Don’t Vote for Atheists—They Like to Kill People!

Don’t Vote for Atheists—They Like to Kill People! May 27, 2019

Christian blogger John Mark Reynolds wrote a provocative post titled, “Hoping Atheists (Or at Least Anti-Theists) Do Not Kill Us This Time.” This apparently is what atheists do in his mind. Once they get power, they turn into Stalin.

I responded. Fellow atheist blogger Keith Parsons responded. And Reynolds came back with “Anti-Theists are Sure They Will Not Kill You This Time.” Let’s take a look at this rebuttal.

First off, anti-theists are all from the same mold.

Reynolds states his central thesis over and over.

In all human history any anti-theists who have formed a mass political movement and gained power have been that horrific.

(I was thinking of running for dog catcher in the next election, but my world-controlling agenda would probably work against me, so perhaps not . . .)

Reynolds is determined to poison the well. Stalin, Richard Dawkins, Bob Seidensticker—anti-theists are all the same when they get power, so Christian voters must beware!

Second, atheists in America will never amount to anything.

Next, he undercuts his argument by assuring atheists that there’s no point in even trying to attain power.

There is no evidence that American anti-theists will ever develop a mass movement of anti-theists capable of exercising power. . . .

Atheism worldwide is a shrinking community. In the United States it is growing, but from a tiny base.

Reynolds is surprisingly out of touch given that the unexpected and remarkable rise of the Nones (those unaffiliated with any church, which includes atheists) is one of the top religious news stories of the decade. Nones in America have risen from 6% in 1990 to 23% today and are now the largest “faith” group, edging out Evangelicals and Catholics. (Granted, most of the Nones are spiritual, not atheists, but atheism has increased dramatically as well.) Europe leads the way, where atheism is often uncontroversial.

As for worldwide trends, a recent Pew Research study projects that by 2050, the big worldview loser due to adherents switching out of that belief will be Christianity, with a net loss of 66 million worldwide. A nearly equal number will be switching into the Unaffiliated category (chart).

I have no fear of organized American atheists or anti-theists.

One wonders then why the inflammatory title of the initial piece, “Hoping [Anti-Theists] Do Not Kill Us This Time.”

There is no example of a state with atheists in power as atheists that did not persecute the religious.

There are zero atheists in Congress who are out, simply because people like you have made them unelectable. This proves only the Machiavellian success of your efforts, not that atheists are evil leaders.

Thank you for fighting the good fight to ensure that only people who believe like you can get elected, despite the clear guarantee in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust.”

What causes a Stalin?

Reynolds doubles down on his theory of how atheist dictatorships form.

At least some anti-theists picked their politics to match their anti-theistic worldview. Stalin became an atheist first and then picked a political view to match his anti-theistic atheism.

So first Stalin became an atheist (and—who knows?—maybe also a stamp collector and a knitter). Then he fell in with Communists. Finally, he became a brutal dictator who indirectly killed millions. Are you saying that it was the stamp collecting that triggered those deaths? Or maybe the knitting?

If not the stamp collecting or the knitting, why the atheism? By showing priority, Reynolds has done nothing to show cause and effect.

Some critics have responded that “yes anti-theism came first” but that anti-theism did not play a causal role in the selection of socialism and the persecution of the religious. This seems implausible. It is very hard to establish that anything causes anything else, but if developing an anti-religious view is not an important motivation in the persecution of religious people, I am not sure what a motive would be!

It’s implausible that you’re mistaken? Your theory is hard to establish? What kind of research is this? Did you click Publish when this article was only in draft form?

Yes, someone who persecutes Christians would have an anti-religious view, but would someone with an anti-religious view (like Stalin) necessarily persecute Christians? I have an anti-religious view, depending on your definition, and I don’t persecute Christians. The overwhelming majority of atheists in the U. S., if magically made Dictator, wouldn’t dream of persecuting Christians.

This theory fails because we have nothing to argue that Stalin’s atheism and not the needs of his government drove the persecution of Christians.

And what fraction of Stalin’s victims were Christian? Once the Communist government put pressure on the church, the number of citizens that could have been killed for being Christian dropped.

To show that religion and atheism were simply tools for Stalin, note that Stalin allowed churches to revive during World War II to encourage patriotism. He also supported a (Muslim) Uyghur revolt in China’s northwest to harass the anti-Communist Nationalist government.

But don’t worry about Christians with power!

Reynolds is kept up nights worrying about atheists, but “there is not a parallel worry about Christianity,” he assures us.

No nation on earth with a Christian state church that bans atheism or sends atheists to labor camps.

Make it a Christian dictatorship, then get back to me. Look at Muslim theocracies today—atheism is a capital crime in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and ten other countries. The lesson isn’t hard: religion or atheism in a democracy is peaceful, while in a dictatorship it’s not. It’s the dictatorship that’s the problem.

And Reynolds has no leg to stand when he frets about atheist genocide when his own Bible makes clear that God was delighted to use genocide when necessary.

Here’s a fun detour: Reynolds was provost of Houston Baptist University, which is affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which in turn partners with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The SBC split off in 1845 as the explicitly pro-slavery Baptist denomination and only apologized for its support of slavery, segregation, and white supremacy in 1995. Given Southern Baptists’ track record, should we insist on assurances that any who get into power won’t try to reinstate any of these racist policies? We could rework Reynolds’ own line: “Christians Racial minorities are not paranoid to worry and would be foolish not to do so.”

To Reynolds or anyone else who is outraged by this suggestion and comes up with responses why it makes no sense, I suggest they apply those responses to Reynolds’ argument, which is no stronger (h/t commenter wtfwjtd).

Back to Reynolds:

Nobody has denied that every atheist regime in the world has been horrible.

Hmm. That’s a good point. And how many countries are we talking about—two hundred? Three hundred?

Oh—so it’s only three countries, you say? And every one of them a dictatorship. Your study suffers from too small a sample size. It also suffers from the lack of atheist countries that are not dictatorships to see if (dare I say it?) the dictatorship is the problem.

Concluded in part 2.

Hello, I’m Leonard Nimoy.
The following tale of alien encounters is true,
and by “true,” I mean false.
It’s all lies, but they’re entertaining lies,
and in the end, isn’t that the real truth?
The answer, is No.
— Leonard Nimoy on The Simpsons

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 5/4/15.)

Image from Wikipedia, CC license

.

"Hypothetical? That he would even say that. Wow, just wow."

What Is Anti-Gay Speech? And How ..."
"the Isaiah 7:14 passage and also that the OT term doesn't necessarily mean virgin. It ..."

How Much Faith to Be an ..."
"Don't use the inaccurate term "judeo-christian". Don't assume that Jews agree with you on the ..."

How Much Faith to Be an ..."
"if that was all the difference was then we would just be animals. Yup, we’re ..."

Outrageous Kim Davis: Homophobe and Hypocrite

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


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

    Nobody has denied that every atheist regime in the world has been horrible.

    I deny that.

    Jawaharlal Nehru of India was an atheist, and they still celebrate his birthday.

    Julia Gillard, who was PM of Australia hardly ran a “horrible regime”.

    Denmark has had several atheist prime ministers.

    Francoise Holland is an atheist, is France a “horrible regime”?

    Lázaro Cárdenas of Mexico went out with a great name for his integrity, he’s considered the last Mexican president to have not used the position to get rich. Note that this is not a distinction afforded the very Christian presidents who followed him.

    Hell, Winston Churchill was an atheist.

    Where does he get this idea that every atheist regime has been horrible?

    • Bruce Gorton

      And note we’re not arguing for the scumbag Keith Parsons to be excluded from consideration based on his religion – which supported slavery, the KKK, segregation and general shitbaggery throughout its entire history – he’s arguing that we should be excluded due to our non-belief.

      He’s arguing for the idea that atheists are oppressors, while arguing for a religious test to hold office.

      • Castilliano

        Keith Parsons? He’s an atheist blogger rebutting John Mark Reynolds, the one you likely meant whose religion supported bigotry.

        • Bruce Gorton

          Brain glitch – thanks for the correction.

        • Greg G.

          You get seven days to claim a mulligan and edit your post, if you wish to correct it..

        • Greg G.

          whose religion supported bigotry.

          That church teaches us that we can make God happy by being miserable ourselves; that a nun is holier in the sight of god than a loving mother with her child in her thrilled and thrilling arms; that a priest is better than a father; that celibacy is better than that passion of love that has made everything of beauty in this world. That church tells the girl of sixteen or eighteen years of age, with eyes like dew and light; that girl with the red of health in the white of her beautiful cheeks – tells that girl, “put on the veil, woven of death and night, kneel upon stones, and you will please God.” I tell you that, by law, no girl should be allowed to take the veil and renounce the joys and beauties of this life. –Robert Green Ingersoll

        • WallofSleep

          “… put on the veil, woven of death and night…”

          Wow, they make it sound so fricken’ metal that I want one now.

        • TheNuszAbides

          THAT’S HOW THEY GETCHA

    • Anri

      Where does he get this idea that every atheist regime has been horrible?

      And the Magic 8-ball says (*shake shake*)…
      “Pulled directly out of his rosy red rectum.”

      …well, who am I to disagree?

    • Martin Penwald

      Stalin and Hitler, despite proofs that the latter was very friendly with christians of all stripes, and the former did what is explained in this article.

      • Brian Shanahan

        Well Hitler was catholic all his life and died in full communion with his church. And Stalin was for most of his life a devout member of the Georgian orthodox church, only declaring himself atheist for a while in the twenties and thirties as a political expedient.

        • Wrong. Hitler privately disliked Catholicism (not that he was an atheist). Stalin became a Marxist (thus atheist) in the 1890s.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Evidence would be nice…

        • You only ask me for it? Read about both men’s views. Lots of sources to be found.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOU made the positive claim.

          YOU are required to provide evidence for it.

          ‘Look it up’ is the weakling cry of every loser who has no support for a position.

        • I notice only I’m asked for this. So long as a claim agrees with us, like his, there is no demand at all.

          I don’t remember the citations or have those onhand. You can thus reject my statement. I’ll do the same with his.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You claim it’s so.

          You claim there’s evidence.

          You refuse to provide it.

          Your assertion fails on that basis.

        • Just mine, I guess. Anyway, haven’t I already conceded?

    • Well, he likely means regimes where all the officials were atheists and proclaimed “state atheism”. Your examples show there is no inherent danger in us having power though.

      • Dom Saunders

        Well, if you’re going to enforce any state ideology, there’s bound to be problems. After all, “state Christianity” hasn’t really done people any favors either.

        • Yes, to the extent which they did especially. Others have not been so repressive, but even then.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Hell, Winston Churchill was an atheist.

      Yep…and he wasn’t the only atheist UK Prime Minister either.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law#United_Kingdom

  • Michael Neville

    As was pointed out in the last thread, theists have to go to the last century to show atheists trying to kill people. I just have to look at last week’s news [LINK] to find a theist trying to kill someone.

  • WallofSleep

    “I have no fear of organized American atheists or anti-theists.”

    https://i.giphy.com/media/CggoHW4h87Ktq/giphy.webp

  • Foxglove

    I really do wish some of these Christians would take a good look at their own misdeeds some time. As an LGBT person who paid a high price for living in Christian lands, I’d be happy if Christians would take that into consideration.

    I’m really, really tired of people who smugly point the finger at others and never stop to think that maybe they’ve got some black marks on their own record. And given what this guy is saying about atheists and the sort of (non-)reasoning he uses, I wonder what his stance on LGBT rights would be. I wonder, I wonder.

    • Their knee-jerk response is, “Well, sure, Christians are only human. The Bible teaches that humans are fallen. We of all people understand that. But don’t let the bad apples represent the entire religion.” or some such blather.

      This guy is pretty conservative. I doubt he’s particularly LGBT-friendly. His hands are tied, doncha know. He’s just doing what Jeebus tells him to.

  • Cozmo the Magician

    Notice that the twit did NOT mention the genocide performed by the CHRISTIAN REGIME of Nazi Germany.

    • Michael Neville

      Christian genocide doesn’t count, since it’s done with God’s blessing.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        /s

    • Jim Jones

      And Spain, and Portugal.

      • Brian Shanahan

        Chile, Argentina, Brazil, the LRA in Uganda, the massacres in Congo, Serbia. And that’s just off the top of my head for christian atrocities since the 70s.

    • Nor the genocide that God himself demands in the Old Testament.

  • RichardSRussell

    Personally, I absolutely dread the prospect of Tom Selleck, Geraldo Rivera, or Sam Elliott ever coming to power. The mustaches, you know. Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan … what more evidence do you need?

    • Benny S.

      What more evidence do I need?!?!

      John Bolton. 😉

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Well, bow ties can be dangerous, too…look at Tucker Carlson!

  • eric

    The overwhelming majority of atheists in the U. S., if magically made Dictator, wouldn’t dream of persecuting Christians.

    Before you say that Bob, it’s worth remembering that to some Christians, requiring them to serve gays in their store or county clerk’s office counts as persecution. Preventing prayer in public school is persecution. Telling police departments they can’t put “In God We Trust” on their cars is persecution. So yeah, secularists (which includes but is not limited to, atheists) do persecute Christians…for some definitions of “persecution.”

    No nation on earth with a Christian state church that bans atheism or sends atheists to labor camps.

    Uh, look up the phrase Gott Mitt Uns.

    Also, “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.” 1874 Arkansas state constitution, Article 19, Section 1 (now unenforceable, but certainly an example of US Christians trying to limit the legal rights of atheists)

    Also, “XXXV. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” Maryland State constitution.

    Also, “Section 2. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” Tennessee state constitution, Article 9.

    I could go on; there are more. The point being that no Christians in the US try to legally discriminate against atheists now, but they certainly did so in the past. And not just individual shop-owners and the like; this was institutional, practiced by the state, and purposefully written into the actual founding documents of many of the states. When it was legal to do so, Christians in America happily barred atheists from serving in government, on juries or as a witness, and the like. Just think about that for a moment; you’re sitting at home and someone comes into your home and murders your family…and your testimony doesn’t count, because you aren’t Christian. Because that’s the way Christians wanted the law to work.

