Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid #49: Science is Built on Christianity (3 of 3)

Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid #49: Science is Built on Christianity (3 of 3) February 10, 2020

Does science owe a debt to Christianity for setting down the philosophical prerequisites for scientific progress? One author seems to think so. But like retroactive quote mining to find that the Bible was actually in harmony with what we’ve learned through modern science all along (more), the argument is desperate and unconvincing. As commenter Ann Kah noted, “This is so over-the-top that it fits into the category of ‘not even wrong.’”

This post concludes our critique of this article (part 1 here).

But Christianity is more hopeful!

Next up is the obligatory claim that the Christian message is more hopeful than that of any competitors. About the previous five properties of Christianity that are supposed uniquely nurturing to science, the article warns,

Reject one or more of them, and you will end up sooner or later in a hopeless cul-de-sac.

Hmm—do I want the worldview that’s more hopeful or the one with the best evidence that it’s true?

I guess it’s an indication of the poor quality of the Christian argument that “Yeah, but our view is more hopeful!!  :-)” can be presented without embarrassment. But it seems out of place in an article written by a Christian celebrating science.

Only Christianity can save science

The article tells us that Western society is lurching toward “the death of humanity”:

Scientists are sawing off the branch on which they’re sitting.

How about that—who knew that science was on its last legs?

The article declares that scientists like Richard Dawkins reject “objective morality, free will, and the meaningfulness of life” (presumably, that’s objective meaning in life). Then it whines about how (to the atheist) religion, altruism, love, and more “must all be explained away as the purposeless side-effects of [natural selection and] mutations.”

You say that objective morality and meaning exist? Stop complaining and show us. Ball’s in your court. You’re right that evolution can explain religious belief and emotions, but let’s second-guess evolution after it stops being the scientific consensus.

At the end, the article laments about the naturalistic view:

The perception that each of us has that a proposition is provable, or an experiment is conclusive, is no guarantee of anything in external reality; instead it is the outcome of subatomic dominoes falling in random patterns. How can science continue if even scientists start to believe this about their minds? . . .

A few more decades of such irrationalism will undermine completely the foundations of research and truth-seeking in the sciences, and the West will go into the same despairing stasis that haunted ancient Egypt, India, and China. Ironically, the only hope for science now is a rebirth of faith.

“Subatomic dominoes”? Perhaps this author lies awake at night afraid, not of monsters, but quantum indeterminacy lurking under his bed. Instead of learning about whatever scientific puzzle concerns him, he’ll just label it as nonsense. Satisfying his common sense apparently outweighs the scientific consensus on quantum mechanics.

The author dismisses the civilizations of Egypt, India, and China, apparently unaware that they lasted far longer than the period of modern science we’re in at the moment in the West.

To understand where this author is coming from, imagine someone who thinks that food is made in the back room of the grocery story by some mysterious process. He can get by with this confused idea of how the modern food industry puts food on the shelves, but he would be wise to avoid critiquing a process he doesn’t understand. Our author is like this with respect to science. Next time he feels the urge to critique what he doesn’t understand, he should lie down until the feeling goes away.

A restorative from Mark Twain

To those of you who were annoyed by the brainless chum in this article, I have an antidote. Mark Twain’s 1905 reply to a patent medicine salesman nicely fits our predicament.

Your letter is an insoluble puzzle to me. The handwriting is good and exhibits considerable character, and there are even traces of intelligence in what you say, yet the letter and the accompanying advertisements profess to be the work of the same hand.

The person who wrote the advertisements is without doubt the most ignorant person now alive on the planet; also without doubt he is an idiot, an idiot of the 33rd degree, and scion of an ancestral procession of idiots stretching back to the Missing Link. It puzzles me to make out how the same hand could have constructed your letter and your advertisements. Puzzles fret me, puzzles annoy me, puzzles exasperate me; and always, for a moment, they arouse in me an unkind state of mind toward the person who has puzzled me.

A few moments from now my resentment will have faded and passed and I shall probably even be praying for you; but while there is yet time I hasten to wish that you may take a dose of your own poison by mistake, and enter swiftly into the damnation which you and all other patent medicine assassins have so remorselessly earned and do so richly deserve.

The last word

You’ve heard that correlation doesn’t prove causation. That’s true, but if there’s causation, there must also be correlation. The argument in this article fails by its own metric: there’s no correlation between Christianity and experimental science since Christian Europe was asleep for a thousand years after it took the baton from the Roman Empire. No correlation means no causation.

Consider a very different approach. The book Guns, Germs, and Steel also looks at relative progress between societies. It opens with a description of the 1532 meeting in Peru between Spanish conquistador Pizarro and the Inca (ruler of the Inca empire) and asks, why did Pizarro sail to Peru and capture their king and not the other way around? It explains why some parts of the world did well and others not by looking at the distribution of livestock and crops and other properties. It’s like a card game—Europe happened to have been dealt a good hand of resources, and Christianity isn’t necessary to explain its success.

European Christianity was a leg-iron to progress, not the catalyst to it. Only by moving from supernaturalism to naturalism has society progressed from pretend-answering questions about nature to really answering them.

Faith has produced zero new knowledge about reality, and science has produced libraries’ worth. I think I’ll stick with science.

Continue to #50, Argument from Biblical Consistency

 That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.
— P.C. Hodgell (often misattributed to Carl Sagan)

.

Image from Alexander Kliem, CC license
.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


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

    Everything I’ve read in science history has been that religion (any) has always held science back if not actively pushing it backwards. Engineering (which does not show religion to be BS) was advanced by religion the English protestants found economic power by using it to make big business…but that is not really science

    • Oh? That doesn’t seem to be what they say nowadays.

      • NSAlito

        It’s de rigueur to count engineers, dentists and MDs as scientists when counting the number of scientists who disbelieve in evolution.

        • I’m not sure of the relevance.

        • NSAlito

          The training of engineers is substantially different from the training of scientists. Engineering (nor dentistry, nor medical practice) is not in a position to “show religion to be BS” the way science is.

        • Okay, the confusion is this: I wasn’t saying engineers are scientists. Rather, the comment which I made was to the fact that modern historians don’t feel religion has always held up science. That’s called the “conflict thesis”. It has been discredited for some time.

        • NSAlito

          Rather, the comment which I made was to the fact that modern historians don’t feel religion has always held up science.

          In any case, religion isn’t close to the only thing that can hold up science: Guildism, threats to profit (tobacco, fossil fuels), threats to identity (humanity of those outside the tribe), fear of change, and the inherently self-delusional nature of the human brain.

        • Yes, definitely.

        • Greg G.

          At least 20 years ago, Creationists had “scientists” sign up for a list of those who agreed with a statement about evolution. The statement was something like “evolution didn’t explain everything.” Some real scientists agreed with that. Then the list was presented as scientists who rejected evolution. The real scientists had trouble getting their names off the list when they saw how it was being used. But the “scientists” included dentists, medical doctors, and engineers.

          Project Steve was launched as a response but was limited to real scientists in the field who agree that evolution was the best explanation and their names “Steve”.

        • I know.

  • Ash

    Christianity is anything but hopeful when you’re raised by Rapturists.

    • MuttsRule

      And can you think of anything less hopeful than Jean Calvin’s Double Predestination: “All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.”

      • Raging Bee

        I can sort of imagine Calvin’s face as he realizes what a load of cr@p he’s just stepped into…and can’t step back out of because all that logic is based on the Incontrovertible Word of God.

        • Greg G.

          I have thought for a long time that Calvinism is the logical conclusion of Christianity, thus disproving it by reductio ad absurdum.

        • Raging Bee

          You mean John Calvin was actually…SATAN??!!!

      • The Jack of Sandwich

        But we still need to work (even fight) to spread this idea, so that the people who are preordained to eternal life or death will know about it, and know they can’t do anything to change it….

  • Jim Jones

    To understand where this author is coming from, imagine someone who thinks that food is made in the back room of the grocery story by some mysterious process.

    Not just food.

    https://notalwaysright.com/he-is-sew-clueless/184993/ He Is Sew Clueless

    https://notalwaysright.com/hasnt-quite-cottoned-on/80068/ Hasn’t Quite Cottoned On

    • The mind goggles.

      • Illithid

        Oh, yeah, if you have any faith in humanity left, go read NAR. That’ll kill it.

  • The Bofa on the Sofa

    The article declares that scientists like Richard Dawkins reject “objective morality, free will, and the meaningfulness of life”

    What is the religious basis for claiming there is free will? Ignoring, of course, the Christian religions that basically reject free will, too.

    Keep in mind, the reason that religious nuts insist there is free will is because, if we don’t have free will, then God is a pretty ugly monster. Since God can’t be a monster, then, QED, we must have free will! See how it works?

    Oh, they will give you things like, “If we didn’t have free will, then we would just be robots!” To which the answer is, so? Any God worth its omnipotent salt could easily give us the appearance of free will/

    “We have to be free to reject God” – says who?

    etc
    etc
    etc

    • Lord Backwater

      What is the religious basis for claiming there is free will? Ignoring,
      of course, the Christian religions that basically reject free will, too.

      They think they need it to answer questions like “why is there evil?” and “why is there sin?”

      Free will is so important to Christian theology that the term appears precisely zero times in teh Bible (KJV) an YHWH, the tribal god of the Jews, frequently violates free will such as when He “hardens the heart” of pharaoh in order that He can show off by killing more people and animals.

      • The Bofa on the Sofa

        They think they need it to answer questions like “why is there evil?” and “why is there sin?”

        Exactly. It’s nothing more than a dodge to avoid the conclusion that God is a [bad guy].

        One of the answers to the “Problem of Evil” is that God is just a d0uchen0zzle. Since we can’t have that, then it must be free will.

  • Lord Backwater
    • Raging Bee

      Did you miss the bit where Jesus said “Riding that thing ruined horses for me forever?” Oh wait…

      • Lord Backwater

        You have to admit the “horses” of 73 million years ago were not the greatest for riding.

        • Raging Bee

          How would Jesus know that? Was he there?

        • Tawreos

          They were perfect for riding, they were terrible if you wanted to get off of them.

      • Greg G.

        So that’s why Jesus rode donkeys…

      • Anri

        “And that’s not all it ruined – next time, I’m using a saddle!”

        • Raging Bee

          Jesus was God (sort of) — he wasn’t that easily injured, except when it was part of the Plan!

      • Greg G.

        This conversation got me to reminiscing about my neighbor’s horses when I was a kid. Mom would give us some carrots or we would pick some clover to feed the horses. We were told to hold them in the palm of our hands with our fingers straightened out so the horse wouldn’t accidentally bite them. I imagine that was one thing you didn’t have to worry about with a Tyrannosaurus is that they would accidentally bite.

        • Raging Bee

          No, they’d always DELIBERATELY bite.

  • eric

    The perception that each of us has that a proposition is provable, or an
    experiment is conclusive, is no guarantee of anything in external
    reality; instead it is the outcome of subatomic dominoes falling in random patterns. How can science continue if even scientists start to believe this about their minds?

    Now, this is a funny one. On this hand, the author wants to say that if science is unable to arrive at certainty (“no guarantee of anything…”), that would doom the entire process. But theologians often separately argue/point out that science, being inductive, can never arrive at certainty. The latter is true, of course. But obviously it contradicts the former claim; obviously science without certainty can be done, since people actually do it.

  • Raging Bee

    What the AF does this guy know about Egypt, India, and China? Can he point to a chapter in each country’s history where “naturalism,” devoid of faith, forced each of them down to the “third world”/”sh1th0le country” status he seems to think they’re in?

    Oh, and his prejudices about these countries is a bit out of date: China is now starting to kick a$$ again, and India is at least trying to make some progress lately as well. So is China’s current resurgence a result of a “rebirth of faith?”

  • Raging Bee

    Also, I notice a “rebirth of faith” hasn’t exactly restored the Middle East to its glory-days as a center of scientific, mathematical and medical innovation. So where, exactly, HAS a “rebirth of faith” led to any sort of real progress anywhere? Iran? They’ve got plenty of faith already, and they’re trying to make progress by becoming MORE “materialistic,” not less.

  • Bob Jase

    Just look how Christianity helped humanity progress during the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the pogroms, the witch hunts and the dozens of intersect wars.

      • Raging Bee

        I have mixed feelings about that chart. On the one hand, it fails to account for advances by Islamic, Chinese and possibly Indian civilizations, some of which (esp. Islam) contributed to Western advancements. OTOH, those civilizations had their share of enforced backwardness and retrenchment too; so maybe their contributions are a kind of a wash?

      • Definitely not, according to most medieval historians.

      • epicurus

        I don’t know if things would have been much better if the Western Roman Empire had stayed pagan. They would still have been over run by the various “barbarian” groups who would themselves then be pushed out by the next tribe knocking on the door. Depopulated cities, some in ruins, devastated economy. Would the various conquering groups have settled down and scientifically advanced quicker without the Church? Maybe, maybe not.

        • Lex Lata

          Quite right. As the Western Empire disintegrated, its culture and civil institutions were more or less displaced/replaced by pagan Franks, Goths, Vandals, Saxons, Lombards, and other “barbarian” groups that were largely unlettered and had virtually no philosophical or scientific tradition–certainly nothing on par with the Mediterranean world’s.

          There’s little reason to think these folks would’ve made more intellectual progress during the Middle Ages as pagans than they did as Christians. Indeed, there’s good reason to suspect the opposite. The critical mass (pun intended) of learning in Western Europe during late antiquity and the early medieval period was in the network of Christian abbeys and missions, whose clergy brought the Roman tradition and tools of literacy northward and westward into the nascent kingdoms that took the Western Empire’s place.

          The chart is a fun gimmick, but it’s not good history.

        • Agreed that the regression after the disintegration of the Roman Empire wasn’t mostly due to Christianity. Nevertheless, Christianity wasn’t the magic formula that brought success, prosperity, and science to Europe.

        • Another thing is to wonder what would have happened had the Roman Empire survived to the present ages. As pagans, I mean.

        • epicurus

          I think you would have to lay down a whole bunch of suppositions before you could go that route – strong empire? weak empire? Does Islam still conquer North Africa, etc. – No Christianity= no Islam perhaps. It could get mind boggling.

        • Good points. I assume Islam would still exist and the break-up of the Empire in two either doesn’t happen or happens later on.

        • epicurus

          Well, probably to state the obvious, I’m sure there would have been more and greater engineering and technology advancements over the 1000 year period between 500 and 1500 than occurred in the actual medieval period. In the Arts and Culture realm, the Romans tended to just copy the Greeks, so maybe not so much there. I keep thinking of the Cold War being to cause of the space race. Without it, maybe we’d still just be looking through telescopes. So maybe if Rome reigned supreme right up to today, there wouldn’t have been much motivation to really get out there and make things happen. Way too many variables for me to predict.
          Your turn.

        • There’s also the possibility of the Roman Empire expanding through the world, perhaps discovering the American continent, and contacting with China as well as what would happen when Romans and Muslims met.

          I find quite unlikely the possibility of a global Roman Empire, especially with no modern technologies, and variables include that Islam expanded through the Empire as Christianity did, Zoroastrianism and/or mystery religions as Mithraism becoming the equivalent of Christianity. The possibilities are endless.

        • epicurus

          Interesting, at least to me, is that the discovery of and initial exploration of the americas, not counting the vikings, was to find a way to China and the east. But why did they want to? Because just a bit earlier the Turks had taken Constantinople and cut off the trade routes to the east, and China. If Rome had expanded and “dealt” with the Turks, there may never have been a need to develop deep water ships to sail across the Atlantic, and The New World might still be unknown to all except those who live there.

      • NSAlito

        “Guildism” in Europe restricted the spread and advance of new ideas and techniques.

  • Polytropos

    Mark Twain is always good value.

    I don’t understand how people can think science is not hopeful. Science allows us to find solutions to our problems – solutions that work, and make our lives better. I can see why believing the afterlife will be better is hopeful, but even assuming for the sake of argument that there will be an afterlife, how is making this life better not a source of hope?

    • The problem with quoting Twain is that so many quotes attributed to him are things he didn’t say, and many things he did say are attributed to others. Most of the rest are misquoted. It is my considerred opinion that he is the most misquoted human in history. Here, for example, is an image of the actual note, in Twain’s own hand, which is his explanation of the rumor that he had died:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98336acb008e14aea99fadab5d0e5f3eb9e8c3b93ab1eb203de6c0115f9fb4a3.jpg

      As you can see, his actual words are not what most people quote.

      • NSAlito

        It is my considerred opinion that he is the most misquoted human in history.

         —Mark Twain

        • Greg G.

          It is my considered opinion that Mark Twain is the most misquoted human in history.

                  –Samuel Clemens

    • al kimeea

      There’s a downside to knowledge, but not it seems for spending an eternity on your knees, saying prayers, worshiping The Love God

  • #1: I know of a Fundy who claims atheism offers no hope. No hope next to what alternatives, especially if one goes literalist?

    #2: Even if everything boils down to neurochemicals and electrical impulses, love will still be love, compassion will still exist, etc.

    • Ann Kah

      Atheism offers no hope …but only if you expect all your hope to be handed to you by an ancient book.

      • Raging Bee

        …and then only if y’all are agreed on WHICH ancient book is the source of all TRUE hope.

