dumb cunt, blah blah blah…I came here to engage in some intellectual debate, but you refuse to actually debate anything, refuse to answer questions…blah blah blah, I don’t care about murdering unborn humans, blah blah blah I am a dumb baby killing cunt, but not actual babies, just growing babies…blah blah blah, but that still makes me smarter than everyone else and if you don’t believe what I believe you’re just too stupid…..blah blah blah, you are a stupid fucking cunt…Might be educated, but you don’t live in reality, you live in your own little progressive bubble and anyone I mean ANYONE who doesn’t adhere to that little bubble is just too stupid and doesn’t deserve to live…

        • Thebob

          Oh and blah blah blah, I believe my great great great great great grandpa was an Ape, whose great great great great grandpa was a puddle of goo, whose grandpa was a rock…Actually that makes sense why you’re a dumb cunt, your brain is full of rocks…

        • Thebob

          FYI you dumb cunt, YOU are the only one claiming to be an expert, I ONLY stated I have studied, biology, physiology, human anatomy and radiation physics, which means I have an understanding of how aspects of those work, unlike you whom claims to be THE DEFACTO EXPERT on ALL these subjects…simply put you’re projecting your failings on myself, you dumb cunt!!!

        • Wrong again.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “If everyone was happy all the time, we would not know what Joy or Happiness are at all.”

          And this would be bad *why*? Does not being able to see ultraviolet light depress you?

          “And Free Will, the Will of Humans to choose their fate”

          Lucifer / Satan supposedly ‘knows’ your ‘god’ exists, and still rebelled, so knowledge doesn’t affect choice

          “If a God or Super Natural Thingy, didn’t allow that, then once again life would be pointless and meaningless…..”

          So much for YOUR KIND’s ‘afterlife’ in ‘heaven’. YOU have just demonstrated that it’s worthless.

          “lack of evidence where evidence of species evolving into another species should exist”

          Both unrealistic and willfully ignorant. Speciation takes place when different population descendants of interfertile populations no longer can successfully breed due to genetic drift, which is the REAL meaning of evolution: The change in genes over time.

        • Thebob

          And you have not refuted my counter arguments, except with your opinion, which doesn’t count in a debate of facts…Fact is the claim we share 98% of DNA with a Chimp is bogus, go read my argument and refute that factual claim on how researchers came to that magic 98% number…Prove me wrong they didn’t toss out 1.4 billion lines of DNA code and only compared the 2.4 billion lines that had similarities…while leaving off 18% of Chimp DNA and 25% of human DNA…Again, this is FACT a hard Truth of how the 98% number was created, much like our Unemployment numbers only count people who are searching for a job, does not include homeless or even people who just stopped looking….to create a magic number, it is partly true and partly based on factual data, yet leaving out or omission of the full facts; might as well just lie about it…But it makes yuppies like you feel good to know or think; really be told what to think that you were once a chimp and that you are no better than a chimp today…And you claim or those claim we evolved from a Rock all life evolved from an inanimate object…Refute that claim of evolution? prove me wrong evolution does not say you, we, and all life did not evolve from a Rock…

          yet a man like Alvin, you mentioned, a Philosopher, a person whom thinks about Generalizations and Abstracts
          Philosophy is a way of thinking about the world, the universe, and society. It works by asking very BASIC questions about the nature of human thought, the nature of the universe, and the connections between them. The ideas in philosophy are often general and abstract.
          Basically thinking on emotions and using generalizations to describe thingy’s…

          Evolution is like gravity, is like Relativity, is like Time Travel, all theoretically possible if you believe that anything is possible; but your ilk, do not think that way and things are possible if proven yet nothing you present is yet proven, which once again I state is a close minded, in the box way of thinking…

        • Greg G.

          Ho hum. You didn’t address the argument. At best you did some sort of an ad hominem at Plantinga. If you want to debate creationism, go to talkorigins or Why Evolution is True. I have no interest in your Gish Gallups.

        • Thebob

          Someone doesn’t like the same false logic argument applied to them…double standards suck I know…Challenge, if you’re willing to accept it?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Also note to mention 98% of DNA is junk, only 2% really does any switching with genes…”

          Which argues for either NO ‘designer’ of life, or a fucking hateful incompetent ‘designer’.

          Neither looks good for your assertion.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Yet, there is no verifiable evidence that we evolved from Ape’s yet you don’t refute that claim”

          Non sequitur, attempted derail, and false.

          Look at the genome of our nearest animal cousin, they have 33 chromosomes. We have 32. The evidence is that two chromosomes fused in humans, and the chemistry bears that out.

        • Thebob

          Actually Exodus 21:20-21 says, “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”
          Could be beaten/punished, but if they die as a direct result they should be punished for doing so…Exactly the opposite of what you just stated..

        • Greg G.

          Actually Exodus 21:20-21 says, “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”
          Could be beaten/punished, but if they die as a direct result they should be punished for doing so…Exactly the opposite of what you just stated..

          That is the NIV for you. Some Christians call it the “Not Inspired Version”. It is a good study bible with the footnotes and cross references but it too often bends over backwards to soften what the Bible actually says. The following links give several translations for each of those verses.

          Ex 21:20 https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-20.htm
          Ex 21:21 https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-21.htm

          Most of the verse 20 translations say that the slave “dies under the hand”. Verse 21 says “if the slave survives a day or two” not “recovers”. The last part about the slave being property makes no sense if the slave recovers, it only makes sense if the slave owner loses the slave. It is quite obvious that the NIV translation is wrong.

          So verse 20 appears to mean that the owner should be punished if the slave dies while being beaten, though it doesn’t specify a punishment. Verse 21 says that if the slave lives for a day or two, then dies, the punishment is just the loss of the slave. But the Hebrew day began as sunset so even that might only be a few minutes, if the beating ended just before sunset.

        • Thebob

          I don’t discount NIV, I don’t like it and NIV blatantly left our verses also and even added verses that were never even there….
          KJV says just about the same thing.

          20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
          21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

          I prefer the Strongs version.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          The fact is the story in the Bible and Torah say that the commandments were handed down by god. But with no supporting evidence for this god ( and no historical evidence for the Exodus), it can be classed as another book of myths on par with the myths of Greek, Roman, Norse, etc gods.

        • Thebob

          Some skeptics say Jesus did not exist, but by any historic standard, the man known as Jesus of Nazareth existed. If he did not exist, then neither did the Greek philosopher Socrates. We have no writings from Socrates himself. We only know of his existence through the writings of other people. But no one would doubt Socrates existed. We actually have more eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ existence than of Socrates’. Some, however, argue that because Jesus made claims of divinity, there must be extraordinary evidence — perhaps as to his divinity, but not for his historical existence. We have to wipe a lot of people out of history to wipe Jesus out of history.

        • Lex Lata
        • Thebob

          That isn’t where I got it from, nor did I claim they were my words…and this isn’t a college term paper…but you know semantics….Does not change the truth of those words…

        • Greg G.

          Did your source plagiarize it from The Clarion Ledger, did the Clarion Ledger plagiarize it from your source, or did both plagiarize if from some other place?

          Plagiarism is plagiarism. If you copy&paste, just copy&paste the URL, too. It is common courtesy.

        • Thebob

          I got that from an article, from who wrote it…Erik Ericson…I forgot to post the source like I usually do, but eh, you are attacking the copy paste not the actual information which is factually true…but if you want the actual article here you go: https://www.dailywire.com/news/39621/erickson-evidence-based-faith-erick-erickson

          Again, you’re only attacking me on the copy paste, which is rather typical of a leftist libturd like yourself, instead attacking or debating the information…
          Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “stealing and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions” and the representation of them as one’s own original work. Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics.

          This isn’t an Article this isn’t a Published forum nor is this a Term paper or Doctorate Study…this is posting online and the thing you are crying the most about; means the least…Rather pathetic dude…

        • Greg G.

          You are a troll. You don’t give a shit what the topic is.

        • Thebob

          And you’re just a POS ignorant FUCK who resorted to ad hominem attacks once your status quo was challenged, typical of leftist scum and I guess one in the same atheist scum as well…

        • C_Alan_Nault

          I’m willing to accept that a guy named Jesus existed. Did he perform any miracles? no evidence for those claims. Was he resurrected after his death? No evidence for those claims.

          To compare claims that a divine Jesus who was the son of a god & performed miracles existed is the same as saying a philosopher named Socrates existed is ludicrous. There are accounts of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan being divine. No one doubts that these men existed, and no one believes the claims of their divinity.

          “We actually have more eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ existence than of Socrates’.”

          Really? List them.

        • no one would doubt Socrates existed.

          I thought that his existence was an ongoing debate among historians. No?

        • Thebob

          I don’t study Socrates or his origin or myth…Not a history expert in Greek histories or where ever the fuck he was supposedly from…Hell history can’t even prove that William Shakespeare was a real person, there is doubt and evidence suggests he wasn’t and the real writer was a women…Really, this is semantics…

        • I haven’t read much of Jesus mythicism. I’m curious to know why anti-mythicists are so confident. Is it just bravado, or are there good reasons to think that Christianity must’ve been jump-started by an actual person?

        • I don’t much care of a real man named Jesus jump-started Christianity or not, but I am curious what the anti-mythicists point to as evidence for the historical Jesus. Can you summarize this evidence?

        • Thebob

          Prove to me that Socrates was real and we can further this discussion…Same requirements you are imposing apply to Socrates…..

        • Show me that historians are now certain that Socrates was fiction, and I won’t care. My life isn’t built on that.

          (Curiously, that’s the same thing with Jesus for me. Whether a real man named Jesus started Judaism 2.0 or a legend started Judaism 2.0, I don’t care.)

        • Thebob

          Yet, if proven factual, which it is, that Jesus was a real man, then his teachings were real and then the only argument there is; is whether or not his claims are real; his feats were real and actually happened…You’re life isn’t built on anything; except unproven theories in science…

        • Yet, if proven factual, which it is, that Jesus was a real man

          So following the evidence isn’t how you do things—you just want to assume you’re right. Well, I suppose that’s a lot easier.

          whether or not his claims are real; his feats were real and actually happened

          I’ve seen no good evidence for Christianity’s claims. Do you want to share your most compelling?

          You’re life isn’t built on anything; except unproven theories in science…

          You’re right that science’s conclusions are always provisional, but it sounds like you have something better. So show us: what is better than science for teaching us about reality? Science makes claims, and it backs them up with evidence. Religion makes claims . . . and that’s about it.

          I think I’ll stick with the one with the track record.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “but by any historic standard, the man known as Jesus of Nazareth existed.”

          Then show us the evidence.

          I DON’T BELIEVE YOU.

        • Thebob

          BTW all Myths have some semblance of Truth behind them…

        • Greg G.

          Some myths, maybe, but not when they are based on imaginary prophecy.

        • Thebob

          Your bias and really bigotry coming into play, again your close minded inbox way of thinking…

        • Greg G.

          My “close minded inbox way of thinking” recognizes English words in your post but the grammar must be some other language.

        • Thebob

          concession by failing to stay on debate and provide straw man attacks…Typical libtard loser…

        • Greg G.

          You started it, troll.

        • Thebob

          I know you are but what am I?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Projection.

        • Thebob

          Typical Atheist putting down someone else, cause you’re just so much smarter and have the Intellectual high ground…FUCK OFF Coward…

        • Greg G.

          You aren’t having conversations. You are trolling then changing the subject and bringing up stupid stuff that even you know is stupid.

        • Thebob

          No, that is your opinion of what is going on….You said things that then posed other questions in my head, not changing the subject as a whole, maybe apart from the initial article, but when I posed a legit refute to your bogus claims and even applied the same logic you are using your brain just couldn’t compute to actual logical argument…Cause you like most good libturds do as you’re told and say what you’re told to say and when confronted with someone who has actually studied your claims and knows a bit about the topics at hand you just crumble as do most of the rest…I am only aiming for good conversations, but when attacked, I do not turn the other cheek nor run from a fight especially from a sissy boi…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “No, that is your opinion of what is going on”

          I’ll bet you your financial worth that a hypothetical hindu person who read this thread would see it as Greg G. does, rather than you claim (falsely, NObody is THAT stupid) to see it.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Evidence is the opener of this mind.

          Bring it or don’t complain when you’re denied the content of my thoughts.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          That’s a cute thing to say but it doesn’t hold up when examined.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ^^^^Deepity Alert!!!!!

        • Thebob

          Fact is, no Scientific Theory has yet to be proven 100% Truth…Still waiting on this thing called Gravity to be proven…Fact is Mathematics follows no Physical laws or has any physical form, yet math seems to follow right along with the notorious Law’s of Nature that you all claim do not exist…Just about everything we know about Space is also yet to be proven Fact…Black holes are just a Theory…Yet, the Mesopotamian’s knew we had the number of planets that we have LONG before the European’s western science discovered them…And the Meso’s also suggested we have another “rouge” planet that Science has concluded is a possibility that it is out there again LONG before “modern” science said this was possible….So either they knew things they should not have known or we are missing a serious chunk of human history wiped out by some event…

        • Greg G.

          Still waiting on this thing called Gravity to be proven

          Right, you step off the top ledge of a tall building and nothing happens. The ground is proven when you suddenly stop though.