    • So yeah, secularists (which includes but is not limited to, atheists) do persecute Christians…for some definitions of “persecution.”

      Their beef should logically be with the US Constitution. That’s where the secular public square is defined.

  • The usual Fundy BS of them having never ever killed a fly and being pacifists. It gets even boring to see the same PRATTs again and again.

  • Whenever Christians (or capitalists) bring up the evils of Stalin, Pol Pot, communism, etc., I have to assume that they’re forgetting that the biggest genocide in history by far was committed by Christian capitalists, starting in 1492 and ongoing to this day.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Well, xtian *mercantalists* at first…but I take your point.

  • Ann Kah

    We already have an atheist in the white house, and I’m sure he is not the first. Granted, the previous ones haven’t managed to destroy world civilization, but this one is giving it a good try. He has even suckered the Christian Right into pretending he is a Christian, although they’re a gullible lot anyway.

    • Dana W

      Lol. He is a man of god, just ask him and his followers.

      • WallofSleep

        Or those two Corinthians.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Rich Corinthians….just look at their leather!

        • Greg G.

          They must be driving a Christ-ler.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Greg G.

          I have had Ricardo Montalban’s voice saying “rich Corinthian leather” rattling around in my head for 44 years and finally looked it up to see what it was. It turns out to be a marketing gimmick for regular leather and vinyl car upholstery. I am so let down.

          Corinthian leather [LINK] on Wikipedia.

      • Greg G.

        just ask him and his followers accomplices..

        FTFY

        • WallofSleep

          “just ask him and his followers accomplices enablers.”

          FTFYB

  • Bria Lapoint

    the way christians are acting these days, they would have it coming if someone did kill them. But the irony is, the people most likely to kill them are other christians.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Yep. White, male, poorly educated, low to middle class people are the largest category of US terrorists.

  • Norman Parron

    The problem is not this particular nutjob, but that so many religions actually preach this BS. Because it is something that they ALL can get behind as a connected group. The fact none of them differentiate between dogmatism and atheism because they hate the fact that ALL religions are dogmas just like the rule of Stalin and the others. And just as deadly if they get a power base.
    Another point they love to ignore is that the Jefferson separation of church and state was powered by baptits scared shitless that the catlickers would get the main power.

  • Michael Neville

    No nation on earth with a Christian state church that bans atheism or sends atheists to labor camps.

    Technically he’s right. The Spanish Inquisition didn’t have people sent to camps. Instead heretics, apostates and atheists were tortured until they confessed and were then burned at the stake.

  • Jim Jones

    He’s confusing atheism with mustache wearing. And eating rice.

    • Greg G.

      Dog-loving, too. Hitler loved dogs and Kim Jong Il loved dog meat soup.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      I thought it was eating mutton?

      • Ignorant Amos

        Eaton Mess?

      • Michael Neville

        That’s what they tell the tourists. “Try the mutton soup.”

        • Greg G.

          Avoid the moo goo meow pan.

  • JustAnotherAtheist2

    So, he says a bunch of uninformed bullshit, gets his errors pointed out to him and then simply repeats the uninformed bullshit in response?

    Not exactly the most convincing rebuttal. But if establishing a dictatorahip requires the ability to form a coherent argument, perhaps his thesis has an accidental ring of truth….

  • Kodie

    They will say anything to persuade believers to cling to any label they can as long as nobody ever thinks they are an atheist. They will say anything for believers to repeat as though it were true, so who is persecuting whom? They have a terrific anti-atheist campaign that any theist is softened enough in the brain from religion to believe and repeat and propagate. They know there are more of them than us, and more believers spreading not only lies about god, but lies about atheists, lies about what atheism is, and paranoia that if the government is not Christian, or at least not some religion we recognize and trust, like Jews and I don’t know, I guess just Jews, then they sincerely fear that another tribe will seize the void and control government, totalitarian-style, and outlaw everything they personally or philosophically do not like. Why do the Christians believe their control of government would be so benevolent?

    And can I say, with Trump in office, it seems like most people aren’t safe, so they can go fuck themselves with these totalitarian denials. When every group BUT Christians is persecuted, is that really the kind of society we want? They can’t pretend they’re taking good care of everyone if they are being selective. They can’t pretend they’re hating and demeaning and sending alarms about atheists out of true fear of atheists, but fear that all atheists want to force everyone to stop believing in god. I think a lot of atheists would be happier? if people weren’t brainwashed ignorant nutjobs like a lot of Christian alarmists seem to want to make the Christian image to be. We’d like children in school educated in science and not fantasy, for starters. Is it persecuting Christians to force children in school to learn? Trick question, can’t force anyone to learn!

    They think if they’re not in charge, we’ll make ’em sit down and force a lot of changes they don’t want, and they’d rather keep the upper hand, so that’s why they keep dissing us, and perpetuating the stereotypes. The only way to rid society of this evil hatred is to keep going forward until we outnumber them naturally, so superstitions are marginalized, and we can ridicule them, and we can tell everyone what stupidity and ignorance and lack of education is the thing to fear. Whip it up, there’s a lot more precedent and evidence how Christianity and other religions ruin lives, ruin societies. I’m not saying govern them out of existence by any means. We have to keep talking, and eventually their reputation for being honest and truthful and good will be ruined.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Outnumber them and prevent them from gerrymandering to keep power.

  • epicurus

    Off topic but the cover photo for this post is by Otto Dix. I first saw his work while on vacation in 2010 in NYC at the Neue Galerie, which is just across from the Metropolitan Museum of art and Central park. It is devoted to early 20th century Austrian and German art and design. I was mesmerized by his work depicting the horrors and absurdity of the the First World War and the lives of crippled soliders after. Of course his work was disliked by the Nazi’s as generate. Can’t have people thinking war is absurd now can we.

    https://www.neuegalerie.org/content/mission-statement

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/may/14/first-world-war-german-art-otto-dix

  • Susan

    Great article. Really well written.

    • Many thanks!

      (I’ve been out of town on a Swiss holiday and had a few posts in the hopper, and then I come back to the Great Naughty-Word Fiasco of 2019. I wish I were back in Bern …)

  • Wayne Conner

    To use his same line of reasoning, we should never trust Christians because they are all murderous inquisitors who are just waiting to torture and burn the heretics.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      And the xtians were blatant about their motivation, unlike supposed ‘oppressors’ for atheism.

  • Benny S.

    I wonder if John Mark Reynolds believes that patriot Pat Tillman, who sacrificed his life for his country and died in the mountains of Afghanistan in 2004, would not have been worthy of public office / any leadership position had he instead lived to return home.

  • Scooter

    You stated in a previous blog entry, “The Problem of Evil is the question, “Why would an omnipotent, all-good god allow so much evil in the world?”
    So I’m wondering why you object to God judging the Canaanites for their unspeakable evil which included burning their children alive in the arms of their god Molech, being champions of incest, bestiality, temple prostitution, etc., etc. After 400 years of warning this judgment was necessary to prevent the Canaanites from corrupting the Israelites. You also make the erroneous comment that God is delighted to use genocide whereas in Ezekiel 18:33 it says that, ” Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

    • Greg G.

      If God was going to judge the Canaanites, why not allow them to go extinct by natural causes before the Israelites got there? God is good at plagues. If God would send a plague because David took a census, why wouldn’t he do something about the Canaanites for all the bad things they were accused of?

      Maybe we should believe the evidence found by Egyptian archaeologists that shows that there were no large numbers of Israelis in Egypt ever.Maybe we should believe the absence of evidence from all of the archaeologists of all religions and nationalities that have searched the Sinai for evidence of the Exodus, which should be plentiful if a large group of people were on a 40 year expedition there. Maybe we should believe the Israeli archaeologists who have found no evidence of a sudden change of culture in Israel as if one culture replaced another but instead they find quite similar culture at many site except some have pig bones and some do not.

      The evidence indicates that the Israelites developed from the Canaanites with a religion that had a different menu, then made up stories to make themselves sound tough.

      • Scooter

        I suspect God doesn’t need our advice on how to clean house.

        • Kodie

          I suspect god is a fictional prop that people use to justify mass murder and genocide. .

        • David Cromie

          For example, the armies of the Third Reich, and their motto; ‘Gott mit uns’, as they went about their genocide missions.

        • Greg G.

          Ha ha ha ha! God cleans house by destroying it with a flood, then regrets it when he realizes he was foolish. God needs all the advice he can get. Or else the writers of the fiction needed better friends to proof-read the narrative for huge plot holes.

        • Scooter

          Actually you need to re-read the story to get it straight. See genesis 6:9-ff

        • Greg G.

          Actually you need to read outside of the Bible and creationist baloney. The flood never happened. It is a fictional story made up by priests to con honest, hard-working farmers and herders out of their goods.

        • Susan

          See genesis 6:9

          Glad you brought it up.

          When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

          Yahwehjesus had sons who would visit our planet and breed with our women.

          Let’s start there… at the beginning.

          We’ll take it line by line if you’d like, but no changing the subject, disappearing for long stretches and returning with the same evasive crap weeks or months later.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          /snark=ON

          How DARE you take Scooter at his word and fisk the document he’s vainly holding up to hide the fact his emperor has no clothes!!

          /snark=OFF

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s what happens when ya plagiarize other culture’s Flood Myths and at the same time try to embellish them with ones own loada ballix.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I don’t accept that your ‘god’ exists any more than all the other ‘gods’ you no doubt fervently deny.

          Convince me…no magic claims, either.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You only “suspect”?

          Ya mean yer not sure?

          Not displaying much confidence in an omniscience there Scooter, baby Jebus is greetin’ his wee eyes out. No Heaven for you.

    • Doubting Thomas

      I also love how god waited 400 years before he decided to intervene. Three hundred years of child burning? Meh. But four hundred years??!! That’s more baby roasting than even god can tolerate.

      • Scooter

        Seems like God can’t win-first He is accused of not stopping evil and then of not stopping it soon enough!

        • Doubting Thomas

          You can’t be this slow, can you? God is accused of doing nothing while children are being killed, then fixing the problem by killing children. It’s the height of stupidity and evil.

        • It’s the height of stupidity and evil.

          Yup. That would describe Christian apologetics.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, an omnipotence who needs the Israelis as henchmen to do his dirty work.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Any ‘god’ should be capable of ending the ‘evil’ by turning the hearts of the baddies to repentance and restitution…

        • Scooter

          Well, “any god” doesn’t exist but indeed the God of the Bible does change hearts and minds.
          Just a couple of examples from the scriptures: 2 Corinthians 5:17 “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.”
          Jeremiah 24:7 ‘I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.”
          Ezekiel 36:26 “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          “…but indeed the God of the Bible does change hearts and minds.”

          I’m not sure you’re looking at this the same way we are. We consider that statement a bug, not a feature.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Roofied for Yahweh…”

        • Greg G.

          Nice verses. Why don’t they ever succeed at “ending the ‘evil’ by turning the hearts of the baddies to repentance and restitution…”?

          HEWBT asked a valid question and all you could offer is verses that obviously don’t work. Why pretend that they do?

        • Pofarmer

          You’ve got to ignore a lot of bad actors for Jesus to beleive that crap.

        • Doubting Thomas

          Well, “any god” doesn’t exist but indeed the God of the Bible does change hearts and minds.

          Just not the hearts and minds of the people burning their own children for 400 years. Instead of changing their hearts and minds, he kills them all.

          And you worship this monster.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          You don’t get that without EVIDENCE…evidence that YOU would accept for *somebody else’s* ‘god’ that you currently deny.

          Until then, you’re acting like a kid in a pillow fort, draped in a blanket, claiming invulnerability and impregnability.

        • David Cromie

          “…the God of the Bible does change hearts and minds”.

          I did not know this supposed ‘god’ of yours was a heart transplant surgeon, but it is all too obvious that it does destroy the minds of believers, so that they become incapable of critical thinking, and mere sponges for any shite their preferred religious guru spouts at them.

        • David Cromie

          Why create ‘defective’ humans in the first place? That is a very strange thing for an omniscient, omnipotent (or, any other ‘omni’ you wish to drag into the conversation) supernatural ‘creator’ to do.

        • Kodie

          Yeah, who actually wrote the bible, and put those words into god’s mouth? Why do you think the Israelites had an honest perspective of Canaanites, and why their perspective justified exterminating a whole group of people? I mean, what if someone said Americans were evil because… think of any reason, I’m not picky. There’s a lot of reasons people from other countries hate US just for, like, how dumb a few of us are, for example, or one offensive arrogant leader, or whatever. When the TERRORISTS want to put us on notice, they are seeing our actions, to them, are evil, and justify doing bad things to us, indiscriminately, as though we are a homogeneous population of terrible people. So maybe you don’t deserve it, but you’re gonna die because of geography and government affiliation.

          Yeah, I’m saying the bible is a terrorist diary.

        • Damian Byrne

          Kodie says

          Why do you think the Israelites had an honest perspective of Canaanites, and why their perspective justified exterminating a whole group of people? I mean, what if someone said Americans were evil because

          I could’ve sworn that Bob had just recently posted some articles showing the fuckwittery thinking of William Lane Craig, of how Craig once posited how awful it would be to live in a world where the Nazis won, and the Holocaust was looked back on with admiration and justification…all the while being completely blind to his own admiration for his own religion’s claims of the Canaanites just having to be exterminated.

        • eric

          Dude you don’t even understand “can’t win” rhetoric. An example of an atheist using a fallacious ‘god can’t win’ argument would be if they complained that God shouldn’t interfere and then complain that God didn’t stop evil.

          One person arguing that God didn’t stop evil and another saying He didn’t stop it soon enough are making similar points, not any sort of catch-22 or ‘god can’t win’ case.

          You’re not even making a theological or philosophical mistake; you’re making a basic reading comprehension mistake.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Scooter is just too stupid to know how stupid he is, I say he, because no female could be that stupid…well, with the exception of Candy perhaps.

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

        • Sophotroph

          He’s supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent. That should still be easy mode for him.

      • Doubting Thomas

        Much like there’s a Poe’s Law and a Godwin’s Law, there should be a law some thing to the effect of:

        “Any Christian trying to makes excuses for their god will inadvertently make god look even more evil or incompetent than before.”