        • Ann Kah

          Then we can become a theocracy. This is me NOT holding my breath…

    • eric

      Fundie – “Atheism offers no hope. You’re going to hell.”
      Nonbeliever – “wouldn’t that mean atheism offers the hope of not going to hell?”

      • Otto

        Bingo

        • Greg G.

          Bingo

          Fὐck! (Sorry, isn’t that the proper response?)

  • Wan Kun Sandy

    Then it whines about how (to the atheist) religion, altruism, love, and more “must all be explained away as the purposeless side-effects of [natural selection and] mutations.”

    Altruism and love as “purposeless side-effects of mutations”? Whoever say that love is purposeless? Once again, I think the article is speaking about imaginary strawman atheists, not actual atheists. I think love brings more meaning and purpose to atheists than many Christians. Many Christians, especially the toxic ones, twist the definition of “love” so that it morphs to the characteristic Christian Love™ that is so often featured in P/NR blogs here. Besides, love also exists in animals, not just humans, and this also includes monogamous love, i.e. the kind of relationship that is idealized by conservative Christians.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/monogamy-genetic-code-birds-fish-voles-mating-animal-behaviour-dna-a8716296.html

    Ironically, the only hope for science now is a rebirth of faith.

    Of course, there are faithful scientists, but when they’re working they’re expected to put their faith aside. Faith is irrelevant to science, especially natural sciences. Faith must not influence their works, they must work on the basis of things that are observable and falsifiable. A proper scientific journal paper shouldn’t contain “God” or the like because God is not falsifiable nor observable. Besides, God or faith is very subjective, and in my opinion, the character of scientific works is to be as objective as possible. It defeats the point of science if the subjective faith is included in scientific work.

    • NSAlito

      Rather than “Faith is irrelevant to science” I would say faith is anathema to science, which is driven by evidence and logic.

  • Raging Bee

    “Atheism denies the reality of altruism, love and spirituality!” say the religious bigots who deny the reality of any altruism, love or spirituality that doesn’t fit their prejudices.

  • Greg G.

    Off topic: Here are some letters from the Greek alphabet that look similar to the Latin alphabet. It includes substitutes for the lowercase vowels but nothing for an uppercase “U”. They can be substituted in colorful words to avoid a timeout.

    α ε ι ο υ χ ν γ ς Χ Ν Α Ε Ι Η Ο Ρ Υ

    • Wan Kun Sandy

      I’ll add Cyrillic letters. The lowercase “u”, uppercase “Y” and “U” aren’t available. For the lowercase “u” just use the Greek character.

      а е і о к у в р т с м х н А Е І О К В Р Т С М Х Н

      For the ultimate work-around, here it is: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9546ce82f06d6db5594947f2da455e72bc1555c15f7057b43e2c5fe1871ddde2.jpg

      credit to @tanelihuuskonen⁠

      • Greg G.

        You can also use ‌ to break up a naughty word in the same way. It stands for “zero width non-joiner” so it looks like two words to the filter but one word to the readers.

        • Michael Neville

          No, the nanny filter recognizes ‌ and will shit upon any naughty words containing it.

    • NSAlito

      Seidensticker went to the MASSACHVSETTS INSTITVTE OF TECHNOLOGY.

    • That reminds me of the young-earth Creationist with the belt buckle that read IXOYE (he was doing his best to recreate IXΘYΣ).

  • I agree science and the other things you mention aren’t dependent on theism. However, to say Europe was “asleep” until then is wrong. They had slow but steady progress to reach the Scientific Revolution (less so than in the Muslim world at first and more initially with the Greek East than Latin West from what I understand). Diamond’s thesis has also largely been rejected both by fellow anthropologists and historians.

    • Lord Backwater

      Diamond’s thesis has also largely been rejected both by fellow anthropologists and historians.

      Yeah, but he had a great title, so we’re just going to have to live with it.

      • I’m not sure what you mean. Assuming that he’s wrong, we shouldn’t keep citing this.

  • RichardSRussell

    I guess it’s an indication of the poor quality of the Christian argument that “Yeah, but our view is more hopeful!! :-)” can be presented without embarrassment.

    Especially coming from an outfit that contends as an article of faith — straight out of their holy book — that only 144,000 humans will ever see heaven and the remaining billions of us will be screaming in excruciating torment for all eternity. Yeah, now that’s being hopeful, all right!

    • And those are from the tribus of Israel (Revelation 7:4), something conveniently forgotten by JWs and the like. Everyone else is pretty much screwed.

  • RichardSRussell

    Anybody who trashes quantum mechanics because of its underlying arbitrariness obviously knows nothing whatever about statistics. For example, it’s theoretically possible that all the oxygen molecules in the room you’re currently sitting in will happen to simultaneously all move over to the north side of the room, but it’s beyond an astronomical figure of unlikeliness. But I’ll bet that this guy thinks that “stochastic” was one of those heathen Greek philosophers.

  • Otto T. Goat

    Recent research not only confirms the existence of substantial psychological variation around the globe but also highlights the peculiarity of populations that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD). We propose that much of this variation arose as people psychologically adapted to differing kin-based institutions — the set of social norms governing descent, marriage, residence and related domains. We further propose that part of the variation in these institutions arose historically from the Catholic Church’s marriage and family policies, which contributed to the dissolution of Europe’s traditional kin-based institutions, leading eventually to the predominance of nuclear families and impersonal institutions. By combining data on 20 psychological outcomes with historical measures of both kinship and Church exposure, we find support for these ideas in a comprehensive array of analyses across countries, among European regions and between individuals with different cultural backgrounds.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3201031

    • Raging Bee

      Okay, get back to us when you’ve read the rest of the paper, and explain your point.

    • Lord Backwater

      populations that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD).

      This is not a sure tipoff that you are reading parody. Ignore the man behind the curtain!

      Also, I’m pretty sure Oligarchic does not start with a ‘D’.

      • RichardSRussell

        If you read Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind, you’ll see that he acknowledges that the primacy leftists place on the values of Care and Fairness (vs. the Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity values more favored by rightists) are much more pronounced in the modern WEIRD population than elsewhere in space or time.

        More about moral foundations theory here:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

        • Pofarmer

          Well shit, another book.

        • NSAlito

          Tragedy struck today when a Cross Examined reader was killed by a collapsing to-read book pile….

  • RichardSRussell

    This pretty well sums it up:

    Q. What would get you to change your mind about evolution?

    Ken Ham: Nothing.

    Bill Nye: Evidence.

  • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

    Science can be a wonderful thing. It produces medicine and other beneficial advances. However, without ethics it can also bring horrific things such as nerve gas. This is not to say religion is the sole source of ethics but it does codify them in a way that limits subjective morals.

    • epeeist

      However, without ethics it can also bring horrific things such as nerve gas.

      Don’t know where you live but I would suggest that you have a look at the ethical requirements on researchers in the biological and medical fields in your country.

      This is not to say religion is the sole source of ethics but it does codify them in a way that limits subjective morals.

      Religious ethics have exactly the same degree of subjectivity as non-religious ethics.

      • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

        Science did not produce nerve gas?

        Thou shall not steal, murder, or covet seem pretty straightforward to me.

        • Greg G.

          Human ancestors have despised murder and theft long before there was religion. But who would have even thought coveting was wrong if not for religion? Not even Paul:

          Romans 7:7 (NRSV)7 What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

        • epeeist

          Science did not produce nerve gas?

          You intimated that science doesn’t involve an ethical dimension, you were wrong. The ethical requirements for biological and medical procedures are stringent.

          Thou shall not steal, murder, or covet seem pretty straightforward to me.

          One needs to have religion in order to be aware that theft and murder are unethical? That explains the hordes of atheists going around stealing from people and murdering them.

          Just as a matter of interest, what is the origin the “Christian virtues”?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You didn’t prove me wrong. You proved me right. I said that science needed the restraint of ethics. Obviously the people who instituted those ethical guidelines agreed

          No, I specifically stated that religion was nor the only source of ethics. Your ethics guidelines proved me right on that as well.

          As a Christian I believe Christian virtues came from Christ.

        • epeeist

          You didn’t prove me wrong. You proved me right. I said that science needed the restraint of ethics. Obviously the people who instituted those ethical guidelines agreed

          So we are agreed that the practice of science does indeed have an underlying ethical basis. This being so I presume you won’t intimate that it hasn’t again.

          As a Christian I believe Christian virtues came from Christ.

          Virtue ethics was produced by the Greeks, including Plato and Aristotle. They were incorporated into Christian ethics because these were so sparse and inadequate.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          No, we do not agree. Science has nothing to do with ethics just as religion has nothing to do with science. If it did then ethical guidelines would not be necessary.

          My ethics come from Jesus. If a man asks for my shirt I give him my coat as well. I don’t think that comes from Greek philosophy.

        • epeeist

          I don’t think that comes from Greek philosophy.

          Then you ought to read some St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. The former was a neo-Platonist and the latter and Aristotelian. The influence of Plato and Aristotle on Christian ethics is well-known to anyone who has done even the smallest amount of reading on the subject.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I get my Christian ethics from Christ not a pope.

        • epeeist

          I get my Christian ethics from Christ not a pope.

          So who do you get your reading comprehension from?

          The fact that you are prepared to accept a deficient version of ethics has nothing to do with the fact that Christian ethics is essentially an import from the Greeks.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          So far you have used proof by assertion, ad hominem, and appeal to authority. How about just arguing facts and logic?

        • epeeist

          So far you have used proof by assertion, ad hominem, and appeal to authority.

          Do you want to point out where I have used these, rather than just asserting I have.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “Virtue ethics was produced by the Greeks, including Plato and Aristotle. They were incorporated into Christian ethics because these were so sparse and inadequate.”

          Proof by assertion. You made this claim and when I disagreed you simply stated it again.

          “You really ought to look at the percentage of the European population died in the 30 years war, a war that was largely religious before you go exposing your ignorance to all and sundry.”

          Ad hominem. The appeal to authority was another poster who said I should read a book by some “expert”. My mistake on that one.

        • epeeist

          Proof by assertion.

          Yet all it would have taken would have been a simple search for “virtue ethics” and “Christianity” to verity my claim – https://www.britannica.com/topic/virtue-in-Christianity

          Ad hominem.

          Ah, you are one of those people who thinks that any attack on the person is fallacious. I suggest you try something like Walton’s Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation, if I can show, for example, that you are not a good source for your claim or that you are biased in some way then an attack on the person is perfectly valid. The fact that you are ignorant of the 30 Years War (or the Albigensian crusade) shows that you are not a good source for your claim.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Yes. All you had to do was substantiate your claim with a Google search and the resulting link to avoid the proof by assertion fallacy

        • DeadBabyJoke

          You don’t know what an ad hominem attack is, snowflake.

          Argumentum ad hominem: You are wrong because you are an asshole

          NOT argumentum ad hominem: You are wrong, asshole, because [insert rationally valid argument here].
          ~ OR ~
          NOT argumentum ad hominem: You are
          an asshole.
          Eepist did NOT use the ad hominem attack, you liar. Like most people, you think an ad hominem attack is just insulting people, but it’s not.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I see, So this is not an ad hominem. Fuck You

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Did I hurt your delicate, fragile snowflake fee-fees, @$$hole? I’m sick of fuckwits69 whining about ad hominem attacks when they don’t actually know what an ad hominem attack is. Which was EXACTLY what you were doing. And most people who whine about ad hominem attacks quite often use ad hominem attacks themselves.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Lol. Projection?

        • DeadBabyJoke

          You would know, wouldn’t you?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Lol. You don’t even realize you are doing it again

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Says the crybaby who was whining about ad hominem attacks when no one was using them, as well as showing that you don’t know what an ad hominem attack ACTUALLY is. That’s projection. I guess this is something else that you are ignorant of.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          He was being insulting just as you are now. Yes, I misused the term. I admit that. You asked what religion gives mankind? Well this is anecdotal, but every Atheist board I go on has nasty obviously unhappy people insulting anyone who disagrees

          On the religious boards people seem to be happier and less inclined to harass visiting Free Thinkers. You guys spew hatred at Christians. That is not a good representation for whatever ideology one espouses.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          “He was being insulting just as you are now.”
          Your posts were insulting right off the bat, so why you are surprised that people are hostile towards you?

          “Yes, I misused the term. I admit that.”
          At least you admitted it. Most people just dig their heels in and refuse to acknowledge that they don’t know what an ad hominem attack is, even when given a definition.

          “You asked what religion gives mankind? Well this is anecdotal, but every Atheist board I go on has nasty obviously unhappy people insulting anyone who disagrees”
          Then you’ve never paid attention to Christian websites, TV shows, magazines, sermons, etc. They CONSTANTLY demonize, dehumanize, insult, and mock atheists, non-Christians, and the LGBTQ on a daily basis, but then turn around and throw a hissy fit when it happens to them, usually whining that they’re being “persecuted and oppressed,” even though they don’t consider it persecution when they do it to others. Becuase they’re a bunch of thin-skinned snowflakes who can dish it out, but can’t take it.
          And you also conveniently ignore all the nasty, angry, bitter, insulting Christian trolls who go to atheist/non-Christian/LGBTQ websites to preach, insult, mock, criticize, and harass others. Which happens ALL THE TIME. Hell, I had some Christian fundie whack job going by the name “Politically Incorrect” threaten to stab me because I said something that he didn’t like.

          “On the religious boards people seem to be happier and less inclined to harass visiting Free Thinkers. You guys spew hatred at Christians.”
          You’re both a liar and a crybaby. Most Christian websites ban and censor anyone who disagrees with them, both atheists/free thinkers, as well as other Christians. This is in addition to all the shit69 that Christians say about atheists/free thinkers, non-Christians, and the LGBTQ on a daily basis. Christians arrogantly think that they’re free to insult others and treat them like crap69 (while asserting that people aren’t allowed to show Christians the same treatment), and then wonder why people don’t like them and insult/mock them right back. Respect isn’t automatic, it’s earned. Considering what Christians say and do against everyone else, why shouldn’t they treat Christians how they treat everyone else ALL THE TIME? It’s a two-way street, and if Christians aren’t willing to show people basic decency and respect, they shouldn’t be surprised when they get a taste of their own medicine.

          “That is not a good representation for whatever ideology one espouses.”
          This applies with FAR more accuracy to Christianity than it does atheism, given the way Christians have treated other Christians and non-Christians for the past 2,000+ years. Or have you chosen to ignore all the atrocities that Christians did in the name of God and their religion? Again, this is why people fear and hate Christians. With the track record and body count of Christianity, who can blame them? We have Christians who ignore the law and the Constitution, are trying to strip the rights of women, racial & religious minorities and the LGBTQ of their rights, and are working tirelessly to America into a Christian theocracy so they can impose their religious beliefs on everyone else and force them to conform to Christian standards, even though non-Christians and the LGBTQ are under ABSOLUTELY no obligation to follow or obey the rules of a religion that they don’t follow. Gee, I wonder why THAT might piss people off and sour their opinion on your religion? /s
          And this is also irrelevant. You STILL haven’t given me any examples of what religion has given mankind.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “Your posts were insulting right off the bat, so why you are surprised that people are hostile towards you?”

          Please copy and paste what you found to be insulting in any of my posts that was not in RESPONSE to insulting rhetoric.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Well, most people here find the idiotic and discredited PRATTs about science and religion that you invoked to be insulting. Like that stupid post about nerve gas and ethics that you were blathering about.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          IOW You took offense that someone would actually disagree with you and you mischaracterize that as insulting so as to rationalize your own poor behavior

          Poor baby.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          You’re a religious crybaby who invoked a bunch of stupid fucking69 arguments, then got all butthurt69 when the people here called you out on your stupid bullshit69. The one showing and attempting to rationalize poor behavior is you, fuckwit69.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Nothing but insults. Post some substance.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          This coming from the fuckwit69 who hasn’t posted anything of substance the entire time that he’s been here. Just idiotic and poorly thought out Christian apologetics.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I am not the liar. You lied when you said I was insulting from the beginning and it is that toxic dishonest crap that probably got you banned from any Christian sites you went to.

        • Greg G.

          You lied when you said I was insulting from the beginning

          I do not recall what your first post was about but I do recall the impression I got from it and it was not good. You did not give the impression that you were here for a mutually interesting conversation.

          Well this is anecdotal, but every Atheist board I go on has nasty obviously unhappy people insulting anyone who disagrees

          That tells me that it is not just your initial volley here.

          I do not often comment on religious sites but when I do, I try to be respectful and have productive conversation with some commenters but there are still religious commenters who are quite negative. It may be that way wherever you go on the internet.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Nope, I didn’t post anything that was offensive, I simply pointed out that the Bible didn’t condemn or prohibit abortion. The post didn’t even last a minute. Not that I make it a habit to post on Christian websites, I don’t. And the one who’s spews dishonest toxic crap are Christians, who vomit that type of drivel on a daily basis. More hypocrisy and whining about people treating Christians how Christians treat everybody else on a daily basis.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Right. You never said anything about hypocrisy and such? Horseshit you started in on me with no provocation and then lied and said I was insulting first.

          You ate lying again and the worst lies one can tell is to themselves.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          That’s what happened. I don’t give a shit69 if you believe me. And a lot of people found your posts to be rather insulting, from what I saw of the responses.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Then show an example of what you consider insulting

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Your holy book and religion.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Sorry. I didn’t realize you were a vampire.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          I’m not the one who’s a member of a murderous, depraved, evil, genocidal cult of child rapists69 who worship an invisible Sky Wizard and his son, the Jewish zombie. Nor am I the one who thinks that a shitty69, contradictory, badly written holy book that condones pedophilia69, incest69, rape69, child rape69, child marriage, sexual slavery, familial cannibalism, murder, mass murder, genocide, and infanticide is a source of morality. EVERYTHING about your religion is disgusting and offensive.