        • Thebob

          That only proves I have more Mass than the air around me, does not prove an Invisible Force is pulling me to the ground or that same force is keeping our planet from spinning away like a Top…

          We can only see the effects of gravity. But we don’t know why a “body” has gravitational force. We know the simple equation to calculate gravitational acceleration is g=Gm/r^2

          g is the gravitational acceleration

          G is the gravitational constant 6.673×10^-11 [Nm^2kg^2]

          r is the distance from the center of mass

          The equation above describes the force or effect of gravity. The variables we know like m and r are easy to measure. Luckily, the constant G is a linear correction factor applied to the proportional relationships between m and r to give us the correct g value. G has been obtained through experiments and measurements. But we can’t calculate G based on an understanding of how gravity works. It’s still a mystery wrapped in theories. We won’t know until one of the theories gets proven.

          https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question232.htm

        • Greg G.

          The reason you fall is gravity. What you are describing is the Theory of Gravity. They are not the same thing. The Theory of Gravity is a description of an observed phenomenon. See the difference?

        • Thebob

          Yeah throw a rock up in the Air and it falls down…WOW…there must be some magical force pulling back down…Yet, that does not explain a Ballon with helium; but I already know that answer, DUH! the balloon is lighter than air…But wait I thought gravity effects all things, just not a physical balloon filled with helium, is that right?

        • Greg G.

          I call troll. Nobody can be that stupid.

        • Thebob

          I understand the theory, just cause I am offering a opposing argument your brain just goes, does not compute error error error, I can’t think outside of the box, code broken…error error…error BSOD…

        • Greg G.

          If you understand the theory, the conversation has no purpose. You are simply being a troll.

        • Thebob

          Also please explain the lack of effects of gravity on a balloon then? Please…also how is that if gravity pulls everything to its center how is we have not been pulled into the sun yet? Just a reminder, I know more about this subject than you may think…

        • Greg G.

          Then there is no reason to have this conversation from a stupidity perspective.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Easy.

          The effect of gravity is weaker than the buoyant force of the air, which is a higher density than the helium in the balloon.

          The balloon would drop like a rock in an airless environment, if it didn’t pop first.

          And gravity *still* slows the balloon’s ascent, by a predictable amount.

        • Susan

          I call troll.

          Yep.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          “Still waiting on this thing called Gravity to be proven”

          Ask me to prove gravity exists when we are both standing near the edge of a high cliff. Gravity can easily be demonstrated to exist.

          What such demonstration can you present for the existence of a god?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Fact is, no Scientific Theory has yet to be proven 100% Truth”

          Science doesn’t ‘prove’.

          MATH *proves*.

          Science is the home of methodological naturalism…also known as “It WORKS….bitches!”

          Unlike religion.

        • Thebob

          “The skeptics’ claim that King David never existed is now hard to defend. Last year the French scholar Andre Lemaire reported a related “House of David” discovery in Biblical Archaeology Review. His subject was the Mesha Stele (also known as the Moabite Stone), the most extensive inscription ever recovered from ancient Palestine. Found in 1868 at the ruins of biblical Dibon and later fractured, the basalt stone wound up in the Louvre, where Lemaire spent seven years studying it. His conclusion: the phrase “House of David” appears there as well. As with the Tel Dan fragment, this inscription comes from an enemy of Israel boasting of a victory–King Mesha of Moab, who figured in the Bible. Lemaire had to reconstruct a missing letter to decode the wording, but if he’s right, there are now two 9th century references to David’s dynasty.”

          – TIME Magazine
          December 18, 1995 Volume 146, No. 25

        • C_Alan_Nault

          I am still waiting for anyone to present any evidence for any of the miracles described in the Bible.

          I am willing to grant that a guy named Jesus Christ existed at the time & in the place the Bible says he was. He may even have said some of the things the Bible claims he said. He may even have been crucified.

          But no one has presented any evidence for any of the miracles attributed to Jesus, or evidence for the resurrection.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Easy.

          Judaism, whose books they are, *mostly* see the ‘talmud’ as a bunch of stories and metaphors…except for the fundy jewish people, your fellows in lunacy.

    • Kuno

      Thou shalt not seeth a kid in his mother’s milk.

      One really has to wonder what culinary experiments those ancient Hebrews were up to. Cooking baby goats in goat’s milk? How is that a thing?

      • Greg G.

        It means “Thou shalt not eat cheeseburgers”.

        • I was reading up on kosher laws, and I was amazed that this one sentence about goat’s milk (repeated twice more) is the core of the “don’t mix meat and dairy” kosher rule. I was sure that there would be more but nope, this is it. It’s just one dish. It’s like God saying, “And don’t order the spicy broccoli and beef stirfry” and then concluding from that that you shouldn’t mix any combination of spicy, meat, and vegetables.

          Then it really gets strange when rabbis argue about whether “mixing” includes mixing meat + dairy in your stomach, how big a morsel of the other one counts as a violation, whether cooking pots can cook meat after being cleaned after cooking dairy, etc., etc.

          I should write a post.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          ” was amazed that this one sentence about goat’s milk (repeated twice more) is the core of the “don’t mix meat and dairy” kosher rule.”

          But it doesn’t say don’t mix meat and milk. It says don’t mix baby goat meat with milk from it’s own mother. Baby goat cooked in milk from a different goat is just fine.

        • Nica

          Or cheesesteaks. How sad!

        • Greg G.

          Never join a religion where you can’t eat bacon cheeseburgers.

        • Phil

          Didn’t Jesus say “Blessed are the Cheesemakers”?

      • C_Alan_Nault

        I really wonder what difference it makes ( to the baby goat or to anyone else) whether the baby goat is cooked in it’s own mother’s milk or in the milk from a goat that was not it’s mother.

        • There is a cruel sense to it when the boiling milk used to cook the baby comes from its mother, but it’s not like the Israelites were vegetarians. But to go from this rule to “meat and dairy should never be mixed” is ridiculous.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Contradictions in the Bible? No, It’s Progressive Revelation!”

    What about these passages? Where is the progressive revelation?

    Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

    … one sentence later….. :

    Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Contradictions in the Bible? No, It’s Progressive Revelation!””

    Never mind the contradictions, what about the laws in the bible that are still ( according to Jesus) in effect?

    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. Leviticus 25:44-45

    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

    .. those are old testament & no longer apply? As John Pinette would say “Nay nay”.

    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5

    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. 1 Timothy 6:1-2

    …as an aside, if someone tries to use the argument that something is old testament & thus no longer applies, tell them they just declared the old testament null and void.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/null%20and%20void

    Definition of null and void
    : having no force, binding power, or validity

    • Thebob

      For not having the belief( a state of mind) in God, you sure sound like you care a whole lot about it…Which since you believe God does not exist, then all of this is a moot point, pointless interactions of Chance, totally meaningless in a totally meaning less life you live..

      • C_Alan_Nault

        I don’t care that other people believe a god exists.

        I DO care when those people:

        – try to have their religious beliefs taught in science classes ( intelligent design/creationism)

        – try to have their religious beliefs used as the basis for laws and legislation ( making homosexuality illegal, making same-sex marriage illegal, making abortion illegal)

        – try to to proselytize

        – have a business ( the religion) but because the business is based on religion, the business gets tax breaks and concessions that non-religious businesses are required to pay

        “totally meaningless in a totally meaning less life you live..”

        I can’t speak for your life, but I don’t find my life meaningless. Going by their beliefs it would appear that the religious people are the ones who view this life as meaningless & as just a short stage they must pass through before they can experience an eternal afterlife they believe is waiting for thm.

        • Thebob

          who is doing this: making homosexuality illegal, making same-sex marriage illegal, making abortion illegal and when was it ever illegal to take it up the butt? Accepted socially, different story…
          Your lack of belief or none belief or believe in nothing, is you are here by chance, you are nothing but a walking evolved pile of gelatinous goo, actually you’re evolved from a Rock…that is what evolution states…And with that, all your studies all this conversation is noting but chance; and science even claims they can find this algorithm or figure the key to life out and plug it into a computer and predict what you as a human will do next, meaning you are an insignificant walking meat bag all by chance, not even Luck as that would imply some form of super natural….Therefore you and everyone else’s life is meaningless…Law’s meaningless, Morals MEAN NOTHING, as evolved human behavior would take precedence…there fore Psychopaths should be allowed to do what they do, rapist, murderers, pedophiles…Who are you to then dictate to anyone what they can and can’t do…

          And you are also generalizing big time; which allows your Bias and Bigotry to creep in…Unlike you and your ilk, most Christians want to be left alone and will leave you alone, and this flows both ways, you stay the fuck out of our lives and our Rights, we will leave you to your own devices and way of life….yet you and yours want to use the power of gov’t backed by violence to force others to fall in line with your agenda and ideology…This isn’t the rule and there are exceptions; extreme ones, but that also goes both ways…

          I will say this, Atheism or Atheist Gov’ts account for FAR more loss of human life than Crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, etc..etc..Combined, by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Kim, Pole Pot…

          It was Christians in the Mid 1800’s who pushed to end slavery, not atheists…It was Christians who pushed and helped fight for equal rights for all Americans, not atheists…Actually in fact I do not think there has ever been a single Renowned Atheist to do anything significant for humanity, on par with MLK Jr. or Gandhi etc…etc….Wait I do know of one, his name was Hitler and he helped slaughter 3 million people because they were different…

        • C_Alan_Nault

          “Your lack of belief or none belief or believe in nothing”

          I believe a lot of things.

          ” is you are here by chance, you are nothing but a walking evolved pile of gelatinous goo, actually you’re evolved from a Rock…that is what evolution states…”

          Either you are woefully ignorant of what the theory of evolution actually says, or you are being intentionally dishonest.

          And if you believe the Bible, you believe humans evolved from dust.

          In your long boring ignorance-filled diatribe you forgot to include any evidence for the existence of a god.

        • Thebob

          And anyone who thinks murdering of unborn is moral is seriously lacking and in fact I would say is a Fucking Coward…But hey, if a baby isn’t a life, then I guess 3 Million Jews don’t count to someone like you either…

        • Greg G.

          Looks like another concession by changing the topic.

          If you are going to troll, you have to randomly capitalize entire words, not just the first letter.

        • Thebob

          Can’t refute it though can you…Not sure if I said this on this thread or not, but anyone who supports the killing of unborn is a Fucking Coward plain an simple not matter how you justify in your pea sized brain you’re nothing but a COWARD!!! This is a fact, cause there is lack of all evidence, you and yours are anything but, where there should be evidence.

        • Greg G.

          You brought up a PRATT. Your argument ignores consent and equivocates biological life with conscious life.

        • Thebob

          OH there is a difference in types of life now…yet you’re all for No Kill pet shelter’s would be my guess, yet Baby Murder factories that harvest parts for profit, is perfectly okay in your pathetic mind…How about post birth abortions now? You agree with the 9 States that allow that also? Which normal people call INFANTICIDE…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re ignoring both *viability* (shelter animals have it) and *consent* (women have it whether YOUR KIND like it or not)

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That’s it…go for it!

          Keep stressing yourself until you stroke out and improve the species by depriving us of your pathetic existence, and maybe provide some organs for GOOD people on your way out.

          I wouldn’t do anything TO you, but I’ll cheer on you doing to yourself.

        • Natureboi

          Should rape and incest victims be forced to bring to full term thier rape-babies?

        • Thebob

          This one is really hard to answer, as my belief is all LIFE deserves a chance, regardless of the circumstances of the creation of that life…but, I can also see the other side of this argument….With that, these types are VERY VERY minor in the grand total of abortions, most are Cosmetic, like a boob job, wanted not medically necessary…Again, that is really hard and with in the first trimester I would concede that would be up to the women…but still really hard; as that “pulls the heart strings” for both directions….

        • Natureboi

          Are you saying that the childhood of a young girl must be sacrificed for parenthood thusly detracting a major portion of her life?
          Or are you saying abortion is okay in those instances.

        • Thebob

          Adoption…there are plenty of decent people out there willing to adopt who can’t have kids or are choosing not to have their own…

          Let me ask you this, are Human lives any different than a dog’s life?

        • Natureboi

          Adoption.

          So if a 14 year old girl gets raped, she must be forced to give birth?

          Human lives any different than a dog’s life?

          Legally, dogs are considered property. So in the eyes of the law, yes.
          As far as I am concerned, I would save my dog from drowning before saving someone like Tony Perkins.
          So, not necessarily so to me.

          But you first need to define life and establish when life actually begins.

        • Thebob

          Well, cells are alive are they not? What you mean, I think is Conscious life?

        • Natureboi

          Well, cells are alive are they not?

          So are cancer cells.

          , I think is Conscious life?

          Yes.
          Also, sentience, awareness, a fully developed cerebral cortex and viability outside the womb.

        • Thebob

          So then you’re for infanticide? Cause a baby still isn’t fully developed nor self aware even after birth..So how much longer after birth are you for abortion? Or really lets use the right term here Infanticide?

        • Natureboi

          So then you’re for infanticide?

          No.
          Viability outside the womb is a parameter.

        • Thebob

          And with that, when is it okay to start aborting Alzheimer’s patients? They are not fully aware, and most cannot care for themselves, nor sentience even at some stages?

        • Natureboi

          Idiotic analogy.

        • Thebob

          No it’s not, this is the progression of this type of things.

        • Natureboi

          this is the progression of this type of things.

          There is a difference between terminating an unwanted pregnancy in its early stages as opposed to killing a fully grown adult.

          Like I said…Absurd analogy.