    • Ignorant Amos

      So I’m wondering why you object to God judging the Canaanites for their unspeakable evil which included burning their children alive in the arms of their god Molech, being champions of incest, bestiality, temple prostitution, etc., etc.

      We don’t believe in gods. We are just pointing out the problems inherent in the fuckwittery.

      Who says the Canaanites were doing all those things you claim?

      After 400 years of warning this judgment was necessary to prevent the Canaanites from corrupting the Israelites.

      Ahem…that’ll be the Amalekites.

      In 1 Samuel 15:1-9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites – men, women, children, infants, and their cattle – for something the Amalekites’ ancestors had done 400 years earlier.

      The Israelite’s were actually Canaanites. You are buying too much into the whole pile of bullshite.

      You also make the erroneous comment that God is delighted to use genocide whereas in Ezekiel 18:33 it says that, ” Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

      Because YahwehJesus couldn’t think of an alternative way to deal with these alleged ills that the Canaanites were enacting…amarite?

      Poor YahwehJesus, but wait, an omniscient God had to enjoy it, because it’s part of the rules. Just like it has to maximally enjoy getting gangbanged.

      https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4932

      The god thingy had no problem being a real piece of shite. Here’s just twenty shitty things from the silly story…

      http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=21

      The only clown making erroneous comments in all this is you.

      • Greg G.

        In http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=21 point 17, it correctly says that Elijah brought down fire to kill 51 men in 2 Kings 1:9-10, but Elijah did it again in the next two verses. The third captain of fifty men asks Elijah to not kill him and his men and tells him that the king asks for him to come to talk with him, which Elijah does. So Elijah killed 102 men because two men didn’t ask politely enough to suit him, though he was willing to do it anyway.

      • Damian Byrne

        Who says the Canaanites were doing all those things you claim?

        Even in terms of Christian/Judaeo thinking, the Canaanities weren’t doing anything wrong. The killing of children being mandated by what one believes to be God isn’t wrong, according to such thinking. One only has to look at Abraham and Isaac. No, it was the fact it was being done in honour of a so called false god, or competing god, that was the problem.
        According to the Binding of Isaac story, the only reason Abraham didn’t sacrifice his son was because God stopped him at the last instant, because for whatever reason, Abe’s God doesn’t like human sacrifice. But this raises the question – what if God hadn’t stopped Abe? What if God did like human sacrifice?

        • Kodie

          What if God did like human sacrifice?

          God loves human sacrifice. Well, he loves humans, like humans love hamburgers. So-called “primitive” gods loved human sacrifice, and Judeo-Christian god loved animal sacrifice, and what’s the most precious animal a person or family or community could offer god? A person. Can you imagine the burnt offerings might have included some humans, and not just your best goat? You’re so poor you don’t have a goat, say…. God required the death of his son Jesus, like he’s putting on a big play for everyone, look, I killed my own son to please me, now do you believe I love you and am real?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed.

          What if God did like human sacrifice?

          Jephthah’s daughter would have an opinion on that.

          Seems YahwehJesus didn’t have much of a problem with human sacrifice…unless it was to other gods of course.

          http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/human_sacrifice.html

          As for the conquest of the Canaanites, there is a thesis that that was a cover story for an embarrassing part of Hebrew history. The thesis goes something like the early Canaanites were a two-teir system where the Have-not’s got fed up with the Haves went head to head and revolted in a kind of slow moving civil unrest until finally the commoners cracked.

          Sharon Zuckerman claimed the archaeology at the bronze age Canaanite city of Hazor supports this hypothesis.

          Here is a paper detailing her findings, it’s a bit technically boring, to avoid the molasses, go strait to the conclusion.

          https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d5eb/eca2843d91f0dd430cd457c1d35931293d75.pdf

          The same idea is proposed elsewhere.

          About the origins of the ancient Israelites . . .

          The notion is that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites.

          The Israelites were always in the land of Israel. They were natives, but they were different kinds of groups. They were basically the have-nots.

          Archaeology reveals that the Israelites were themselves originally Canaanites.

          http://oaks.nvg.org/hebrews.html

        • Greg G.

          Another raised question is “If God could stop Abraham from killing Isaac, why can’t he stop anybody else from sacrificing children to fake gods?”

        • Pofarmer

          If God is all powerful, couldn’t he just convert em?

        • Greg G.

          Free will.

          But wait, God stopped Abraham when he was free willing to sacrifice Isaac.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Beat me to it.

          Reminds me of Dan Barker’s Free Will argument for the nonexistence of God.

          The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

          In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

          A being who knows everything can have no “state of uncertainty.” It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

          Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

          https://ffrf.org/legacy/about/bybarker/fang.php

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      So, you’re saying it was better to kill *all* the Canaanites (there were no doubt some who didn’t partake) rather than conquering and ‘civilizing’ them?

      That’s pretty black and white, even given the known fact that propaganda ALWAYS demonizes the opponents and treats them as less than human, and that story reads like war propaganda.

      The simple fact (in story) that this ‘god’ was too puny to magic the problem away doesn’t do YOUR KIND any favors, either.

      • Kodie

        Isn’t it interesting how we’re born alone, as individuals. Most of us will tend to die, eventually, the same. I don’t mean alone-alone, but you will be the highlighted family death.

        God could only make one person out of dirt. He made another one out of his rib. That’s it. When he wanted to start over, he had to kill millions of people and animals. When I guess 8 people alone restored the population, not everyone, for all time, stayed in their personal opinions to obey the same god. Populations went out of order, and groups and tribes once again were prejudiced against other tribes nearby.

        Jesus fuck, who doesn’t have a neighbor they don’t get along with. I can appreciate another group having different customs, and one group doesn’t approve of those customs or traditions. Justifying that god finally gave your tribe the go-ahead to exterminate that group with extreme prejudice…. and really how much warning? If the Israelites said to the Canaanites, “god will burn you to death if you don’t change your behaviors, so what if the Canaanites didn’t change? This is bullshit. This is people saying, you don’t believe in my god, and I don’t approve of your local customs, and you didn’t change when I threatened you with my imaginary friends, so you ALL MUST DIE.

        Seriously, that’s messed up. Why did we let Israelites get any land back. I’m not trying to be extreme, but if they were driven off their land, and people who claim Israelite status hadn’t lived there for almost 2000 years, that’s just how it is now. Live somewhere else now. Why can’t the Canaanites get their land back? Because they didn’t write a fucking book!

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Fwiw, the follow up question has nothing at all to do with what you wrote in the first paragraph. I haven’t a clue what point you are trying to make.

    • eric

      After 400 years of warning this judgment was necessary to prevent the Canaanites from corrupting the Israelites.

      1. An omniscient God wouldn’t need to wait 400 years, he’d know the outcome.

      2. An omnipotent God wouldn’t need to resort to unspeakable evil to correct their behavior.
      3. A moral God – even one lacking omnipotence and omniscience – wouldn’t resort to collectively punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Heck, even God’s own bible says that that’s wrong…while telling stories of God doing it on several occasions…

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        But what if god had sufficient reasons blah blah blah?!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          /s

      • Scooter

        1. God is sovereign meaning he knows all outcomes even the end of an atheist’s life so perhaps he shows his longsuffering and mercy to all people to give them time to repent.
        2. God’s judgment is not unspeakable evil but is an answer to it.
        3. Did God actually punish all the children? Perhaps hyperbole or exaggeration for effect is involved in the Hebrew language. There are some historical passages that mention total destruction of pagans in the land promised to Israel. For example in Deuteronomy 7: 2 we read that the instruction is for Israel to totally destroy them but in the next verse Israel is told not to intermarry with them. How could this be if they had been totally destroyed? Other people groups who were supposedly totally destroyed keep keep appearing at different times.

        • eric

          1. God is sovereign meaning he knows all outcomes even the end of an atheist’s life so perhaps he shows his longsuffering and mercy to all people to give them time to repent.

          Does he know whether they will repent, or only see possible futures? If the former, than waiting 1, 4, or 400 years is pointless and the story makes no sense. If the latter, then he’s not omniscient.

          Besides which, the most straigtforward way of showing mercy on me as a means of gaining my repentance is to provide reproducible, concrete evidence of his existence.

          God’s judgment is not unspeakable evil but is an answer to it

          Here’s the first description of the genocide of the Canaanites: “When the Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming along the road to Atharim, he attacked the Israelites and captured some of them. 2 Then Israel made this vow to the Lord: “If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy[a] their cities.” 3 The Lord listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns; so the place was named Hormah.” That’s not punishing unspeakable evil, that’s condoning wholesale slaughter in response to a few of your people getting captured. It’s an intentional over-response.

          Here’s the second description: “10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.” Again ,that’s a complete over-reaction; condoning genocide in response to an opponent merely choosing to defend their own city with force. Note also, importantly, that the justification for the mass slaughter is not as punishment for them committing evil acts; the justification for mass slaughter is to prevent future Israelites from being converted.

          3. Did God actually punish all the children?

          Yes. Killing a kid’s parents and then taking the kid as your war-plunder is punishing them. “Do not leave alive anything that breathes” is even worse. God orders both, in different circumstances.

          Perhaps hyperbole or exaggeration for effect is involved in the Hebrew language.

          Indeed, perhaps the bible is not telling us the truth.

          If that’s the case, shouldn’t we be the most skeptical of the most incredible claims, and less skeptical of the more mundane claims? One bronze age tribe razing the city of another is a lot more mundane than talking burning bushes and people resurrecting.

          For example in Deuteronomy 7: 2 we read that the instruction is for Israel to totally destroy them but in the next verse Israel is told not to intermarry with them. How could this be if they had been totally destroyed?

          Seems a pretty easy set of verses to interpret; destroy the nation utterly, kill everyone you find, and don’t marry anyone who happens to survive your attempt at genocide. God’s being thorough, given that it’s doubtful the Israelite’s attempts at genocide will be perfect. Moreover, in Deut 20 God tells them that for unaffiliated cities they merely have to kill all the adults; they can keep the cattle/children as war spoils. Its the nations Israel wants to take over where they’re told to murder all the children. So the no-intermarry rule would apply to the surviving children of unaffiliated cities.

          In any event, your argument here is no counter to my point, which was God’s ordering and condoning collective punishment, something we consider to be immoral. Immoral collective punishment doesn’t only mean killing. So if the Israelites didn’t kill each and every last Canaanite, God’s order for them to destroy the nation utterly and take it’s children as spoils of war – even if they aren’t killed – is still evil.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Didn’t Moses intermarry? Twice!

          A Midianite and a Cushite…some biblical intermarrying was acceptable.

          Based on the Hebrew Bible, intermarriage was quite frequent in early Israelite society. The Bible is full of Israelite men marrying foreign women. Abraham marries Keturah, who couldn’t have been a daughter of Israel as Israel, Abraham’s grandson was yet to have been born. Judah marries Shu’a the Canaanite. Joseph marries Asenath, daughter of the Egyptian priest Potiphera. Moses marries Zipporah, daughter of the Midian priest Jethro, the kings of Judea married all sorts of foreign princesses, and the list goes on and on.

          Intermarriage didn’t seem to be an issue, just selective intermarrying.

          This Deuteronomic Code doesn’t forbid marrying non-Israelites outright. Rather, it lists seven Canaanite nations who are completely off-limits (the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites) of which “You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son.” (Deuteronomy 7:3)

          Except when it was okay.

          Then after the Babylonian exile, it all went pear shaped and all intermarrying was banned, or was it?

          A lot of fucking fudgery by God’s Chosen, seems dickhead YahwehJesus couldn’t make the message clear even back in the day when he was supposedly talking to prophets.

          Or it’s all a loada made up as ya go along ballix.

        • Scooter

          Eric, I appreciate reading your civil response as some commenters like to take the ad hominem approach. The term “genocide” is bandied about regularly in these discussions; however the actions taken by the Israelite army was not genocide which means to wipe out an ethnic group but rather as one writer has termed it, “sinocide”-the removal of a debauched group of people. To prove this point, it is important to see that God’s commands were against sinful Israelites as well. See Exodus 32;27; Numbers 15:1-9.
          Keep in mind too that all the laws that were given to Israel were not a universal ideal for all time but rather for the theocracy of ancient Israel to set Israel apart from all the other nations, to get them into the promised land and ultimately bring forth the promised Messiah who would be the Savior of the world for those who would believe and put their trust in Him.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You keep telling yerself all that fuckwittery if it lets you sleep well at night. And prevents ya from facing the elephants in the room. We all already know ya for what ya are here.

          Btw, fuck off and learn what the ad hominem fallacy is before making an even bigger eejit of yerself in misusing it, there’s a good child.

        • Scooter

          I thought of you Amos as I read this from the book of Proverbs this morning.
          “Surely I am too stupid to be a man.
          I have not the understanding of a man.
          I have not learned wisdom,
          nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.”
          Proverbs 30: 2-3

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bwaaahahaha!

          More mumbo-jumbo, woo-woo nonsense.

          You were reading it from your silly book…guess who the “I” is?

          You have failed miserably to demonstrate this “Holy One” at every hands turn.

          But it’s nice to know I occupy your thoughts.

        • Michael Neville

          A “non-religious” “skeptic” who slams an atheist with a Biblical quote is just showing his true Christian colors. Thanks for giving yet more evidence that you lie when you pretend you’re not a Christian.

          Does the term “hoist by his own petard” mean anything to you?

        • Doubting Thomas

          Does Scooter do that or are you mistaking him for Skl?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Fuck…does Scooter claim he is a “non-religious” “skeptic”?

          I thought it was only skl.

        • Michael Neville

          Oh shit, I slammed the wrong guy. Scooter admits he’s a Christian, it’s skl who pretends he isn’t.

          Sorry, Scooter, I misrepresented you.

        • Scooter

          I appreciate that Michael. Yes I am a Christian but I have learned and been interested in the arguments that are presented in this blog.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I don’t tend to think of people when reading fiction, mostly…but to each their own.

          Face it, if you had evidence, you wouldn’t have to waste your time proselytizing BECAUSE IT WOULD BE EVIDENT, LIKE WIND, GRAVITY, BEHAVIOR, OR MATTER.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Hey, payback isn’t fun, now is it?