        • Susan

          this is not an ad hominem. Fuck You

          Exactly.

        • Pofarmer

          This really is a slow one.

        • Susan

          This really is a slow one.

          I’m less inclined to to think they’re slow, and more inclined to think they’re intentionally dodgy.

          Based on this exchange, and past exchanges.

        • Pofarmer

          If he’s trying to be dodgy, he’s not even good at that. They get accused of fallacies so often, that they think it’s cute to use them, but don’t actually understand what they are.

        • Susan

          they think it’s cute to use them

          Or useful to use them, in order to shift the burden.

          but don’t actually understand what they are.

          Or useful to pretend they don’t.

          This is not Luther’s first ride around the carousel.

          I’m going to guess that he knows exactly what he’s doing.

          He’s learned enough to shit disturb, but has no interest in honest discourse.

          (I think I’ve finally become officially cynical in these discussions… too many strategic snake oil salesmen over the years, and too few theists willing to have an extended, honest, respectful discussion.)

          Sad to say that.

        • Pofarmer

          In order to have an extended, honest, respectful discussion, you have to be prepared to admit that the other guy just might be right. And that just won’t do.

        • Susan

          In order to have an extended, honest, respectful discussion, you have to be prepared to admit that the other guy just might be right

          It’s not even that complicated..

          You just have to be prepared to accept that if you make claims for which you can’t show support, then it’s reasonable for the other guy to not accept your claims.

          When it comes to fields of science, for instance, one can show support.

          When it comes to religious claims, I’ve never seen any.

          Just fallacies and attacks on character when those fallacies aren’t accepted.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Nope, definitely not an ad hominem attack. That much is true.

        • NSAlito

          Slaves, obey your masters.

        • Pofarmer

          Science has nothing to do with ethics

          This, quite simply, is bullshit. Read a little Stephen Pinker for Pete’s sake.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Does he explain how the scientific method is an ethical standard?

        • Pofarmer

          It’s not, in and of itself, but we can use it to develop ethical standards. And that’s the point.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Okay. How does one develop ethical standards in a scientific manner?

        • Pofarmer

          I said that science needed the restraint of ethics

          YOu think religion has been LESS restrained by ethics? Secular ethics are what is responsible for largely neutering religious sectarianism and wars.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Religion has nothing on Communism for death tolls.

        • epeeist

          Religion has nothing on Communism for death tolls.

          Oh FFS, not this again.

          You really ought to look at the percentage of the European population died in the 30 years war, a war that was largely religious before you go exposing your ignorance to all and sundry.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)
        • epeeist

          Hostile? Just irritated that this PRATT has reappeared yet again.

          As for your reference to the killing fields, you do realise that this is a tu quoque don’t you?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Okay. I concede that religion was more lethal than communism. Do you concede that since the development of communism it has been more lethal than religion
          “Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for “you also”), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s”

          WHAT? How do you see an example i gave to support my assertion and read it as if I am accusing you of anything?

        • epeeist

          Okay. I concede that religion was more lethal than communism.

          I am not asking you to do that, simply to either withdraw your assertion or substantiate it.

          Do you concede that since the development of communism it has been more lethal than religion

          Why should I do that? You are claiming that there is a causal link between the development of communism and deaths in those countries that have identified themselves as communist, however you have supplied no warrant to show this.

          WHAT? How do you see an example i gave to support my assertion

          Two things, firstly in your initial post you made a claim to which I provided a rebuttal. Your response was to provide a reference to a specific example of deaths in a totalitarian regime. Hence, tu quoque.

          Secondly, your reference does nothing to support your claim that “religion has nothing on communism for death tolls” since it is a) a single example and b) provides no comparison to deaths caused by religion.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Which assertion do you wish me to concede? I already conceded that religion killed a higher percentage of populations than communism. (Though i was technically correct. Communism killed far more people than religious wars simply due to the increased population in the hundreds of years since that has been a major problem)

          I posted the definition of your fallacy. I did not infer you were a hypocrite by posting my example. I would love for you to explain the logic of THAT assertion.

          I posted that example in response to your claim of religion killing a higher percentage of the population. If I was going for the huge numbers which indeed dwarf the religious wars I would have cited the Cultural Revolution in China and the monumental death toll of the USSR.

          As far as a causal link, give me a break. Communist countries did the killing just like the Catholic Church did the Crusades. You would laugh at me if I said the RCC just called themselves Christians and you posted no causal link to their actions and Christianity.

        • epeeist

          I already conceded that religion killed a higher percentage of populations than communism.

          Something I didn’t ask you to do since I was not, and still am not sure, is true.

          As far as a causal link, give me a break. Communist countries did the killing just like the Catholic Church did the Crusades.

          To be sure there were lots of killings and unnecessary deaths in places such as the USSR, Cambodia and China. The question is whether it was communism that was causal in these deaths. Might it not be something else, for example the fact that they were all totalitarian dictatorships.

          As for the killings in the Crusades one would have to ask whether Christianity was solely responsible for these? Could there be other causes as well, for example the quest for treasure or land?

          If there are multiple possible causes and you want to link a claim to evidence then you need to supply a warrant, in this case the warrant needs to be causal.

        • Bob Jase

          Those Catholics and Lutherans who supported Hitler ran up a pretty good death toll themselves.

        • Pofarmer

          As a percentage? The 30 years war, for instance, wiped out 75% of the population in some areas, and was responsible for something like a 10% decrease in the entire population of Europe. The Albigensian crusade killed millions. In relative terms, the death toll of Religion has been immense.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Wrong. Christianity has killed FAR, FAR more people, directly and indirectly.
          As detailed in American Philosophy: From Wounded Knee to the Present, “It is also apparent that the shared history of the hemisphere is one framed by the dual tragedies of genocide and slavery, both of which are part of the legacy of the European invasions of the past 500 years. Indigenous people north and south were displaced, died of disease, and were killed by Europeans through slavery, rape, and war. In 1491, about 145 million people lived in the western hemisphere. By 1691, the population of indigenous Americans had declined by 90-95 percent, or by around 130 million people.”
          That’s not even getting into the tens of millions of other indigenous peoples that European Christians murdered in the centuries after that. Then there’s the untold millions more people that were killed by Christians in the COUNTLESS genocides that continue right up until the 21st century. If you combined all of these facts and death tolls, the Christian body count FAR EXCEEDS that of Communism. You’re a liar desperately trying to distract people from the facts: Christians are a murderous, genocidal, depraved death cult of child rapists, who are ABSOLUTELY in no position to talk about morality.

        • NSAlito

          Neither science nor math nor plumbing “need” the restraint of ethics. Human behavior needs the restraint of ethics. A crowbar can pry a rafter off of a trapped person, or can beat that person in the head.

          BTW, Zyklon B was a cyanide-based pesticide.

      • Pofarmer

        Religious ethics have exactly the same degree of subjectivity as non-religious ethics.

        I would argue that religious ethics are much worse, because part of their subjectivity relies on pleasing imaginary beings.

    • Greg G.

      Science is a tool. A hammer is a tool that can be used to build window frames or break windows.

      Religion brings horrors such as Thirty Years Wars and Inquisitions but lets the perpetrators feel justified by it.

    • Pofarmer

      You realize that there are genocides commanded in your holy book, right?

      • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

        I am. Just as I am aware what I’m about to write is going to go over like a turd in a punch bowl.

        Sometimes that is an ethical action. Case in point: Hiroshima. As horrific as tens of thousands incinerated was the Japanese government was planning on 20 million civilian casualties to make a US invasion untenable.

        • Pofarmer

          You ever heard of the Aligensian crusade?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I had to look it up. I was aware of the persecution of Cathars but I had never heard that name for it. As this was not ordered directly by God and there was no imminent threat to millions of people this does not come close to my ethical requirements.

          Pretty sure Jesus would not approve of this, the Inquisition, or the forcible conversation of Native Americans.

        • Greg G.

          Pretty sure Jesus would not approve of this, the Inquisition, or the forcible conversation of Native Americans.

          Jesus is just fine with torturing people forever. He would look the other way if those things were done in his name by believing Christians.

          If Christianity was a non-fantasy, Hitler might be in Heaven for being a Christian while Anne Frank is burning in hell for being Jewish.

        • Pofarmer

          Pretty sure the Pope would disagree with you, as the Vicar of Christ on Earth. At least try to be honest, if only with yourself.

          or the forcible conversation of Native Americans.

          Go ye therefore and preach to all nations? Really?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Pretty sure you are wrong. Now lets see how honest you can be about admitting it

          https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/13/world/pope-asks-forgiveness-for-errors-of-the-church-over-2000-years.html

          Sure PREACH and if they don’t listen shake the dust off your sandals and leave.

        • Pofarmer

          You’re kinda making my point for me. The Church only had to “apologize” because it became necessary for them to conform to secular ethics. Not the other way around.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          No. I referenced the scripture that clearly stated Christians are not to forcibly convert people.

          Matthew 10:14
          If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.

          They were finally conforming to Christian ethics. I am not a Catholic but I did consider John Paul II as one of my spiritual leaders. He was a great man.

        • Greg G.

          Who here welcomes you? Nobody wants to listen to your words. Shouldn’t you shake the dust off your feet and never return?

        • Pofarmer

          Let’s see how that works out.

        • Pofarmer

          Get to shakin, asshole.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I am not preaching here. I came because there are actually some intelligent people on this board and I enjoy a good debate. Why don’t you show me some intellect and lose the ad hominems?

        • Pofarmer

          De Nile ain’t just a river in Egypt, I see.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          When you have to make shit up to argue you can pretty much tell the debate is not going your way. Speaking of which, I am still waiting for you to explain how my posting an example of communism killing a large segment of a population is somehow accusing you of hypocrisy.

        • Pofarmer

          I’ll give you the same link I gave another poster.

          https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-years

          What’s really an aberration is the peace for the last 70 or so years.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          When you have to change the subject that too is a good indication the debate is not going well for you

        • Pofarmer

          You’re the one who brought up the death toll from communism, dumbass.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I had ALREADY CONCEDED THAT POINT and we were discussing your misuse of a logical fallacy. That means that YOU CHANGED THE SUBJECT.

          And given your intellectual performance in this discussion you are in no position to even judge who is or isn’t a dumbass. Further, while I am an asshole as you previously stated the difference between us is that I try not to be.

        • Pofarmer

          Uhm, what logical fallacy did I misuse? Cause I think you’ve got me confused with someone else.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You are correct. My apologies.

        • Bob Jase

          Aw, the poor bitsy! Everyone else is soooo mean to you and wrong all the time aren’t they?

        • Pofarmer

          John Paul II was a cloistered asshole. Just like the rest of them.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          How so?

        • Pofarmer

          You’ve got a 58 year old celibate priest espousing on sexuality. A Priest who had always been in administration, not even direct preaching.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          That was his job. So anyone who disagrees with you is an asshole?

          Hmmm.

        • Pofarmer

          He made it his job. He was theologian. Not a sociologist or psychologist. He basically drug the RCC back.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          A theologian teaches theology. That is the theology of tbe RCC. You are just flailing around trying to make a point, but you have none.

        • Pofarmer

          Is it theology when it controls someones Sex life? Doesn’t that give the RCC a pass because they can declare everything “Theology.” Which, BTW, is what they try to do. In the past, when they could, literally everything was subservient to their theology in the areas they controlled. Screw. That.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          It is theology if it is the moral.teachings of the religion. I find it sad that I had to explain that

        • Pofarmer

          But they think it should apply to all society……….That’s why there’s societies like Opus Dei, influencing State and Federal Legislators.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          In the case of abortion I see their point. They feel they are protecting innocent lives. In Gay Marriage and such your argument is valid. Forcing ones religious morals on others when there is no victim is just busy body bullshit

        • Pofarmer

          It goes beyond that. They want no contraception either. They are one of the groups pushing to not have medical plans cover contraception, even if those being covered want it.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Except for the inconvenient fact that the Bible is not only COMPLETELY silent on condemning abortion, but the Bible itself contradicts the beliefs and positions of pro-lifers entirely. Pro-lifers have no biblical basis for their stances. Period. Fuck69 you, next case, End of report!

        • Greg G.

          The Bible even gives a remedy when the husband suspects his wife of adultery. He takes her to the priest who mixes up some mud from the ground of the tabernacle, where un-house-broken animals are slaughtered. If it doesn’t make her sick, she is innocent. If it makes her abort the pregnancy, suffer a prolapsed uterus, or dies, then she was guilty.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Yeah, the Test of the Unfaithful Wife in Numbers. That’s something that I never get tired of pointing out to pro-life liars. Whenever someone say that the Bible condemns abortion, you know that they’re liars who haven’t read the Bible.

        • Greg G.

          You’ve got a 58 year old celibate priest espousing on sexuality.

          That makes me feel old. For the first time in my life, there is a pope younger than I am.

          I remember it being a shock when I realized my doctor was younger than me but now I might be a bit leery of a doctor who is older.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s a tricky spot, fer sure,

        • Greg G.

          I was going to suggest to Luther that in Matthew 10, Jesus was sending out the disciples as beginners which would be abrogated by what is said at the end of Matthew 28. But I decided to recommend he follow the suggestion he is so fond of quoting.

        • Greg G.

          Sure PREACH and if they don’t listen shake the dust off your sandals and leave.

          The Bible is the Big Book of Multiple Choice. You can go to the Old Testament examples and demand they surrender to slavery. If they don’t, kill them all but keep any young girls you like.

        • Bob Jase

          Christianity – where saying, “Oopsy” to an invisible magician in the sky is supposed to make everyone forget the damage, pain and destruction you have caused.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Did you post to the wrong person? I don’t see how this is a reply to what I wrote.

        • Bob Jase

          Maybe you should read what you cite.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I posted a link that showed where Pope Jogn Paul ii apologized to people for wrongs done against their ancestors. You posted a snide reply about apologizing to God and being forgiven

          Two different subjects. Get it?

        • Bob Jase

          You interpret your way, I’ll interpret my way – just like the babble.

          Still amounts to saying, “Oopsy” to the clouds.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Ok. How do you interpret that verse?

        • Bob Jase

          I interpret that verse like all good Christians do – it means what I want as is most convenient at the moment.

          Do you follow the ten commandments even though Christian doctrine states the OT rules are only for Jews? Do you eat cheeseburgers? You can’t do both with creative interpretation just as all Christians do.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          The verse is clear. You pretend it could be interpreted another way but avoiding the question reveals you realize it can’t

          Bluff called Your turn.

        • Bob Jase

          I notice you can’t answer my questions.

          Btw, WHAT verse? We weren’t talking about any specific one.

        • Bob Jase

          And the folks who staged the inquisitions knew Jesus supported them.

          All Christians ‘know’ Jesus agrees with them even over other Christians.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Love your enemy and let he who is without sin ring any bells? Anyone can say and believe whatever they wish. It doesn’t make it true.

          The Bible is clear. If people reject Christianity we are to shake the dust off our sandals and leave them be.

        • Bob Jase

          I’ve heard that – is that why organized Christianity has promoted genocide and other delightful customs for centuries!

          If you celebration your platitudes are cheap why should I think differently?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          No. Christians did those things because they were hypocrites.

          I don’t understand your second sentence. Try again.

        • Bob Jase

          Autocorrect is like god, it changes things it doesn’t like with no understanding of what was meant.

          You don’t follow your platitudes, why should I?

        • Greg G.

          First sentence stolen with no regrets or apologies.

        • Pofarmer

          Yeah. NO True Scotsman would………..

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Dude. I said THEY WERE CHRISTIANS.

          WTF is your mental malfunction???

        • Pofarmer

          Allow me to quote.

          Christians did those things because they were hypocrites.

          So, True Christians, who weren’t hypocrites, wouldn’t do those things? Right?

          Except, the Christians who did those things, uhm, didn’t think they were hypocrites. Right?

          I mean, the implication is pretty clear.

        • Raging Bee

          Hiroshima wasn’t a “genocide,” f00l, and it was far more justifiable than most of the ACTUAL genocidal actions described in the Bible.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You can label the incineration of tens of thousands of civilians in an instant however you wish. Pretty sure however that when you tally up the casualties of the nukes they have comparable death tolls to at least some of the biblical genocides.

          As such you are technically correct that the bombings were not a genocide but obviously fail to grasp that they were comparable to some of the ones in Bible and therefore are an acceptable example of how mass killing can be ethical.

          Duh

        • Raging Bee

          I’m not talking about numbers, boy, I’m talking about justification.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You were pointing out that the nukes I never actually said were genocides were not genocide. Ax far as justification you have no clue what an all knowing God saw that He determined justified it.

          Oh, and being a douchebag does not make your arguments stronger. It just shows everyone that they should be glad they only know you on the internet.

        • Pofarmer

          Er Ma Gerd he really is grasping at straws. Another Troll for Jesus.

        • Sample1

          Just as I am aware what I’m about to write is going to go over like a turd in a punch bowl.

          One hallmark of a bad explanation is that it may contain some truth amidst much error.