        • Thebob

          And you just skip over the other one I posted also…And it isn’t absurd…If left to Gov’t healthcare officials, there won’t be enough resources to go around to care for people like that…So then death panels, will be created and certain people whom are past any possible way of giving back will just then be a burden and care will be denied effectively killing them…You can keep living with blinders on or not and learn the reality of the world we live in..These types of things already happen, mostly in your precious Socialist State Run Healthcare systems, like UK Canada etc..etc..100’s and 1000’s of cases of Canadians coming here for treatment; cause if they waited for Canadian system they would have died long before even a diagnosis…Look it up…

        • Natureboi

          like UK Canada etc..etc..100’s and 1000’s of cases of Canadians coming here for treatment;

          Canada has universal health care.

        • al kimeea

          those that can afford it, do travel to the US for healthcare and mediwoo

          our system has suffered under 30+ years of voodoo economic austerity

          it could be better than it already is

        • epeeist

          cause if they waited for Canadian system they would have died long before even a diagnosis…Look it up…

          Look it up?

          How about infant mortality rates; US, 5.8; Canada, 4.5; UK, 4.3 per 1000 live births. The US has the same rate as Serbia and does worse than Bosnia and Herzegovina.

          How about maternal mortality rates; US, 14; Canada, 7; UK, 9 per 100,000 live births. The US has the same rate as Puerto Rico and does worse than Qatar.

          How about life expectancy at birth; US, 80; Canada, 81.9; UK, 80.8.

          I could go on, for example the chance of you dying before you are 60 is 12.8% in the US, while it is 9.5% in Canada and 9.9% in the UK. Sufficient to say that the US spends 17.1% of its GDP on health while Canada spends 10.4% and the UK 9.1%, both of them have better health outcomes than the US at lower cost.

        • Pofarmer

          Look at Maternal Mortality rates for very conservative states like Texas. I think it’s 25.4 or something. About equal to the worst Eastern European countries. It’s nuts.

        • epeeist

          It is 34.2 according to this page.

          Countries with around about the same rate include Georgia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Tajikistan and Romania.

        • Pofarmer

          Winning.

        • Thebob

          “How about infant mortality rates;” STFU you have no room to talk about this stat you baby murdering scumbag…

        • Thebob

          Regardless the US is a country of 300 Million people, Canada and all the others are not even close…yes the number is 5.8 in 1000, but we have 1000X those 1000’s to add to the stats…but again STFU you baby murdering scumbag…YOU HAVE NO ROOM TO TALK ABOUT HOW PRECIOUS LIFE IS WHEN YOU BACK THE MURDER OF UNBORN CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!

        • epeeist

          Amusing isn’t it, as soon as you are presented with data that shows your claims are wrong you resort to shouting. I can almost feel the flecks of spit from here.

        • Thebob

          My claim isn’t wrong…you showed that a country the US with lots people has more people who die…that is called LOGICAL THINKING…Doesn’t disprove the FACT that Canadians even their Politicians seek medical help in the US…1000’s of these cases, but if you are not willing to look and educate yourself I can’t help that…But you have proven you’re a good Parrot of talking points you leftist scum repeat from yo massa’s…Keep on bending the knee, baby killers will get their Karma one day…

        • epeeist

          My claim isn’t wrong…you showed that a country the US with lots people
          has more people who die…that is called LOGICAL THINKING.

          The difference between the two of us is that I was actually taught logic, while you obviously have no clue about the subject.

          Keep on bending the knee, baby killers will get their Karma one day…

          And yet again a theist proves my dictum that it always ends up with ad baculum.

        • Pofarmer

          Doesn’t understand biology, or statistics, or physics, or logic, but, he think’s he’s got the bible down. Teachermom must be so proud.

        • epeeist

          but, he think’s he’s got the bible down.

          I suspect that Greg G. could teach him a thing on that subject too.

          He is obviously a paid up member of Y’all Quaeda.

        • Pofarmer

          What the hell dude, are you typing this from your cults basement in Arkansas?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “…the FACT that Canadians even their Politicians seek medical help in the US…”

          So much for libertarian Rand Paul:

          https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/15/politics/rand-paul-canada-surgery/index.html

          As for ‘karma’…YOUR KIND have to demonstrate ‘god’ before that will be anything but the most pathetic whine possible.

        • Baby killers? You mean abortion? Show me that you actually care about abortion by listing what you do to prevent unwanted pregnancy. If you’re focused on the symptom, not the cause, your head is up your ass.

        • Thebob

          BTW “The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country.”

          Really nothing to do with Medical Care…and has absolutely nothing to do with Health Insurance…The IMR is highest in the US with black and American Indian children, mostly in low economic standing…Hmm I thought all those social programs were suppose to stop that from happening…
          “Despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country, 33 nations have better IMRs. ”

          “There are many factors that affect the IMR of any given country. For example, premature births in the United States have increased by more than 20% between 1990 and 2006. Preterm babies have a higher risk of complications that could lead to death within the first year of life.6 However, this does not fully explain why the United States has seen little improvement in its IMR since 2000”
          Hmm why has premature births increased??? Nobody knows…but could be tied to vaccines(poison)…From the 80’s where kids maybe got 6 vaccines through High School to today where kids receive over 50 injections…Not to mention links to birth control that cause issues. Don’t believe me on vaccines, just grab one Vaccine insert and read the possible effects or “side effects” of what could happen, also like to mention Vaccines go through almost no testing before approval, unlike every other drug out there…BUT HEY SCIENCE CAN SOLVE ANYTHING!!!!

          I digress, you will just call me nutz, while you remain a psychotic baby killer…yet you have the moral high ground…You amusing me has come to an end, you’re a good libturd soldier, repeating everything like a good listener you are, doing just as you’re told to do by your Uni Professor instead of educating yourself, you just take the word of others…See ya baby killer…Karma is a bitch…

        • epeeist

          Nobody knows…but could be tied to vaccines(poison)…

          So a conspiracy theorist and an anti-vaxxer as well.

          So who was responsible for the twin towers? How about Obama, where was he born?

        • Thebob

          Tell Robert DeNiro he’s a conspiracy anti-vaxxer…I am not an anti-vaccines. I am just an informed person who has taken the time to actually look into them and read the inserts that say “May Cause Death”, so go ahead give your kid Chickenpox vaccine, which Chickenpox won’t kill them, but there is a chance of death if you give them the vaccine, which may or may not work, or even the higher chance of Guillain-Barre Syndrome…Again, informed decision vs uniformed “safe and effective”. Like I said you’re a good little soldier doing AS YOU’RE TOLD!!! Actually you’re a good little Sheeple…But what’s the problem anyway, if your vaccinated they why fear anything if they supposedly work and are “safe and effective” why fear the unknown? Oh, yeah, YOU CAN’T THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “YOU CAN’T THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!”

          Projecting one’s most despised weaknesses on opponents is particularly weak tea, you ignoramus-wannabe.

        • go ahead give your kid Chickenpox vaccine, which Chickenpox won’t kill them

          No deaths from chickenpox? Citation needed. In particular, show us that the mortality risk is higher with the vaccine than without.

          You’re not anti-vaccines? Oh, fuck me.

        • Thebob

          I have been vaccinated with EVERYTHING out there, minus pneumonia vaccine, most of which not by choice and most of which as testing subject for are beloved US Gov’t and FDA which in the military is where the FDA does their human testing on vaccines…And yes, PROOF is you just need to read. Google a Chickenpox vaccine insert you know the Drug Faq’s pamphlet that list all possible “Effects of the injection” one in there is DEATH…Look it up yourself, don’t take my word on it….If you give your kid a Chickenpox vaccine there is a chance of DEATH, how much of an increase vs. not getting it, I am not a math wizard and apparently you’re smarter than I so I will leave that up to you…But according to google, in the 90’s 100-150 kids died from chickenpox out of 4 million…now there is no data points to further this cause according to you science is settled on this and vaccines are “safe and effective”…yet whats is funny is in the 1990’s the vaccine producing companies were being SUED into oblivion; that is until the US Supreme Court issued a defacto IMMUNITY from being sued to those companies, under the guise of National Security, which is then where the “Vaccine Court” was created with BILLIONS of $$ in it for issuing to vaccine damage cases, which is really hard to prove and costs LOTS of $$$, just ask Robert DeNiro…OH yeah and a nice little tax on each vial of vaccine that is sold which goes into this fund.

        • Google a Chickenpox vaccine insert you know the Drug Faq’s pamphlet that list all possible “Effects of the injection” one in there is DEATH…Look it up yourself, don’t take my word on it

          Yes, I’m not surprised, but that’s not the issue. The issue is: what’s the likelihood of death from the vaccine vs. death from the disease? I’m still waiting for that.

          how much of an increase vs. not getting it, I am not a math wizard and apparently you’re smarter than I so I will leave that up to you

          “Math wizard” isn’t the requirement—it’s just an interest in exploring the issue thoroughly instead of supporting your own bias.

          But according to google, in the 90’s 100-150 kids died from chickenpox out of 4 million…now there is no data points to further this cause according to you science is settled on this and vaccines are “safe and effective”

          According to me the vaccination path has a smaller chance of death than the not-vaccination route.

          As for the last bit about De Niro, I have no idea what conspiracy theory you’re smoking.

        • Thebob

          “The issue is: what’s the likelihood of death from the vaccine vs. death from the disease? I’m still waiting for that.” Good point, NO STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE and the FDA WILL NOT ALLOW THEM…Again, google it…I would like to know this also…There have been independent studies, but FDA will not approve them……..Robert De Niro, helped produced VAXXED, it is on Netflix, why? Cause his youngest son is Autistic, was 100% fine one day, met all miles stones a toddler should hit, then he gets some injections, and the next day regresses went from talking to not and couldn’t walk..Again, LOOK IT UP….

          See this RIGHT here just show how Gullible you are, you are willing to take someone else’s word that something is safe with out you actually looking into it yourself to form an educated opinion…MOST DOCTORS don’t even look themselves, they TAKE THE WORD OF BIG PHARMA!!! Again this is ALL documented; one just needs to look.

        • This site (https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Chickenpox/chickenpoxfacts.aspx ) talks about deaths from chickenpox before the vaccine as well as deaths from the vaccine. The source: “The non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is an independent clearinghouse for information on diseases and vaccine science, policy, law and the ethical principle of informed consent.”

          Good point, NO STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE and the FDA WILL NOT ALLOW THEM…Again, google it

          Show me this (from some site besides http://www.TinfoilHats.com).

          Robert De Niro, helped produced VAXXED, it is on Netflix, why? Cause his youngest son is Autistic, was 100% fine one day, met all miles stones a toddler should hit, then he gets some injections, and the next day regresses went from talking to not and couldn’t walk..Again, LOOK IT UP….

          That the onset of autism and childhood vaccines can seem to be related? Yes, I understand that. But what could your point possibly be? That vaccines cause autism? That ancient tale has been debunked (though that information would come from science-y sites that maybe you don’t care for?).

          “Vaxxed” is pseudoscience, but you’ll never believe that because ConspiraciesRUs.com disagrees. There’s probably not much progress we can make.

          See this RIGHT here just show how Gullible you are, you are willing to take someone else’s word that something is safe with out you actually looking into it yourself to form an educated opinion

          Oh, but you have? What sources do you use? I think I’ll stick with the CDC.

        • Thebob
        • Thebob

          BTW, I have not watched Vaxxed, as of yet…I was on this path LONG before this was common in MSM heralded as FAKE NEWS…

        • Thebob

          CDC huh…run by big pharma…which I thought you lefties were all against…No? Well if everything I am saying has no basis for it, then why does the cdc have a Vaccine reporting system for bad reactions to vaccines???
          Tracking Side Effects Once a Vaccine is Adminstered
          The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national vaccine safety surveillance program co-sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the CDC.

          VAERS collects and analyzes information from reports of adverse events (side effects) that occur after the administration of US licensed vaccines. Reports are welcome from all concerned individuals: patients, parents, healthcare providers, pharmacists, and vaccine manufacturers. To submit a report, use VAERS’ reporting page.

          For more information on VAERS, consult VAERS website.
          HMM I thought they were safe and effective…yet they knowingly give a “drug” to the populace knowing full well some people are going to die from them…
          https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/02/23/drug-side-effects-fda/

          But lets just trust all the Drug Companies to do their OWN studies with out any INDEPENDENT studies on their drugs, why? All under “Trade Secrets”…

        • Thebob

          “According to me the vaccination path has a smaller chance of death than the not-vaccination route.” There is no actual way to collect data on this as Chickenpox vaccine is now apart of 1 shot multi vaccines…like DTAP…but hey, if you want to inject aluminum and lead and other “adjuvents” into your veins be my guest…And there are almost zero test groups of Non-Vaxxed to show a comparison, which is required for a True Scientific Study…But if Vaccines actually work, then you shouldn’t have any fear of contracting anything, right?
          IF you really want to look into this, I can point you in the right direction if you want to look with an OPEN MIND? Look at the data and form an EDUCATED opinion not built on bias that has been fed to you…Look I get it, a lot of my family is in the medical field…It took one of their kids getting changed, while the other twin was fine…For them to even remotely look into them, both practicing PA’s…

          I have two questions: 1. Do you believe ethically or morally that mass dosing a populace is okay?
          2. What is this hydrofluosilicic acid?

        • There is no actual way to collect data on this . . .

          And yet they have. Deaths from chickenpox are recorded, as are side effects (including death) from the vaccine.

