Evangelist Oral Roberts, who rose from tent revivals to found a multimillion-dollar organization and an Oklahoma university bearing his name, has died. He was 91.
If only you had donated more money to his church, maybe God wouldn’t have taken him from us at such a young age.
PRESIDENT OBAMA – PLEASE don’t attend the funeral! PLEEEEZZZZZZZZ!
And if God is just he will burn in the Hell that the Christian created for others to suffer in. If Obama attends his funeral he will offend many who voted for him
God would have to exist before She could be just MarkHolland, but I acknowledge your sentiment.
Imagine how much of a sense of loss I feel now that Oral Roberts is dead. There, I think you got the right answer.
2000 years and Christ still pisses off idiot liberal self-absorbed hedonists like you. Amusing!
hugh
Who? You mean the mythical man-child? Nobody here’s worked up over some imaginary friend.
more like an upset stomach swswsw…..why is it so hard to explain that all we want is for you to keep your silly superstitions to yourself…..
please….its the Information Age for christ sake!….
we cant have people walking around the planet with claims to know the likes and dislikes of supernatural friends….that is a potential for over 6.5 billion personnel gods….
and if liberal means that I dont buy your religious bullshit….then I guess Im liberal
personal that is
By the way, The Obamanation will not even comment on Oral Roberts. He is too preoccupied with turning the United States into a Chicago BMV; everyone gets to be equally miserable.
h
BMV? Bureau of Motor Vehicles? What an odd thing to say.
swswsw sounds like a Glenn Beck fan….
no independent thought
To Charlie
Hugh was created by the same lying and corrupted religious belief that created Glenn Beck or Rush limbaugh. They are nothing more then cut out clones of the Christian church. They are the same, corrupted and evil bile that is Christianity but with different faces.
Where nobody really cares, bureaucracy rules. And the government runs everything.
swswsw
While the people of our country were intentionally divided and distracted by social
issues our pockets were and are being picked by big business. Your religion is nothing but a useful tool in a policy-based ponzi scheme that ultimately destroyed our economy. The pain you are feeling is of your own making.
Rather live in a socialist or fascist state? How will that work for you? Our economy is resilient because it is based on capitalism and personal responsibility/achievement. Business principles are based on Judeo-Christian values and they work. It is the entitlement mentality embraced by hedonistic liberals that is ruining our economy.
Our economy is not based on individual anything nor is your religion. Are you high?!
Imaginary friend. What arrogance. So sad. Reality is so much bigger than your self-absorption.
Personally I’m quite fond of the phrase Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy, I even made it a website.
So I guess right about now Jesus is getting ready to receive Oral.
How many minutes left in your life? Who will receive you? Please don’t give me the tired old atheist line that this is all there is and that’s ok. Be more imaginative at least.
-hugh
Sorry I prefer a real world to an imagined one. I’m funny that way.
To swswsw
It does not matter if an Atheist has one minute left in his or her life, or a Century, when they die they have eternal life the same as everyone else, I heard Michael Newdow on the radio the other day and a fanatical Christian called in and asked him, if he ever thought about being wrong and what if the bible is right. I wish I had been able to call in and said that the bible cannot be right because it has be proven beyond a doubt to contain lies and as such cannot be divinely inspired or the infallible truth of an infallible God.
When an Atheist dies either they are right and there is nothing beyond the physical life or they find out that there is something beyond the physical realm and become believers but if something exists beyond the physical realm it is not a psychotic God who gets his rocks off by committing mass murder or ordering the mass murder of his own creations. Atheists have nothing to fear when it comes to death, they are either right and there is nothing beyond or they have eternal life.
To swswsw
The Torah, Bible and Koran all invalidate themselves, non of these religions have any evidence what so ever to give support to their beliefs or Gods. Nothing in human history indicates that a single God with a single name, image and persona exists. The God/Jesus does not exist has not existed and will never exist. While Jesus the man and his public teachings before the Jews are decent, Jesus the man died 2000 years ago and has not been seen since.
The Christian bible is full of lies, and as such cannot be divine in nature nor can it be the infallible truth of an infallible God. For a list of some of these lies, see my site http://biblelies.wordpress.com/
Wow, you invest a lot of your finite, this-world-only time to deny something you know nothing about. Hope you’re right, for your sake!
h
To Hugh
Of course I am right.
Mark…I’ve got to agree with swswsw.