          Mike

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          True, but a foolproof indication of a lack of any real validity to a criticism is when no real error is presented.

      • DeadBabyJoke

        Yeah, but those were different, because reasons! What’s ironic to me is that this dipshit69 opposes abortion, while freely admitting that there were genocides in the Bible. Even though there were EXPLICIT references to murdering pregnant women, babies, and children, which contradicts the false narrative that the Bible condemns abortion. Hell, a couple of the most famous stories from their own holy book has God murdering everyone on the planet during a hissy fit and killing all the firstborns of Egypt. How these fuckwits69 can claim that God and the Bible are pro-life with a straight face is beyond me.

        • Pofarmer

          The ones who turn my crank are the ones who, especially Catholics, claim that “all life is sacred” or whatever, in support of their anti-abortion stance. I mean, you have to ignore basically their entire freaking history to even begin to support that position. Hell, the Catholics killed their last heretic after the U.S. Civil war. They instigated a war on the U.S. Mexican border at the beginning of the 20th freaking Century. Their Priests and Bishops were convicted of War Crimes in Rwanda. Screw em.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Yeah, I know, and think it’s fucked up. If I had to guess, they’re just as ignorant of the history of the RCC as they are of the Bible. Either way, their claims hold no water with me. Fuck69 them a white hot poker!

    • Bob Jase

      Science doesn’t decide on the uses for its discoveries like nerve gas – people do and they are often religiously motivated,

      And I’ve never seen a religion that didn’t take multiple sides on any ethical situation for whatever suited it best at the moment.

      • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

        What religiously motivated use of nerve gas can you point to?

        • Greg G.

          The Protestants had Martin Luther’s venom against the Jews and the Catholics had a prayer said during one of the most attended masses that referred to “the perfidious Jews” that stirred animosity against the Jews that led to the Holocaust where Jews were required to remove their clothing for a shower but were killed by nerve gas.

        • Bob Jase

          Ever hear of the Holocaust? It was a popular Christian pastime a few decades ago n Germany.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          LMFAO. Yes i heard of the Holocaust. Ever hear of the Reich’s Church? If you think an altar with swastikas and copies of Mein Kampf is religious, let alone Christian, I have a bridge to sell you.

        • Bob Jase

          Yeah, I think an altar with swastikas and copies of Mein Kampf of is just as religious as one with a corpse on a stick and a book by ancient goatherders.

          And most of the Nazis were RC or Lutheran, no excuses change that.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          The official church of the Third Reich replaced the Bible with Mein Kampf. RC and Lutheran churches use the Bible.

    • Raging Bee

      As you just admitted, religion is NOT the “sole source of ethics.” In fact, religion isn’t even a GOOD source of ethics.

      Also, whose “subjective morals” are you talking about, exactly? Most liberal secular moral principles are based on observation and experience of real-world circumstances, so they’re not “subjective.”

      • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

        Just admitted? I said it in my opening post.

        Bullshit. Everybody bases their worldview on “observations and experiences”. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf using them. How you interpret those things to decide what is right makes it subjective.

        • Bob Jase

          Then it’s a good thing that all 40,000+ versions of Christianity agree completely on everything the bible says so that can’t possibly be subjective.

        • rationalobservations?

          Which bible do you claim all Christians agree about?

          Is it the oldest 4th century prototype known as “Codex Sinaiticus”?

          Or is it the KJV that differs from Sinaiticus in over 14800 significant ways?

          Or is it one of the many other internally contradictory, historically inaccurate, historically unsupported, scientifically absurd other versions written by men since the late 4th century?

        • Bob Jase

          Your sarcasm meter needs to go back to the shop.

        • rationalobservations?

          You should realise that many entries are aimed at all readers of these columns.

          However you erroneously referenced “the” bible when there are in reality so many different versions…

        • Bob Jase

          I take it bac k, your sarcasm meter is fine, you need the repairs.

        • rationalobservations?

          Meanwhile, and since you have no answers….
          Back to the topic..?

        • DeadBabyJoke

          The Bible is COMPLETELY subjective, dumbass69. That’s why there’s 40,000+ sects of Christianity, all of whom believe that they’re “True Christians™” and everyone else are “False Christians.” They can’t agree on anything, minor and major. Its also the reason why the Bible can be used to condone or condemn just about anything. That makes it worthless as a source of morality, and contradicts the BLATANTLY FALSE claims that Christians believe in and follow absolute, objective morality. Because they don’t, and NEVER have.

    • NSAlito

      The premise of Christianity is that people are blamed and punished for something their distant ancestors (Adam and Eve) did. That is fundamentally unjust to the point of evil.

      The premise of caste-based Hinduism is that people have been reincarnated into their current castes based on behavior in a previous life. That is also fundamentally unjust to the point of evil.

      It’s possible to have a beneficial life “philosophy” that doesn’t rely on magical thinking, but few would call it a religion.

    • DeadBabyJoke

      Science is better than religion, which has made little to no positive contributions to the world. They CERTAINLY haven’t given us anything that was beneficial or helpful to advance mankind. And religion has brought us nothing BUT horrific things. As far as I’m concerned, the religious are in ABSOLUTELY no position to talk about ethics or morality.

      • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

        “Science is better than religion, which has made little to no positive contributions to the world.”

        Demonstrably false

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Religious_charities

        • DeadBabyJoke

          And? So what? None of that erases the immeasurable harm that religion is responsible for. And it’s also irrelevant. What has religion actually done? What has prayer done to make a measurable and testable difference in the world? What religious texts have ever lead to a scientific breakthrough that ACTUALLY improves the lives of humans? What does belief in the supernatural contribute to the future of mankind? Because religion has stood in the way of scientific and social progress and helping people, which has been seen over and over again. I could go on and on with these questions, but I doubt that I’ll receive a solid answer backed up with evidence.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          So what is your statement was bullshit

        • DeadBabyJoke

          I notice you didn’t answer the questions.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          What questions?

        • DeadBabyJoke

          The ones that I asked you in a different post, which you have yet to answer.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Okay. Give me another one.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Why?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Because you wanted me to answer it?

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Then why don’t you go read the post in question?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          If your question wasn’t important enough to you to repeat it then why should I care about it?

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Because you’ve got nothing, and you know it?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Right. I have no answer to a question you refuse to ask.

          You find this surprising?

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Why should I have to ask you questions when the questions were directly posted to you already?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You don’t have to do anything, but if you refuse to repost your question (which is easy for you) and insist that i go to the trouble of searching for something you posted some time ago then you don’t get your question answered.

          Why that isn’t obvious to you is a mystery.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Again, fucktard69, I posted those questions directly to you in a post a few days ago. If you’re too stupid to go through the posts to find the posts that have those questions, that’s your problem, not mine.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Not my problem. Have a nice day.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          So, IOW, you’ve got nothing and are running away because you’re incapable of looking for the post in question?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Look through my posting history. I repeat my questions all the time. What makes you so special that I should cater to your whims?

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Because you keep asking me to repeat questions that I’ve ALREADY asked you a few days ago, which you can’t go read for yourself, because reasons!

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Oh. You mean where you asked what good religion had done in response to a post listing all the charities religion was responsible for.

          How many times must I answer it before you stop asking?

        • DeadBabyJoke

          You’re a liar who MOST DEFINITELY did not answer my questions. I gave you a list of questions regarding the ALLEGED benefits and advancements that religion has had for mankind. You posted some irrelevant nonsense about charities, which isn’t an answer. And charities/being charitable aren’t exclusive to religion/the religious. Try again.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Let’s see if I can give you a clue.

          1) You stated religion had never given us anything of benefit.

          2) i posted a list of religious charities which, unless you are completely clueless and don’t believe charity to be beneficial, proved your original statement wrong.

          3) You responded to that ignoring the obvious and asking the same question again.

          I dis not say I answered all of your questions dumbass. I don’t intend to. I already showed you are an idiot.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          I gave you a list of questions about what actual, tangible, measurable effects, benefits, or breakthroughs that religion/God belief/belief in the supernatural has given humanity. Charities don’t fall under any of these categories. You don’t need to be religious to think up or run a charity. Hence, this is irrelevant.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You don’t think charity has a measurable benefit to society? And while one does not have to be religious to think up or run a charity for the majority of its existence it has been the sole domain of religion.

          As far as breakthroughs, that is the domain of science. Asking that is about as fair as asking what charities science has founded.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Now you’re being wilfully obtuse.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You are the one who said religion has never produced any good and is now being willfully ignorant about the role of religion in the history of organized charity.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          You know EXACTLY what I was asking. I gave you a list of specific questions which you haven’t answered. You just gave me some irrelevant crap69 about charities, which didn’t answer any of the questions that I asked. That’s being willfully obtuse. That’s your problem, not mine.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I don’t know what you are asking. I thought you asked for an example of where religion had done good and I thought I answered.

          If you are asking something else then state so clearly.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          Read the questions again, numbnuts69.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Ask it in an intelligible manner genius

        • DeadBabyJoke

          I did. I guess that you’re incapable of looking through the posts that we’ve exchanged over the past few days so you can answer the goddamned69 questions.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          It takes a pretty dishonest person to say that someone repeatedly asking them to restate a question is avoiding said question.

          Good luck convincing anyone but yourself of that nonsense

        • DeadBabyJoke

          I’m not being dishonest, you are, you liar. It’s not my problem that you’re to stupid and incompetent to go look up questions that I’ve ALREADY asked you. If anything, YOU’RE the one being dishonest by refusing to go and read the questions that were asked days ago.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Look dumbass, if someone asks you to restate some question YOU SAY they didn’t answer and YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER then it is you being a dishonest little coward hiding behind your evasion.

          I have stated this in multiple ways even an idiot could understand so I will not respond again to your stupid rationalization.

        • DeadBabyJoke

          WAAAAHHHHH!!!!! I’M A STUPID CRYBABY WHO CANT BE BOTHERED TO LOOK AT A POST THAT WAS POSTED DIRECTLY TO ME!!!!! That’s you, dipshit69.

    • You’ve lost me. How does religion help? Is it all religions that do this? Why wouldn’t philosophy (say) be at least as good in codifying ethics? Or the process of building a society?

      • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

        It provides a set code of morality

        Philosophy is one of the other “source(s) of ethics”

        The Third Reich was a society

        • The Third Reich was a society

          Your point is that some societies have bad traits? Sure. Religions have bad traits, too.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          My point is that if one relies on society for their morals then morals are not a constant. That is ethics by mob rule.

        • Bob Jase

          But Christians all follow the same morality right?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          No, but they should. Morals are defined by the Bible they share.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s amounting to one, long “No True Scotsman” fallacy now.

        • Are you saying that morals are a constant? That’s not my impression.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I’m saying that the moral codes contained in holy writings like the Torah, the New Testament, and the Bhagavad Gita do not change and as such are not subject to the fickle whims of society.

        • epeeist

          I’m saying that the moral codes contained in holy writings like the Torah, the New Testament, and the Bhagavad Gita do not change

          Even if this were true it doesn’t show that the morals in these books are right.

          Sounds like an argumentum ad antiquitatem to me.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          This is true, but they are certainly better than the morals of a Roman or Nationalist Socialist society

        • Greg G.

          Have you even read the Torah?

          The Romans enjoyed blood sports and public torture and executions but they apparently thought the Hebrew system of justice needed to be reined in to stop the stoning of a person who picked up sticks on the wrong day or children who were disrespectful to their parents.

        • epeeist

          Ah, that’s the best you have got? Our morals are better than those of the fascists?

          (Assuming you mean the raw Christian morals and not the ones they imported from Plato or Aristotle, not forgetting Epicurus and the Stoics of course.)

        • Pofarmer

          This post by Sample1 on Outshine the Sun seems Germaine.

          For whatever reason, I never gave much thought regarding ancient
          human beings (say pre-agrarian civilization) having essentially the same
          brains as we do today.

          This means the apologetic for slavery that
          God was preparing the Hebrews slowly (over millennia, as the apologetic
          usually goes) to accept the changes required of them, is not
          convincing.

          Any of those ancient peoples’ infants, if we had a
          time machine to bring them to the present, could have been reasonably
          expected to assimilate into a 21st century culture, one where slavery is
          illegal and immoral. In other words, there is no good reason why
          ordered slavery needed to be part of God’s Plan. Of course, when we
          replace all of God’s Plans with various human beings’ plans, things
          begin to make good sense.

          And so that Christian apologetic fails.
          However, religions and myths adhere to easy-to-vary explanations.
          Meaning, such a new fact, like brain structure not changing radically,
          can be absorbed into whatever apologetic theory they are postulating.
          That is a feature for easy-to-vary explanations and a bug for
          hard-to-vary ones.

          Food for thought.Mike
          Edit done

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          My examples spanned almost 2000 years. Clearly not just a reference to one society.

          Further I am not convinced the morals are copied from anywhere as I have yet to see any evidence to support this assertion.

        • epeeist

          Clearly not just a reference to one society.

          Well no, you did throw another one into the mix, nevertheless you still compared religious morals with those of German fascists.

          Further I am not convinced the morals are copied

          But as we have already seen, the “Christian virtues” draw from the Greeks.

          Any basic text on the history of ethics is going to show how other ethical systems influenced Christianity. Try this article on Augustine and Plato or this article on Aristotle and Aquinas for example.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I used two examples thousands of years separated to make a point. Sorry you missed it.

          I am not reading your articles. If they provide evidence then post said evidence. Otherwise I am not wasting my time.

        • epeeist

          I am not reading your articles.

          One thing that is apparent with many theists who come here is how ill-read they are. Not only that, but how unwilling they are to fill the gaps in their knowledge. It is almost as though their faith is unable to stand up to anything outside a very narrow set of boundaries.

          You are not just ignorant, but deliberately so, and no that isn’t an ad hominem.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You cannot tell me what argument your article makes and I am the ignorant one?

        • epeeist

          You cannot tell me what argument your article makes

          I have provided a claim, evidential backing in terms of the writings of Augustine and Aquinas (and no, I am not going to post the City of God or the Summa in a combox) and a warrant in terms of testimony from a reliable source (the Encyclopedia Britannica). The fact that you refuse to read this material is your problem not mine.

          I am the ignorant one?

          Indeed you are, and willingly so.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          No. You made a claim. And then made another claim purporting to support the first claim. You provided a link that made the same claim but if it contained any evidence it was concealed behind a pay wall.

          If you honestly believe I am going to subscribe to some site to find out what the heck you are talking about you are the ignorant one.

        • Bob Jase

          “Further I am not convinced the morals are copied from anywhere”

          OR

          “I’m saying that the moral codes contained in holy writings like the
          Torah, the New Testament, and the Bhagavad Gita do not change and as
          such are not subject to the fickle whims of society.”

          Which Luther Dorn is lying??

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Where is the conflict? Just because they believe the same thing does not mean they copied one a other. And what is with the “everyone I disagree with is a liar”? That seems to be a common malfunction on this board.

        • Pofarmer

          So you believe in stoning rape victims to death or marrying them off to their rapist?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Jesus said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” so obviously not. I am a Christian, not a bronze age Jew. However, if I did live in the bronze age I would consider that to be the superior moral code to everything else civilization had to offer. The stoning of rape victims only occurred if the woman did not cry for help when she could have. This prevented both adultery and more importantly false accusations of rape. As far as the marry your rapist law, that protected the woman from starvation. As she was now unmarriageable she would otherwise be doomed to either a life of prostitution to survive or not surviving.

          I know this offends our modern sensibilities, but there were valid reasons for such laws and they were to limit suffering.

        • Greg G.

          Jesus said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

          The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John do not have that story.

        • Rudy R

          John 7:53 – 8:11 was not originally in the gospel and is not found in any other gospel. Since the author of John is unknown, how can you be sure it’s not falsely attributed to Jesus? Can we assume you are a moral relativist, since it was moral to stone rape victims and force women to marry their rapists back in the day, but would be immoral now?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.

        • Greg G.

          Which is one of the best indications that it was not in any of the originals of those manuscripts.

        • Rudy R

          So one should conclude that we can’t reliably attribute the stoning story to Jesus.

          Can we assume you are a moral relativist, since it was moral to stone rape victims and force women to marry their rapists back in the day, but would be immoral now?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          As the passage was included in some manuscripts one cannot discount the possibility that it was a teaching of Jesus. That being said your skepticism is quite defensible

          It is moral to steal? Would it be moral to steal a bandage to prevent someone from bleeding to death? If I answered yes to the second question would I be a moral relativist? The fact is no woman was stoned for being raped. If anyone was stoned because of this law it was because she didn’t cry for help and probably wasn’t being raped.

        • Rudy R

          For your stealing question, I don’t believe in objective morality. I don’t really care if it is moral or not to steal the bandage. I would steal it and if I was breaking a law, would face the consequences. Saving someone’s life is more valuable then the cost of the bandage.

          Should show evidence to support your claim no woman has been raped and that if a woman didn’t cry out, she wasn’t raped.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          If you are not going to define what morals mean to you then discussing morals with you is pointless

          The penalty in the Bible is not for being raped. A woman who had no chance to cry for help or one that did cry for help was not punished. Also, if a woman knows she will be killed if she didn’t scream for help, had the ability to scream for help, and did not do so then she PROBABLY was not being raped.

        • Greg G.

          You are thinking of the penalties for an engaged woman having sex. If she has sex in the city, it is assumed that she didn’t scream, so she is put to death. If she is has sex in the countryside, she gets the benefit of the doubt and not killed.