          . . . as Chickenpox vaccine is now apart of 1 shot multi vaccines…like DTAP

          TDaP = Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis (whooping cough). Acronyms are your friend.

          Since chickenpox vaccine has to be given twice, I don’t think it’s combined with anything else.

          …but hey, if you want to inject aluminum and lead and other “adjuvents” into your veins be my guest

          Show us (again, http://www.TinfoilHats.com isn’t a source).

          …And there are almost zero test groups of Non-Vaxxed to show a comparison, which is required for a True Scientific Study

          What’s hard? Look at the incidence of chickenpox before and after the vaccine was widely used. Credit the drop to the vaccine.

          …But if Vaccines actually work, then you shouldn’t have any fear of contracting anything, right?

          You should have no fear of contracting whatever you were vaccinated for (and some vaccines provide immunity only for a limited time).

          IF you really want to look into this, I can point you in the right direction if you want to look with an OPEN MIND?

          Sure! Any page with cdc.gov on the end will be satisfactory. Thanks.

        • Thebob

          HEY DUMBFUCK I DIDN”T SAY DTAP HAD CHICKENPOX IN IT I SAID CHICKENPOX IS NOW IN A SHOT LIKE DTAP IT IS MIXED IN WITH OTHER VACCINES IN ONE SHOT DUMB FUCK!!!!!!!!!!! HOW ABOUT YOU LEARN TO FUCKING READ YOU MOTHERFUCKING DUMB CUNT!!!!!!!!!!!

          Chickenpox used to be very common in the United States. In the early 1990s, an average of 4 million people got varicella, 10,500 to 13,000 were hospitalized (range, 8,000 to 18,000), and 100 to 150 died each year. In the 1990s, the highest rate of varicella was reported in preschool-aged children.

          “Chickenpox vaccine became available in the United States in 1995. In 2014, 91% of children 19 to 35 months old in the United States had received one dose of varicella vaccine, varying from 83% to 95% by state. Among adolescents 13 to 17 years of age without a prior history of disease, 95% had received 1 dose of varicella vaccine, and 81% had received 2 doses of the vaccine. Eighty-five percent of adolescents had either a history of varicella disease or received 2 doses of varicella vaccine.

          Each year, more than 3.5 million cases of varicella, 9,000 hospitalizations, and 100 deaths are prevented by varicella vaccination in the United States.”https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/surveillance/monitoring-varicella.html

          4 million in the 90’s and 100-150 deaths a year, that is 0.00375 death rate…”Each year, more than 3.5 million cases of varicella, 9,000 hospitalizations, and 100 deaths are prevented by varicella vaccination in the United ” UNPROVEN STATEMENT….Only statistical…wow we stopped 150 NATURAL deaths a year….while you support 250,000 babies being aborted each year…OH MAN you really have the moral high ground here dipshit…

          AND YOU STILL CAN’T ENGAGE, I asked two simple questions…no answer as per the usual….And thank again for confirming that the Gov’t is your parent cause you’re just too fucking stupid to form your own opinion you MUST have someone else tell you what it is…YOU TRULY ARE ONE PATHETIC FUCKING CUNT!!!!!!!!!

        • Thebob

          If life has no meaning and you’re only here on chance why haven’t you fucking blown your head off yet? Actually pussies like you don’t own firearms, slit your wrists, hung yourself, bottle of pills…WHY DON’T YOU FUCKING KILL YOURSELF??? Why not???

        • Thebob

          Not to rehash this, but you’re fine with abortions for whatever reason, but Natural “Selection” death by disease is NOT Okay? I just want to get that straight, cause most of you who support abortion say it is justified due to over population and who is gonna take care of those kids? That is mostly what I get as an answer, so, why stop Natural Selection? Isn’t that the WHOLE point of Evolution? Now aren’t we not polluting the future gene pool, by creating weaker immune systems which “Naturally evolved”?

        • you’re fine with abortions for whatever reason

          Golly. It’s like you can read minds. Sort of.

          Natural “Selection” death by disease is NOT Okay? I just want to get that straight

          What’s hard to understand? A single cell isn’t a person, so an abortion (or prevention of implantation) at that stage isn’t killing a person. When something is a person, we spend much effort to keep them healthy.

          Are you also puzzled about why I don’t care if a slug dies? And why I’ve trapped mice in my house?

          most of you who support abortion say it is justified due to over population and who is gonna take care of those kids?

          Some time, you ought to read blog posts from women who’ve had abortions and find out the real reason.

          why stop Natural Selection? Isn’t that the WHOLE point of Evolution?

          Evolution doesn’t really have a point, just like gravity doesn’t really have a point. We can anthropomorphize, but that’s just seeing nature from our perspective.

          I’ve never heard of a human taking any action to further evolution’s point.

          When you come out of your basement to engage people who actually are well informed, you do look rather stupid. If this is you taking deliberate strides to broaden your viewpoint, then good for you. If, on the other hand, you have no interest in learning anything and just want to share your viewpoints with your inferiors, then you’re wasting all of our time.

        • Thebob

          “Some time, you ought to read blog posts from women who’ve had abortions and find out the real reason.” Don’t need to read about slutty women being slutty and getting cosmetic abortions…Rape, different story and NOT what I am talking about…Don’t need to read, abortion destroyed by brothers marriage, actually his whore wife did, fucked his buddy and got prego, didn’t want to get caught, got an abortion, marriage destruction commenced…Not only did she destroy their marriage, they have a daughter together already, fucked up her life also…ONLY THING TO COME OUT OF IT, my WHORE ex sis in law, REGRETS IT!!!! That right there describes 90% of abortions…NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY!!!! OH and the shit kicker is, she didn’t know whose baby it was……just didn’t want to get caught, simple deduction of reasoning, SELFISHNESS!!! Be a whore, I don’t care, just remember that SEX comes with outcomes that you might not like…

        • MR

          Putin must be wanking over this guy’s comments. Get a generation of Americans (and Europeans) to distrust vaccines and there’s a whole series of weapons in his arsenal that just became more effective. This anti-vax propaganda fits nicely with the rest of the Russian campaign to destabilize the West.

        • Good point. And I keep coming back to the thought experiment of going back in time to, say, the early 20th century and telling people of a time when cheap, effective vaccines exist … but some people refuse to get them.

        • epeeist

          In particular, show us that the mortality risk is higher with the vaccine than without.

          That’s a bit difficult for him, he can read the packet in which the vaccine arrives (though obviously he has no clue as to the risk values) but the writing on the virus which details its risks is a bit too small for him.

          https://vaccines.procon.org/files/1-vaccines-images/varicella-deaths-1972-2013.PNG

        • Thebob needs to think before he shoots. Or maybe just use a silencer.

        • Thebob

          And just another Agenda for you oh so Tolerant Peoples to push on others whom don’t want it…
          But I will assume you’re not for mass medication of a populace, say, like dosing water?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Ooooo, anti *fluoride*, too

          This one’s the FULL MONTY of Crank Magnetism!

        • Sample1

          Anti-vaccine. Ugh. Our hospital requires all employees to receive annual flu jabs/aerosols. If a religious/philosophical exemption is claimed one must wear a fit-tested mask at all times while on premesis. The fitting is interesting, sodium ions are released in the testing room while each type of mask is donned for efficacy depending on face shapes. It is deemed properly fitting when the ions are not detected through the attached analyzer.

          At any rate, our hospital is 99% employee compliant but those wearing masks bear the moral stigma in public. Perhaps they think it’s a badge of honor?

          I’d like them to work on the North Slope where it is not rare to have village quarantines during Arctic fox cycles when some are suspected of carrying rabies. Of course they’d get vaccinated, it is personally fatal. But when the flu is thought of as a mere nuisance for oneself worth suffering, it’s ok, never mind children or seniors with compromised immune systems. They can fend for themselves, screw herd health theory; no altruism there by Christians, locally for the most part.

          Idiocy. It’s no longer possible to practice religion privately without harming others. Pisses me off.

          Mike

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’ll bet you your entire financial worth against a hot fudge sundae that the countries with lower IMR *also* have higher vaccination uptake.

          Brave enough to take the sundae?

        • Sample1

          I don’t think you understand how Karma magic is claimed to work. Which, if Karma is legitimate, oi, I wish you well my friend.

          Peace.

          Mike

        • Thebob

          Yeah, and if Karma is real, baby killers are gonna escape free…LMAO keep on thinking that way bottom feeder…

        • Pofarmer

          I don’t even know what to say to this type of idiocy. Add Statistics to list of things you know fuckall about.

        • Thebob

          Statistics are an interpretation of certain data points…But neglects actual causation’s. Also depends on what is included in those data points…
          Like US crime vs UK crime…
          UK crime stats only post data points if they have CHARGED someone…VS the US FBI crime Stats post data points of VICTIMS OF CRIME not only the criminals when charged….So with out that knowledge it would appear the UK is very much safer than the US but in reality that just isn’t the case…but again comparing a country of 300+ Million vs UK’s 66+ Million…

          Also like stats on Firearm deaths, some 30K in the US. but most of those are self inflicted suicide deaths…actual Firearm violence is less than 10,000 a year, which is less than DUI deaths…Which both are less than the 250,000 deaths attributed to Hospitals each year for basic procedures where people walk into a Medical facility and never leave…I don’t hear you so called life loving people screaming about that…Nor the 250,000 abortions preformed each year either…which less than 1% are medically necessary…

        • Pofarmer

          Epeeist was using normalized statistics for maternal mortality rate. Not gun violence. Would you care to go into statistics for teen pregnancy and abortion rates? I mean, you’ll just shit on those too, but, hell, why not?

        • Thebob

          You see what you want to see in those Stats…I was only giving an example of how Stats are generated…Other countries may not report the same data points we do…Maybe just maybe we have a higher IMR cause we have better reporting….Same for your other stats you mentioned…

        • Pofarmer

          Oh fer fucks sake.

        • Thebob

          What? My answer actually makes logical sense?? Even better…The evidence is the lack of evidence where evidence should exist!!!

        • Thebob

          I get it though…’If you’re not a liberal by 20, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.’ More pointedly, by 35 if you’re not a conservative then you’re just good at being TOLD what to do and what to be, like a good sheeple you are.

        • Thebob

          In statistics and applications of statistics, normalization can have a range of meanings. In the simplest cases, normalization of ratings means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale, often prior to averaging

          Gotcha, fudge the data to make it FIT!!! Gotcha…Just like how most of the rest of Science does things…Create an Idea, gather data and observations but allow for “Free parameters” to make sure data fits the outcome wanted..

        • epeeist

          Create an Idea, gather data and observations but allow for “Free parameters” to make sure data fits the outcome wanted..

          Still waiting for you to come back to me on “Free parameters” in a “theory of gravity”. Below is the Einstein field equation for General Relativity. What are the “free parameters” in this:

          https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf

        • Thebob

          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4047500/Was-Einstein-WRONG-gravity-Controversial-new-theory-rewrite-physics-passes-test.html

          You are OBVIOUSLY smarter than I am, so here read this, you might understand it better than I, you know cause you’re smarter…About 2/3rds the way down it talks about free parameters or CTRL+F and search Free parameters, oh but you’re smarter than I am, so you should know that already…

        • epeeist

          I wouldn’t take my science from a tabloid rag like the Daily Mail.

          If you actually read Verlinde’s paper on emergent gravity you will note that it is based on string theory, something that operates in ten dimensions and has only been formulated in terms of perturbation theory, so I would take issue with the claim about “free parameters”.

          But you still haven’t said what you mean by “free parameters” nor where they occur in Einstein’s theory of gravity.

        • Thebob

          Again, you must be just so smarter than I am, you figure it out…
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
          The theory claims to be consistent with both the macro-level observations of Newtonian gravity as well as Einstein’s theory of general relativity and its gravitational distortion of spacetime. Importantly, the theory also explains (without invoking the existence of dark matter and its accompanying math featuring new free parameters that are tweaked to obtain the desired outcome) why galactic rotation curves differ from the profile expected with visible matter.[citation needed]

        • epeeist

          Again, you must be just so smarter than I am, you figure it out…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

          Yep, read the Wikipedia page, including the criticisms and the fact that it hasn’t been tested and is inconsistent with other observations and theories.

          What I was trying to highlight, and becomes more and more obvious as you flail around, is that while you can use the phrase “free parameters” you have no idea what they are. Hence your total incapability when it comes to identifying them in the Einstein field equations.

        • Thebob

          Since you have a Doctorate, you should then know that Wikipedia IS NOT a reliable source to Cite for any legitimate paper or work….

        • epeeist

          Since you have a Doctorate, you should then know that Wikipedia IS NOT a reliable source

          Err, it was you that cited it in this post.

        • Thebob

          Free Parameters as described in several of the posts I posted, are Parameters with “wiggle room” to make sure observations fit the hypothesis…Pretty simple to understand it allows MORONS like you to FUDGE data to fit your PREDETERMINED OUTCOME…But hey, you are the Doctor in Physics not me, you should know this already…

        • epeeist

          Free Parameters as described in several of the posts I posted, are Parameters with “wiggle room” to make sure observations fit the hypothesis

          Since the Einstein field equations are obviously beyond you let’s try something simpler.

          F = G . m1 . m2 / r^2

          So, what’s the “free parameter” in this?

        • Thebob

          We can only see the effects of gravity. But we don’t know why a “body” has gravitational force.
          Free parameters are values that can be tweaked – essentially cheat values to ensure that observations about a galaxy match an initial hypothesis.