          Don’t complain about being hit BACK first, when you’re making wild hateful claims based on your genocidal superstition.

        • eric

          “Sinocide” papers over the point that God ordered the slaughter of children. Just tell me point blank whether you think that was moral or not.

          Keep in mind too that all the laws that were given to Israel were not a universal ideal for all time but rather for the theocracy of ancient Israel to set Israel apart from all the other nations, to get them into the promised land and ultimately bring forth the promised Messiah.

          First, this is a form of consequentialism, like utilitarianism. You’re saying “it’s okay to slaughter innocent children, if it leads to some greater good [hundreds of years later!]” AFAIK, most Christian theologians reject consequentialism because it’s a form of subjective morality, and they think morality is objective. Thus the slaughter of children cannot be justified by appealing to the later birth of Jesus, without giving up the notion of objective morality. Which are you going to do – give up objective morality, or concede that this is an invalid justification for the killing?

          Second, in beggars belief that anyone could claim that an omnipotent, omniscient God couldn’t get the ancient Hebrews established in Canaan by giving them a less bloodthirsty set of instructions or in a less bloodthirsty way. For goodness’ sake, we know God is perfectly fine with ‘changing hearts’, because (in the Exodus story…) he did exactly that to the Egyptian Pharaoh several times. So why not just do a reverse-Pharaoh? Was that beyond his capability? Did he not think of that solution? Or did he just prefer the slaughter method? Good gracious, even sending a plague ahead of the Israelites to empty the cities would’ve been more kind.

          Third (and possibly most obviously), why wouldn’t a perfectly just and perfectly merciful God with full understanding of a real, objective morality inform humans as to what that morality says? If there is some objective morality and God is giving us moral instructions that differ from it, that’s lying to us. It’s misleading us into doing immoral things. And look, we’re not talking about misleading us in the sense of dumbing down “the hot stove will burn your flesh and this will hurt” into “don’t touch the stove because I said so”. That’s the sort of example some Christians like to cite, but its utterly disanalogous to trying to argue that ordering the slaughter of every living thing – including cattle etc. – in a city that chose to defend itself from an invader is somehow consistent with some deeper or more complex idea that murder is wrong. It just isn’t (consistent). God’s orders to the Hebrews on the Canaanites is not a simplification of some deep moral principle of peace, it’s the utter antithesis of peace. If there is an objective morality and according to it killing infants is wrong, then God lied to the Hebrews about what was right and what was wrong.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “Sinocide” papers over the point that God ordered the slaughter of children. Just tell me point blank whether you think that was moral or not.

          Crickets?

          Scooter is a fucking unthinking moron.

          Apparently life at the point of conception is holy…every time…am a missing something?

          Unless.

          Fuckwits-r-us….simple as is…duh!

        • ildi

          …however the actions taken by the Israelite army was not genocide which means to wipe out an ethnic group but rather as one writer has termed it, “sinocide”-the removal of a debauched group of people.

          Made-up word, and funny how it just so happens there’s a perfect correspondence between ethnic group and “debauched” group, including infants? How can infants be debauched?

        • Ignorant Amos

          How can infants be debauched?

          When the person using the two words “infants” and “debauched” in the same sentence, is too stupid to know just how stupid they really are, of course.

        • Kodie

          You still don’t know what ad hominem means? That’s why you are too stupid to listen to.

        • Scooter

          For your benefit Kodie, “Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.” Funny how you provided a simple example by saying, “you are too stupid to listen to.”

        • Kodie

          I’m glad you enjoyed my intentional joke. You just don’t like being insulted for being an idiot, aside from your terrible arguments, which are taken on their own, outside of your monstrous and gullible character.

        • Susan

          whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”

          I’m pretty sure Kodie knows that.

          What you don’t seem to understand is that you don’t have arguments. Nothing to avoid. You bring PRATTs and when confronted, you change the subject, disappear and reappear with the same non-arguments, having hit the reset button.

          Kodie is not attacking the man because she wants to avoid his argument. She is attacking the man because he keeps showing up without one.

          She insulting you because of your persistent behaviour.

          That is not ad hominem.

          Funny how you provided a simple example by saying, “you are too stupid to listen to.”

          Nope. If she said, “I reject your argument because you are too stupid to listen to.”, that would be ad hominem.

          If she says, “You are too stupid to listen to because you have no argument.”, it’s not.

          Anyway, I asked you more than once… what standard do you use to evaluate Yahwehjesus when you claim it’s the moral standard?

          Still waiting for an answer.

        • Ignorant Amos

          1. God is sovereign meaning he knows all outcomes even the end of an atheist’s life so perhaps he shows his longsuffering and mercy to all people to give them time to repent.

          Unsubstantiated bullshit assertion without a scrap of supporting evidence. Wise up.

          2. God’s judgment is not unspeakable evil but is an answer to it.

          Unsubstantiated bullshit assertion without a scrap of supporting evidence. Wise up.

          3. Did God actually punish all the children?

          You doubt your own book? How many would it take for it to be a shitty action?

          Perhaps hyperbole or exaggeration for effect is involved in the Hebrew language.

          Indeed. Not just the Hebrew language. Fiction is like that. But when it is past off as historical fact, it moves from fiction to lying.

          There are some historical passages that mention total destruction of pagans in the land promised to Israel.

          Nope. That’s “hyperbole or exaggeration for effect” ya dopey Dime Bar.

          For example in Deuteronomy 7: 2 we read that the instruction is for Israel to totally destroy them but in the next verse Israel is told not to intermarry with them. How could this be if they had been totally destroyed? Other people groups who were supposedly totally destroyed keep keep appearing at different times.

          We know. The continuity department of Hebrew scripture writing was abysmal. Shoddy work of a multi-omni entity, or shoddy work of fallible human beings? I know where my money is on.

        • Greg G.

          1. God is sovereign meaning he knows all outcomes

          You seem to be thinking of “omniscient”. That has nothing to do with “sovreign”.

          sov·er·eign
          /ˈsäv(ə)rən/

          noun
          1. a supreme ruler, especially a monarch.
          synonyms: ruler, monarch, supreme ruler, Crown, crowned head, head of state, potentate, suzerain, overlord, dynast, leader;

          2. a former British gold coin worth one pound sterling, now only minted for commemorative purposes.

          adjective
          1. possessing supreme or ultimate power.
          “in modern democracies the people’s will is in theory sovereign”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          God is sovereign meaning he knows all outcomes

          Sooo…you’re admitting sucking up to what you believe is a genocidal sadist?

          If your ‘god’ was so powerful, why couldn’t it use subtler means than the law of claw and fang?

        • David Cromie

          Yes, the collection of myths, legends, and folklore, usually termed the ‘bible’, is so shot through with contradictions, and nonsense ‘history’, that it is possible to use it to validate any injustice, or action, that the reader wants to use in pursuit of his/her evil ends.

        • Why would God (if he/she/it exists) want the Israelis to kill any children or babies? And if some of these cities in Canaan are alleged to have been burnt to the ground, would a compassionate God command this?

          Good thing that most biblical scholars believe that the Canaanite stories are legends. But how does it relieve these stories of their “immorality”?

          If these events happened, as Fundamentalists believe, weren’t the barbaric savages who wrote these passages of the bible bloodthirsty, very violent and ignorant of peace and compassion? Didn’t the power elites in Israel justify barbarism to their religious people by saying “God told us”?

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s the thing, these stories are made up bullshit. But the fact that Scooter thinks they are historically true and then goes on to try and defend them as acceptable actions, makes him a nasty piece of oxygen thieving human excrement.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          You don’t get to use that until you’ve demonstrated this ‘god’ of yours is anything more than a shared superstitious delusion known for causing erratic and lethally violent behavior.

        • 1. Long suffering? As eric pointed out to you, God doesn’t need to run an experiment to see what happens. Or do you not understand “omniscient”?

          2. Genocide is all God has in his toolkit? All he can do is fight fire with fire? If he really were omnipotent, he could go back in time 50 years and make all the women infertile. Or think up better ideas yourself. It’s not hard to think of cleverer ideas than this Bronze Age god.

          3. So your response is that the Bible is unreliable? Sure, that’s possible, but do you really want to go there? Kinda shoots holes in your leaky rowboat.

          But this doesn’t matter. The Bible itself says that God commands genocide. That’s all we need to know.

        • Scooter

          1. Of course I understand “omniscient.” But I think you don’t understand “longsuffering.” “Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?” Here Rom. 2:4 explains that God’s longsuffering or patience with the ungodly is a result of His abundant kindness not willing that any should perish as another verse says. So when we stand before the judgment bar there will be no excuses.

          2. Just unfortunate that God didn’t have you by His side to provide all your brilliant advice when needed.

          3. No, I didn’t say the Bible is unreliable. The opposite is true-we as interpreters can be very unreliable especially when we approach the Bible with an atheistic bias. It’s crucial for proper interpretation to understand that not all scripture is to be interpreted in a wooden literalistic sense. One example-Luke 2:1 “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.” Do you think the “whole world” went? I don’t think so but it does show the far reaching demand to every class of citizen to be registered. We use this kind of language today-“The whole world is watching the NBA playoffs.” as one announcer said.
          American Yale philosophy professor Nicholas Wolterstorff argues that the expression “struck down all the inhabitants with the edge of the sword” is a formulaic phrase and occurs 7 times in Joshua 10. he says it is a literary convention that should be understood in conjunction with the fact Joshua did not literally wipe out the entire population of the cities he battled. What it really means then is “to score a decisive victory over.” The Israelite army had employed their normal rules of war by eliminating the defenseless.

          One last point. What we really need to know is that the source of all life is justified in taking life whenever he decides. We are not. God can actually play God If the Israelite commanders had decided to kill the Canaanites on their own you would have a case

        • I’m glad you wrapped up with a presumption of God’s existence. Very convincing.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I picked up my copy of Carrier’s “Why I Am Not a Christian: Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith” again last night, it’s been quite a while since I first read it, Scooter would do well to avail himself of a copy. It would enlighten him to the reasons why we think his buffoonery is beyond ridiculous.

          The books simplicity should appeal to the likes of Scooter in explaining why the thesis that there exists a god as proposed by Christianity is completely ludicrous. Whatever there is to be said about the existence or not about a gods existence generally. Christian gods existence is a logical impossibility. It is then reasonable to extrapolate the same thinking to other religions gods.

          Anybody that hasn’t yet read it, they can get the skinny on it from the essay it was developed from here…

          https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html

        • Thanks. You prompted me to look at my own copy, and I see that I read it back in 2012. Maybe I’ll give it another read as well.

        • Greg G.

          One last point. What we really need to know is that the source of all life is justified in taking life whenever he decides. We are not. God can actually play God If the Israelite commanders had decided to kill the Canaanites on their own you would have a case

          How do you know the Israelite commanders didn’t decide that God decided to kill the Canaanites and had that written down? You don’t know because the evidence shows it never happened.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He doesn’t get it at all.

          Religious people do bad stuff all the time, then claim a god wanted it that way…because it says so in the scriptures we wrote and attributed to a god.

          Talk about circular reasoning.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The opposite is true-we as interpreters can be very unreliable especially when we approach the Bible with an atheistic bias.

          It was as unbiased Christians reading the buybull that eventually converts most non-believers from Christianity. The message is an unholy mess that rational thinking being would come anywhere near to putting its name to, let alone one that is claimed to be perfect.

          If God wants something from me, he would tell me. He wouldn’t leave someone else to do this, as if an infinite being were short on time. And he would certainly not leave fallible, sinful humans to deliver an endless plethora of confused and contradictory messages. God would deliver the message himself, directly, to each and every one of us, and with such clarity as the most brilliant being in the universe could accomplish. We would all hear him out and shout “Eureka!” So obvious and well-demonstrated would his message be. It would be spoken to each of us in exactly those terms we would understand. And we would all agree on what that message was. Even if we rejected it, we would all at least admit to each other, “Yes, that’s what this God fellow told me.”[2]

          Excuses don’t fly. The Christian proposes that a supremely powerful being exists who wants us to set things right, and therefore doesn’t want us to get things even more wrong. This is an intelligible hypothesis, which predicts there should be no more confusion about which religion or doctrine is true than there is about the fundamentals of medicine, engineering, physics, chemistry, or even meteorology. It should be indisputably clear what God wants us to do, and what he doesn’t want us to do. Any disputes that might still arise about that would be as easily and decisively resolved as any dispute between two doctors, chemists, or engineers as to the right course to follow in curing a patient, identifying a chemical, or designing a bridge. Yet this is not what we observe. Instead, we observe exactly the opposite: unresolvable disagreement and confusion. That is clearly a failed prediction. A failed prediction means a false theory. Therefore, Christianity is false.

          Typically, Christians try to make excuses for God that protect our free will. Either the human will is more powerful than the will of God, and therefore can actually block his words from being heard despite all his best and mighty efforts, or God cares more about our free choice not to hear him than about saving our souls, and so God himself “chooses” to be silent. Of course, there is no independent evidence of either this remarkable human power to thwart God, or this peculiar desire in God, and so this is a completely “ad hoc” theory: something just “made up” out of thin air in order to rescue the actual theory that continually fails to fit the evidence. But for reasons I’ll explore later, such “added elements” are never worthy of belief unless independently confirmed: you have to know they are true. You can’t just “claim” they are true. Truth is not invented. It can only be discovered. Otherwise, Christianity is just a hypothesis that has yet to find sufficient confirmation in actual evidence.

          https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html

      • Kodie

        Children won’t grow up to worship and obey the murderer of their parents, and it’s all their fault.

    • Bruce Gorton

      One of the things that always irritates me about religion in news is when you get a story about say, someone killing their kid in an exorcism, or by trying to pray the diabetes away, or something like that.

      Because the first instinct is always “You know its fake, why’re you such an idiot.” Same deal with antivaxxers and suchlike.

      The thing is the people doing it don’t know that it is fake, and they’re “idiots” because so much of society is dedicated to telling them that the stupid shit they’re doing isn’t just not stupid, but virtuous. Have faith, people are told, and it’ll all work out for you, God has a plan and it is to your benefit in the end, and prayer works.