          But a girl who is not engaged is sold to the man who had sex with her whether forced or not, then he cannot divorce her, and there is no provision for a wife to divorce a husband.

          So the concern is more about her being property and her father getting the bride price than about it being rape.

        • Rudy R

          Morality is a set of codes of conduct agreed by a society or a group that maximizes human pleasure and minimizes human suffering. Once that principle is accepted by a society or group, which has been demonstrated by most human societal groups, then it is mostly objective in how to pursue that effort. For example, cutting someones head off is nearly objectively wrong.

          For you to claim that every woman would, at all times, cry for help if raped, is also a claim to know every woman’s brain state, past and present. Are you claiming to be omniscient? The same for a woman knowing if she will be killed. Are you claiming to have knowledge of the psychology of every woman, past and present?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I didn’t say that. I said if she didn’t cry out for help when she could have she PROBABLY wasn’t being raped. I even capitalized probably. Yet you STILL responded as if I stated it was a certainty.

          Why?

        • Rudy R

          I did not miss your emphasis on probably. Probably is not a stipulation in Bible scripture. It should not be the case that a woman MUST cry out for help to prove that she is in distress.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “I did not miss your emphasis on probably,

          So you ignored it purposely. Do you think that was honest?

        • Rudy R

          “Probably” was your caveat, not mine. The caveat was not relevant to my response to you.

          I said if she didn’t cry out for help when she could have she PROBABLY wasn’t being raped. I even capitalized probably.

          Just so I’m clear with your position, it is moral to stone a woman if she almost certainly didn’t yell out while being raped. Because you added “probably”, you are almost certain that a woman would cry out for help during a rape, but not certain. Why are you not certain? I would understand the uncertainty, because you would need to KNOW the brain-state of every woman, past and present.

          For me, the probability of a woman being raped or not being raped is not a factor in my moral code. It is not moral to stone a woman for being raped and is not moral for a woman to be stoned for having consensual sex.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Right. You ignored my caveat to argue against something I didn’t say. That is a Strawman argument. Get it?

          Since we are going to continue to try to put those morals in a modern environment i will say ot would be moral to imprison a woman who falsely accuses someone of rape for the same term her accused victim would have served. That would serve the same purpose as that Bronze Age law.

        • Rudy R

          So you don’t agree with stoning?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          To quote Dylan, everybody must get stoned.

        • Rudy R

          Is that a yes or no.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          In the 21st century yes. In the Bronze Age no.

        • Greg G.

          Then it is not objectively moral. Why did God command it in the Bible?

        • Rudy R

          So you’re a moral relativist. Unusual position for a Christian.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Not at all. I believe what is best for the greater good is the more moral of choices. In an era with 40% child mortality and constant food insecurity (not to mention surrounding hostile Bronze Age civilizations) it is paramount that the providers and protectors of society avoid conflict among themselves.

          This is achieved by reducing both competition for mates and anxiety that the males might be cuckolded by unfaithful mates. Society combats this with patriarchy. Nature solves the problem with higher sexual dimorphism. Both are present in civilizations like this that face severe evolutionary pressures.

          This is not to say that sexual immortality is not a threat to society today. With the somewhat recent decline in monogamy men are inclined to “pump and dump” while women and children languish in single parent households and the poverty that accompanies them. Still, this is not an existential threat and as such capital punishment is in no way justified.

        • Rudy R

          Rudy R: So you don’t agree with stoning?
          Luther Dorn (deplorable): To quote Dylan, everybody must get stoned.
          Rudy R: Is that a yes or no.
          Luther Dorn (deplorable): In the 21st century yes. In the Bronze Age no.
          Rudy R: So you’re a moral relativist. Unusual position for a Christian.
          Luther Dorn (deplorable): Not at all.

          Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
          Moral relativism: the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
          Divine command theory:: morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands.

          Which is it? Based on your comments, it would appear you are a moral relativist.

          I believe what is best for the greater good is the more moral of choices.

          What is the greater good?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I am saying the morality of an action depends on the circumstances under which it was done. NOT by the standpoint one takes. Killing a person in self defense is moral. Killing a person because they made you mad is not.

          The greater good in this case is the very survival of a civilization.

        • Greg G.

          That is a pretty good example of moral relativism. Killing isn’t necessarily wrong, the morality is relative to the reason you kill.

        • Rudy R

          We mostly agree on morality, although we part ways on patriarchy. It’s just unusual that a Christian admits to subjective morality.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Probably haven’t seen a lot of us discussing evolutionary pressures either. I think we agree on patriarchy in our current environment though. For instance, the Bible says the man is the head of the household and generally speaking men are better suited for it just as generally speaking women are better at nurturing children.

          However I have a friend that is a stay at home dad and his wife is head of household. Works great for them. The important thing is the division of labor and having a leader for the family. Anyone who says women cannot be leaders must have never heard of Margaret Thatcher. Like her or not she was a formidable person.

        • Rudy R

          However I have a friend that is a stay at home dad and his wife is head of household. Works great for them.

          Patriarchy had it’s role in society, but as you attest, females can be as effective as the dominant power in politics and the home. You must understand that as an atheist, I do not believe the Bible is the word of God or is inspired by God. The Bible just codified man-made societal norms of the times and as such, have many out-dated morals and social norms, patriarchy being one of those.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          BTW You do realize Bob Dylan was not talking about throwing rocks at people right? It was a joke.

        • Rudy R

          Yes, I do realize the humor. BTW, that’s the only chuckle I’ve gotten out of this conversation.

        • Bob Jase

          Whims like slavery, genocide, forced conversion or death, witch burning, holy wars, child labor, misogyny, stealing children/land/possessions, feudalism, divine right of kings, those sort of whims?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Pretty much as all are against the morals taught by Jesus

        • Greg G.

          In what verses did Jesus renounce any of those?

        • Uh, but the morality defined by “the fickle whims of society” is the better one. The Bible supports slavery and genocide. Modern morality gives civil rights to all adults.

          Or do you want to return to good ol’ fashioned OT values?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          The Bible limits slavery while the cultures i referenced, from both biblical and modern times, permitted and even encouraged at times killing your slaves.

          The Bible does not support genocide. The OT examples were all specific instances where God made the call. It does not say “Do this on your own” The NT says to love your enemy which precludes genocide. Both of the societies I mentioned made genocide the national policy.

          There is no logical way to say their morality is superior to the Bible’s

        • Greg G.

          The only limitation is that permanent slaves could be bought from foreigners. Hebrews could be indentured for six years, then released with livestock. Leviticus 25:44-46 explains this and how the fellow Hebrews were not to be treated harshly but the slaves bought with money were excluded from that restriction as the passage states they could be treated like slaves.

        • Bob Jase

          It must be spring, already cherries are being picked.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Context is not cherry picking.

        • The Bible limits slavery while the cultures i referenced, from both biblical and modern times, permitted and even encouraged at times killing your slaves.

          Read the Good Book, my friend. It makes clear that God is A-OK with slavery for life.
          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/04/yes-biblical-slavery-was-the-same-as-american-slavery-2/

          The Bible does not support genocide.

          When the most moral being in the Bible demands genocide, how can you say that it doesn’t support genocide??

          The OT examples were all specific instances where God made the call. It does not say “Do this on your own”

          Sorry, where is “Do as I say, not as I do” in the Bible? We’re made in God’s image, remember? If God doesn’t follow the morality he demands of humans, what does he follow? Or is it “Whatever God does is right”?

          The NT says to love your enemy which precludes genocide.

          Should’ve thought about that before you adopted the OT as scripture.

          Both of the societies I mentioned made genocide the national policy.

          Genocide was a tool in the Canaanite conquest. Sounds like national policy to me.

          There is no logical way to say their morality is superior to the Bible’s

          And vice versa, apparently.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I have read the Bible. Every passage that deals with slavery places limitations on it. Disagree? List one that doesn’t.

          Those who would condemn the Bible because of the moral codes in the OT conveniently forget that it was far superior to the moral norms of the period it came from.

          Fair enough, but let me ask this. What do you think the policy of the Canaanites would have been had they won?

        • I have read the Bible.

          Excellent! Then perhaps you remember Lev. 25:44-46 that says that slavery for life (no, not indentured servitude) is acceptable.

          Slavery in the Bible is pretty much what slavery in America was.

          Those who would condemn the Bible because of the moral codes in the OT conveniently forget that it was far superior to the moral norms of the period it came from.

          I guess I have higher standards for your omniscient supernatural being than you do. You should upgrade your god—this guy is a dick.

          What do you think the policy of the Canaanites would have been had they won?

          Who cares? No, let’s not change the subject away from the abysmal morality Yahweh shows in the OT. He’s just like any king of the time could be.

          It must just be me, but I have higher standards of morality for the 21st century than those that came from the Bronze Age.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

          It says that it is only acceptable with non Israelites. That is a limitation. Further if the slavery of nom Israelites was banned then no prisoners would be taken and enemies would simply be killed.

          Again, this moral code is superior to every other one extant in this period. Judging it by modern standards is not logical..

        • It says that it is only acceptable with non Israelites. That is a limitation.

          That’s nice. Also irrelevant. Are you confused about the topic? Your “omni-benevolent” god set out the rules for how slavery works. That’s a problem.

          Further if the slavery of nom Israelites was banned then no prisoners would be taken and enemies would simply be killed.

          Pathetic.

          You do realize that God can do anything, right? Comparing the Israelites against other tribes doesn’t matter since only one of them had a perfect god as a big brother. Yet again, I have high standards for god, while you’re always apologizing for him and his brutal actions. You need an upgrade.

          Again, this moral code is superior to every other one extant in this period. Judging it by modern standards is not logical.

          I’m going farther than that: I’m comparing it against a perfect standard, that of a perfect god.

          Since the Bible is very, very far from that, the conclusion is obvious.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          It says that it is only acceptable with non Israelites. That is a limitation.
          That’s nice. Also irrelevant. Are you confused about the topic?
          ———-
          Apparently you are. You were challenging my contention that every reference to slavery in the Bible placed limitations on it.

        • You were challenging my contention that every reference to slavery in the Bible placed limitations on it.

          Nope. Uninteresting.

          My conclusion is that God’s actions and rules in the OT make him a dick. Are we on the same page?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You were challenging my contention that every reference to slavery in the Bible placed limitations on it.

          Nope. Uninteresting
          __________

          Which is it? Are you denying reality or just uninterested in it?

        • I’m pretty sure I just answered that.

          My conclusion is that God’s actions and rules in the OT make him a dick. Are we on the same page?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Pretty sure you didn’t. The section you cited to show that references to slavery did not always limit the practice did indeed limit the practice to specific groups.

          As those groups would simply be killed if they had no value as slaves the law actually saves lives.

          As the law saves lives the author of it is not a dick.

        • Deplorable Luther: Are you denying reality or just uninterested in it?
          Goin’ to Hell Bob: Uninteresting.

          Yep, I answered it. Read more gooder next time.

          The section you cited to show that references to slavery did not always limit the practice did indeed limit the practice to specific groups.

          I am uninterested in this tangent. You can chat about whether every sentence about slavery had a limitation in it with someone else. I have nothing to contribute.

          What I do enjoy, however, is pointing out what an asshole Yahweh/Elohim was in the Old Testament. Let’s talk about that instead.

          As those groups would simply be killed if they had no value as slaves the law actually saves lives.
          As the law saves lives the author of it is not a dick.

          Translated: “Yeah, but Yahweh’s rules weren’t quite as bad as those of other tribes!!! :-)”

          Sure, let’s assume that. This is the point where the atheist stops trying to educate the Christian about what “omniscient” and “omnipotent” and “omni-benevolent” mean and moves on to ridicule.Why is it that the atheist takes the Bible’s claims seriously, while the Christian can’t? And what does that tell you about the untenability of the Christian position?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I am fully aware what the prefix omni means. Do you understand what the term free will means? Yoy appear to be selective about which biblical claims you take seriously.

        • How is human free will relevant to God’s acting like a Bronze Age tyrant?

          Yoy appear to be selective about which biblical claims you take seriously.

          Where does the Bible say “free will”?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Tyrant? You just pointed out that God was omnipotent alluding to the fact that He could, if he desired, impose His will over an unwilling people.

          That is the mentality of a tyrant

        • I have no idea how you think this extricates God from his OT immorality.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          We obviously have different opinions on what is moral. Just out of curiosity what is your opinion on abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia?

        • We obviously have different opinions on what is moral.

          Do we?? I assumed we were on the same page with respect to genocide, slavery and rape. Not so?

          And we mustn’t forget the more interesting question: God’s immorality in the OT.

          Just out of curiosity what is your opinion on abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia?

          More interesting would be God’s opinions on those issues. Good Christians are of several minds on each of these.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          If you were king in the Bronze Age and you knew that soldiers would kill every one of the prisoners they took would you allow them to be sold into slavery rather than executed?

        • Sure, maybe so. But if I was a god, I bet I could think of a lot more humane resolutions to this conflict.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Okay. So you are God. What would you do without violating free will.

        • So you are God.

          Don’t insult me. I’m more loving and moral than your god, and I’m sure you are, too.

          What does free will have to do with anything? God doesn’t give a shit about the free will of the murder or rape victim; why imagine that it’s anywhere on his radar?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I’m not insulting you. I am asking what you think was an alternative. It is kinda hard to maintain there is an alternative when you can’t say what it might be.

        • The alternative to what? To the Canaanite genocide?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I asked about an alternative to allowing slavery so that prisoners would not be simply killed. You say there was an alternative. What is it?

        • An alternative? God is infinite, remember? I’ll bet he could think of lots more than 1.

          1. Avoid battle by making the Canaanites disappear
          2. or making their women sterile 50 years earlier
          3. or turning them into birds
          4. or teleporting them to somewhere else

          Or, if we go ahead with the battle,
          1. God could create a prison with infinite provisions so that the Israelites’ supplies wouldn’t be taxed
          2. or he could convert them into Israelites
          3. or convert them into nice neighbors who would rather move away than fight the belligerent Israelites

          I’m sure you can continue these lists. Like me, I bet you have a better imagination than “God.”

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          In every one of your examples you require direct interventions by God. Once you cross that line then every unfortunate event must be alleviated by God or God is responsible. Sorry, that doesn’t work in a world of free will and individual responsibility.

        • You asked how a tribe allied with the one true god in the universe could conduct war humanely. I answered.

          Isn’t it weird how every chance God has to show up and so something fabulous, he’s too busy. Watching TV? Out at a club? What is this guy doing when he’s not appearing to humans?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “You asked how a tribe allied with the one true god in the universe could conduct war humanely. I answered.”

          No. You answered how God could directly intervene in their actions.

        • God made the OT rules for slavery. God directed the battles with the Canaanites. So, yeah, I’m assuming God is an animate actor in this story.

          I guess I misunderstood your question. You’re saying, “Given that God might as well not exist, now what ideas do you have for a totally human-directed plan for captives taken in battle?”

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You are conflating words with actions. Telling people to do something is totally different than doing it for them.

          You purposefully misunderstood. You said God could dictate a different POLICY for the Israelites. I am still waiting for you to explain that policy.

        • Telling people to do something is totally different than doing it for them.

          No, not so different. Charles Manson was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder for 5 people. Doing it yourself or telling someone to do it are pretty similar and both crimes.

          You said God could dictate a different POLICY for the Israelites. I am still waiting for you to explain that policy.

          Right—God could say, “OK, here’s how we’re going to do it.” Follow that with my two lists above.

          Admit it: the Canaanite massacre story looks just like it was done by people with a god pasted in. That naturalistic explanation is far more likely.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “Telling people to do something is totally different than doing it for them.
          No, not so different. Charles Manson was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder for 5 people. Doing it yourself or telling someone to do it are pretty similar and both crimes.”

          Right, but again that is not what we are talking about. To refresh your memory we were discussing what policy God could dictate to the Israelites instead of what He did.

          Your two lists did not specify any policy for them but instead relied on the intervention of God.

        • Your two lists did not specify any policy for them but instead relied on the intervention of God.

          Correct. Dunno how you got confused about that.

          You imagine that the Israelites are going to conquer Canaan on their own? Why not lean on their big brother? If you were in a war, wouldn’t you want Superman to give you a hand?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “Your two lists did not specify any policy for them but instead relied on the intervention of God.

          Correct. Dunno how you got confused about that.”

          I was probably confused because it had nothing to do with the question it was supposed to be answering. To refresh you memory yet again you were saying the laws God gave the Israelites could be improved upon. I asked how and you gave examples of God using supernatural powers to change the world they lived in. Do you concede that the laws were the best they could be under the circumstances or are you going to continue to maintain they could be better without ever saying how?

        • I don’t care about a human society because that’s not what we were talking about. Yet again, why is the atheist having to explain to the Christian how a society with the Creator of the universe as an ally can get a lot more done than an ordinary society?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “I don’t care about a human society because that’s not what we were talking about”

          Then you changed subjects. You were talking about the laws of that society

        • why is the atheist having to explain to the Christian how a society with the Creator of the universe as an ally can get a lot more done than an ordinary society?

          That’s what I want to talk about. I realize you are determined to stay confused, but perhaps we can move on.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Okay. We can talk about that instead. I will assume you concede your previous assertion about a better system of laws.