Just read the first 3 threads on your blog. No offense, but who cares what you think about bible prophecy. If one is going to attempt to disprove prophecy they must rely upon qualified, educated sources, and not on their own personal opinions.
It’s clear you spent more time creating your blog then you have studying the bible and bible prophecy…
The bible has been thoroughly invalidated as a source of history. It is full of errors and forgeries. All four of the most famous books are forgeries created in an attempt to provide a history for a mythical being as a flesh and blood person. All four were written long after the supposed jesus walked the earth, all four were not written by the purported authors. All four were more or less extrapolated from the Gnostic writer, Marcion.
Yes, but by sub-literate, self-appointed and deeply deluded “experts” like the embarrassing Mark Holland does nothing to lend credibility to that claim—in fact, it’s just the opposite—pathetic souls like him only make your side look all the more amateurish.
You’ve clearly confused it with the contents of the emails from the UEA CRU.
And your credible sources for such a claim are?
By “long” you must mean well within the life-spans of those eyewitnesses credited with their authorship.
That’s mighty bold talk from someone who has yet to back up any previous claims he’s made here—and who conveniently and consistently fails to respond to direct questions regarding those absurd and unsubstantiated claims.
If that were true, then why did he reject Matthew, Mark and John and only partially accept Luke? Marcion wasn’t branded a “heretic” for nothing. Your lack of formal, higher education and critical thinking skills are glaringly obvious.
By the way, have you ever read the Bible? Or do you just pontificate from your machinations and narrow agenda?
h
What part of the bible? The part were an all-merciful creator drowns all but 2 puppies or the part were jesus is upset that daddy didn’t rearrange the seasons so he could get figs when he wanted? Or the part were the godly Lot has a drunken incestous orgy with his underaged daughters after god kills off all those gosh-darn queers for being such vile sinners?
And in regards to bible prophecy, it doesn’t exist. The new testament was written down after jesus came, and any predictions made used the worlds most accurate phychic technique: Writing after the fact to conform to what happened. I can do the same thing too: Bill Clinton will be reelected in 1996.
To JCC
The Bible Lies and Christians lie. This is proven.
In Luke they go to Bethlehem to be taxed, Mary has the baby, And there was great fan fare with the shepherds spreading the word abroad. eight days later Jesus is circumcised and after Mary’s purification they went to Jerusalem where Jesus is proclaimed the Christ by Simeon. They then went back home to Nazareth and every year journeyed to Jerusalem for pass over. Verse 42 clearly says this was an ongoing ritual for Jesus was 12 at this time that they went and they had gone every year since his birth.
In Matthew Joseph, Mary and Jesus were in a house in Bethlehem, according to the wise men Jesus should have been around two years old, two years past the taxing recorded in Luke. It was their estimation that Herod used to kill all children under two in Bethlehem and in the coastal cities. Joseph is told to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt until the death of Herod. After the death of Herod, Joseph feared the son of Herod and turned aside into parts of Galilee. Joseph was returning home to Bethlehem in Judea before God told him in a dream to turn aside into Galilee where he came into and dwelt in Nazareth.
Let’s take it from the top, Matthew claims that Herod only found out about the new born king when the wise men showed up. But in Luke the shepherds were spreading the word abroad that the king was born a full two years earlier. No secret there and a big deal was made at the temple in Jerusalem when the infant Jesus was presented and Simeon declared Jesus the Christ, according to Matthew, two year old baby Jesus and family went into Egypt and stayed there until Herod died. According to Luke Baby Jesus and family lived in Nazareth and journeyed to Jerusalem every year for Passover which is where Herod lived according to Matthew Herod wanted Jesus dead so badly that he ordered the killing of all two year olds and younger in Bethlehem. But Jesus visited Jerusalem every year after birth for 12 years
This of course while Luke claims baby Jesus and family were happily living in Nazareth awaiting their next pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Passover while Matthew claims the mass murder of all children 2 years and younger was happening in Bethlehem while baby Jesus and family were hiding in fear in Egypt. These two stories are lies. Neither story has any evidence to back them and they contradict each other they are lies.
The Rama prophecy that is claimed to have been full filled by Herod’s killing of the children is a false claim and is a lie
Matthew 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, Mt 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Jeremiah 31:15 Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. Jer 31:16 Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. Jer 31:17 And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border.