      Just like homeopathic vaccines “work”.

      Anyway here’s the thing on this, my wrath is for the people who spread the bullshit, who claim that they can do things that they cannot do, who exact costs from the people that follow them, who consider themselves shepherds and thus their followers sheep to be shorn.

      A lot of antitheism is about getting people to realise that God doesn’t exist, and thus all of this is both unnecessary and harmful. As atheists we do not see exterminating the wicked Christians as an answer to the wickedness of various get-rich-quick pastors, instead we believe in informing people in order to get them to realise that these pastors are con-artists.

      We antitheists, according to your take on the “wickedness” of the Canaanites, are better than your God, because the Canaanites if they did what you claim, did so because a false priest told them to, because they were lied to and assured that this was all necessary to maintain the wellbeing of their group, that without doing these terrible things, well terrible results would ensue.

      You know, like how a certain Southern Baptists wants to assure you that if you vote for an atheist, well look at Stalin.

      Our solution is to inform, your Gods solution is to not talk to the parties involved, not make himself known and reveal the deceptions, not try to convince anybody, but to simply order his followers to end the killing of children, by killing more children.

      • Kodie

        People don’t always know the deep sources of their beliefs and don’t realize they are pawns repeating lies they don’t know are lies. They don’t know they are lying, and likely, pretty far up the chain, the critical thinking is so poor, none of those people think they are lying. I kind of wonder if anyone at all knows they started the lie.

        I mean, imagine you noticed something that happened, and made some connection why it happened, and repeated this relation as an assertion to someone, and it snowballed into a thing where everyone is putting together their experiences, which might seem a little scientific. For example, if vaccinating children caused some detrimental condition, and so many people report that having a child vaccinated caused this detrimental condition, how different is that from a scientific experiment? The issue is causation, because some children will have autism or whatever, and maybe if it is increasing in frequency, or is it increasing in accurate diagnosis? Most kids get vaccinated, and some will show signs of autism, because a lot of vaccines happen by 6-12 months of age, when signs may become more apparent.

        Do these fuckers care what might really be causing autism? Maybe it’s something we can actually prevent, but they are alarming other parents and endangering other children by not inoculating their children. My point is, noticing some spurious relationship and then being able to spread that misinformation to others as though it is fact relies on people 1). not knowing how shit works, and most people don’t, and 2). falling for the suggestion that this connection appears real, so they start to notice patterns that aren’t actually there, and then also repeating it to others.

        People who repeat it don’t think they are lying, they don’t know it’s fake, they think they are trying to save children. A lot of religious causes are like that. Anti-abortion people have zero idea they hate women. They are never told anything against women. They think they are saving little babies, because they are also misusing and misrepresenting scientific facts. The consumers of information don’t know they are not getting the whole story or the true story. If the president says “fake news”, there are people who follow him, and he knows that they are stupid. He said “I love the poorly educated.” It’s a sad world where people are being hypnotized to “think for yourself” which is how they get them to think differently from normal educated aware people. It’s not the worst motto, it used to be that the government was not telling you the truth, and you had to dig it out. It’s been turned into a motto for rejecting ANYTHING that is popular thought. Somewhere, we sort of got the idea that the media and the government is always lying to us about everything, so we have to question everything, and make up stories because the true story must be something other than what the news is telling us.

        I mean, that’s really weird and paranoid, right?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Somewhere, we sort of got the idea that the media and the government is always lying to us about everything

          when it disagrees with our beliefs….

          IMHO, YMMV, etc.

    • towercam

      You have my pity, and hope that you’ll summon some courage and skepticality.
      Snap out of your sad sick delusion of a ‘super daddy’. Get sane!

      You’ve been crippled by pretty lies. Wake up. Figure it out.
      The time to BELIEVE, is when you have PROOF. YOU have NONE!

      Faith is crap and never has been a reliable path to truth.
      One could use ‘faith’ to justify any kind of stupid stuff, like racism.

      You don’t need a ‘god’ to be good! Sheesh!
      Stop being a lazy silly person. Stop supporting ancient lies!

    • Damian Byrne

      So I’m wondering why you object to God judging the Canaanites for their unspeakable evil which included burning their children alive in the arms of their god Molech, being champions of incest, bestiality, temple prostitution, etc., etc.

      Did it never occur to you that something was wrong with this line of thought. Okay, so the Canaanites were willing to burn their own children alive out of a love and devotion to what they believed was a/the real god. Maybe the actual real god could have told them to knock it off, Abraham style?

      You also make the erroneous comment that God is delighted to use genocide whereas in Ezekiel 18:33 it says that, ” Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

      Actions speak louder than words. You can quote your God a million times saying he doesn’t like genocide, if you want…doesn’t change the quote unquote fact that according to Genesis, he flooded the planet. Doesn’t change the plagues etc.

    • RichardSRussell

      History is written by the victors. How many historical records have you read from the Canaanites complaining that the Hebrews kept falsely accusing them of human sacrifice and cannibalism when they were just peaceful fishers and farmers quietly occupying the same land where they’d lived for a thousand years? You’ve got one side of the story, because everybody on the other side is dead. And who killed them? Not just a few of them (the supposed wrongdoers) but all of them, because they kept ignoring the Israelite claims that “this land is mine!”.

      • Michael Neville

        Demonizing the enemy is a tactic as old as warfare. “We gots ta take their land ’cause they sacrifice their kids” sounds like a good excuse for grabbing some Lebenstraum.

      • Scooter

        If you naively believe that the Canaanite tribes were peaceful fishers and farmers then I’ve got a bridge in New York that I’d like to sell you. The historical records of the pagan tribes is clear as to their debauched behavior.

        • RichardSRussell

          And who wrote those “historical records” that you find so persuasive? The Canaanites themselves? Disinterested observers from naboring countries? Contemporary journalists? Sober and serious-minded college professors? Who, pray, other than the self-interested Israelites left us any records at all of what the original Canaanites were up to?

        • Ignorant Amos

          And we now know today that it is a bunch of lies…because we have science, and the scholars who look at the data, that tell us that the stories are made up bullshit.

          And who wrote those “historical records” that you find so persuasive?

          Also known as the Phoenicians, the Canaanites proved to be great seafaring traders and established colonies across the Mediterranean.

          They are also credited with inventing the first alphabet, although ironically few written records have survived the passage of time, so accounts describing them largely come from enemies and rivals, such as the Israelites, Egyptians and Greeks.

          https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/bible-canaanites-wiped-out-old-testament-israelites-lebanon-descendants-discovered-science-dna-a7862936.html

        • Susan

          If you naively believe that the Canaanite tribes were peaceful fishers and farmers then I’ve got a bridge in New York that I’d like to sell you.

          Richard did not claim that they were peaceful fishers and farmers. What historical knowledge do you have about them?

          Now… were the Israelites peaceful fishers and farmers? No.

          Are New Yorkers peaceful fishers and farmers?

          You are suggesting that it is perfectly reasonable to erase a culture from the planet because they are not peaceful fishers and farmers.

          That is, you can slaughter them one and all, infants, seven-year-olds, slaves, etc. because “Sinicide” is morally acceptable.

          This is the same justification the Nazis used to eradicate Jews from the planet. (Yes, I have to go Godwin here) They claimed they were a scourge, that a drop of surviving blood would perpetuate that scourge and that radical measures were justified to eliminate that scourge.

          All based on lies and propaganda about the effects of Jews on the planet.

          This is the standard theory of justifiable genocide.

          You are embracing it.

          If I question it, you could say “If you naively believe that the Jews were all peaceful fishers and farmers when the Nazis decided to eradicate them, I’ve got a bridge in New York that I’d like to sell you”.

          This is why it’s (edit: 19 minutes later to strike and replace) merciful charitable to call you a “sad, religion-poisoned idiot”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          (Yes, I have to go Godwin here)

          And rightly so, because in this case it isn’t fallacious to do so.

          Godwin’s Law does not dispute the validity or otherwise of references or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis. As such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate in a discussion, Godwin has argued that overuse of the Nazi comparison should be avoided as it waters down the impact of any valid usage. In its purest sense, the rule has more to do with completely losing one’s sense of proportion rather than just mentioning Nazis specifically. The law was initiated as a counter-meme to flippant comparisons to the Nazis, rather than to invoke a complete ban on comparisons. As Mike Godwin himself wrote in 2008

          “Godwin himself appears in comments (authenticity confirmed via email) to explain that his “law” sought to discourage frivolous, but not substantive, Nazi analogies and comparisons.”

          This is why it’s (edit: 19 minutes later to strike and replace) merciful charitable to call you a “sad, religion-poisoned idiot”.

          The feckin’ knuckle-dragging moron seems to have the idea that unless everyone at the centre of the genocide is wiped out, it isn’t counted as a genocide. Just how Scooter can be so asinine with just one head, is an enigma itself.

          Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part.

          He is as thick as fucking pig shite.

        • Scooter

          You’re stepping way out of bounds when you compare what happened in the holocaust to God’s judgment on the Canaanite tribes. The definition of genocide means the destruction of an ethnic group. God did not have Israel destroy the majority of Canaanites because of their ethnicity but because of their sin which was grievous and a corrupting factor. I’ve already pointed out that the same judgment was carried out against Israelites who had gone the same route as the pagan tribes. Read Exodus 32:27 and Numbers 25:1-9

          But what I find particularly interesting is your use of, “morally acceptable.” Where do you get this moral sense from? And obviously you are appealing to me to understand and agree on this moral sense of right and wrong as to why it is wrong to kill babies, 7-year olds, etc. Now if you hold to Dawkins’ belief that we exist in “a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication…where at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, NO EVIL and NO GOOD. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference…DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.” -then our discussion is empty rhetoric anyway is it not? However the alternative which you have indicated would uncomfortably lead you as an atheist to an objective morality that can only exist if God exists. (Just a few thoughts from a sad, religion-poisoned idiot 🙂

        • Doubting Thomas

          Where do you get this moral sense from?

          And here we have another well worn Christian distraction technique. Shove their nose into baby murder and they ask how you know that killing kids is wrong. It’s the ultimate admission that they are so morally bankrupt that they wouldn’t know baby murder is wrong unless told so by a baby murdering deity.

          Sad.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’re stepping way out of bounds when you compare what happened in the holocaust to God’s judgment on the Canaanite tribes.

          That’s the first thing I’ve seen you write that’s probably true. The first happened, the second didn’t.

          The definition of genocide means the destruction of an ethnic group.

          Why do you write ignorant shite and then expect to be taken seriously. First of all, the term “genocide” is a modern term with a definition that fits the actions being described in the buybull.

          Now, stop quote-mining the definition like the lying low-life scum-sucking Christer ya are…

          Genocide is a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group.

          God did not have Israel destroy the majority of Canaanites because of their ethnicity but because of their sin which was grievous and a corrupting factor.

          Was every member of the Canaanites guilty?

          No, then whatever the crimes of some, they were all wiped out for being Canaanites. Like Hitler, the Jews were blamed for all sorts of shite, and Hitler used that as reason to try and wipe them out.

          I’ve already pointed out that the same judgment was carried out against Israelites who had gone the same route as the pagan tribes. Read Exodus 32:27 and Numbers 25:1-9

          This whataboutery is sickeningly quaint. Hitler did something similar during the Night of the Long Knives. The one is no excuse for the other, it makes your position worse.

          That you think that this is acceptable behavior, is just flabbergasting. You have been well and truly fucked up in the head by the God Virus. You are equal to a decapitating piece of shite ISIS member in your twisted thinking if you think this whole way of thinking is acceptable.

          But what I find particularly interesting is your use of, “morally acceptable.” Where do you get this moral sense from?

          Not from any holy text, that’s for sure. And not your particular flavor for sure.

          And obviously you are appealing to me to understand and agree on this moral sense of right and wrong as to why it is wrong to kill babies, 7-year olds, etc.

          You are already morally bankrupt, because you believe there are circumstances when it is right to kill babies, thus demonstrating that you don’t hold to objective morality either…hoist by yer own petard.

          Now if you hold to Dawkins’ belief that we exist in “a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication…where at the bottom there is no design, no purpose, NO EVIL and NO GOOD. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference…DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.” -then our discussion is empty rhetoric anyway is it not?

          Nope, because in a world where we all have to try and co-exist, where I have to share the air I breathe with mentally disturbed fuckwits like you that can point to the out-group and assert they are “sinners” and for that reason, they must die and that is the right thing to do according to your book. Regardless of any other purpose, or lack thereof we have in the bigger picture, I would like a leash put on fundamentalist mongrels like you, and those with the same retarded thought processes. You are a danger to humanity and if you can’t be reasoned out of your disturbed mentality, ya need put in a box.

          However the alternative which you have indicated would uncomfortably lead you as an atheist to an objective morality that can only exist if God exists.

          What a loada ballix. Read that parcel of pish back to yerself and see why it is verbal diarrhea.

          (Just a few thoughts from a sad, religion-poisoned idiot 🙂

          I don’t believe you do thinking to any great extent, but the rest of that is the second thing you’ve got correct.

        • epeeist

          Now if you hold to Dawkins’ belief that we exist…

          The universe has a mean density of 6 particles per cubic metre. Since humans are part of the universe then they too must have a mean density of 6 particles per cubic metre, correct?

        • Ignorant Amos

          I can smell the burning from here.

        • Greg G.

          You’re stepping way out of bounds when you compare what happened in the holocaust to God’s judgment on the Canaanite tribes. The definition of genocide means the destruction of an ethnic group. God did not have Israel destroy the majority of Canaanites because of their ethnicity but because of their sin which was grievous and a corrupting factor.

          The orders were to kill them all, babies, too. The babies were not killed for their sin, only their ethnicity. The Nazis did the same with the Jews who were killed for their ethnicity but the excuses were “grievous and a corrupting” factors.

          1 Samuel 15:2-3 (NRSV)2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

          Deuteronomy 20:16-18 (NRSV)16 But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17 You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Imagine being put to death for the crimes of yer parents, or your community….Scooter is is a knuckle-dragging moron and should garner nothing less than contempt.