          The researchers measuring the galaxies said factoring dark energy into their equations meant they had to use four of these free parameters.

          YOU’RE THE SO CALLED DOCTORAL ON THIS YOU EXPLAIN IT…I have given you evidence to refute your argument, you have YET to refute anything I have posted, except with the same thing worded a different way…The only thing you are posting there is Newton’s equation…one of many that have YET TO BE PROVEN 100% FACT…

          https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Bekenstein/bekenstein.html

          It’s still a mystery wrapped in theories. We won’t know until one of the theories gets proven. IF ever proven…Until then, it is just GUESS WORK, with FREE PARAMETERS that allow for “tweaking” to make sure Observations fit the hypothesis….

          All of this is based on MASS of said Object, like Jupiter which is said to have more MASS than Earth, but how do we know this? Only using observations from Earth, but we don’t even know if Jupiter has a solid core, could just be one massive cloud of gases, which really don’t have a whole lot of mass. So in reality the Mass of Jupiter is ONLY A GUESS as we have NO REAL WAY of actually measuring the Mass of a Planet million of miles away…Unlike with Mars we know is solid and has a core…
          The thing is, if I am right or wrong it really doesn’t matter, but if you’re wrong, EVERYTHING you have based all of this guess work on IS WRONG and EVERYTHING would need to be reworked…

        • epeeist

          We can only see the effects of gravity. But we don’t know why a “body” has gravitational force.

          And once more you avoid the simple question put to you, which is the free parameter in that equation?

          .The only thing you are posting there is Newton’s equation…one of many that have YET TO BE PROVEN 100% FACT…

          And yet again you show that your grasp of science and its methodology is non-existent. All theories are both contingent and corrigible. How could they be otherwise given that have not and cannot make all possible observations. I would point you to Hume’s ideas and the problem of induction but I fear it would be beyond you.

          All of this is based on MASS of said Object, like Jupiter which is said to have more MASS than Earth, but how do we know this?

          Tell me, how did astronomers know where to look when trying to determine whether Neptune existed?

        • Thebob

          According to space.com Galileo did it with a Telescope the old fashioned way by LOOKING WITH HIS EYE’S AND RECORDING WHAT HE SAY. But even further back The Sumerians knew about all the planets in our solar system LONG before Galileo. Neptune was supposedly discovered in 1846 by Johann Gottfried Galle using calculations by Urbain Le Verrier and John Couch Adams, making it a joint British-French-German discovery.

          But these astronomers were not the first to observe Neptune. That honor goes to the famous Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei.

          While sketching the moons of Jupiter with his newly discovered telescope, Galileo twice drew Neptune, which happened to be in conjunction with Jupiter in early 1613. It’s usually said that Galileo mistook Neptune for a star because of its slow movement.
          https://www.space.com/26972-neptune-planet-discovery-skywatching.html

          BUT the equation used was not Newtons…Or Einstein who wasn’t even born yet..

        • epeeist

          According toGalileo did it with a Telescope the old fashioned way by LOOKING WITH HIS EYE’S AND RECORDING WHAT HE SAY.

          Galileo, 1564-1642

          Discovery of Neptune, September 1846 by mer Johann Galle

          Looks like Galileo discovered Neptune over 200 years after his death.

          It’s usually said that Galileo mistook Neptune for a star because of its slow movement.
          https://www.space.com/26972

          So Galileo observed something that he thought was a star and in retrospect turned out to be Neptune.

        • Thebob

          And ONCE AGAIN Mr. I have a Doctorate, POST YOUR Published Paper? Or are you a PUSSY??? But then again you could post anyone’s paper and claim as your own…And I also am not claiming to be something I am not, like an all knowing ass hat Scientist like you are claiming to be…Burden of PROOF is on you Mr Doctorate of Physics…

        • epeeist

          But then again you could post anyone’s paper and claim as your own

          Which rather defeats the point of me providing anything doesn’t it. Because even if I was to point you to something like this paper you would simply say it wasn’t mine.

        • Thebob

          4 authors, kinda hard to narrow and and in German??? 2 from a Christian University in Germany or Austria…From 1987….other 2 from Wales…

        • epeeist

          4 authors, kinda hard to narrow and and in German???

          Well that is the nature of science these days. During my research degree I worked with a Dane and someone who went on to work at the University of Bologna. In other projects I have worked on the polarimetry of asteroids with a French professor and an American, and on attenuation of satellite signals with a Portuguese scientist at the European Space Agency technical centre in the Netherlands.

          a Christian University in Germany or Austria.

          Actually a University founded by the Duke of Holstein, Christian Albert.

          So what’s the point of your ramble?

        • Thebob

          Yet, still you are the self described Subject matter expert…I gave you a question and some explanation to that question which your only argument to myself is to point out something in some equation that was created to try to prove some man’s Predetermined Idea…I am not saying the equation is wrong, not that I really understand the equation itself, I am saying Gravity has yet to be proven with any of the 3 main theories out there, while allowing “tweaking” to fit a hypothesis…Call them Free parameters, scientific term not mine, of things like Planet perturbations and other things which “really don’t matter” but yet they do matter at the same time…

          Sorry but our own Science can’t even really explain how ancient peoples built massive structures they should not have been able to build according to science, yet we can OBSERVE these structures all over the planet and you want me to take these same kind of people who can’t figure out things here on our own planet, yet their word is as good as gold when it comes to things in Space we cannot directly observe only calculate with Computer programs and data, that is created by those same people who can’t figure out how or why a building is still standing that is 1000’s of years old and with modern engineering and science we can barely make structures that last 100 years let alone 1000’s…And in a span of a few decades those same people have “observed” that space is MASSIVE and can actually calculate how big the universe is? LMAO you’re either really fucking stupid or very very gullible…Or maybe you are very intelligent so much so that the basic logic of common sense escapes you..Which is fine, but your inbox way of thinking if only limiting you the provable possible, instead of anything is possible if you put your mind to it…

        • epeeist

          Yet, still you are the self described Subject matter expert.

          In certain fields yes, but there is plenty of physics I know little about. Condensed matter and particle physics come to mind, these both require a deep understanding of quantum field theory, something I don’t have.

          not that I really understand the equation itself

          Of course you don’t. In your time here you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of biology, physics and science and its methodology more generally. Also the way one acquires qualifications in science (and other academic subjects).

          I am saying Gravity has yet to be proven with any of the 3 main theories out there

          And this is a characteristic example of your lack of understanding. We have been through this before, “proof” is reserved for deductive systems, where one starts from a series of propositions and deduces a conclusion from them. Providing the initial set of propositions is true (another word you don’t understand) the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.

          Science doesn’t work like this, it is primarily inductive and abductive. Thus its conclusions are not true but simply the best current explanation we have for particular sets of phenomena. As I have also said before, this means that all scientific theories are both contingent and corrigible.

          Let’s go back to Newton’s theory of gravity. The “free parameter” there (which is really a constant of proportionality) is G, the gravitational constant. Does that get “tweaked” or was it set by Newton and simply measured more accurately over time, or is it varied on a case by case basis to fit observations? Given that your understanding of science is lower than that of the average 11-year old in the UK I’ll put you out of your misery, it is the former. There is one and one only value for G as there is for c (the velocity of light) and (the Planck constant).

          Sorry but our own Science can’t even really explain how ancient peoples built massive structures they should not have been able to build according to science

          As the saying goes, citation required. Why should I accept an unsubstantiated assertion from you?

          The rest of that paragraph is simply arguments from personal incredulity, just because you can’t believe that it is not possible to determine, for example, the position of a previously unknown planet using Newton’s theory of gravity does not make it so.

          You produce a message which I can read just about instantly after you have posted it (or later, given the vagaries of Disqus). You are using a device whose functioning derives from the ideas of quantum theory, it is delivered over a variety of substrates using ideas from Maxwell’s classical field equations and optics. Do you drive a car? Thermodynamics from people like Clausius and Willard Gibbs. Has it got a Satnav? Its accuracy depends on corrections drawn from Einstein’s theory of relativity. And so on and so on.

        • Pofarmer

          you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of biology, physics and science

          Don’t leave out Statistics, Ethics, and, dang it, I know there was something else.

        • epeeist

          Theories of truth, logic, vaccines and medicine more generally, who counts as a theist…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • ildi

          I love that line: “Well, science KNOWS it doesn’t know everything; otherwise, it’d stop.”

        • Thebob

          Are you really looking for an answer or just determined to reject the word of God?

          Or more to the point, what in the Bible, does not equate to your way of life?

        • epeeist

          Are you really looking for an answer or just determined to reject the word of God?

          “Proof” is a word you use a lot. So why don’t you provide the proof that your god exists and demonstrate that the bible is true.

        • Pofarmer

          What the hell does that even mean?

          Are you just determined to be a judgmental asshole? Even when you have nothing upon which to base your judgements?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Why don’t you just demonstrate this ‘god’ of yours *exists* before you start making pathetic demands and taunts in its supposed name of rational folks who just don’t believe you?

          I mean, it *should* be easy…and if it’s not, why should we believe you *or* YOUR KIND?

          Bible things not equating to my way of life?
          – Chattel generational slavery
          – Monarchy
          – Forced abortion of suspected ‘unfaithful’ wives
          – Genocide
          .
          .
          .

        • Wow–you really are a hateful piece of shit, aren’t you?

          Convince me that you’re worth keeping around. Or should I ban you?

        • MR

          He prays to his God with that mouth?

        • Thebob

          Ban me, doesn’t effect me one way or another, except it proves you’re very much NOT TOLLERANT….I am an asshole, yup!!!

        • Oh, I see–you’re a hateful presence but I’m the bad guy for banning you.

          Is that your final answer? Or do you think you could focus on argument and evidence instead of bickering?

          Educate us. Tell us something we don’t know. Give us insights from your perspective. Or there isn’t much point in keeping you around.

        • Thebob

          Tried to, you all keep bouncing around…Again, Mr Tolerant person. ban me IDGAF whether you want to silence the opposition or not, just further proves my point…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “We can only see the effects of gravity. But we don’t know why a “body” has gravitational force.”

          Non sequitur and irrelevant.

          Show me a *dictionary* definition of ‘free parameters’ that also shows where they are relevant to Einstein’s work, or admit you’re just too childish and stubborn to admit you’re full of it, besides casting aspersions and purposely misstating epeeist’s qualifications in a puerile attempt at a put-down.

          Oh, and if you’re going to hold your opponent(s) to 100% FACT, then you’d better throw YOUR KIND’s ‘bible’ away, as the only thing 100% about it is that it’s pure, unadulterated *shit*.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Irrelevant.

          YOU are being asked to identify the ‘free parameters’ in EINSTEIN’s equations.

          Go to it.

        • Thebob
        • epeeist

          Here educate yourself

          Unlike you I don’t keep my profile private, I suggest you read it.

          I have a doctorate in molecular physics. I, unlike you, know exactly what free parameters are.

        • Thebob

          Where from? and post your Published paper that earned you the Doctorate, or you’re lying…Which would just be typical behavior of a leftist bottom feeder..

        • epeeist

          Where from? and post your Published paper that earned you the Doctorate

          University College of North Wales. As for a paper earning a doctorate, this once again shows you have no clue. One is awarded a doctorate on submission of a thesis and a successful viva voce.

          My doctorate was on the determination of potential barriers in asymmetric heterocyclic molecules bearing a methyl group. The determination is done by measuring the A-E splitting of lines in the rotational spectrum of the molecules.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND just can’t *help* yourselves from exposing your vile bile, idiocy, and bad faith, now can you?

        • So when epeeist shows you that he’s got a doctorate, what are you going to do in response? Issue a sincere apology for starters, I hope.

        • Thebob

          Won’t effect me either way….May only prove he/she remotely knows what they are talking about, but still can’t seem to answer simple questions…

        • epeeist

          I don’t know whether I have said before but my wife used to teach at this school until she retired. As I have said to this clown before, the children in the top juniors (age 11) know vastly more about science than he does.

        • The icing on the cake is the Dunning-Kruger. He’s ignorant and proud of it.

        • epeeist

          I can’t remember who here said it but, “First rule of the Dunning-Krugher Club? You don’t know you are in the Dunning-Kruger club.”

        • That’s a keeper!

        • Thebob

          Just an FYI, newguard, give dailymail a GREEN LIGHT as NOT FAKE NEWS…so don’t care where it is posted as long as the information is FACTUAL…not kinda, not likely it is FACTUAL…Cause that is what I care about, IDK and IDGAF if you care about facts or not…but the rest of the World seems to think FACTS matter…Unlike “Free Parameter” thinkers like yourself.

        • epeeist

          Just an FYI, newguard, give dailymail a GREEN LIGHT as NOT FAKE NEWS

          I presume you mean “NewsGuard” rather than “newguard”.

          Well yes the DM is rather more reliable than, say, Breitbart or InfoWars. It still doesn’t stoop it being a tabloid rag though. The Rational Wiki article is slightly over the top, but it does highlight some of the nastiness of the paper.

          Cause that is what I care about, IDK and IDGAF if you care about facts or no

          To be frank, I don’t think you know what the word “true” means.

        • Thebob

          I don’t think you understand what a Fact is…meaning Truth…not truish…or kinda true or there is some truth to that statement…Actual FACTS matter, just not to people like you, whom live with “Free parameters” to make sure things fit the narrative…

        • epeeist

          I don’t think you understand what a Fact is…meaning Truth

          And once again you demonstrate you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

          True and false refer to propositions. The proposition “All bachelors are unmarried men” is true because that is how we define bachelorhood.