This is a rule two prophecy, the author of Matthew tried to show that the killing of the children had been prophesied. It had not been, In Jeremiah, 31:16 and 31:17 God says the children would return home. Also the name of the prophet is not Jeremy.
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
I could find no reference in the Old Testament to, He shall be called a Nazarene. The closes I could come, was to Sampson the Nazarite. So either the author lied again or his reference was to Sampson not Christ. I consider this a rule three prophecy.
I thought you had read the Bible. Your theology is really flawed. You are not nearly as bitter and hedonistic as most atheists, but your agenda is obvious. There is no objectivity in your research.
Prove it.
h
I have already proved it. As for reading the bible of course it is because I read the bible that I was able to write my book. It is because I was a Christian that I know how to tear Christianity down. The bible is claimed to be the infallible truth of an infallible God I have proven the bible is fallible and with error and contains lies. That is all the proof I need to prove Christianity to be fallible and with error and to be founded upon lies.
And the fact that Christian history shows that it for the most part is Anti Christ. Christian history shows that they do not obey or follow the teachings of their savior but on the contrary it shows that they despise and reject Jesus and his valid teachings. As for the Torah by discrediting the O/T I also discredit the Torah. And for the Koran there is little difference between Islamic history and Jewish or Christian histories non show anything in their histories that could be interpreted as being divinely influenced.
Who hurt you so deeply that you reject the truth and invest so much energy to rail against the God who loves you? Your arguments are specious. You haven’t read the Bible. You have worked so hard to support a profoundly flawed agenda. Please don’t pretend you are an objective researcher. I know this will enflame your prejudice, but I am praying for your salvation.
-hugh
Your God does not exist, while I believe God or Gods exist the Christian God is not one of them. I have no fear of the Gods Allah, Jehovah or Jesus, they are nothing more then figments of peoples demented minds. Pretend to be an objective researcher, never in this life. I am not objective when it comes to Christianity, If I am capable of Hating, then I hate Christianity, more likely thought it is just that I dispise the hell out it.
I do not object to God or Gods, I object to people who claim to speak with Gods authority when God or Gods have not spoken.
Love? The same god that demands the genocide of those that don’t follow him? Human sacrifice? Stoning of women? Kills children for making bald jokes? Encourages slavery and misogyny? The best idea your all powerful deity could come up with to ‘save’ the world was to have people kill his son and eat him?
And your Jesus is just an amalgam of other hero myths from older cultures. Carefully read and study the stories of Horus, Mithras, Perseus and Heracles. It swiftly becomes clear that Jesus is a Bronze Age invention. Just as Noah is a retelling of the Babylonian story of Utnapishtam (which is a retelling of the Sumerian Ziusudra), so Jesus is just a reworking of the classic hero myth.
The bible, and the god depicted in it, is tremendously immoral. I appreciate the intention of you prayers, and in the same vein I hope for your freedom.
This is typical of the believer. When faced with a non-believer they assert that some traumatic event must have occurred to cause disbelief. The reasons for disbelief are: 1.Read the bible and found it so impossible, so horrific that no civilized individual can accept it. 2. Reason, as in, found no reason to insert a god into the equation.3. prayers are as effective as a placebo. 4.fundamentalists. and more.
Shamrock: I have read some of the stuff you are referencing. The old cultures were based on superstition and the occult. God is smart enough to use contemporary euphemisms to help people understand His truth. People are immoral, not the Creator. Why do you work so hard to rationalize your self-agrandizement? Real intellectuals are open to the possibility that they are wrong. My experience with atheists is that they are cool-aid drinkers. Are you able to consider that you are wrong?
hugh
MarkHolland, is it really worth it feeding a more than obvious troll? At least JCC tries making a point, sort of, between layers and layers of hate speech.
“Hate speech?” Me?–use “hate speech?” Oh, you mean like, “Is it possible to have this idiot banned…?”
Yeah, my posts are just full of “hate” like that.
I love you, too, JCC <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
Hugs and Kisses,
Cappy B.
To JCC
Hey just wanted to say thanks for helping me to perfect the baby Jesus lies, in all of the documented lies and contradictions I have discovered in the bible I do not think I have a more perfect example of a lie, then the one you helped me with, thank you very much. If your God/Jesus actually existed I would pray to him to bless you for your help, but he does not exist so you will get no blessings from him.
Why are all atheists angry and bitter? What are they trying to cover?