        • Kodie

          I don’t give a fuck what you find particularly interesting. You find it perfectly acceptable to kill babies if a book written by men tells you an entire land of people are not people. That’s genocide, you sick fuck. The authors had a prejudice and you share that prejudice, like Hitler waved his spell over the Germans that 6 million Jews and 4-5 million other people were not worthy of life. How do you think Hitler convinced his army of Nazis to carry out his orders if he did not consider these people wicked, sinful, and corrupting? I mean, it’s just unthinkable that anyone could convince such hatred into enough people just because these other people were people like us. You have to tell these gullible morons a good reason why we need to wipe them out. You are a sick fuck if you see a difference, and try to defend genocide in the bible. You love to kill babies and have no moral compass. What is “objective morality” or “absolute morality” if you say killing babies is wrong in one instance, but right in another, that’s not objective or absolute, that’s conditional and subjective. And god didn’t kill those people, you believe the Jews when they write their book that it was all ok, because their imaginary friend gave them orders. They used their prop to justify homicide, just like Hitler. They used fiction and malice to carry out an agenda all their own. Like Hitler.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s why yer held in high esteem around here Kodie. Ya say like a lot of us feel.

        • Kodie

          My mask in real life is patience. I really need this as an outlet, so it’s really hard to try to have a regular conversation when I can see where it’s going. Christians are bullshitting themselves, and they think it can work on us.

        • Susan

          The definition of genocide means the destruction of an ethnic group.

          Yet, the very first definition I searched came up with this:

          https://www.dictionary.com/browse/genocide

          the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

          But let’s say that you were correct. You are still justifying the extermination of infants, toddlers, seven-year-olds and slaves who have no choice in the matter based on “sin”. You have not addressed that part of the comment. Instead, you regurgitated the bullshit that some snake oil salesman you call a pastor taught you.

          You have no moral theory. You don’t care about right and wrong. You might as well be a jihadist suicide bomber.

          Where do you get this moral sense from?

          I’ve answered this repeatedly over the years, went into painstaking detail, and you never responded. I’m not doing it again. Because you’re not interestred in moral thinking. If you were, you would have responded to my answers.

          I’ve also asked you how you know Yahwehjesus is any sort of moral standard. What standard do you use to make that determination?

          And you’ve never answered.

          If you think your idiotic repetition of idiotic snake oil salesmen is going to have any sway here, then you’re idiotic.

          And dishonest. In the begining, I felt sorry for you but your lack of interest in any of the subjects you bring up has only left me with contempt.

          It’s OK to slaughter everyone if some human says a god ordered it, according to you.

          (Just a few thoughts from a sad, religion-poisoned idiot.)

          Those aren’t your thoughts, Scooter. You’ve shown no interest in thinking about anything. Every single, one of your thoughts is just shitty thinking from some shitty thinker that you repeat.

          Make an effort to respond to the problem with those thoughts or fuck off.

          Nothing wears my patience as much as the thoughtless repetition of cold-blooded stupid statements about “morality”.

          The first few times are forgivable.

          After that, it is a choice. An unforgivable one.

        • Scooter

          Susan, just one question. Do you agree with aborting babies? and would you explain your answer?

        • epeeist

          Do you agree with aborting babies?

          Oh look, over there, squirrels.

          You really live up to your moniker. Can’t answer a question? Scoot off to something else.

        • Aborting babies? Isn’t that an oxymoron? You can abort a fetus.

        • Scooter

          Not an oxymoron if you consider the term as an unborn human baby.

        • Sure, we can redefine things in lots of dumb ways. I could declare that I’m using “hippopotamus” as a synonym for “fetus,” but I don’t know why I would.

        • Greg G.

          “Unborn baby” is an oxymoron. “Unborn fetus” is redundant.

        • Kodie

          Developing fetus or stillborn fetus is more accurate if you need to differentiate the 2 conditions of being a fetus.

        • Scooter

          But here’s an example of an oxymoron statement. In an article written in the “Journal of Medical Ethics” the authors argue that “potential persons” include both the newborn and the unborn. The thinking here is that it is therefore OK to kill a newborn if it survives an abortion attempt or suffers a serious abnormality during delivery. The oxymoron is that they call this “after-birth abortion,” claiming it is not properly deemed “infanticide. Of course Gov. Northam of Virginia made a fool of himself talking about the possibility of parents deciding to let baby live or die after a normal birth.

        • Killing newborns? Is this an actual problem? How many thousands of newborns have been killed? Perhaps there are actual problems to worry about instead of invented ones.

        • David Cromie

          First, you would have to adduce the irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence that your favourite supposed ‘god’ actually exists. Then, show that the so-called ‘bible’ has anything to do with this supposed supernatural entity, and is not the ravings of deluded humans with an axe to grind. After that we could go on to discuss morality, and the patent lack of morality of your supposed ‘god’, as exemplified in the ‘wholly babble’ stories.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          You and YOUR KIND are stepping way out of bounds by disassociating two VERY similar events merely because the earlier one makes YOUR KIND look bad as they justly should.

        • The Canaanites kill a few babies, so God responds by killing all their babies, plus everyone else. Doh!

          Moral sense comes from evolution.

          When Dawkins says that there is “no evil,” he’s referring to objective evil. The ordinary kind that we decide on ourselves still exists.

        • Scooter

          “Moral sense comes from evolution.” Really?
          In Frank Turek’s book ‘Stealing From God” Turek points out correctly that atheists need to steal morality from God in order to hold people responsible for their actions. Turek also explains that such a noted atheist as Richard Dawkins understands how the moral implications of atheism are unlivable. Dawkins he points out , rejects the Darwinian “survival of the fittest’ ethics. Dawkins said, “We want to avoid basing our society on Darwinian principles.”

          “The ordinary kind (of evil) that we decide on ourselves still exists.”
          Again as Turek points out about morality, “People don’t determine the right thing to do, they discover it.” A moral value can’t be decided by a majority vote because it is unchangeable and authoritative. Guess who’s authority?

        • Susan

          “Moral sense comes from evolution.” Really?

          Well, it’s a non-imaginary source. Compassion exists in non-human species.

          People have provided links and explanations to you in the past. But you don’t look into them. You’re a parrot.

          Turek points out correctly that atheists need to steal morality from God

          When you say “points out correctly”, no one needs to take you (or Turek) seriously. You have been asked many times to show a connection between Yahwehjesus and morality and have never provided a single thing. I asked you how you know that Yahwehjesus is a standard for morality, what standard you use to determine that, and crickets.

          I expect you still won’t answer any pertinent questions. You’ll just copy, paste and parrot.

          But here’s your chance, Scooter.

          Answer the questions.

        • You’re a parrot.

          His goal isn’t to learn, it’s to get out unscathed. By granting himself permission to deny or ignore any point that gets too close to home, he wins!

        • Susan

          His goal isn’t to learn, it’s to get out unscathed.

          That seems to be all we get here when theists visit.

          And a lot of poo flinging.

        • Pofarmer

          Apparently Turek doesn’t know anything about research into morality and ethics. Which isn’t surprising, really.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Turek and his fanboy Scooter are liars for YahwehJesus, hoisting them both by their own petards.

        • In Frank Turek’s book ‘Stealing From God” Turek points out correctly that atheists need to steal morality from God in order to hold people responsible for their actions.

          Look up “morality” in the dictionary and see if Frank is correct.

          If you’re assuming that moral truth claims are objectively right or wrong, you need to make that explicit and defend that remarkable claim.

          Turek also explains that such a noted atheist as Richard Dawkins understands how the moral implications of atheism are unlivable.

          Since Dawkins is living happily as an atheist, Turek is obviously out to lunch.

          Dawkins he points out , rejects the Darwinian “survival of the fittest’ ethics.

          I doubt you understand what “survival of the fittest” means in an evolutionary context.

          Dawkins said, “We want to avoid basing our society on Darwinian principles.”

          Evolution is one thing. Government is another. Where’s the puzzle?

          Again as Turek points out about morality, “People don’t determine the right thing to do, they discover it.”

          Again, if you’re claiming objective morality, take a step back and defend this claim.

        • epeeist

          In Frank Turek’s book ‘Stealing From God” Turek points out correctly
          that atheists need to steal morality from God in order to hold people
          responsible for their actions.

          I see you were away for a few days, having difficulty locating a “reset button” shop?

          I’ll just leave this cartoon here for now. If I can be bothered I might just reanimate all the questions I put to you and that you have avoided answering:

          http://www.jesusandmo.net/wp-content/uploads/zilch-1.png

        • epeeist

          I asked you which historical records show that the behaviour of the Canaanites was debauched, that was a week ago.

          So you ran away for a week, presumably in the hope that nobody would notice your lack of response.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Scooter

          Well life has its demands but I’ll take a moment to provide a couple of thoughts. First and foremost I in fact do believe the historical record of the Biblical writers. And my belief is not a matter of blind faith but an active trust in what I have good reason to believe is true. Of course simply believing something doesn’t make it true but let me outline briefly a couple of reasons why I accept the Canaanite account.
          1) The prophecies many of which spoke of historical events have proven true. The most compelling prophecy deals with the question, “Who is the Messiah?” There are over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament about the coming messiah and all these pointed eventually to Jesus of Nazareth. And the life of Jesus and His death, burial and resurrection are all attested to by extra-Biblical accounts. Now this is a little removed from the Canaanite account but certainly should lead one to consider the ultimate Mind behind the Biblical story.
          2) The uniqueness of the Bible itself-get a copy of Josh McDowell’s “The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict” and see the evidence presented and the rebuttals to criticisms. But as McDowell warns, “This is a dangerous book. Digesting its contents may seriously alter your thinking.” The evidence presented in this book all points to the authenticity of the Bible records.
          3) Archaeological finds beginning in the late 1800’s and most recently are proving the historical accuracy of the Bible more and more as research continues. For example, Old Testament scholar and biblical archaeologist G. E. Wright found Israelite pottery, small plaques or figures of the Canaanite fertility and mother goddesses in great number. This pointed to the syncretism that went on in early Israel. The Bible tells of the judgment of God on Israel for this adoption of false practices and gods from the Canaanites. There’s lots of research going on in Israel that continues to prove Biblical accuracy.

          Now, if you have a few minutes you might find this video interesting even as a skeptic.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaXYgyG8RS4

        • epeeist

          First and foremost I in fact do believe the historical record of the Biblical writers.

          I don’t care what you believe, what I am asking for is empirical evidence to support your contention. The bible is not the evidence, it is the claim. If you want to say that it is evidence then you have also got to accept that Qur’an is evidence, that the Vedas are evidence, that the Guru Granth Sahib is evidence, that the Agam Sutras etc. are evidence.

          1) The prophecies many of which spoke of historical events

          Are irrelevant to the discussion.

          2) The uniqueness of the Bible itself

          All the books I mentioned are unique, the question is whether any of them or the bible are true.

          For example, Old Testament scholar and biblical archaeologist G. E. Wright found Israelite pottery, small plaques or figures of the Canaanite fertility and mother goddesses in great number.

          So does this support your supposition. You know just because Schliemann discovered Troy doesn’t mean that there must have been a wooden horse.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A great big pile of steaming horseshit and a non-answer to epeeists question.

          You’ve got the God Virus really bad.

        • Scooter

          I rarely pay attention to your comments but you’ve said something here that caught my attention-that I’ve got a virus. Actually I do have a virus in a sense and you have the same one caught at birth. And so does everyone else on this blog. Its the sin virus that all humans are afflicted with. This virus has spread through all mankind over the centuries originating from our first parents who committed the first sin. This is a deadly virus because it leads to death both physical and eternal. The good news is that there is medicine that will cure this virus. And it can only be administered by Dr. Jesus.

        • Yeah, that’s morality: declare someone guilty when they’re born, for something they didn’t do.

          Does it ever trouble you how God’s morality sucks so much worse than your own? Maybe it was God who was born sinful.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The first thing a religion has to do is to create and breed in guilt.

          Christianity has us all born with imaginary sin and we are then supposed to be guilt ridden as a result.

          There’s the hook.

          Who are we to go to about this guilt?

        • Kodie

          Is it really guilt? How can you be guilty of being born worthless? All there is to do is say whatever you have to say to get on your abuser’s good side. He has the power to sort you, so you better always say he’s nice, he’s so nice, and he’s in charge, and I’m so worthless, but he lets me live. What about all the kids and babies who die young? Oh, they say, god needed this person directly to heaven for some reason. How do all Christians know that god made a good decision and secure that this baby went to heaven? Based on what they actually believe, it would seem god knows something about all of them that we don’t know – that they were born worthless and needed to be weeded out before they caused any more trouble. Then what of all the horrible violent criminals who reached adulthood – could it be even worse? Why weren’t they weeded out, why were they allowed to live, and cause trouble? And then, some even “find Jesus” in jail, they are actually guilty of something that harmed others, and yet Jesus let them cause a horrible event so they might just have a chance, a chance, to come around to him.

          I really don’t know any Christians who feel guilty about anything they do, unless they are a normal human being who is sorry for causing an accident or such. If they are thoughtless or conniving or selfish or oblivious to the needs of others, they will always justify it and never apologize for being who they are, because Jesus forgives them for not being perfect, that’s all. Most people are actually like that, as long as they cause no physical harm, they think they’re being a good enough person, and don’t change, but Christians don’t seem to strive to be any better. Nobody loves thy neighbor so much as themselves.

          As far as I can tell, the worthlessness only comes in when they’re defending their faith, or going to church for their weekly brainwashing, like the obedient sheep they are. Come, all, to be reminded what a worthless piece of shiit you are, and how very lucky you are to even get to live. Every defense of Christianity boils down to god does whatever he wants, and however he wants to behave is the best, it’s for the best, no one can know or second-guess god’s motivations, such as god’s morality as described in the bible or fantasized by Christians following major events in the news, or major events in their personal lives/families, differs from humans, unlike some psycho killer like Hitler, whom many Christians agreed with at the time (or he wouldn’t have had any success in his endeavor), god isn’t a man making a judgment, he’s god. So no matter what, you’re the abuse victim, you cannot criticize your abuser or he will smack you hard. And if not today, when you die. And if he does smack someone hard, they must have needed it (with the exception of anyone who is seen by their community as good Christian people). Eternity is a very long time, they will warp their own minds to save themselves from torture. No dignity, no integrity, just self-preservation from a lie they are in real fear of. Funny how they can’t condemn god when bad things happen to good people, but they never seem to blame the people either.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Is it really guilt?