          Facts are truth-makers, in other words they are the x in the statement “x makes it true that p”. Thus it is the fact that all ravens are black that makes the statement “all ravens are black” true. This links with the idea of Tarski definition of truth:

          'S' iff p

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

          — Phillip K. Dick

          Also known as your bratty bad-tempered tantrums & cherry-picking to avoid having to admit you’re wrong are BLATANTLY obvious.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Thebob is a Cargo Cult devotee, aping the forms and language of science when it’s convenient without the thought processes, and discarding any results s/he finds unappealing.

        • epeeist

          There was a professor of computer science in the Netherlands called Edgar Dijkstra who is quoted as saying:

          It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

          So it is with creationists, once they have swallowed the Kool-Aid put out by organisations such as Answers in Genesis they become “mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration” when it comes to even the lowest level of critical thinking.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          nice quote. this particular gem can be found in one of dijkstra’s so called EWDs: EWD498 (“how do we tell truths that might hurt?”).

          to get a sense of the kind of “mental mutilation” dijkstra was concerned about one can read EDW1036 (“On the cruelty of really teaching computing science”).

          while browsing i also found this particular EWD: EDW1012 (“real mathematicians don’t prove”).

        • Phil Rimmer

          So that’s why I became rubbish at coding..

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          not just because of BASIC, apparently:

          “FORTRAN —”the infantile disorder”—, by now nearly 20 years old, is hopelessly inadequate for whatever computer application you have in mind today: it is now too clumsy, too risky, and too expensive to use.”

          “PL/I —”the fatal disease”— belongs more to the problem set than to the solution set.”

          “The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence.”

          “APL is a mistake, carried through to perfection. It is the language of the future for the programming techniques of the past: it creates a new generation of coding bums.”

        • Phil Rimmer

          So going object oriented in our programing (allez oop) is a rational move and anything else is just… er… oops!

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          the EWD archive (link) is searchable. this way i found this mention of object-oriented programming (in EWD1284):

          “After more than 45 years in the field, I am still convinced that in computing, elegance is not a dispensable luxury but a quality that decides between success and failure; in this connection I gratefully quote from The Concise Oxford Dictionary a definition of ”elegant”, viz. ”ingeniously simple and effective”. Amen. (For those who have wondered: I don’t think object-oriented programming is a structuring paradigm that meets my standards of elegance.)”

        • What did he recommend? Pascal, perhaps?

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          perhaps.

          he mentions PASCAL in EWD303 (“on the reliability of programs.”):

          Our knowledge of how to prove the correctness of programs is far from complete but it is growing. It will have an increasing influence on the programs that are going to be produced. It is irrealistic, however, to expect all potential benefits from this approach before quite a lot of cleaning up of programming languages has been established. That such forms of cleaning up are perfectly possible has been shown by professor Niklaus Wirth from Zurich who has designed the programming language PASCAL. I quote from his introduction “The desire for a new language for the purpose of teaching programming is due to my deep dissatisfaction with the presently used major languages whose features and constructs too often cannot be explained logically and convincingly and which too often represent an insult to minds trained in systematic reasoning. Along with this dissatisfaction goes my conviction that the language in which the student is taught to express his ideas profoundly influences his habits of thought and invention, and that the disorder governing these languages directly imposes itself onto the programming style of the students. I am inclined to think that the lack of discipline and structure in professional programming style is the major reason for the appalling lack of reliability of practially all larger software products.” End of quotation. We shall never learn to write good and convincing programs in FORTRAN –a programming tool which, indeed, was a great step forward when it was conceived some fifteen years ago but which, by now, should be regarded as a lower level language, as a low grade coding device.

          and in EWD1284 (“Computing Science: Achievements and Challenges”), after he mentioned object-oriented programming, he says:

          “On the whole, the period after 1970 showed a lot of progress. Pascal, designed by Niklaus Wirth from Zürich, had a wholesome influence worldwide on the teaching of programming, we got typed functional programming languages, logic programming entered the scene and disciplines for parallel programming emerged and were taught.”

          it’s also interesting what he thought of functional programming, haskell in particular (“to the members of the budget council”):

          A fundamental reason for the preference is that functional programs are much more readily appreciated as mathematical objects than imperative ones, so that you can teach what rigorous reasoning about programs amounts to. The additional advantage of functional programming with “lazy evaluation” is that it provides an environment that discourages operational reasoning.

        • OMG–such hateful things said about FORTRAN. Ah, well, I guess we must give up the languages of our past and carry on as best we can.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          i have the impression this was on purpose, to get a rise out of people and make them think, but maybe that’s just a very charitable interpretation.

        • epeeist

          Given the time it was published I suspect Dijkstra was railing against the use of the go to statement, it is the subject of a paper of his.

        • Phil Rimmer

          Ah, yes. The evils of spaghetti code. My favourite. I never felt so needed by the customer.

          I truly believe that immensely powerful AI built on knowable, neat and well-structured code may possibly bring humanity to its humbled knees, but it will never be conscious. Until our new Graphene God starts out with the unpruned spaghetti scrambled brain of a two year old and sets to on a path of self improving topiary it’ll not get my respect.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          to put this into perspective, here a quote from donald knuth’s paper “structured programming with go to statements” (1974):

          “I believe that by presenting such a view I am not in fact disagreeing sharply with Dijkstra’s ideas, since he recently wrote the following: “Please don’t fall into the trap of believing that I am terribly dogmatical about [the go to statement]. I have the uncomfortable feeling that others are making a religion out of it, as if the conceptual problems of programming could be solved by a single trick, by a simple form of coding discipline!” [29]. In other words, it seems that fanatical advocates of the New Programming are going overboard in their strict enforcement of morality and purity in programs. Sooner or later people are going to find that their beautifully-structured programs are running at only half the speed –or worse– of the dirty old programs they used to write, and they will mistakenly blame the structure instead of recognizing what is probably the real culprit–the system overhead caused by typical compiler implementation of Boolean variables and procedure calls. Then we’ll have an unfortunate counter-revolution, something like the current rejection of the “New Mathematics” in reaction to its overzealous reforms.”

        • In a language that doesn’t have a break statement (which drops you out of a do loop), a clearly labeled goto which does that job is probably a smart stand-in.

        • In my fantasy of the future, everyone is a programmer and knows the lore of computers back in the core memory days. Then I’ll be able to say stuff like “___ considered harmful” and everyone will understand and acknowledge my wit.

        • Phil

          Well I take issue with all the comments here on programming. Where have you been for the past 10 years? I have been in the biz since 1976, been through the lot, Machine code, BASIC, Pascal etc. Now the practices we use are so far removed from those days. It is all about Agile methodology, SCRUM, OOP, TDD, AI etc. It has been a massive revolution. The way you talk it is as if we are still driving model T Fords!

        • You are OBVIOUSLY smarter than I am

          Finally something on which we agree.

        • Thebob

          And still can’t explain it and thank for further proof in your way of thinking, that only people like you are smart and everyone else is just stupid…Very tolerant of you…

        • epeeist

          UK crime stats only post data points if they have CHARGED someone..

          Lying again? Have a look at the National Crime Survey.

          Which both are less than the 250,000 deaths attributed to Hospitals each year for basic procedures where people walk into a Medical facility and never leave

          Citation required.

        • Thebob

          And you’re an expert in this?

          Or you took a class while at Uni and some professor told you what to think, and you just repeat it without verifying yourself…Some people call that gullible…Or just a good leftist parrot…

        • Pofarmer

          Look, when you don’t understand how rates are normalized so you can compare between populations, even within the U.S., then you obviously don’t understand statistics, regardless what my qualifications are.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Or you took a class while at Uni and some professor told you what to think”

          The projection is STRONG with this asshole.

          A professor *wants* to be demonstrated to be wrong if it’s possible. People go into teaching to pass on facts and the ability to think critically.

          Neither of which YOUR KIND would even allow if you had the power to forbid them.

        • epeeist

          Regardless the US is a country of 300 Million people

          You want me to do the comparison with the EU? Because it has a bigger population than the US and a smaller maternal mortality rate.

        • Thebob

          Why do you even care about the IMR?

        • epeeist

          Why do you even care about the IMR?

          Ah, so you have suddenly realised that this is another piece of data that undercuts your claims about “Socialist State Run Healthcare systems”.

          Call it Quixotic of me but I tend to react when people produce blatant lies (I refuse to call them “alternate facts”).

        • Thebob

          No its a question, why do YOU care about the IMR? And my claims of Socialist State Run Healthcare are not mine, they are the claims of people whom you refuse to look into, cause the TRUTH apparently is TOO MUCH for you to handle…
          NOW WHY DOES A POS BABY KILLING MOTHER FUCKER SUCH AS YOURSELF CARE ONE BIT ABOUT IMR?
          You should be PRAISING this data, right?

        • epeeist

          And my claims of Socialist State Run Healthcare are not mine, they are
          the claims of people whom you refuse to look into, cause the TRUTH
          apparently is TOO MUCH for you to handle…

          And yet you have been unable to provide anything to refute the simple statistics that I gave.

          As it is I suspect that your knowledge of socialism can be summed up in three letters, the same as your knowledge of science and logic, i.e. SFA.

        • Pofarmer

          cause the TRUTH
          apparently is TOO MUCH for you to handle…

          I just got a version of this on my facebook page. A “friend” posted a “The Blaze” show on my timeline about all the awful stuff stuck in the new border security bill. (There probably is some awful stuff in there.) The introduction talked about “Deep State” and “Raises for Swamp Employees.” When I pointed out that “The Blaze” was a Glenn Beck product, and I didn’t care to run down their stupidity to ground, he responded that I was being “Trolled” by somebody and that all politicians are the same and I just can’t see it. Thing is, that actually doesn’t have anything to do with whether “The Blaze” is credible. Hell, he didn’t even know Beck ran it. Look for a narrative. Look for anything that backs it and disregard anything that doesn’t seems to be the MO.

        • Thebob

          Simple GOOGLE SEARCH…
          People also ask
          Do Canadians have to wait for medical care?
          Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2017 Report. Waiting for treatment has become a defining characteristic of Canadian health care. … Patients wait longest between a GP referral and orthopaedic surgery (41.7 weeks), while those waiting for medical oncology begin treatment in 3.2 weeks.Dec 7, 2017

          The Fraser Institute, a Canadian public policy think tank, estimates that 52,513 Canadians received non-emergency medical treatment in the U.S. and other countries in 2014, a 25 percent jump from the roughly 41,838 who sought medical care abroad the previous year.Aug 3, 2016
          Canadians Increasingly Come to U.S. For Health Care | Best …
          https://www.usnews.com/news/best…/canadians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

          The “average” Canadian family, consisting of two adults and two children, earning about $127,000, will pay about $12,000 a year for public health care.

          The only thing Canadian patients are “guaranteed” is a spot on a waitlist. As the Fraser report notes, in 2017, more than 173,000 patients waited for an ophthalmology procedure. Another 91,000 lined up for some form of general surgery, while more than 40,000 waited for a urology procedure.

          All told, nearly 3% of Canada’s population was waiting for some kind of medical care at the end of last year.
          https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/06/11/canadians-are-one-in-a-million-while-waiting-for-medical-treatment/#1537e3c63e7d

          alternate facts are you only seeing what you want to see, instead of the ACTUAL FACTS…Again, you’re just a good little leftist soldier doing and repeating as YOU ARE TOLD…Instead of thinking for yourself…POS baby killer…

        • epeeist

          Do Canadians have to wait for medical care?

          And here we see the casual disregard for truth.

          You will note that I gave comparative statistics for the US, Canada and the UK. Do you ask “what is that average wait time for patients seeking a specific medical procedure in the US, Canada and the UK?” No, what you do is ignore the US completely.

          You have given oncology as a an example, so why don’t you tell us how long one has to wait between referral and the beginning of treatment in the US, Canada and the UK?

          The only thing Canadian patients are “guaranteed” is a spot on a waitlist.

          Let’s ask another couple of questions.

          We have just had a parcel delivered, the guy who delivered it works for a company who uses casual drivers (part of the “gig economy”). He will almost certainly be on minimum wage with few if any of the benefits that a UK employee will have.

          So, how long would such a person wait for treatment in the US, Canada or the UK?

          And as a follow-up, what percentage of bankruptcies in the US, Canada and the UK are caused by medical expenses?

        • Thebob

          Canadian docs being “burnt out”…https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/10/10/md-burnout-an-alarming-problem-cma-president-says.html

          Doctors numbers or available doctors in CA are also dropping, they are moving to the US and opening their own practices or working for a US hospital.

          But then again this just maybe another case of lack of evidence is evidence where evidence should be.

        • epeeist

          Canadian docs being “burnt out”

          Two things here, once again you ignore the US. What are the comparative US figures? I can tell you that stress levels in the UK NHS are high because it is a deliberate policy by the current government to limit the resources given to it (the aim of the Tories is to eventually denationalise the NHS.

          Secondly, this still doesn’t make any difference to the comparative statistics I gave, the American figures are still worse than those for Canada and the US and the costs in the US are still higher.

        • Who advocates murdering babies? Not me, and I’ll bet not any atheist commenter here.

          Lying makes baby Jesus cry.

        • An Alzheimer’s patient is far, far more like a baby than a baby is like a single cell.