I have appreciated sparing with you cyber-pshcho’s, but I need to go to work tomorrow to build my capitalist business, care for my nuclear family, love my wife, my kids and my God, serving Him with my whole heart. Oh, and obeying the Word of God, seeking to share His love in every captured thought and considered act of redemptive love to a lost world.
hugh
WTF is a pshcho? & the apostrophe ‘s’ is short for ‘is’. That makes you look pretty stupid.
‘Captured thought’? I guess the fable of free will is like the rest of the fables in the wholly bibble. A lie.
What a bitter, vitriolic person! Kind of tipping your hedonist hand, honey.
h
No, I’m actually a jovial guy. I just get really irritated when 1 of you rhetorical clones comes by, & jabbers the same tired nonsense we’ve all heard hundreds & thousands of times.
I hang a little to the left just like you, & not all atheists are hedonists.
So wrong, wrong, wrong again.
Also, nothing you’ve said thus far is novel, enlightening, or of value.
It really seems to set off atheists to have someone disagree. Learning a lot about this self-absorbed line of thinking. Hmmm.
Methinks he doth sound like he tries to convince himself too much.
To phreedm
It does not take a theological degree to read a prophecy and know that the conditions of that prophecy has not been met. It does take a theological degree though to read a prophecy and twist it into a lie who’s meaning is the complete opposite of the prophecies written word. The prophecy concerning the virgin birth was not fulfilled by Jesus because Jesus did not meet the conditions that the prophecy set forth.
The Rama prophecy quoted by Matthew who claimed that the killing of the two years and younger was a falsely claimed fulfilled prophecy. For the event did not meet the conditions set forth in the prophecy. But putting the prophecy lies to the side for a moment, I have documented clear and understandable lies that the bible contains. To invalidate the Bible all I need do is prove one lie, and that is all. I have proven many, many lies that are contained in the bible. The bible is invalidated as being divinely inspired or infallible in nature.
The Bible lies.
What an agenda! The machinations of man! If you could do your research honestly, it would be interesting. You don’t allow for dialog. You simply press a flawed rationalization that obviously expresses an angry bias. The Bible is a manual on how we were made and how we may function by design, written by the Designer and Manufacturer. A day will come when you will know.
hugh
Really, how condescending, how rude. An intimation that anyone who disbelieves is dishonest. Obviously this person hasn’t done ANY research, but is a drive-by poster w/more sass than substance.
Yes, so you don’t get to post a comment @ our blog.
Oh – wait…
No, because atheism is a logical choice, religion an emotional 1. The anger stems from people like you dropping by, pissing on our parade & calling it confetti.
Another bozo who’d obviously not read the thing w/a critical eye. Your book of fables is chock load of historical inaccuracies, huge biological mistakes, contradictions, & ‘prophecies’ that never came true.
Oooh…cue the ominous foreshadowing music. I’m a-quakin’ ’cause I’m a-feared of yer skeery boogeyman. NOT.
Yeesh, go bother someone who cares.
To swswsw
What is dishonest about my research, in my book I list all relevant verses showing the lies and contradictions that I am listing. I do not make empty statements, I make statements and back those statements up with bible passages. I cannot think of a more honest way to research the bible. It is not like I am twisting the written words of the bible into a convoluted mess changing the meaning of the written words to mean the exact opposite of their meaning as Christians do on a regular basis.
If any non human being wrote the bible, it was not an infallible God if some kind of being wrote the bible it would have to be Satan or a similar being who is evil in nature for this is the only explanation for a book that is so convoluted and chaotic in nature. No infallible being would claim authorship of such garbage.
[...] More here: Billionairre Liar Dies, Nobody Weeps « No God Blog [...]
I love this website. You people are entertaining! Baseless and self-absorbed, but fun.
Merry CHRISTMAS!
hugh
Glad to know you are not feeling so lonely anymore.
Have a good Solstice.
To CPT_BRUMBL3Z
For every exchange that I have with a Fundamentalist, evangelical, troll or delusional nut case, I usually gain new information or a new way to look at things, I have actually learned additional information, or even rethought on some of my information in my book because of the exchanges. Christians will attempt to side track the conversation if they feel they are losing ground, as these here today have done, they will ignore the obvious lies that I post in my bible,lies pages, and nit pick over some minor detail.