          Yip. It is an infection strategy. We are told we were born in sin. Then a list of things that is classed as sin is indoctrinated in that if we even think about, constitute more sinning. And for those crimes we should feel guilty. To alleviate the guilt, one has to get right with YahwehJesus. That’s called repentance. And for a fee, special folk can assist in the proper order this repenting of sins should be carried out. Apparently there are a variety of ways this can be done depending on the flavor of religion.

          How can you be guilty of being born worthless?

          Born a worthless sinner.

          Sin:- an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

          Yes, I know it is a loada nonsense, but this is the Christian trope.

          Just one of the many Christian articles that reinforces such nonsense.

          https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/why-are-we-born-sinners-a-bible-study/

          All there is to do is say whatever you have to say to get on your abuser’s good side. He has the power to sort you, so you better always say he’s nice, he’s so nice, and he’s in charge, and I’m so worthless, but he lets me live.

          Yep…that’s the drill. And money, as George Carlin says, God always needs money.

          What about all the kids and babies who die young?

          Don’t get me started on Limbo babies and that bastard Augustine.

          Oh, they say, god needed this person directly to heaven for some reason.

          Some of them say that. Then there are other fudged reasoning.

          How do all Christians know that god made a good decision and secure that this baby went to heaven? Based on what they actually believe, it would seem god knows something about all of them that we don’t know – that they were born worthless and needed to be weeded out before they caused any more trouble. Then what of all the horrible violent criminals who reached adulthood – could it be even worse? Why weren’t they weeded out, why were they allowed to live, and cause trouble? And then, some even “find Jesus” in jail, they are actually guilty of something that harmed others, and yet Jesus let them cause a horrible event so they might just have a chance, a chance, to come around to him.

          Aye, ya’ve noticed the problems. The plot is so full of holes, but the rank and file don’t delve into the minutiae. And the guys in the pulpit are on a nice little earner spinning theological woo-woo in pretzelmania contortionist antics.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I really don’t know any Christians who feel guilty about anything they do, unless they are a normal human being who is sorry for causing an accident or such.

          How many of devote to ya talk to irl? There is the gullible, then there is the snake oil peddlers and their ponzi schemes, then there are the cafeteria Christians who aren’t really Christians other than in name.

          But I am talking about is the infection process and how the virus takes hold.

          If they are thoughtless or conniving or selfish or oblivious to the needs of others, they will always justify it and never apologize for being who they are, because Jesus forgives them for not being perfect, that’s all. Most people are actually like that, as long as they cause no physical harm, they think they’re being a good enough person, and don’t change, but Christians don’t seem to strive to be any better. Nobody loves thy neighbor so much as themselves.

          Oh most are in it for themselves. I was reading earlier about the RCC in the US spending over $10.5 to lobbyists in order to prevent the statute of limitations being scraped for sex abuse victims. They are not interested in the victims, it’s about saving their skins and avoiding a potentially bankrupting set of compensation claims. Ordinary gullible Catholic collection plate fillers are footing the bill for these louses.

          https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/06/05/the-catholic-church-paid-lobbyists-millions-to-block-more-sex-abuse-lawsuits/

          And the net is full of these types of stories.

        • Kodie

          The Christians I meet in real life never say anything about their faith until it comes up as an assumption or an atheist tries to secularize something public, then they get vicious. I can’t call them Christian in name only. I once made a comment on another blog about them not having really deep faith or something to that effect, and was tore down. Just because they’re not blathering on all the time, or go to church every week, and they are liberal and don’t deny science because only the bible is true doesn’t mean their faith isn’t an important aspect of their lives, and one of their most important beliefs is that atheists are going to take over, so it’s still not a safe and tolerant place to declare atheism, in my experience. You never know what kind of Christian you’re talking to, and not to assume everyone is a Christian, but demographically around here, a lot of Jews, a fair enough amount of Muslims visit the mosque near me, and I’m so glad Ramadan is finally over, I can park my car. I never really see them any other time of the year that much, and most of them dress as regular American humans, while most of the Jews dress for orthodox and walk in huge family packs on Friday sundown to temple. Demographically, most people you see are probably Christian and not atheist or something else.

          So, in generalizing themselves to the population to the near-safe assumption that everyone else they meet is another Christian (regardless of denomination), I generalize the population of mostly decent people who probably have their own egregious flaws to someone else, i.e. one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, one person’s peeve is another person’s who gives a ffuck. Hardly anyone is a complete ashoile, and some people are overly kind in a way you think they cannot survive in this world, but everyone does some things to maintain their feeling of status and power over their neighbor, or just inconsiderate, which is…, I mean, it’s so hard to organize yourself so everything you want to do is fully considerate of every other person, but anyone who thinks they can’t hear their music unless it’s loud enough for everyone else to hear it, or anyone who wants to ruin my car insurance by behaving reckless (pedestrian, bike, or other car), those things are so simple.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Today is what is known as “Pageant Day” here in the town where I live. The town will be invaded by Protestants. Most of them will be sectarian bigots that are in town to enjoy celebrating the landing of King William III back in the 17th century. It’s 329th anniversary celebration of the event. Most of them are clueless about their Christianity, attend church for hatch, match, and dispatch rituals only, and haven’t a clue about the contents of their not-so-good book. They will all declare they are good Christians, they’ve been Christened into the faith, and are prepared to take up arms against their papist neighbors to defend their version of the cult.

          It’ll be a day of celebrating. The carnival is in town. Around 28 “kick the pope, blood and thunder” marching bands will proceed to troop around the town, each one followed by an Orange Order lodge. Drink and festivities abound and the whole thing is sectarian.

          Of course I will be out in amongst it all too. Because I enjoy a party. Christian nutters being sectarian against other Christian nutters doesn’t bother me as long as they are peaceful about it.

          Here’s last years parade on its way to the castle. At timestamp 3:30 you’ll get an idea of the age the indoctrination begins.

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

          The numbers of family and friends I know taking part in that parade is in the high tens. Unlike you though, I don’t have to keep my atheism to myself for fear of repercussions. So as bigoted they are against Catholics, I’m an object more of an enigma and bemusement.

          Most of the participants haven’t a clue about their Christianity and I guarantee very few, if any, have read the buybull cover-to-cover. But because they have been born into the Protestant tradition, they can claim tribal affiliation.

          It is debatable what constitutes a “real” Christian, but it has to be more than ticking a box on a census poll.

        • Kodie

          I think like how I grew up thinking I was an atheist because I thought we just didn’t have a religion, and the question if there is or isn’t a god didn’t really enter into it a whole lot. That’s why I talk about before and after, because at some point, I really thought about it, and learned what people have religions for. I really thought it was more of a cultural affiliation for most of my life until in my 20s. That they deep down believe the magical workings of their invisible friend and his son, and what they need to try to make me obey in the law to please their volcano god, basically, that’s the start of the after.

          I mean, all my life, nobody said a whole lot of anything. I grew up in post-60s era when tv was telling me everyone was equal, and women can do anything, and there are different nationalities of immigrants, and my neighborhood was a little like that, though mostly white, and I thought I could ever say, like atheism is part of that patchwork of coexistence and tolerance, so if a Sikh Hindu at my school could be very popular despite not being white or Christian, so an atheist didn’t have to hide their true self, but it turned out to be wrong. It turned out wrong most of the times I said so. Other people might have better luck with that.

          I live in Boston, in the most blue state of Massachusetts, and grew up in upstate New York, not far upstate enough to not have heard of Jewish holidays and get them off from school (unlike a lot of people I met at my college farther west). Rather than being holy rollers like I imagine the southern and midwestern states to be, it was just more a matter of assumption. You look European, and I do, so you must be Christian, and it might come up that someone says something about god as though it were an agreed upon fact, and I would keep my mouth shut and not get into a discussion. It’s only when someone, or a group of people, think it’s fun chatter to ask what everyone’s religion is. It might not go downhill right away, but it always freaks people out and it’s not in my favor socially or employment-wise, which is why I kept offline when I was using open network offered by the landlord.

        • Reminds me of “Derry Girls” when they got stuck in the parade.

          They don’t like the pope, you say? Maybe they’ll have this tune in one of the parades.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkOHDoEkPW0

        • Ignorant Amos

          As the Rev. Ian Paisley put it, they think the pope is the anti-christ and despise Catholicism with a passion.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sin is as imaginary as the rest of your mental masturbation.

          You are too far gone for recovery, so I give zero fecks about what attention you pay to my comments. My purpose for addressing your religious wingnuttery is for the fence sitting lurker that might be looking on.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPN3UlxCXH4

        • Scooter

          I’ve noted your theatrical aspirations as you’ve played to your audience. And now you’ve corroborated my suspicions. Have a nice day.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve noted your theatrical aspirations as you’ve played to your audience.

          You really suck at reading for comprehension.

          It’s Bob’s audience ya Dime Bar.

          And an out-and-out liar ta boot.

          And now you’ve corroborated my suspicions.

          It’s no secret that I find wingnuts like you a waste of space other than as a chew toy to use in demonstrating how intellectually and morally bankrupt your kind to be.

          Have a nice day.

          Do one ya knuckle-dragging cretin.

        • Kodie

          Oh good, confirmation bias. You have no idea how delusional you are.

        • MR

          He gave you the capacity to sin and only he’s got the cure? Sounds like a psychopath. One of those manipulative, controlling husband types. It doesn’t make for a believable story.

        • Kodie

          Or a parent, or a boss. Really, anyone who will tell you that nobody else would put up with you, take away your resources or not give you any to survive without this terrible situation, etc.

        • MR

          Right. It’s like, once your outside of the bubble (for those of us who were in the bubble), it so blatantly doesn’t make sense anymore. What he just described has all kinds of implications that he will simply ignore or twist to avoid confronting (see his history here for untold examples). You want to ask, “Can you hear yourself? Do you think we don’t notice you can’t support your belief or even come up with a story that makes sense?Think for yourself, man!”

        • Kodie

          You’re in denial that you’re an animal who will die.

        • Someone needs to read his Bible more carefully. Jesus already sacrificed himself, remember? The price has been paid.

          Rom. 5:18-19 makes clear that Jesus’s sacrifice is symmetric to Adam’s sin–we don’t opt in to either one.

          See you in heaven.

        • There are over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament about the coming messiah and all these pointed eventually to Jesus of Nazareth.

          Share the best one or two. Before you do, read the posts here about Isaiah 7, Isaiah 53, and Psalm 22.

          And the life of Jesus and His death, burial and resurrection are all attested to by extra-Biblical accounts.

          Yeah? Share the best one.

          get a copy of Josh McDowell’s “The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict” and see the evidence presented and the rebuttals to criticisms.

          Like what? This is the “I hear this book has some good arguments; chew on them for a while” argument.

          But as McDowell warns, “This is a dangerous book. Digesting its contents may seriously alter your thinking.”

          That might’ve scared me 10 years ago.

          Of course I’m kidding! I’ve always been happy to accept the Christian claim if it’s the one with the evidence.

          Dangerous book? Please . . .

          The evidence presented in this book all points to the authenticity of the Bible records.

          I’m sure it does! It’s a book with an agenda.

          There’s lots of research going on in Israel that continues to prove Biblical accuracy.

          You’re saying that the Bible is accurate on natural things (kings, cities, rivers)? Golly.

          When archaeology validates the supernatural claims, let me know.

        • Greg G.

          There are over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament about the coming messiah and all these pointed eventually to Jesus of Nazareth.

          Those “prophecies” are either not messianic prophecies, not fulfilled by Jesus, simply not prophecies, or too vague to determine whether they are fulfilled.

          The uniqueness of the Bible itself-get a copy of Josh McDowell’s “The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict” and see the evidence presented and the rebuttals to criticisms.

          Been there, done that when I was a Christian. I also read creationist books and decided to look at evolutionist books to see if I could find quotes like they presented. I found the quotes all right, but they were taken out of context, and the creationists were misrepresenting what the scientists actually said. I figured out that I was being gaslighted by my Christian leaders. Now I am an atheist.

          3) Archaeological finds beginning in the late 1800’s and most recently are proving the historical accuracy of the Bible more and more as research continues.

          Archaeology confirms minor details but refutes major claims of the Bible. You are cherry-picking in a poison ivy patch.

          Egyptian archaeology tells us that there were never large numbers of Israelites in Egypt.

          There has been over a century of archaeology in the Sinai desert where there should be lots of evidence if a large number of people wandered there for decades, but there is no evidence of that.

          Israeli archaeologists have shown that there was no sudden cultural shift in the late second millennium BC as if a culture from Egypt annihilated and replaced the Canaanite population. Instead they find sites with very similar culture with one dietary difference – some have pig bones and some do not. The Hebrews were just Canaanites with a religion that had different restrictions.

          Now, why don’t you answer epeeist’s questions?

        • richardrichard2013

          I recently read that the “they pierced my hands and feet” is really a corruption, in the earliest manuscript you have the words “her hands” and even that was corruption of long lost original and scholars have to reconstruct what they think was probably the original but “pierced hands and feet ” definitely was not

        • Susan

          I in fact do believe the historical record of the Biblical writers.

          As epeeist points out (above or below… I always forget how this works out on Disqus, until I hit post…), it doesn’t matter what you believe.

          When you claim historical evidence, you have to show historical evidence.

          Do you have any idea how historical evidence is done?

          But let’s say, that the bible is historical evidence.

          Then, the passage you quoted a few days ago is historical evidence for the “sons of God” interbreeding with female earthlings.

          How do you reconcile this “history” with what your snake-oil peddling pastor sold you?

        • Scooter

          Let’s set that question aside for now. A few days ago I pointedly asked you if you agree with abortion or killing babies in the womb. You wisely didn’t answer. I strongly suspect that you do favor abortion as most atheists would so my point is why would you be so judgmental against God righteously judging the Canaanites for taking the lives of even babies when you would favor doing the same thing to babies today? And your act would be unrighteous since you do not have the right to take a life. In fact there are some gruesome similarities in the sacrifice of Canaanite babies being burned and the saline injection method of abortion that burns the baby or fetus if you will. Of course if you are against abortion you might have to argue that all life is precious because we are made in the likeness and image of God and that we have no right to take a life as a result.