          Now for your new topic about God helping His chosen people: Jews faced extinction in the Holocaust only to return to Israel, kick the British out, fight off every nation surrounding them, and form a nation. Then there was the Six Day war. Then there was the Yom Kippur war. Now they are one of the most powerful nations in the world (members of that exclusive nuclear club) and have developed weapons arguably better than even those made by the USA. (Such as their missile defense system)

          Not bad for a tiny nation of 9 million people.

        • epeeist

          Now for your new topic about God helping His chosen people: Jews faced extinction in the Holocaust…

          Your claim is that your god was responsible for all of this? I presume that you can show a causal warrant to link your claim to all the things that you mention.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Just pointed out the obvious. Draw your own conclusions.

        • epeeist

          Just pointed out the obvious.

          I was expecting a copy-paste from something authoritative to show that your claim connects to the events. I take it that since you don’t offer this then you have nothing.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Like I said, just pointing out the obvious. If you wish to believe it is all a string of coincidences with outrageous odds then so be it.

        • epeeist

          Like I said, just pointing out the obvious.

          So (surprise, surprise) you are a hypocrite. You insist that I (and others) provide chapter and verse to substantiate our claims, while when asked to substantiate yours you airily declare that it is “obvious”.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I made no claim genius. I stated facts and implied things. Duh!

        • Greg G.

          You are making an implicit claim that it is obvious that a god thingy helped Israel.

        • epeeist

          I made no claim genius.

          So you’re not claiming that your god helped the Jews

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          The only factual statement I am making on the subject is that I believe it to be true and those are some of the reasons why

        • epeeist

          The only factual statement I am making on the subject is that I believe it to be true

          So you believe that the proposition “God helped his chosen people” is true bit this isn’t a claim and the only thing you are prepared to offer in support of it is that it is “obvious”.

          Tell us again, why should we take this seriously? And why we should have to provide you with evidence for all our beliefs-that-are-not-claims?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I am staring my beliefs. When one looks at the long list of unlikely events it should be obvious to even the unbeliever how these events could be viewed as evidence to one predisposed to believe.

          You should only take seriously the idea that my beliefs do not exist in a vacuum. If you find such evidence unconvincing that is a perfectly logical stance and requires no defense.

        • epeeist

          I am staring my beliefs.

          I am sure you are, and I am sure that it is a fact that these are your beliefs.

          how these events could be viewed as evidence to one predisposed to believe.

          So what you are saying is that you started with your conclusion, namely that your god helped his chosen people, and cast around for facts to support it and you never looked at any alternate explanations.

          As it is I am only interested in your beliefs insofar as to whether they are true or not. However you seem to have no interest in showing that they are true. At the same time you are insistent that we show evidence for anything we put forward.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          As neither one of us can prove his beliefs and I am quite sure we both are guilty of cognitive bias I guess we are done here. Have a nice day.

        • epeeist

          As neither one of us can prove his beliefs

          So what you are saying is that you made a statement that you are unable or unwilling to defend.

          How is this different from Trump saying, “Many people are saying that the Iranians killed the scientist who helped the U.S. because of Hillary Clinton’s hacked emails”?

        • Pofarmer

          Which is apt, considering dumbass deplorable here is also a Trump supporter.

        • epeeist

          Why do you think I used it as an example?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “So what you are saying is that you made a statement that you are unable or unwilling to defend.”

          I am sorry you are incapable of differentiating between a statement of belief and a factual assertion. I am sorry you believe evidence presented in support of one’s beliefs is the latter rather than the former.

          Unfortunately I have reached the limit to patience in trying to explain such basic concepts to you

        • Sample1

          This is one of the strangest concluding posts I’ve ever seen.

          Mike

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          How so Mike?

        • Pofarmer

          Dishonest Douchenozzle is not a good look. But it’s one we’re used to seeing.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          What is dishonest about explaining my beliefs? That is not a rhetorical question. I seriously would like to hear your reasoning.

        • Pofarmer

          You’re clearly claiming that God helped his chosen people, then claiming you’re not making that claim not 5 posts later.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I am showing why I believe it
          You just made the claim I stated it as fact. Using your own standards of conduct I will now demand you prove it. Post my claim or retract yours.

        • Pofarmer

          To restate epeeist, so you’re NOT claiming that God helped the Jews get back the country of Israel?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I am not stating it as fact. I believe I have clarified this multiple times. Seriously. What is so confusing?

        • epeeist

          The question is, why is he claiming that his god is helping the Jews and then stating that he is not claiming this.

          Nothing to do with the fact that if he is claiming it then he might have to actually provide an argument for why it is true…

        • Pofarmer

          Just FYI, Luther is claiming to be “nuanced.”

        • epeeist

          Luther is claiming to be “nuanced.”

          Is that another way of saying “chicken”?

        • Pofarmer

          He wants to “Have his cake and eat it to.” And he thinks he can do this by accusing us of what he’s doing. But he doesn’t understand fallacy’s, among a long list, and doesn’t seem to understand, say, the burden of proof, or, well, much, honestly. He’s just here to preach, without preaching, obviously. Dude seems to have had a hard enough life. But that’s hardly an excuse.

        • I will assume you concede your previous assertion about a better system of laws.

          Like a dog to his vomit, eh? Things would be different in a society run by a god. I’m surprised you’re having a hard time with that.

          Now for your new topic about God helping His chosen people: Jews faced extinction in the Holocaust only to return to Israel, kick the British out, fight off every nation surrounding them, and form a nation. Then there was the Six Day war. Then there was the Yom Kippur war. Now they are one of the most powerful nations in the world (members of that exclusive nuclear club) and have developed weapons arguably better than even those made by the USA. (Such as their missile defense system)
          Not bad for a tiny nation of 9 million people.

          Uh huh. The Israeli national anthem is playing in my heart right now.

          Lots of countries have had it rough. Show us that Israel’s path to the present was the hardest. No: show us that it was miraculous.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Bob, you made an assertion that God could have commanded better laws. I asked you to either give an example or concede your assertion. You have done neither. That is YOUR vomit, not mine.

          No other country was completely destroyed thousands of years ago.

          Had their people spread throughout the world facing persecution and extermination everywhere they went.

          Maintained a distinct cultural identity despite these pressures.

          Had an empire capable of making war throughout the entire world tracking that people down and committing genocide on them in an unprecedented industrial manner.

          Had another empire refuse them entry back into their ancestral home which they ignored and resettled.

          Had that same empire fight them when they wanted independence only to be kicked out so they could declare their nation reborn

          Had immediately been waged war against by every neighboring nation the moment they declared their independence and fight off all of said neighboring nations.

          Had two subsequent wars facing multiple opponents again to not only prevail but also regain the rest of the territory that comprised their ancestral land. (I did mention this is the land they say their God promised them right?)

          Now this tiny nation of 9 million are hated and/or conspired against by a significant percentage of a religion whose adherents number over a billion people

          Coincidentally this same adversary religion is currently making strides at conquering Europe through immigration and breeding while killing off both the original God’s people and a larger group who claim to have a covenant of their own with this same God. (Suspiciously like the ancient prophesies associated with this God)

        • Greg G.

          Bob, you made an assertion that God could have commanded better laws. I asked you to either give an example or concede your assertion. You have done neither. That is YOUR vomit, not mine.

          Matthew 5:48 (NRSV)48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

          If God could not have commanded perfect laws, then the god of the Bible does not exist.

          Edit for HTML.

        • Pofarmer

          Lemme get this straight. The best way for Israel to get it’s own nation back, was for your God to cause a war that exterminated, not only 11 million or so Jews, but caused the deaths of around 50 MILLION people around the World. Even if your God is real. Fuck him. Just when you think you’ve read the dumbest possible thing…………

        • Well, sometimes you gotta break a few eggs …

          /s

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Who said my God created that war? Obviously His adversary has a lot more motive to kill the people my God calls His children (the 50 million) and the group known as His chosen people (six million of them)

        • Greg G.

          Who said my God created that war?

          You gave a list of things regarding Israel under the explicit topic of “God helping His chosen people”. You seem to be training for the Tap Dancing Olympics.

        • Pofarmer

          God is an omni being. God has a plan, right? I mean, God is omni, how could anything be against God’s plan. This is, apparently, the best “plan” he could come up with . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvRPbsXBVBo

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          That assumes that God is micromanaging His creation. The Bible however portrays a Creator who only steps in when absolutely necessary.

        • Pofarmer

          Uhm, no, it assumes that you take your own theology seriously. Which you apparently do not.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Projection

        • Pofarmer

          Dishonesty. Learn to be honest with yourself. Then you won’t be such an ignorant bint.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Ummmm, aren’t you the poster who maintains he doesn’t have to support his factual assertions while insisting that i must support a factual assertion I never made?

        • Pofarmer

          What factual assertion am I making?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Perhaps I had you confused with another poster.

        • Greg G.

          That assumes that God is micromanaging His creation.

          No it doesn’t. It follows from what an omniscient, omnipotent should be capable of setting up without micromanaging any of it.

        • Bob Jase

          Why would an omnipotent omniscient god have an adversary?

          Why create a being that will cause pain & suffering unless that is what you want?

          Why not stop/eliminate/ neutralize such a being unless that is what you want.

          Your god is a monster shifting the blame to his subsidiary monsters.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          That is the price for creating beings that can think for themselves. They can have thoughts that do not reflect the values of their Creator.

          What I find disturbing is that freedom.of thought is portrayed as an evil achievement thus implying that complete control of others is moral

          Not a great fan of freedom of speech either?

        • I continue to be amazed that the atheist must educate the Christian about what God’s omni powers allow him to do.

          You’re stuck in a human mindset. I’ll grant you, that’s a reasonable place to be since the whole thing is people all the way down. But the Christian claims, anyway, are that God is omni-everything.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          And I am amazed that I must continue to educate people such as yourself about the difference between what God CANNOT DO and what He WILL NOT do.

          This life is an audition for the afterlife. Not much of an audition if God continuously bales everyone out.

        • Weird, isn’t it? God can do lots to help us here on earth but never overtly does. Even weirder, he relies on people like you to explain his absence. You suck at it–you should tell him to do it himself.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You don’t want a God. You want a babysitter.

        • You’re always having to explain away God’s absence. Don’t you wish, just once, he’d make his existence obvious to everyone? He sure isn’t making your life any easier. Maybe mention this next time you guys chat.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Maybe He wants to see what people do when they think nobody is watching. That is the measure of one’s true intentions.

          And He did make His presence known to me, directly, and in a way I could not deny. But as I was already a believer at the time that would not contradict the above idea.

        • Luther, how did God make his presence known to you (directly?) in a way which you could not deny? I am honestly curious. I have heard so many explanations from believers, but they are almost always of an extremely personal nature (which I feel is more subjective than objective, no offense).

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          On two different occasions in a troubled part of my life I had a disembodied voice instruct me to do things that made no sense. Immediately after completing the tasks (and to my shame after much protestation) the tasks suddenly made sense. There was no way anyone could have predicted the circumstances which made these obscure tasks beneficial.

        • Well, that is mind-blowing but I think you have to admit this could not convince anyone else of their validity except for the person experiencing them (conversely, it would be unfalsifiable for you, I suppose). Thanks. I have no idea what to make of that.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Absolutely. I have heard other Christians relate accounts such as this. I believe some from people I know personally. Others from the internet I take with a grain of salt.

        • No offense, but I take all of them with a tablespoon of salt I keep handy for this express purpose. I think we should always strive to find naturalistic, materialistic (whatever you want to call them) explanations first. The second part is almost (maybe even) just as important: retain an open mind, and be willing to pursue further questioning and any answers you find along the way. Okay, thank you for answering that, as I am not trying to question or doubt your experience, though I like I said, I am not sure what to make of it since I did not personally experience it (which is no guarantee of imparting understanding of it, either).

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “No offense, but I take all of them with a tablespoon of salt I keep handy for this express purpose.”

          LOL None taken. If I were you I would assume that the person saying such things sincerely believed what they were saying but, as you suggest, were misinterpreting the events in question. And thank you for being polite and respectful in your conversation. You are a class act Byroniac.

        • Pofarmer

          Personal revelation does not, and should not, carry any meaning to anyone but you. Thomas Paine and David Hume lay out why.

          I’m also reminded of a quote. “Of all the people not to fool, the first should be yourself.” Or something very close to that.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “Personal revelation does not, and should not, carry any meaning to anyone but you”

          Thus my skepticism of accounts like this I see on the internet. I am all too aware of the Ken Ham types.

        • Pofarmer

          That’s remarkably – vague. I mean, Wow level vague.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I could go into great detail but what is the point? Would it make any difference to you?

        • Pofarmer

          The thing is, your brain sometimes creates “premonitions” out of thin air as a kind of justification. This is often what “Deja Vu” is. Your prefrontal cortex misfired, essentially. Our brains aren’t nice and orderly machines. So, your brain created a memory based on a pre-existing set of beliefs. That’s not supernatural, that happens all the time. But that’s not even really the main problem. The main problem is that you take an experience like that and then decide that all this OTHER dogma that you’ve been fed must also be true.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          The brain does not tell you one morning to go buy your estranged wife a present when you haven’t seen her in over a month and have promised to have no contact with her presupposing she will have broken into your house when you return from the store.

          The brain does not instruct you to walk to three different crash scenes where one could have died and upon reaching the third and complaining about ones exhaustion expect a friend to immediately pull up in the early hours of the morning to offer you a ride. (At which point the voice says, ‘I just wanted you to know I am still here for you’)

          At some point the coincidence excuse wears a little thin.

        • Pofarmer

          As Mark Twain says. “People do all the work, God gets all the Credit.” Good job Luther, you’ve brainwashed yourself. Now away with you. How come you haven’t shaken that dust off yet?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Right. I brainwashed myself to the point I was precognitive. Have a nice day Pofarmer.

        • Pofarmer

          No, you brainwashed yourself to equate conincidences with Jesus!!!!!! Yay for you.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “Well you see your honor, it is just a coincidence I had that gun in my hand when the police found me and the deceased”

        • Greg G.

          At some point the coincidence excuse wears a little thin.

          Consider that every waking second is an opportunity for an event which could be a coincidence. That means you could expect one coincidence with a million to one odds every 17 or 18 days or so.

        • Maybe He wants to see what people do when they think nobody is watching.

          ?? Or maybe he doesn’t exist! Can we be adult and include the possibility that Christianity is no more real than any of the other thousands of religions?

          And Christians think that God is always watching. Non-Christians think that he never is. Dumb experiment. You’re saying he doesn’t already know what everyone will or would do?

          And He did make His presence known to me, directly, and in a way I could not deny. But as I was already a believer at the time that would not contradict the above idea.

          Tell that to the Mormon or Muslim or Hindu who also has an undeniable experience of a god. You guys get your story straight first and then get back to me.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Sure. One can easily assume God does not exist, but that wasn’t what we were talking about.

          I can’t say that those other religions are wrong. That is not what we were talking about either.

        • Pofarmer

          Why not just start with the afterlife? Is there free will in Heaven?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Sure. We freely strive to achieve perfection when we will no longer be burdened by temptation.

        • Pofarmer

          So there is no Free Will in Heaven, then?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Depends on how you define it I guess. Everyone there will be living in a manner that they chose.

        • Pofarmer

          And it’s all good, right? So, no, no Free Will in Heaven.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I guess by your definition no. Personally I believe free will to mean we can do what we want and since I would prefer a mind not clouded by the distraction of temptation heaven represents the ultimate in free will to me.

        • Pofarmer

          Uhm Luther. Buddy. Dumbass. If God could make a perfect Heaven free of temptation, he could make a perfect Earth free of temptation.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Right. But one is filled with people who chose to be there and the other would be filled with people who were not given a choice in their thought processes.

          Does it make me a dumbass to acknowledge such nuances?

        • Pofarmer

          Right. But one is filled with people who chose to be there and the other
          would be filled with people who were not given a choice in their
          thought processes.

          Why would it matter? If there’s no Free Will in Heaven, and Heaven is perfect, then you could just as easily have a perfect Earth with no Free Will, and it wouldn’t make a jot of difference.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          It would matter because one group had a choice the other did not have

          You truly see no difference?

        • Pofarmer

          No one had a choice to be born.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Wow! Are you purposely missing the point all the time? (Nobody is controlling your thought processes by giving freaking birth to you)

        • Pofarmer

          Dude. Basically you are saying we are God’s playthings. Except your God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. He KNOWS how it will turn out.(which is why I think Calivinism actually makes the most sense). He set up the game. He set up the game so some of his “creation” will burn in hell. He could have set up a different game. If he could set up a game with a perfect Heaven, with or without Free Will, he could have set up a perfect Earth, with or without free will. The only reason you have a “choice” is for your God to play with you. Even if your God were real(and he ain’t) he wouldn’t be worthy of worship. A malevolent God fits the facts much better than a benevolent one.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “Dude. Basically you are saying we are God’s playthings”

          No. I am saying God made independent thinking creatures while you have suggested He should have created perfectly behaving automaton toys.

        • Pofarmer

          But you believe that’s what we’ll be in Heaven………

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          No. I believe I will finally be able to achieve the goals of self restraint I want for myself there. How exactly does that translate into becoming a “toy” in your thinking?

        • Greg G.

          How exactly does that translate into becoming a “toy” in your thinking?