So I have learned simply not to be side tracked by them, their bible lies, their beliefs lie, their priesthood lies. And they themselves lie when they repeat or attempt to justify these lies. So to answer your question no, if a fundamentalist, evangelical, troll or delusional nut case wishes to hear me call them their bible and their entire religion liars founded upon lies, and watch me post those lies to be read by all then I consider it a worthy venture.
I am under no delusions that any thing I say or write or prove, will in any way change the minds of people like JCC or swswsw or phreedm who are fanatics. But by challenging their claims to righteousness, by actually posting the lies and deceptions of their bible, by looking at them and treating them as they themselves would look at and treat two homosexual men on a public street, I might have an effect on the moderate Christians.
Most Christians are what I call Jesus followers, for the most part they want to live their lives with as little turmoil as possible, they obey the public teachings of Jesus to the best of their abilities and are willing to leave others alone for the most part moderate Christians are not a problem. But because they are Christians the fanatics, evangelicals and fundamentalists can whip them into frenzies to get things done.
What I write is for them, and for Atheists and non Christian Theists. I want to give Atheists and non Christian theists ammunition to use against the fanatics. And I want the moderate Christians who might be willing to take negative actions against others because of their beliefs to be worried that if they do will they themselves be denounced, will they themselves be treated and talked to as if they are the scum of the earth, have their holy book scorned and despised.
The Moderates and Jesus followers can be made to understand that if they act against others they themselves will have be acted against. To let you know, one of the things I like about JCC is that in my book I referenced the Birth of Jesus lies. JCC and in the past others have challenged the lie. Because of JCC I took a better look at the lie and discovered that while there were problems with it.
So now I post it as the baby Jesus lies. Because of JCC and our interaction I was able to turn a passable argument into a iron clad lie that is undisputable. But this was only possible because of JCC. Trolls or Evangelicals or Fundamentalists all are of value in building my strategy and attack plans. The more they challenge what I say the more ammunition I have to respond with. It is because of them and their bible that I have developed the information that I have developed. Their challenges actually make me stronger in my challenges to them.
Wow, it’s really easy to get your kind to pontificate! Don’t have a real job, huh? By the way, you may have the “moderate Jesus followers.” They are like political moderates. They don’t really believe anything, so they are not a threat to anyone. You work really hard to marginalize yourself. I love the rich irony of being called a fanatic by you! But enough gutter entertainment for me for now. I need to go to work as a productive, responsible head of a normal family. The real backbone of this still-great country!
hugh
To swswsw
The only difference between us is that you’re a fanatical Christian and I am a fanatical Anti Christian, I make no claims to being impartial and I make no claims that I am not a fanatic, that is why I have no qualms about trying to tear your religion down to it’s lying foundation. And that is why I can call you a fanatic because as a fanatic myself I know one when I see one. All I need is one confirmed lie in the bible to invalidate it as either being divinely inspired or the infallible truth of God, and thanks to JCC I have found the most perfect example of the most perfectly provable lie in the bible.
The Baby Jesus Lie
In Luke they go to Bethlehem to be taxed, Mary has the baby, And there was great fan fare with the shepherds spreading the word abroad. eight days later Jesus is circumcised and after Mary’s purification they went to Jerusalem where Jesus is proclaimed the Christ by Simeon. They then went back home to Nazareth and every year journeyed to Jerusalem for pass over. Verse 42 clearly says this was an ongoing ritual for Jesus was 12 at this time that they went and they had gone every year since his birth.
In Matthew Joseph, Mary and Jesus were in a house in Bethlehem, according to the wise men Jesus should have been around two years old, two years past the taxing recorded in Luke. It was their estimation that Herod used to kill all children under two in Bethlehem and in the coastal cities. Joseph is told to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt until the death of Herod. After the death of Herod, Joseph feared the son of Herod and turned aside into parts of Galilee. Joseph was returning home to Bethlehem in Judea before God told him in a dream to turn aside into Galilee where he came into and dwelt in Nazareth.
Let’s take it from the top, Matthew claims that Herod only found out about the new born king when the wise men showed up. But in Luke the shepherds were spreading the word abroad that the king was born a full two years earlier. No secret there and a big deal was made at the temple in Jerusalem when the infant Jesus was presented and Simeon declared Jesus the Christ, according to Matthew, two year old baby Jesus and family went into Egypt and stayed there until Herod died. According to Luke, Baby Jesus and family lived in Nazareth and journeyed to Jerusalem every year for Passover which is where Herod lived for the first 12 years of Jesus’ life.