          Now about the sons of God intermarrying with women in genesis 6:1-4. I’m not surprised you would dig this up. This has been an interesting study for scholars and this video will present the ideas that come out of this study. Check out the youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUcTree5nYc

          And by the way-that snake oil works great for sunburns! 🙂

        • I was wondering where my chew toy went. It was your fault!

        • epeeist

          It was your fault!

          Yes, sorry about that. I must admit getting pretty cheesed off with those who disappear only until they have made a purchase at their local reset-button emporium and then return making the same points as though nothing had been said.

        • epeeist

          Oh and on top of that I asked whether humans had a mean density of 6 particles per cubic metre given that the universe has a mean density of 6 particles per cubic metre.

          Something else that you ran away from in order to avoid answering.

        • Scooter

          I reckon humans are less dense than water since I float but I’m interested in hearing what your point is?

        • epeeist

          It really is quite simple.

          If I build a house out of Lego bricks and the house is red then the property of “redness” distributes to the components of the house, the bricks.

          The property of the mean density for the universe does not distribute to its components. Thus my example commits the fallacy of division.

          The quote from Dawkins in your post identifies a number of properties for the universe including no good and no evil etc. which you then try to apply to humans. However, why should I accept that these properties that Dawkins details distribute to humans? If you want to claim that they do then you need to put some extra work in.

        • Scooter

          I see what you mean. Remember what Dawkins says about our DNA, “we just dance to its music.” By saying this I take it that Dawkins is applying his idea to human behavior.

          Well from what I understand Dawkins believes the universe has no moral component based on what he believes is the abhorrent morality of the Bible. However its revealing what fellow atheist Michael Ruse writes: “Finally, and most importantly, there is the fact that Dawkins is engaged on a moral crusade, not as a philosopher trying to establish premises and conclusions but as a preacher, telling the ways to salvation and to damnation. “The God Delusion” is above all a work of morality.” Michael Ruse, Defining Darwin, Ch.10, p.237.

          If he is on a moral crusade then this must be based totally on moral standards, or how could he distinguish between the good and the evil ? The obvious question then is what lofty standard is he appealing to? And if such a standard is uncompromising it would have to supersede human capacity-therefore a need for an objective standard? This need for objective morality dogs the atheist. In Sam Harris’ book, “The Moral Landscape, Harris believes that objective morality is connected to “the well-being” to conscious creatures but falls short in his approach.

        • Are you arguing that objective morality exists? That’s a remarkable claim. Defend it.

        • Scooter

          Epeeist has challenged me on this same point and I plan to humbly offer a couple of ideas as time allows and then I’m sure you’ll have a reply.

        • Scooter

          I like the thought at the top of Bob’s blog, “civility is preferred.” It could also read “you ought to be civil.” I see this as a possible small clue pointing to some form of behavior that has an absolute foundation to it. Seems to me that this is an appeal to some kind of standard of behavior that he expects the reader to know about. It looks like there is some kind of Law or rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality on which both Bob and reader would agree. Truth be told, we believe in this Moral law very deeply-think of all the excuses and rationalizations we can come up with when we break this law such as broken promises to children or parents or for that situation of shady business on our tax return. Bob’s obvious natural explanation of morality from a previous post is that “it’s a fixed part (moral programming that we all pretty much share since we’re the same species) and a variable part (social mores).” This is supposedly based on evolution but does it explain “oughtness?”

          Bob’s explanation that our morals come from some sort of programming and social instincts in practice of everyday life falls short. The moral law goes beyond simple programming. For example I’m not a good swimmer and if at the beach I hear a cry for help I’m perhaps programmed to help for its the right thing to do but I’m also programmed for self-preservation. The self-preservation instinct is stronger but then something else comes into play, the moral law will tell me to side with the weaker impulse and do the right thing and help the drowning man. This fits in to philosopher Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperative” in which he argues that every single person in the world has a sense of “oughtness” or an inherent sense of right and wrong that extends beyond any cultural programming. Kant’s imperative is universal and can’t be ignored. It’s imperative because this moral category forces the person to act on it so it represents an absolute command. Kant explained that people can deny it, run from it, or try to erase it but if they do guilt results. Kant said that guilt follows from not doing what we’re morally obligated to do.

          So a clue to an objective moral law is 1) all humans have this idea that they should behave in a certain way and can’t get rid of it. 2) And everyone fails to behave in the way they expect everyone else to behave in.
          The recent college admissions scandal is a recent example of these 2 points raising a hue and cry from the public. I see a couple of problems Given the outrage directed toward those rich and famous celebrities many see at least one of the problems: the injustice of it all. It is theft over honest toil. Kant asked, “What would it take for objective moral standards to be meaningful?”. He said the first thing necessary is justice. Practically we have no reason to be anything but selfish. For moral standards to be meaningful, right behavior must be rewarded and wrong behavior must be punished. Kant saw that this life does not hold absolute justice and therefore perfect justice requires an afterlife where a perfect Being will dispense perfect justice.

          I’ll point out that Kant doesn’t provide empirical evidence that moral absolutes exist but he gives what is necessary in order for there to be moral absolutes. I find his argument compelling.

          Compare this to evolutionary ethicist and atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse and his colleague Edward Wilson. Here is how they describe it:
          “Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will—or in the metaphorical roots of evolution or any other part of the framework of the Universe. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Ethics is produced by evolution but is not justified by it because, like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.…Unlike Macbeth’s dagger, ethics is a shared illusion of the human race.”

          Morality, on this view, is something most of us believe in, follow, and practice, even though it doesn’t exist in reality; it’s just an illusion foisted on us via evolution so that we don’t kill ourselves off as a species. On their worldview, we are merely evolved brutes whose very existence is derived from the naturalistic laws of evolution, including random mutation and survival of the fittest in which the strong survive and the weak die off and sometimes the strong kill off the weak in their struggle for survival sort of like the rich celebrities killing off the chances of the weaker (poorer) students.

        • Seems to me that this is an appeal to some kind of standard of behavior that he expects the reader to know about.

          I live in the West, and I’m addressing people of my species. Yeah, I can appeal to a more-or-less common standard of behavior. That ain’t objective morality. See WLC’s definition of objective morality.

          This is supposedly based on evolution but does it explain “oughtness?”

          What’s difficult? We’re born with a brain that has a moral sense. It tells us what we ought to do. No external grounding necessary.

          Bob’s explanation that our morals come from some sort of programming and social instincts in practice of everyday life falls short.

          Look up “morality” in the dictionary. Show us the objective part of it.

          the moral law will tell me to side with the weaker impulse and do the right thing and help the drowning man.

          You weigh alternatives. No objective morality required.

          So a clue to an objective moral law is 1) all humans have this idea that they should behave in a certain way and can’t get rid of it. 2) And everyone fails to behave in the way they expect everyone else to behave in.

          Why does it take so many words?? All this handwaving makes clear that you can’t make the argument. Just take a moral dilemma within society (abortion, say), give us the objectively correct moral resolution, prove that this is objectively true and not just your opinion, and finally show us that objective morality is reliably accessible by all humans. Go.

          You give examples of shared or viscerally felt morality. No, that’s not objective morality.

        • MR

          I’m constantly struck by how naive people can be. His piece is little more than an emotional appeal with some misrepresentations of science thrown in for good measure. Would it hurt these people to read some actual science instead of the apologetics versison? I wonder if he finds it objectively immoral to present fallacious arguments.

        • It’s like he’s a visitor to earth and can’t figure out how we do things.

        • Rudy R

          There is a particular reason theists straw man their arguments. Could it be that their argument would fail using an Ironman argument?

        • epeeist

          If he is on a moral crusade then this must be based totally on moral standards

          Let’s provisionally accept this for the moment.

          how could he distinguish between the good and the evil ?

          You beg the question here in assuming that “good” and “evil” have a real existence rather than being ideas held in our mind.

          And if such a standard is uncompromising it would have to supersede human capacity

          Would it? I presume that you can actually justify that assertion.

          therefore a need for an objective standard?

          You seem to have missed a few steps out in the reasoning. As it is, if the ideas of good and evil are concepts held in human minds then why should not morality be a product of inter-subjective agreement.

          However if you want to claim that objective morality exists then once more, “He who avers must prove”. Over to you. Here is a simple example, is blasphemy an objective moral wrong? If so, why is it so and how do you know?

        • Scooter

          AS time permits I’d like to respond

        • Ignorant Amos

          Displaying your density of the head yet again.

          Regardless of what you reckon, not all humans float in water.

          I don’t believe that someone as dense as you floats in water, because you lie.

          But that’s not even the point, humans ability to float in water depends on a number of variables. Go learn something ffs.

        • Greg G.

          When i was in high school, I weighed 150 pounds. I could inhale slightly, hold my breath, and sink to the bottom of the pool. I have put on about 70 pounds since then, not much in height, and, I might add, it’s not all muscle mass either, but it is much easier to float in a pool now.

        • Scooter

          Yes, interesting how our chronological advancement tends to reshape our image. If you’re like me it took a lot of will power. But I finally gave up dieting.

        • Greg G.

          But I finally gave up dieting.

          I tried four diets at the same time. None of them worked.

        • Well, yeah–you tried the ice cream diet along with the grapefruit diet. You should’ve known that wouldn’t turn out well.

        • Ignorant Amos

          My favorite diet is the seafood diet….see food, I eat it.

        • Even easier to float in the Dead Sea or Great Salt Lake.

        • Phil

          So for example a dolphin saving a diver is down to the dolphin believing in Jesus?

        • Kodie

          The more I learn about animals, the more it convinces me there isn’t a god, and religious claims about humans having some unique intelligence or abilities, the less I’m impressed. I don’t know how religions, and what I mean by religions is “stories about how we originated, and what we should do to please an invisible creator”, whereas religious people say they have a “relationship”, start up, but it seems to be the kind of low basic guessing how things happen every day, and drawing people into relating to the fictional guess.

          Anyway, whatever any human can do, we’ve pretty much seen in animals. Not all the same one animal, but we all have qualities or we wouldn’t be different animals. We don’t really know that dolphins don’t have religions, or harass each other how to behave “or else”.

        • Kodie

          I don’t know what you think “survival of the fittest” means. I think you have no idea what it means.

        • epeeist

          The historical records of the pagan tribes is clear as to their debauched behavior.

          Historical records you say? So which historical records are these (and no, the bible isn’t a history text book).

        • Kodie

          If you naively believe what you are taught from the bible about Israelite justification for committing genocide, then fuck bridges, you are softened in the head enough to believe anything and be directed to doing anything for your cause. Like a pawn. Scooter, you are just some powerless dumbfuck with a huge unearned arrogance. You have an imaginary friend, and you will say anything disgusting to defend your imaginary friend.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          How about some EVIDENCE that they were committing the acts with which YOUR KIND are calumning & slandering them?

          *Please* don’t expect me to take the word of Liars for Jebus™ for ANYthing…

        • Ignorant Amos

          If you naively believe that the Canaanite tribes were peaceful fishers and farmers then I’ve got a bridge in New York that I’d like to sell you.

          Says the Muppet that is gullible enough to believe the contents of the buybull as historically accurate…bwaaaahahahaha!

    • Why does the text say that Yahweh also commanded the extermination of little children and babies? What did they do to deserve such butchery? What “wicked ways” would little babies need to turn from?

      • Kodie

        If you consider a group of people as though they were vermin, there is nothing better to be expected of spawn. Like, if you were exterminating mice or bedbugs or whatever from your house, would you spare the innocent babies? Second, if you do spare the babies, eventually you have to tell them what a terrible race they were born from, but you rescued them before they learned the “wicked ways”, and that could cause a revolution against you from those babies as they grow up, what you’ve done to their parents, their village, etc. So, including the babies seems necessary in covering your tracks. One either considers the species of a particular tribe invasive, or you recognize the repercussions of your actions on the young.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Sorta blows the all soul containing babies are precious, anti-abortion fuckwittery, that the Christers are so fond of, and all gurn on about.

      • Joe

        Can’t burn babies alive if the forces of Yahweh kill them first, I guess?

  • towercam

    I dropped that sad religion-poisoned idiot a note today.
    I pointed out that he goes by a book that condones slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, genital mutilation of infants and the outright abuse of women and children.
    I told him to stop spreading crippling lies.

    • Scooter

      Read the top of the page-civility is preferred.

      • Greg G.

        towercam does not condone “slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, genital mutilation of infants and the outright abuse of women and children.” Do you?

      • Susan

        civility is preferred.

        Calling someone a “sad, religion-poisoned idiot” is not uncivil when that person has demonstrated that they are willing to accept a book that “condones slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, genital mutilation of infants and the outright abuse of women and children.”

        It’s actually pretty charitable.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Fuck, but your reading for comprehension capability is in the shitter.

        The key word there is “preferred”.

    • Any reply?

  • Joseph Patterson

    I think most atheists want a secular nation and not a pure atheist one. A big difference. It is interesting that it was the Russian Orthodox Christian culture that produced a Stalin. Mark Reynolds is an Orthodox Christian teaching in a Baptist school and many of his fellow Orthodox Christians consider him a heretic. I am a former Orthodox Christian and never considered Mark a a scholar worth listening to. His ignorance is obvious to most, even to many Christians. The way he thinks is similar to those during the time of the Spanish Inquisition. He is a very dangerous person. If we allow this type of Christian to run and influence this country watch out. Just another reason to get out and vote in 2020.

  • MR

    What’s that a picture of? Are you saying that archaeologists have actually dug up giant human-ish bones? Citation needed.

  • Brendan Day

    It’s true they are f@r left radical too
    They are scum

    • Your commenting history suggests that you’re a hateful asshole. But perhaps that isn’t a correct reflection of you?

      • Ignorant Amos

        But perhaps that isn’t a correct reflection of you?

        Nah, I think hateful asshole pretty much nails it. Or maybe “hateful bigoted asshole” maybe more on par. But no real need to elaborate.