          God: Let my Luther Dorn toy believe he has free will and that he thought up the desire for self-restraint on his own while knowing he can never achieve it for the rest of his life and assuming he will be able to do so when he is dead. Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

        • Pofarmer

          It’s the result of YOUR theology. God is omniscient. He already knows how it will turn out. And some will go to Heaven and some will go to Hell. So all the suffering and testing is unnecessary. He could just skip it. If he can create a perfect Heaven with Free Will, then he could create a Perfect Earth with free will just as Easily. If he can’t, then he’s not omnipotent,

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          He only knows what we will do because we will do it. We will only do it because He gave us the ability to do so. Again you propose God just make us all mindless toys for His amusement while flip flopping back and forth between that and saying He should have done exactly that.

          Further, as far as the suffering He, like all great leaders, does not ask us to do what He Himself has not done. Witness the passion of Christ.

          And finally your statement that if He could not make a perfect world complete with free will then He isn’t omnipotent… Logical trainwreck. That is the equivalent to demanding a square circle.

        • Greg G.

          He only knows what we will do because we will do it. We will only do it because He gave us the ability to do so.

          But if God had given you a slightly different ability, you would do something else that God knew you would do. It’s impossible for you to do otherwise from the abilities the omnipotence engineered for you.

          Then there is the question of whether your god thingy is really in charge.

          An omnipotence could give a clam total awareness and the illusions of omnipotence, omniscience, and free will, yet hide from it for ineffable reasons. Any act the clam thinks it is doing, is done by the omnipotence above it. The clam cannot know anything about the higher omnipotence because it only knows what is fed to it telepathically or however the omnipotence does it.

          But if the higher omnipotence can do that, it knows that it could be manipulated the same way, so it cannot trust its own omniscience. So omniscience is impossible for any being that appears to be omnipotent, and that goes all the way up.

          Since a supposedly omnipotent being cannot detect a greater being, there is either no greater being or the greater being is deliberately making the lower being’s omnipotence incapable of distinguish the higher being for ineffable reasons.

          So even a god thingy cannot distinguish omnipotence, omniscience, and free will from illusions.

        • Pofarmer

          And finally your statement that if He could not make a perfect world complete with free will then He isn’t omnipotent… Logical trainwreck. That is the equivalent to demanding a square circle.

          Do tell.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I have.

        • Pofarmer

          Where?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Okay, that was probably another poster who said that God could do that but was never quite able to explain how. I will give you the same opportunity. How exactly do you believe God can make a perfect world, prevent His created children from doing evil to each other, and still allow said children do have the free will to do whatever they wish? Like I said, that is the equivalent to asking for a square circle.

          (edited for punctuation)

        • Pofarmer

          How exactly do you believe God can make a perfect world, prevent His
          created children from doing evil to each other, and still allow said
          children do have the free will to do whatever they wish?

          How do you expect this same exact scenario to play out in Heaven?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You answer my question and I will answer yours. Of course when you avoid said question because you have no answer I will point that our and provide mine at that time.

        • Pofarmer

          Luther. Let’s look at your own words.

          He only knows what we will do because we will do it. We will only do it because He gave us the ability to do so.

          See the problem here?

          I doubt it, but there’s hope. You’re making my point for me.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I think I see the problem. You appear to be conflating knowledge with control. God created time. He is not bound by it and as such exists in all time periods.

          If I were to go back in time I would know Benedict Arnold would turn traitor. That would not mean I made him do it. Thus free will has nothing to do with precognition.

        • Pofarmer

          Luther. Buddy.

          Your theology says that God is all omni. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. You believe that God created Time. Created the “Heavens and the Earth.” Created Us. You believe in a perfect Heaven. It’s not clear whether you believe that there will be Free Will in Heaven. Therein lies the paradox. If God could create a perfect Heaven with Free WIll, then he could create a perfect Earth with Free Will. Omnipotent, remember? If there isn’t Free Will in Heaven, then apparently Free Will isn’t that important, and we wouldn’t need Free Will on Earth, either.

          You’re arguing a mirage.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Like I said would happen Now you have avoided my question and proved you had no answer so now I will once again give you mine

          People in heaven choose to abandon unwanted thoughts and behavior. That is not the absence of free will. It is the epitome of it. It is something I wish I could do now.

          Further my ability to predict you would avoid my question was not an indication that I somehow control you. This proves foreknowledge is not incompatible with free will.

        • Pofarmer

          Luther. You’re rationalizing your beliefs. You aren’t thinking logically about them.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Then you should be able to counter my argument rather than avoiding it. I think you are rationalizing your evasion.

        • Pofarmer

          Er mah Gerd Luther. Cmon buddy. There must be an ability to think on their somewhere. It’s logically possible for God to create people who get to Heaven, right? If it’s logically possible, and God is omnipotent, then there is no reason to create people who go to hell.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          As usual I don’t agree but I do see your reasoning. It is true that an omniscient God would know who is going to hell before they were born.

          I don’t see that as creating people to go to hell though. I see it as creating a bunch of imperfect beings that are all different from each other. Those differences are what makes each person special. I guess I am a bit like Captain Kirk when he said humans need our pain. It challenges us and allows us to achieve greatness. That some fail is an unfortunate but necessary side effect.

          At least that is my take. I can understand and appreciate yours.

        • Greg G.

          I guess I am a bit like Captain Kirk when he said humans need our pain.

          Why would an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient thingy do that? That is absurd! It is reasonable for beings that evolved in an indifferent universe but not if they were designed by a tri-omni being.

        • epeeist

          He hasn’t got a clue has he? The background knowledge and ability to think critically are both completely absent.

        • Pofarmer

          A lifetime of brainwashing will do that.

        • epeeist

          God created time. He is not bound by it and as such exists in all time periods.

          And your evidence for both of these contention is?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          My evidence? We are talking about my religion. If you are not familiar with it I have a reading suggestion for you.

        • epeeist

          My evidence? We are talking about my religion.

          So in other words, you don’t have any evidence.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Typical. You start a conversation as a hypothetical and when I respond you suddenly want to argue the Strawman that I was making a statement of fact.

          Are you going to argue my logic or continue the evasion?

        • epeeist

          Typical

          It is of you, rather than actually respond to the original question you obfuscate and prevaricate in an attempt to hide the fact that you are incapable of providing an answer.

          Are you going to argue my logic

          There is no logic in your post.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          What question? Looking back through the posts I am having a hard time figuring out what you are asking. I thought it dealt with the idea of free will and its compatibility with God being omniscient.

          If that is the case then we are talking about a hypothetical. In response to that I offered the logical argument that God existed out of time and as such His observations of our actions had no bearing on our decision making processes.

        • epeeist

          What question?

          It is fairly easy if you read for comprehension. You claimed that your god created time, is not bound by it and exists in all time periods. I asked what evidence you had for your claims.

          I offered the logical argument

          As I have said before putting the word “logical” in a sentence doesn’t mean that the sentence is logical. As it is you don’t seem to understand the difference between an “assertion” and an “argument”. The latter requires both evidential backing and a warrant to connect the claim to the backing.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I made that statement in response to a logical argument that free will is not compatible with an omniscient God.

          Did you get that? The argument I responded to presupposes GOD!!!

          Then you shifted the goal posts and demand evidence for the attributes of said God.

          Did you get that? You are demanding evidence for things already established in a hypothetical argument.

          Further I said the argument I was responding to was NOT logical

          Dud you get that? I was NOT attempting to put the word logical in front of something to imply it was logical. Quite the opposite.

          How is YOUR reading comprehension? I have said the above to you already but you continue to beat that dead horse.

        • Greg G.

          So you have no evidence, only unsubstantiated belief. Why do you argue? You can’t draw a conclusion from a valid argument without premises that are established to be true.

        • Greg G.

          By limiting free will. We can’t travel at light speed, teleport, nor tickle ourselves. If we had true free will, we could.

          He could allow us to have 20/20 foresight to see the outcome of our decisions.

          But if you are attributing omnipotence and omniscience, it is up to you to prove that those cannot do it while maintaining the actual definitions of the adjectives.

        • epeeist

          Logical trainwreck.

          You know putting the word “logical” in front of something doesn’t actually make the statement logical.

          That is the equivalent to demanding a square circle.

          Square circle? Dead easy, just use the Chebyshev norm instead of the Euclidean one.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You know when one refers to something as a “trainwreck” they are definitely not saying it is logical

          I am no mathematician but that is complete bullshit. Please explain how using the Chebyshev norm can produce a square circle. This is obviously just another example of your inability to ever concede anything. That attribute must be detrimental in your life.

        • epeeist

          You know when one refers to something as a “trainwreck” they are definitely not saying it is logical

          My expectation is that when someone says that something is “not logical” then they will be able to provide a demonstration as to why it isn’t logical. All you have done is to make an unsubstantiated assertion.

          I am no mathematician but that is complete bullshit.

          So you are not a mathematician but you just know that my statement is “büllshit”. Given that you are not a mathematician and provide nothing but an assertion I am therefore free to dismiss your statement. However, just for you:

          The Chebyshev distance is defined as max(|x2 - x1|), where x1 and x2 are vectors. In two dimensions we can write:

          D = max(|x2 - x1|, |y2 -y1|)

          where x1, x2, y1 and y2 are simply coordinate points. In this metric, a circle of radius r, which is the set of points with Chebyshev distance r from a centre point, is a square whose sides have the length 2r and are parallel to the coordinate axes.

          Now I know you don’t read links unless they are blessed by Jesus, but if you want to check what I have written I suggest you go looking for an article on the “Chebyshev distance”. I find Wolfram world is a useful resource when I am trying to refresh my knowledge on mathematical subjects.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I demonstrated your assertion was bullshit when I proved you could not give one example of what you said was possible.

          My math beats yours. Pie are not square. Pie are freaking round.

        • epeeist

          I demonstrated your assertion was bullshit

          Given that you don’t seem to know what is meant by a logical demonstration (or “assertion” for that matter) then I would beg to differ.

          My math beats yours.

          I’m sorry, I can’t actually see any mathematics in your post.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You made the assertion that God could create a perfect world compatible with free will. That was an assertion right? You then were incapable of explaining how this was possible. As I showed that free will necessitates the ability for individuals to do evil your claim has been shown to be false.

          You say π r2 but pie are round.

        • epeeist

          You made the assertion that God could create a perfect world compatible with free will.

          I did? Can you point to where I did that?

          A circle is round. Arguing otherwise is ridiculous.

          So you, an admitted non-mathematician, are saying that mathematicians are wrong.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Did I confuse you with another poster again? Or did I confuse the other poster with you last time? Go ahead, you can say it. I’m so confused.

        • epeeist

          Did I confuse you with another poster again?

          You seem to have done. There are lots of incoherences with omni-properties but I didn’t contribute this time.

          It is the equivalent to an imaginary number.

          But an “imaginary number” is simply a value on a number line orthogonal to the “real number” line.

          The math works but in the end it still is not real.

          Are “real numbers” real?

          So yes. Anyone who says a circle can be square is wrong.

          The thing you fail to recognise is that mathematicians will take an idea and try to make it more generic, and in doing so more abstract. In this case they took the idea of the a generator from the Pythagoras theorem (which is the basis for the equation of a circle) and came up with the more generic concept of a norm. A norm is a function that assigns a strictly positive real number to each vector in a vector space over the field of real or complex numbers. The Euclidean norm is simply one possible norm, the Chebyshev norm is another as are absolute value, Manhattan and p norms.

          The thing is, all of these norms are equivalent in that they define the same topology.

          So your contention that a circle cannot be a square is wrong.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “So your contention that a circle cannot be a square is wrong.”

          cir·cle

          /ˈsərk(ə)l/

          Learn to pronounce

          noun

          noun: circle; plural noun: circles

          1.

          a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center).

          Did you get that? ROUND…DUH!!!!

        • epeeist

          Did you get that? ROUND…DUH!!!!

          That’s the best you can come up with, an entry in a non-technical dictionary?

          In my little exposition (which I somehow doubt you understood) I used the term “field”. This is what a generic dictionary gives as a definition of “field”. So are we to assume that the mathematicians don’t know what they are talking about, or should we look for a technical definition?

          Oh, and should we assume that the physicists are wrong too, or should we accept that they too have their own, domain specific definition.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Did you get that? ROUND…DUH!!!!
          That’s the best you can come up with, an entry in a non-technical dictionary?
          ————
          When you can show me ANY definition in ANY source that differs from this then you might have a point

        • Greg G.

          You made the assertion that God could create a perfect world compatible with free will.

          Actually, Pofarmer said:

          If he can create a perfect Heaven with Free Will, then he could create a Perfect Earth with free will just as Easily. If he can’t, then he’s not omnipotent,

          It was not an assertion, it was contingent on the ability to create a perfect heaven. The definition of “omnipotence” is the ability to do everything that is logically possible to do. A perfect heaven would prove that it is logically possible to create a perfect place that includes free will. If you accept heaven with free will and that your god thingy is omnipotent, then you must accept that your god thingy could create a perfect world with free will.

        • Ignorant Amos

          No. I am saying God made independent thinking creatures while you have suggested He should have created perfectly behaving automaton toys.

          Bwwwaaaaaahahahahahaha!

          Covenants were instruments of imperialism and slavery-Yahweh was the slavemaster and Israel was his slave. As is the case with any slave, Yahweh rewarded his subjects for obedience and punished them mercilessly for disobedience. He required genital mutilation, called circumcision, of all of his slaves. Far from providing a sense of security, the covenant caused the Israelites to dread the punishment that followed transgressions against it. Only one slavemaster was allowed, and a slave risked serious harm if he did not remain faithful to the one slavemaster. As is stated in Exodus 20:1, 5:

          “You shall have no other gods before me … you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity uity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.”

          And Deuteronomy 28 is very explicit and detailed about all of the punishments ments that awaited those who disobeyed Yahweh, the master:

          “But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you … The LORD will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake take to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me. The LORD will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it. The LORD will smite you with consumption, sumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until you perish.” (Deuteronomy 28:15-22)

          Hector Avalos. The End of Biblical Studies

        • Greg G.

          Have you ever wondered why God didn’t just put Jesus in the Garden of Eden instead of Adam? I bet a magic rib woman from Jesus’ side wouldn’t be tempted by a serpent.

        • nowhere does it say the will is free… not even you do.

        • Greg G.

          It says that it is only acceptable with non Israelites. That is a limitation.

          It’s indentured servitude. They had that in America, too. Foreign slaves were permanent. People from your own nation became indentured servants for a period of time.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Again, this moral code is superior to every other one extant in this period.

          Demonstrating you haven’t a fucking clue what you are talking about.

          Judging it by modern standards is not logical..

          We know. It’s almost like it is a moral code of human construct made at a time and place where things we deem deplorable today, were fair game. That’s moral relativism.

          Or did YahwehJesus not know that future humans would be better than that and see rape, slavery, capital punishment, genocide, etc., as deplorable and not give edicts accordingly?

          You are selling your god well short of the claims made by fuckwit Christers on his behalf.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Those who would condemn the Bible because of the moral codes in the OT conveniently forget that it was far superior to the moral norms of the period it came from.

          Yeah, about that…nope it really wasn’t. The older Hittite Code of Nesilim was in many ways far superior…

          As in all other ancient civilizations, slaves were not on the same level as free men. Yet, the Code of Nesilim was surprisingly fair, allowing slaves to marry whomever they wanted, to buy property, to open businesses, and to purchase their freedom. Under the Code of Nesilim, slaves were not treated as human chattel, or property that could be used and abused by their masters however they saw fit. They had a limited number of rights that guaranteed them a level of dignity and protection.

          But that is neither here nor there. The other moral codes were not god given. A moral code given by a god is to be expected to be far superior than the one given.

          I’ve seen these fuckwit apologetics enough time to fill a lake with vomit. Most recently from a Christer trying to excuse the death penalty for working on the Sabbath with this fuckwittery…

          Yeah, call me old fashioned, but the death penalty for nonsense mundane crimes are the extreme for me.But that’s just this readers judgement.

          I would want to take this case-by-case and I’d start with respecting the Sabbath. My understanding of the Sabbath involves backing off from the daily grind and taking time to deeply reflect. A society which refuses to do this is going to have problems down the road, IMO. A society which only permits the elite to regularly reflect like this will probably last longer, but it’ll still have problems IMO. If God prefers to interact via that “still small voice” of 1 Ki 19:12, where he gently prods and pokes out our thoughts rather than being a bull in a china shop, then Sabbath-time is going to be when such poking and prodding will be most detectable.

          Regulars here will recognise the Christers name as Luke Breuer. I broke of interaction at that point. I’ve great difficulty with the morality of a person with that kind of a fucked up moral mindset.

          The other problem is that for some reason you think Christers never used the examples in the OT as justification for shitty stuff they engaged in throughout history. Here’s just one example…

          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/30/christian-fundamentalists-plan-teach-genocide

          The moral guidance in the buybull is fucked. Only by cherry-picking can it be in some way rescued.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Bible does not support genocide. The OT examples were all specific instances where God made the call.

          That’s the claim? He doesn’t support it, he commands it? You think that means YahwehJesus didn’t support the genocide? Well that makes it all okay then, does it? You are crazy and your apologetics stink.

          YahwehJesus not only supports genocide, and commands it, he assists in the execution of said.

          YahwehJesus gave ordinances that nations were to be annihilated. Everyone to be killed, except the virgins. Who were to be taken as war booty to be used as sex slaves and paedo rape wives.