          Personhood is a spectrum. It’s not a person as a single cell, and it is when it’s born.

        • Thebob

          Baby is never a single cell egg is one cell and sperm is another cell from there is grows exponentially 2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256 so on…

        • One egg cell + one sperm cell makes one fertilized human egg cell.

          Are you just trying to make small talk so we avoid a difficult topic?

        • Thebob

          “difficult topic?” Which is, you believe it is okay, even morally acceptable, to kill an unborn human child…Not really that difficult to those who value all human life…

        • you believe it is okay, even morally acceptable, to kill an unborn human child

          Wrong again. Are you going for a hat trick?

          Killing children is illegal. I don’t advocate that.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “unborn human child”

          Oxymoron (you’re just a garden-variety moron yourself)

          Try again, and tell the truth rather than the lies that tickle your fee-fees.

        • al kimeea

          You are an asshole. With bonafides.

        • epeeist

          You are an asshole.

          Yep, definite failure as a human being.

        • Thebob

          Thanks I will take that as a compliment from a baby murdering scum bag like you..

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It’s pathetic watching you *repeatedly* violate the ‘commandment’ against false witness (‘baby murdering’: It’s not a baby until it draws its own first breath, and abortion isn’t murder in any case, it’s removal of a parasite) in a futile attempt to deceive people into supporting your hateful authoritarian superstitious position.

        • al kimeea

          nope never murdered anyone, much less a baby, and not going to for any reason

          Yahweh, OTOH, murdered our baby and nearly dear Mrs. K in the process

          the scumbag

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          They are not forcing themselves up peoples’ vaginas to stay alive by penalty of law.

        • Thebob

          As to your scenario, she could take a morning after pill, no need to allow a full term, but after min. 8 weeks that baby has a detectable heart beat, which typically signifies life, but all cells are also a form of life…

          I didn’t ask about your dog, just dogs and humans in general…So then I take it you have no problem with Kill Shelter’s for animals?

        • Natureboi

          Are you for or against rights for LGBT people?
          Are you for or against affordable health care?
          Are you for or against entitlements for the poor?
          I am for all three.

          I am against kill shelters, but that’s a fully developed viable life compared to an undeveloped dependent fetus.

        • Thebob

          IDGAF how you live your life or their life, just STAY THE FUK OUT OF MINE…Meaning, I won’t use the Gov’t to push an ideology or agenda on people whom don’t want it, with the backing of Gov’t Force and Violence….You’re against killing an animal, yet, unborn babies with heart beats, oh, that’s a human their scum…Have you ever watched an abortion?

        • Natureboi

          STAY THE FUK OUT OF MINE…Meaning, I won’t use the Gov’t to push an ideology or agenda on people whom don’t want it,

          What are you being forced to do?

        • al kimeea

          tolerate people living their own lives & helping those in need? what terrible things to have forced on you.

        • Natureboi

          tolerate people living their own lives & helping those in need? what terrible things to have forced on you.

          I think he is referring to LGBT rights.
          That allowing them to be treated as human contrary to his biblical “teachings” somehow causes him harm.

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          How can something that hasn’t been made into a person with their own body be killed?

        • BlackMamba44
        • Thebob

          Point is what?

        • Thebob

          “parenthood thusly detracting a major portion of her life?” Pretty pathetic way of looking at it also, I assume you’re not a parent, never have been and probably an adult man child, whom your parents are still “taking care” of you…

        • Natureboi

          So you think it’s okay for a 14 year old to become a parent?
          Pathetic.

          probably an adult man child, whom your parents are still “taking care” of you…

          ???

          Why have you turned hostile and resorting to insults?

        • Thebob

          14 year old shouldn’t be having sex, but since I was 14 once, I understand reality also and wasn’t having sex at 14 but pretty damn close to it…In the case of Rape, the baby didn’t ask to brought forth into our world that way, it is not the innocent’s fault…nor should they be blamed for it and tossed out like a sake of garbage, which is apparently what you think of unborn are….

        • Natureboi

          .In the case of Rape, the baby didn’t ask to brought forth into our world that way,

          Did the 14 year old ask to become a parent?
          What about her life?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Projection and ad hominem.

          Par for the course for YOUR KIND.

          But YOUR KIND no longer have the power to put your assholishness into effect, else you’d be out there Inquisitioning.

          As it is, you’re reduced to pathetically trolling the opposition while we use you like chew toys.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So you’re advocating pregnancy SLAVERY.

          Thanks for clearing that up.

          YOUR KIND don’t get to judge the motives of a pregnant person who wants an abortion, and we’ll fight you tooth and nail to KEEP you impotent and whining about it.

        • Grimlock

          You may say so. But why should anyone care what you think?

        • Thebob

          IGAF what you think of me…But thanks for further proof you and yours are waste of space.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ” murdering of unborn”

          Self-contradictory phrase.

          Find me a lawbook ANYwhere that says ending a pregnancy that the pregnant person *wants* ended is ‘murder’.

          YOUR KIND just can’t help lying, can you? After all, if people knew what you were REALLY advocating (pregnancy slavery, no access to long term contraception, and reduction of women to chattel) you’d get no takers, now would you?

      • Natureboi

        since you believe God does not exist, then all of this is a moot point, pointless interactions of Chance, totally meaningless in a totally meaning less life you live..

        You are correct.
        That’s why we have cancer, over 10,000 diseases and natural disasters that kill millions.
        By your own logic, God himself treats all life as totally meaningless.

        • Thebob

          Finally an honest comment, if really moot, why don’t you just kill yourself to help out others as you are just a resource hog?

          God, is not the reason for those, but you would to conclude or admit that a God exists or Higher Power cause those things you mentioned are caused by hate and evilness greed etc..etc..90% of Disease and Cancer are attributed to LIFE STYLE CHOICES…

        • Natureboi

          God, is not the reason for those

          Not only he must be responsible for evil death and suffering as per him be the alleged “creator” of everything, but God himself admits to it.

          .90% of Disease and Cancer are attributed to LIFE STYLE CHOICES…

          How does a child’s “lifestyle choice” give him leukemia, malaria, polio, Down syndrome, etc.?
          What causes those?
          Why would God create natural disasters?

        • Grimlock

          That statistic is not true for cancer. The number a bit of googling gives me is around 40 %.

          https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/risk/preventable-cancers

          It makes me skeptical of how true it is concerning disease in general. Stop making stuff up.

        • Thebob

          You’re googlefu needs work Padewon…
          People also ask
          What percentage of cancer is related to lifestyle?
          The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25–30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30–35% are linked to diet, about 15–20% are due to infections, and the remaining percentage are due to other factors like radiation, stress, physical activity, environmental pollutants etc.
          Cancer is a preventable disease that requires major lifestyle changes
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/

          Up to 90 per cent of cancers due to lifestyle choices, environment …
          https://nationalpost.com/…/up-to-90-percent-of-cancers-due-to-lifestyle-choices-environ…
          Dec 18, 2015 – New research suggests that 70 to 90 per cent of your lifetime cancer risk … Up to 90 per cent of cancers due to lifestyle choices, environment, study says … parts of our bodies are more vulnerable to developing cancer than others and … with similar patterns of division would have similar risk for the disease.

        • Grimlock

          What’s a “padewon”?

          You say: “Lifestyle choices”
          Article says: “The environment and lifestyle”

          Not the same thing. And that’s before considering the ambiguity between “lifestyle” and “lifestyle choices”. Given the rest of your comment, you didn’t appear to have a very sterile or scientific use of that phrase in mind.

          Let’s also take a look at your original point. Let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that given complete knowledge of how our bodies end up with cancer, we can avoid 90 % of all cancer cases. Newsflash: We don’t have complete knowledge, and the god that you appear to worship ain’t sharing. Because it’s made up. Get over it.

        • Thebob

          boo hoo, somebody is having a hissy fit…you can’t make a coherent argument…PSST, YOUR BIGOTRY IS SHOWING!!!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Yep.

          YOU are having a hissy fit.

          Otherwise you’d do as Grimlock did and refute each point (it’s called a ‘fisking’, FWIW).

          I see you throwing name blame and running away pathetically attempting to taunt.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Up to”

          did you miss those two words? Terms of art for “we want to scaremonger without being called on the carpet for it.”

        • epeeist

          Stop making stuff up.

          Why spoil the habit of a lifetime?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Not worried about your ‘god’, or any others.

        I’m worried about the asshole believers who attempt to seize authoritarian power and abuse in the name of YOUR KIND’s ‘god'(s).

      • Mojo

        You and i know better than that.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “If two passages in the Quran seem to conflict, the one written later (overrules) the earlier one.”

    Which is a moot point until someone proves the god of the Quran actually exists.

  • Nica

    In the version of the Flood wherein the animals are brought into the Ark 7×7 if “clean” & 2×2 if “unclean”, how did Noah make this distinction since it hadn’t been given by God until Moses’ time?

    • Greg G.

      Noah did the peer review before God sent it to Moses for publication.

      • Nica

        What a brilliant theory 😉

      • DogGone

        LOL

    • Nice one!

    • Mojo

      Does the bible tell you what Noah ate? Does it tell you everything God told Enoch? Could it be that God gave those instructions to Noah (or someone else) and God didnt find it important enoigh to include that in the narrative? Is that at all possible? Or are you just grasping at straws?

      • Greg G.

        Is that at all possible?

        No, it’s not possible. It is a fictional story with too many plot holes.

        • Mojo

          Ok. Thats your belief.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          How about providing evidence it’s anything BUT a story?

          Wouldn’t that be easier all around?

  • Nica

    In terms of Progressive Revelation, you might want to look up Desmond Ford’s “apotelismatic theory” of revelation, how it occurs historically in concentric rings. (A Baptist seminary student in my class was a fan.) You can download his 2nd of 3 volumes of Crisis: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation for free on Kindle right now! Huh.

    • Mojo

      For a counter, and biblical view of revelation, scripture, and canon, see Michael Kruger’s book, Canon Revisited.

      • Greg G.

        The Progressive Revelation theory is a response to the problems of the “biblical view of revelation, scripture, and canon.” It doesn’t work either.

        • Mojo

          Ah, yes. Progressive revelation is another issue Kruger tackles in his book. Again, would highly recomend it.

        • You’re saying that this post about progressive revelation has errors? Then correct them for us.

        • Mojo

          Why reinvent the wheel? I pointed you to an excellent recource that covers the topic. Esides, it would take posting several paragraphs that you wont read anyway. So those who want to learn have a pointer to a good resource. Those, like you, who wont be convinced anyway, are spared ignoring my paragraphs of explanation and then pretending like you read it and giving me more snakry comments telling me how stupid i am that i believe it. So get Kruger’s book!

        • You’re worried that I won’t read your 2-paragraph summary, but you still think I’m going to read a whole book?

          Get me excited about the book and then maybe I’ll read it. (Though Greg G.’s comment gives me pause.)

        • Mojo

          Im not really typing for your benefit. As i said, i wrote that for the sake of anyo e else who sees these posts and wants a pointer to an excellect resource on the topic.

          You just want to argue for argument’s sake.

        • No, I want to argue to change minds–either mine or the other person’s. And maybe learn something. So far, you’re a disappointment.

          I didn’t realize how much I had to beg to hear good arguments for Christianity.

        • Mojo

          I have read your website. You arent interested in good arguments. Youre interested in misrepresenting, in catching people in their words. So i do what i do – point to those who are well spoken, well studied, like Michael Kruger. You dont have ro beg to read his excellent arguments. If you really want hear those arguments, you know where to go (and so does anyone else who reads this).

        • Greg G.

          Wow! You really have a lot of different reasons to not explain what impressed you about Kruger’s argument.

        • Mojo

          Not really. It’s the Same argument.

        • Susan

          Not really. It’s the same argument.

          What argument is that?

        • Mojo

          Scroll up and read. See, that’s what i mean. You dont even read what is written, yet I’m asked to write more?

        • Susan

          Scroll up and read.

          I did read. And there’s no argument there.

          Oh, well. I thought I’d ask.

          I won’t ask twice.

        • Pofarmer

          But Kruger makes some very good arguments. On your knees now, or else! Or something. Why are these twits so militantly offended?

        • Susan

          Why are these twits so militantly offended?

          Because behaving like that protects their lack of an argument.

          See, it’s like this. They’re right because they know they’re right.

          The only reason we don’t understand that they’re right is because we’re too stupid, too scientismic or the devil (or God, if you’re the pharaoh) is hardening our hearts.

          Considering they might be wrong isn’t an option.

          Also, there seem to be a lot of trolls about. Right now, bman is the only one I’m convinced is a real christian participating.

          It’s so hard to tell.

        • Mojo

          Good.

        • You arent interested in good arguments.

          No? I’ve written over 1000 posts, and each one allows comments that are unmoderated (within reason). I put my arguments out there, and anyone can point out any errors.

          That’s my idea of encouraging good arguments. I can’t figure out yours.

        • Mojo

          I said GOOD arguments. You’re as closed minded as any liberal college professor I ever met.

        • Right–I have sucky arguments, and I’ve been putting them out there, in public, for 10 years in the hopes that people will correct me. And they have, and I’ve adapted my arguments to avoid those mistakes in the future.

          But apparently that’s not the way you’d like to see it done. I guess that’s my cross to bear.

        • Rudy R

          Since you refuse to provide Bob examples of his bad arguments, may I ask what they are? Or am I going to get the same lame response?