          And YahwehJesus was to get his share of the spoils.

          Great morality in that shite.

        • Greg G.

          your apologetics stink

          I don’t think it is because he writes them with a “No. 2” pencil, either.

        • Raging Bee

          And our point is that relying on religion for our rules is no better — and, in fact, much worse, because religion is much less grounded in reality.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Most religions (and science) claim life begins at conception.

        • Raging Bee

          Wrong on both counts.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Ridiculous. When the hell do you think a human life begins?

          (Wait for the crickets. Chirp chirp)

        • Raging Bee

          It’s living human tissue, and it was alive long before conception. But that doesn’t mean it’s a person with full, or even partial, human rights.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          A sperm is nor a human life. It only possesses half of the required DNA. Basic science.

        • Raging Bee

          It’s a living cell, just like the egg. Basic science.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          It isn’t a human. Maybe I wasn’t clear. I was talking about those who claim human life does not start at conception.

        • Raging Bee

          It doesn’t. The organic material involved was alive, and human tissue, before conception.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Human tissue has 23 pairs of chromosomes. Sperm and ovum do not. A fetus represents a stage of human development. Ova and sperm do not.

        • Raging Bee

          It’s still HUMAN tissue, in human bodies, with human chromosomes. Basic science, remember?

          And yes, a fetus is a “stage” — a stage long before the appearance of any consciousness or awareness above the cellular level.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Each has half of the chromosomes necessary to be a human. Neither will never grow into an adult person. A fetus does. A newborn does. A toddler does. An adolescent does. A teenager does. One of these things is not like the other.

          Further consciousness has no relevance. A brain dead person is still a human.

        • Raging Bee

          Actually, no, a person whose brain is no longer functioning is NOT a human anymore; it’s just a body without a brain, and therefore no personhood or rights. Sort of like a fetus.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “Actually, no, a person whose brain is no longer functioning is NOT a human anymore”

          A human corpse is freaking human. Give me a break.

        • Raging Bee

          No, it’s not. It’s a corpse. Basic science.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          What kind of corpse is it?

          corpse noun
          Save Word
          To save this word, you’ll need to log in.

          Log In
          ˈkȯrps
          Definition of corpse
          1archaic : a human or animal body whether living or dead
          2a: a dead body especially of a human being

          Merriam Webster

        • Raging Bee

          2a, fool. As in, something not living and having no consciousness or awareness.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Even if that were a real definition one can obviously be both a fool and a human.

        • Raging Bee

          You just quoted it from a dictionary, remember? So yes, it’s a real definition, not to mention the common usage of the word in everyday conversation.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          My quote was copied and pasted from Webster’s. I copied and pasted yours into Google and got zero results. I call bullshit

        • Raging Bee

          You’re “calling bullshit” on me for agreeing with a definition you quoted? Go to bed.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          What you posted was some BS definition of “fool” you apparently made up

          I posted the definition for “corpse”

          WTF are you talking about?

        • Ignorant Amos

          What you posted was some BS definition of “fool” you apparently made up

          Oh fer feck sake…someone tell this knuckle-dragging idiot that the word “fool” is a referent to him, not part of the definition of “corpse”.

          2a, fool. As in, something not living and having no consciousness or awareness.

          First sentence.

          [Definition] 2a… ,…[comma]…. fool…[as in Luther Dorn (deplorable), ya fool]….…[fullstop]

          Second sentence.

          As in, something not living and having no consciousness or awareness.

          Utterly deplorable at reading for comprehension, it must be a Christer thing, they all do it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Some Muppet upvoted your idiocy…Jaysus Xtos on a rubber cross…idiots everywhere.

        • epeeist

          Some Muppet upvoted your idiocy

          Unusually said Muppet doesn’t have a private profile. No guesses as to what kind of posts they make.

        • Greg G.

          Human tissue is tissue produced by human biology.

          A fertile man can be identified by his semen.

        • Greg G.

          A sperm or an ovum with no biological activity is dead. Neither will become a fetus.

          You are conflating biological life with sufficient brain function to produce a mind.

        • Greg G.

          This is where proliferaters confuse themselves by conflating biological life and conscious awareness.

        • Sample1

          Science and philosophy are both tools within a broader cognitive faculty: reason. What you’ve said is incorrect. Science makes no such claims!

          Philosophy makes the claims. It alone sets the criteria for whatever is claimed to be of interest or of value to a person or population. We may then use science to correlate those philosophical criteria with the natural world.

          But philosophy is typically a narrative, a worldview with many parts. With some claims, conception is important and in other world-views less so. Perhaps personhood, viability or bodily autonomy are valued more in other philosophies.

          Without explaining one’s personal philosophy, saying science supports this or that is incomplete at best and might even be irrelevant.

          Mike

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Defining life is science. Defining the meaning of life is philosophy. Philosophy has no interest in determining if a virus is alive.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Have you read the fucking buybull?

          The OT is full of mob rule ya idiot.

        • Raging Bee

          Actually, no, civil society writes and enforces laws and institutions that PREVENT and RESTRAIN mob rule. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Tbe entire point of our rule of law is to prevent mob rule and establish consistent standards of conduct and penalties for violating them.

          I have no clue what you are talking about.

        • Raging Bee

          Yeah, that’s your problem.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          What is my problem?

        • Raging Bee

          “IT provides a set code of morality?” Which “it” are you talking about? Just one, or any?

          The mere fact that I have to ask this question, pretty much shows your argument is self-refuting.

          The Third Reich was a society.

          Yeah, one that had the full support of its people’s two predominant religions. Your point…?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Religion in general. Can you name any religion that does not have its own moral code? That question shows YOUR point to be self-refuting.

          If it had the full support of its two dominant religions then how come ot had to create its own religion?

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Evangelical_Church#Overview

          Why did the German Council of Bishops excommunicate every member of the Nationalist Socialist Party? And why did so many leaders of the religions you claim gave their “full support” end up dying in concentration camps?

        • Raging Bee

          So you’re saying all religions have moral codes, and they’re all equally valid, even when they contradict each other? Sorry, that’s not a reliable basis for morality.

        • Greg G.

          Remember that he is not claiming that. He is only saying that he believes but cannot support it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          iirc Luther has me blocked, so feel free to take anything ave posted and shove it up his arse if ya want.

          Am thinking the German bishops bullshit, the Hittite Code of Law, and the Islamic Golden Rule.

        • Greg G.

          Luther doesn’t respond to me, either, except once in a while. I don’t know if he blocked me or ignores me.

          I was thinking about telling you to recycle my points to him.

          Hey, Po! Feel free to use any useful points from our posts!

        • Ignorant Amos

          We’ll end up getting Po blocked at that rate.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          The only religion I know of that does not have a form of the Golden Rule is Islam. As such they might not all be valid but the vast majority are and those do not contradict one another.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The only religion I know of that does not have a form of the Golden Rule is Islam.

          Demonstrating that you don’t know jack shite.

          http://islam.ru/en/content/story/golden-rule-islam

        • Pofarmer

          Why did the German Council of Bishops excommunicate every member of the Nationalist Socialist Party?

          Uhm, they actually didn’t.

          And why did so many leaders of the religions you claim gave their “full support” end up dying in concentration camps?

          So did atheists and communists. But many, many more religious people went on to become Nazis.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Ummm actually they did. Just a hint. Before you show your ass and tell someone they are wrong you should Goggle it

          “] In early 1931, the German Bishops issued an edict excommunicating all Nazi leadership and banned Catholics from membership. ”

          Yes,communists were sent to the concentration camps as well. Socialists always kill off the competition. Just ask Trotsky or the majority of the Soviet Army leadership from just before WWII. The fact remains the church itself showed much opposition to the regime when their true nature became apparent

          “the Nazis gathered priest-dissidents in a dedicated clergy barracks at Dachau, where 95 percent of its 2,720 inmates were Catholic (mostly Poles, with 411 Germans). 1,034 priests died there. Expropriation of church properties surged from 1941.”

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

        • Pofarmer

          So now you’ve moved the goalposts. And I don’t think that even gets you where you want to be. I can’t find the wording if any edict excommunicating even Nazi leadership, although it shows up in wikipedia and a few popular articles. You would think that Catholics would nr keen on getting these documents put there? If you go into the mote scholarly literature, you’ll find out that one group of bishops barred Catholics from entering the Nazi party, but other Bishops disagreed, and Catholic support was one of the things which brought the Nazi’s to power. So, find me a copy of the edict excommunicating even Nazi leadership, because I couldn’t.

          You’re disshonest, Luther.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I posted the link. You inability to read it (and the part where I said Catholic resistance came AFTER the Nazis showed their evil nature) does not make me a liar. It makes you an idiot.

          This I have problem I have with some of you guys. It isn’t your atheism. It is that you are like most bigots rationalizing your own shortcomings by saying “At least I am not one of THOSE guys”

          Grow a brain and stop trying to convince yourself you already have one because you don’t believe in “fairy tales”

        • Pofarmer

          Luther, quit being a buffoon. The ONLY reference to any Nazi’s being excommunicated is from a Vatican spokesperson in 2010 saying “Look, I found this in the Archives.” And yet, to my knowledge, that edict has never been produced. Go ahead, look around and try to find it. So, if the Bishops excommunicated Nazi’s, they did it in secret. No one else knew of it till then. But THAT isn’t the only problem with your proclamation. You proclaimed that the Nazi church excommunicated ALL the Nationalist Socialists. They didn’t, at all. At BEST they excommunicated some leadership. We don’t even know that THAT is true because the Catholic Church won’t show the edict. Go ahead, try to find it. We do know that ONE GROUP of Catholic Bishops tried to prevent Catholics from joining the Nazi party, but there were OTHER GROUPS that did not. This was in the Early 1930’s. The God Virus makes you gullible. I’m sorry.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I posted my source. What is yours?

        • Ignorant Amos

          A source making a claim without the evidence supporting the claim, is just an unsupported claim.

          You’re the one that needs a head from arse extraction.

        • Pofarmer

          Source for what?

          Here is the Source for the Claim that the Catholic Bishop excommunicated Nazi Leadership.

          https://zenit.org/articles/archives-show-church-excommunicated-nazis/

          This appears to be the original source for the claim. But the supposed documents and edicts are never revealed. Which is, weird.

          Here’s a scholarly paper dealing with the Catholic Church’s response to the Reichskonkordat.

          It talks about the attempt to prevent Catholics from Joining the Nazi party, and provisions on not allowing Nazi Uniforms in church, which, means, ahem, that apparently Catholics were already Nazi’s. It never talks about any excommunications.

          https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4551&context=open_access_etds

          Here is a paper talking about the very mixed reaction of the Catholic Church in Germany to the Nazi movement.

          https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/dietrich.htm

          You see, I did my due diligence. The problem with Wikipedia on Catholic issues, and religious issues in general, is that it’s known that there are some very conservative apologists that edit articles, so you have to double check things. In this case, the claim that “The Church excommunicated all Nazi’s” just doesn’t hold up, because nobody knew about it. The claim that “The Church excommunicated Nazi Leadership” likewise doesn’t hold up because, again, nobody knew about it. Now, could the church have been considering it? Yeah, I think they were, but they had significant problems because many Catholics supported some or many of the Nazi’s aims.

          So, there ya go.

          And, BTW, this isn’t how this is supposed to work when YOU can’t, ya know, actually back up a claim.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Your own link clearly shows your claim the ‘documents were never released’ is wrong. Did you just make that up?

          “When asked why this information is not currently known by many historians, Pave the Way chairman Elliot Hershberg noted that “according to the archives sign-in sheets, most of these historians and scholars have simply not come to the open archives to research 65% of Pacelli’s ministry.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          Show us?

          Why are they not in the public domain?

          All these RC’s spouting about the “excommunication”, but where can the evidence be viewed?

          One would think the internet would be plastered with it. You’ve seen it? Not the claim that it exists, the actual evidence backing the claim.

          Lying liars for Jesus is an actual thing. You are complicit in promoting it.

        • Pofarmer

          Luther appears susceptible to any and all woo that validates his biases.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He’s imbibing the Kool-Aid by gallon.

        • Pofarmer

          Oh holy crap. Here’s the Author of that Zenit article.

          Michael Hesemann (born March 22, 1964 in Düsseldorf) is a German journalist and author. In the late 1980s he became known in Germany as an author of several books on UFOs and extraterrestrial visitors on Earth.[1] Later in his career he turned to topics related to Catholicism.[2]

          Gee, I wonder why his info doesn’t seem reliable?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bwaaaahahahahaha!

          Ya really couldn’t make it up….oh, wait, the Dime Bars do, and the gullible suke it up like a hoover.

          The irony is, the dopey bastard was calling you out for having inferior research ability. Ha!

        • Pofarmer

          Once again, Luther. Show me any other reference to or reproduction of these documents, or any other work referencing them. I looked, I can’t find anything. Why wasn’t this “excommunication” known at the time?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “When asked why this information is not currently known by many historians, Pave the Way chairman Elliot Hershberg noted that “according to the archives sign-in sheets, most of these historians and scholars have simply not come to the open archives to research 65% of Pacelli’s ministry.”

          Your link. And besides, if it is so obscure how come I knew about it before I looked it up and found the Wikipedia reference?

        • Pofarmer

          It’s been 10 years? And, nothing?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Obviously not much interest. One would think that if anyone wanted to debunk it they would go there and check out the primary sources. Or maybe they did and not finding what they wanted did not publicise what did not fit their narrative

        • Pofarmer

          The “source” is a UFO enthusiast. It’s a con. The church would tout this to the high Heavens. Holy cow.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          A UFO enthusiast? Really? Where did you hear that?

        • Pofarmer

          Read the Dude’s bio that wrote that “article”, press release, whatever you want to call it.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Thanks. I will.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If it had the full support of its two dominant religions then how come ot had to create its own religion?

          It didn’t have to.

          That’s just what Christianity does, and always has done, since day one.

          It, is estimated that there is circa 45,000+ flavours of the Christian cult at present. Scisming at an average of just over 2 per day.

          The source you’ve cited doesn’t claim it created a new religion ya doofus.

          The majority of Germans were Christers of one bent or another, that’s a fact.

        • Greg G.

          It, is estimated that there is circa 45,000+ flavours of the Christian cult at present.

          That was the estimation when the study was done in 2015. They projected 55,000 denominations by 2025 so we should be saying “approximately 50,000 denominations” this year.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Fair one.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Why did the German Council of Bishops excommunicate every member of the Nationalist Socialist Party?

          Well, that’s because they didn’t. The whole German bishops fiasco was a wishy-washy ambiguous fudge. While the majority of German bishops banned membership of the Nationalist Socialist Party for a while, and some threatened to remove the sacraments from some members, there was no “excommunication”. Check the list of excommunications by the RCC in the 20th century.

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

          Like all these things, it was a complicated affair. And the upshot was, that while the German episcopate advised Catholics on which direction they should vote in the elections, the fact is, they didn’t listen.

          The local ban was never ratified at Holy See level, and it was lifted as soon as Hitler became chancellor. But the reason for the ban on Nazi membership had more to do with religious conflict, than anything else. Particularly the formation of “Positive Christianity.” Catholics were banned from the Nazi Party for the same reasons they were banned from being Masons.

          https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4551&context=open_access_etds

          And why did so many leaders of the religions you claim gave their “full support” end up dying in concentration camps?

          Anyone that was deemed a threat to the NAZI establishment got a rap on the door in the middle of the night, including members of that establishment.

          https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-german-churches-and-the-nazi-state

          Ever here of “The Jasenovac Extermination Camps”? No. They were camps in Yugoslavia run and operated by RCC priests, monks and nuns.

          Of the 22 Nazi concentration camps operating in the clerical fascist state of Croatia during World War II, nearly half were under the command of Roman Catholic priests.

          They were responsible for the grisly slaughter of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Serbs, Roma, and Jews were specifically targeted for extermination.

          Catholic clergy was especially keen to eradicate the Serbian Orthodox Church. This led to the murder of Christian Serbian Priests, forced conversions of Serbian Christians, and the destruction of 450 Christian Orthodox Churches during World War II.

          “Kill all Serbs. And when you finish come here, to the Church, and I will confess you and free you from sin.” — Father Srećko Perić of the Gorica Monastery

          Roman Catholic priests were involved in directing some of the worst atrocities of World War II.

          https://global-politics.eu/vatican-war-crimes-roman-catholic-priests-ran-nazi-death-camps-croatia/

          One of the more notorious commandants at Jasenovac was Miroslav Filipović.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslav_Filipovi%C4%87

  • Len

    … How can science continue if even scientists start to believe this about their minds? . . .

    1) Who says scientists belive this?
    2) By the same “reasoning”, how can religious believers continue?

  • Bobby,

    Did you now they found 95% pure sulphur here, millions of pieces…
    look into it…

    Approx location
    shorturl.at/zENQ7

    • Raging Bee

      So what?

      • What is Brimstone?

        Its in Sodom, with dead bodies. Millions of pieces of brimstone (sulfur 95% pure).

        • Raging Bee

          And that means…what? Sulphur only comes from cities destroyed by God?

        • epeeist
        • Greg G.

          What dead bodies? You’ll need a legitimate source to back up that up.

        • Greg, I show you things you can see and you deny them all the time.

          What year did Israel become a nation? (most recently)

        • Greg G.

          I’ve heard it all before. Slightly different variations, all bullshit.