        • Rudy R

          Still waiting for an example. You’re like most theists that comment here. You dip your toe in the water, find out it’s to uncomfortable, and leave, never to be heard of again.

        • Mojo

          Or, i see that you are not open to discussion. Yes, you want to wrangle woth words, but like the others on this site, you are not open to a change of opinion. So why bother?

        • Rudy R

          Exactly where in my comments did I state that I am not open to change?

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          How about “God” read your book aloud. I promise not to believe “Jesus” exists until he’s finished reading.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Then bring your ‘good’ arguments.

          Theists have uniformly been fuckups bringing BAD arguments for generations now.

        • Mojo

          When i pointyou in the direction of good arguments, you find reasons to reject them. You are so hard hearted and closed minded that wouldnt believe a good argument in someone rose from the dead and told you it was all true.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          Remember, you’re a SALESperson.

          Sell, monkey, sell! Or admit you have nothing.

          YOUR job is to make it interesting enough to draw prospective clients in…and you’re failing miserably.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          If you can’t summarize it in a fashion that piques our interest, you’re just another failed salesdrone.

          Try again.

        • Mojo

          Nope. Youre going to stick your fingers in your ears and hum REAL loud because you dont want to read from a source that disagrees with your prefered worldview.

          That you say im required to articulate my position or you wont listen is your problem, not mine.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOU are the salesperson, trying to make a sale.

          *I* am the customer who you have to convince.

          So do your job, salesperson, or *lose* your job and starve…

        • Greg G.

          Grindlay says Kruger claims “self-authentication”. If that means that the Bible isn’t supported by outside reality, then it is circular. A work of fiction that is consistent might be possible but it does not mean it is true.

        • Mojo

          Ill tell you what i told him:
          Ok, so you find those arguments more compelling. I’m not sure how to argue with what comes down to your personal feelings or faith on the issue, but for those who view scripture as God’s inerrant, infailable Word, it is more than convincing enough.

          Besides, arguing apologetics or biblical canon wont convince you to beieve anyway – that’s the work of the Holy Spirit.

        • Greg G.

          Ill tell you what i told him:
          Ok, so you find those arguments more compelling. I’m not sure how to argue with what comes down to your personal feelings or faith on the issue, but for those who view scripture as God’s inerrant, infailable Word, it is more than convincing enough.

          Besides, arguing apologetics or biblical canon wont convince you to beieve anyway – that’s the work of the Holy Spirit.

          Holy Spook? That’s just the inability to think critically, aka, gullibility.

          Why not just explain what Kruger means by “self-authentication”? It sounds like Kruger is illogical, and you, too.

        • Mojo

          Holy Spook, eh? You insult God, insult me, tell me that i am unable think and that i am gullible, then ask me to explain something to you that you wont listen to anyway? No, i will just continue to refer any reasonable readers to Kruger’s work instead of casting my pearls before a swine.

        • Greg G.

          I remember when it was called “the Holy Ghost”. You should be able to separate your self from your ideas. Don’t be so brainwashed.

        • Mojo

          I would say the same to you.

        • Greg G.

          So you just dropped in to tout a book that is based on a circular argument and have nothing else to say but can’t leave.

        • Mojo

          Can’t leave? Leave what? I get a notification every time you leave a message, so I reply.
          You want circular reasoning, look at evolutionary dating methods.

        • Greg G.

          Nope, you need to look at the dating methods from non-creationist sources. The radiometric measurement of metamorphic rock is based on actual measurements independent of other dating methods. Other dating methods are based on inferences from the radiometric dates.

        • Mojo

          Nope, you need to look at the dating methods from non-scientism sources. People who subscribe to the evolutiknary faith are less than honest about their “science”. Answers in Genesis is a great place to go to read up on that.

        • Greg G.

          I used to believe what you believe. I liked where creationists authors would quote a scientist saying something that sounded embarrassing to science. I started reading a couple of books on evolution to see if I could find something like that. What I found was one of the quotes. In context, it obviously didn’t mean what it appeared to mean out of context. (When I heard the word “quotemining” nearly 20 years later, I knew exactly what it meant.) It was the creationists that were lying.

          When I heard one of my favorite preachers going on about what scientists say about evolution, it saddened me because I knew that was not what scientists said about evolution. A few minutes later, he was telling about heaven with the same gravitas he used when he was misquoting scientists. There was no way he knew anything about heaven but he could have known what scientists say. He just didn’t care what was true.

          I am quite familiar with Answers in Genesis. Go see Talk Origins. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

          The 20th anniversary of the release of the Wedge Document was within the last few days. They practically gave up on their goals over 15 years ago. They were going to prove Intelligent Design scientifically. It didn’t work out. The evidence was against them.

        • epeeist
        • Mojo

          You are a person who puts your faith in what other people that you consider learned tell you. I doubt you have done the research yourself, as i have not personally done the research nor do i have the expertise to make my own authoritative comments. I can, like you, point you to other learned people who have done reseach that came to other conclusions than the links you provide. But then you will do what others have done – mock those people because they dissagree with you. Claim that those PhDs aren’t really scientists because you dont like what they say. You believe what you do because you want to, really. As do i. So, you believe what you will, and leave others to do the same.

          That you people go on and on and on about how stupid Christians are is nothing but a testament that the bible is indeed correct. You act just as God said you would.

          Now lets see how bold you are and see how much you all can rail against the muslims.

        • epeeist

          Or to put it another way, you have no clue as to what the papers are saying and are completely unable to refute them.

        • Pofarmer

          The hell is wrong with these people?

        • epeeist

          The hell is wrong with these people?

          I used to take the attitude that there were two kinds of creationists, the dishonest ones who duped others and the honest ones who had been duped.

          However, after long experience I have come to the conclusion that all creationists are dishonest, if they don’t lie to others they lie to themselves.

        • Pofarmer

          I thought you and a few others might be interested in this.

          http://nautil.us/issue/69/patterns/why-misinformation-is-about-who-you-trust-not-what-you-think

          Why Misinformation Is About Who You Trust, Not What You Think

          Weatherall: In fact, there are cases where cultural beliefs
          affect whole communities of scientists over a long period of time. So
          it’s interesting to reflect on how that changes. And it invariably
          changes because the community changes, and sometimes it changes just
          because old people die, and younger scientists come in and realize,
          “Hold on, why are we assuming this?” And they make their career by
          criticizing something that used to be widely held and show that it was
          wrong. In other cases, things change because the community of scientists
          diversifies. For instance, and tell me if this is wrong, Cailin, more
          women started working in a field.

        • Isaac Newton lived to be 80+, and I’ve read that he was a very imposing force on the Royal Society. He was perhaps the greatest scientist ever, but he wasn’t particularly open to new ideas, so his death unconstrained things.

        • Mojo

          No, that is you trying to win the converaation by putting words in my mouth. Well, you are among like minded peers in this echo chamber of a website, so pat yourself on the back consider yourself the victor.

        • epeeist

          No, that is you trying to win the converaation by putting words in my mouth.

          No, that is me identifying your attempt to sound magisterial as simply bluff and bluster. Once you are presented with something that isn’t on the list of AiG scripts then that is what people like you resort to.

          Come on, if the world is less than 10,000 years old then those papers must be wrong. Show us where they are wrong, a smart boy like you ought to be able to do that.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Science works.

          Religion fails.

          Both are amply demonstrated, by the Internet and the computer you’re using to peddle your drivel if by nothing else.

          Try again.

          Oh, and fuck islam & ‘allah’, too….are your fee-fees soothed now?

        • Mojo

          Observeable science is great. It did indeed give me this computer, medicine, cars, etc. Etc. Evolution is not science. It can not be reproduced in a lab. It has to be infered. Guessed at. Show ke how evolution gave me a computer. Show me how the theory of evolution gave me tylonol.

        • epeeist

          It can not be reproduced in a lab.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yybsSqcB7mE

        • Great example. I also like the fairly recent examples of bacteria evolving to eat nylon and PET plastic.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Evolution is not science. It can not be reproduced in a lab.

          E. coli evolved to be able to metabolize citrate:

          https://lbc.msu.edu/evo-ed/pages/Ecoli/index.html

        • Bacteria has evolved to metabolize nylon and PET plastic. Those are recent inventions, and evolution nicely explains this development. Intelligent Design doesn’t.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideonella

        • Huh? Tylenol?

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          No “Gods” are claiming insult.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “but for those who view scripture as God’s inerrant, infailable Word, it is more than convincing enough.”

          THAT is the problem, right there.

        • Mojo

          Thats the problem for you, indeed.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Not a problem for me.

          I am not Special Pleading to make an exception for how I treat ONE fanciful story with extraordinary credence.

      • Nica

        Since my thesis on the NT canon relied on primary sources, unless the calendar has been altered I think I know the historical process fairly well.

        • Mojo

          Im sure you think you do. However, since i dont see your thesis here, and since what you say goes against biblical truth, it isnt a leap to reject whatever assertions you come up with.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘biblical truth’ is wildly erratic and unreliable.

          It’s ok on geography, maybe okay on genealogy, and it SUCKS on history, evidence for the supernatural, etc.

        • Mojo
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It’s what reading your ‘bible’ without a presupposition that it’s correct leads.

          Unless YOU are willing to give the koran, the book of mormon, scientology, hinduism, etc. the same credence, you’re committing a Special Pleading fallacy.

        • Pofarmer

          How dare you contradict “biblical troof” Whatever it is that mojo here declares it to be.

      • Grindlay

        Kruger makes frequent reference to a concept he calls “self-authentication”. I’ve tried to understand this but have reached the conclusion that it’s an excuse for the lack of non-biblical sources of authenticity. Essentially, it says that the Bible is self-referential and needs no external corroboration. I find the alternative explanations for the Bible and Christianity more logical, compelling and rational.

        • Mojo

          Ok, so you find those arguments more compelling. I’m not sure how to argue with what comes down to your personal feelings or faith on the issue, but for those who view scripture as God’s inerrant, infailable Word, it is more than convincing enough.

          Besides, arguing apologetics or biblical canon wont convince you to beieve anyway – that’s the work of the Holy Spirit.

        • Grindlay

          I don’t think that arguing Apologetics or trying to explain the Canon is really about convincing non-believers to believe. Isn’t it more to do with Believers trying to make sense of something that is inherently irrational, contradictory and unreasonable ?

        • Mojo

          No, but I understand why you chose to see it that way.

  • Bruce Martin

    In the garden of Eden, god first set us up with nudity, because we weren’t ready for clothing.
    In the time of Abraham, god set us up with slavery and polygamy, because we weren’t ready for non-slavery or for monogamy.
    In the time of Moses, god set us up to freak out about pork and shrimp because we weren’t ready for Chinese food.
    In the time of Judaism, god set us up to wash our hands before eating, because we weren’t yet ready to eat sh*t and die the modern Jesus way.
    I think I see it all now.

    • Thebob

      In modern times, human scumbags have set us up with mass baby killings….Every nation in history that resorted to infanticide practices went away like a fart in the wind…Karma will be a bitch for you all…

      • Sophotroph

        Your era is over. The best part is that you’ll live to see us build a better world than your kind are even capable of imagining.

        The funny part is how mad that’s going to make you.

        • Pofarmer

          The Stupid is Strong with this one.

        • Thebob

          IF only humans, weren’t by nature greedy and selfish and want to be left alone…that may just work…And even more proof you all are MORONS, “your kind” is what? Not human? We are some how different than you? “Your Kind” is very much a bigoted statement, thanks for showing your true color of HATE….

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND are hateful authoritarians who will use superstition in your lust for power.

          Next question?

        • I dunno how you do it–you make friends wherever you go.

        • Thebob

          Like minded sure…I don’t associate with those who think killing babies is moral…

        • Uh … none of us think that killing babies is moral.

        • Thebob

          Yes you do…difference is you don’t consider a unborn baby a person…nor alive…And I don’t consider baby murders and pedo’s a person either…

        • you don’t consider a unborn baby a person

          Correct. It’s no surprise we can’t communicate when you knowingly accuse us of bullshit that isn’t actually true.

        • Thebob

          So then an unborn baby is a person?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          unborn baby

          Oxymoron, legally AND biblically…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          IF only humans, weren’t by nature greedy and selfish

          You mean, we were (supposedly) created in this ‘god’s image?

        • basenjibrian

          Nah. Overpopulation, global warming, and the return of scary fundamentalists led by people like Thebob make that unlikely. There are simply too many Thebobs in the world, and I despair.

      • Phil

        Just following god’s example.

        • Thebob

          Doubtful, you’re just a greedy, pathetic human, who means nothing…

        • Phil

          That is just plain nasty.

        • epeeist

          That is just plain nasty.

          Just feel the Christian love.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So, just like your ‘yahweh’, a self-confessed *jealous* ‘god’, who blatantly states that it creates evil unapologetically?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Nope.

        As usual, YOUR KIND have to peddle bad-faith lies because reality will guide people away from your hateful superstitious authoritarianism.

        Try telling the truth and see if anybody follows your hate.

        • basenjibrian

          Besides, human biology engages in “mass baby killing,” so God is the biggest abortionist, no?

      • I will pray Eldath, Goddess of peace, waterfalls, and springs, for you.

  • Natureboi

    There is only one way to explain this “progressive revelation:”

    Our un-erring God works on a learning curve…
    Just like man.

  • Greg G.

    I just saw Jesus and Mo and was going to post a link to that cartoon. Good thing I scrolled at less than the speed of light.