According to Matthew Herod wanted Jesus dead so badly that he ordered the killing of all two year olds and younger in Bethlehem. But Jesus visited Jerusalem every year after birth for 12 years this of course while Luke claims baby Jesus and family were happily living in Nazareth awaiting their next pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Passover while Matthew claims the mass murder of all children 2 years and younger was happening in Bethlehem while baby Jesus and family were hiding in fear in Egypt.
These two stories are lies. Neither story has any evidence to back them and they contradict each other they are lies. The Rama prophecy that is claimed to have been fulfilled by Herod’s killing of the children is a false claim and is a lie Matthew 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, Mt 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
The Rama prophecy that is claimed to have been fulfilled by Herod’s killing of the children is a false claim and is a lie.
Your bible lies it has been proven to lie, it has been proven that it cannot be divinely inspired nor can it be the infallible truth of God, it is a fantasy nothing more.
Point made, well said lol. I try to keep out of it all because it just ends up wasting my time. I do like to try and read through some of it, at least, and gain some insight, but it’s really tough reading some of the crap spewed from their mouths and fishing through it to actually figure out the points they make that can be rebutted. Good luck with it all haha
Another egotistical biggoted delusional very rich man who does not deserve the notoriety people are giving him. Isn’t there something about fitting a camel through the eye of a needle being easier than a rich man getting into heaven?
When I think about that University turning out mind-numbed religious bigots by the thousands I see the damage this man has done to humanity. Perpetuating an archaic religion, produced by barbarians.
May the worms that eat his corpse make him pay.
Whats wrong with being a wealthy capitalist?
Nothing, unless you use that wealth to spread the lies of religion.
Well I use it to spread my godless gayness across the land!
I am truly mystified by the anger and senseless vitriol of atheist bloggers! You are a curious group of hedonists! Interesting.
hugh
From the flavor of your posts so far it seems you are indeed mystified.
swswsw
Look at you posts. The anger is yours. Deluded is as deluded does.
What is wrong with barbarians?
To dw
As I have said I am a Theist just not a Christian theist. I do not believe in hell or eternal punishments as far as I am concerned everyone has eternal life regardless of the life they lived in the physical realm. But I do believe in something called the life review, where you relive every interaction that you have ever had from the perspective of the other person.
If you were a wife beater then you relive those beatings as the wife, feeling every blow hearing every word said against you feeling the pain and suffering and anguish that she felt during the beatings. Oral Roberts will relive all of the suffering, pain and anguish that he caused others from their perspective. And everyone that he taught or ordained who victimized others he also will relive their victimizations this Arse hole will suffer a just punishment for his crimes.
Though I often say that I wish these arses would burn in the Hell that they have created for others, they unfortunately have eternal life the same as all others. But of course I am a Theist, I am not sure what punishment a Atheist might wish upon such scum as this.
That’s a really defensible position! Just make it up to fit your bias. I like it!
hugh
Please take note that most of the vitriol that you have received is in response to your own. You accused me of self-aggrandizement simply for citing historical and mythological references. I assure you, I am nothing more than an inconsequential and random collection of cells just trying to do the best I can.
I find it curious that you mentioned design. If this world was designed, it was certainly not with human longevity and well being in mind. As for us specifically, we would be a poor example of design. We eat, drink and breathe through the same hole in our face causing thousands to die from choking every year. This is not a problem that dolphins have – they have a better ‘design’ in that respect. Consider our genitalia – there is an entertainment district right in the middle of a sewage treatment facility. Not a good design. Our eyes are weak compared to those of raptors, not to mention the lowly mantis shrimp which has 12 color receptors to our 3. The list goes on and on.
I absolutely am open to the possibility of being wrong as soon as I see any type of genuine proof – that is the scientific method. However, there is no rational or justifiable reason to believe in a deity – there is only superstition (as you pointed out). So are _you_ able to consider that you are wrong? If you are not – that is fine. What you have is faith and belief and as an American you are free to believe whatever you wish. What you do not have is empirical proof or rational justification. The arguments of Anselm, Aquinas and Paley have all been disproved, but perhaps you can come up with a better one.
BTW – I served 8 years in the Marine Corps and have been a professional firefighter for the past 9. My wife and I _together_ are the head of our family. I know all about the skeletal structure of this great nation – enough to know that it takes all different kinds to hold it together.
To Hugh
I have just as much evidence to support my beliefs as you do to support yours, which is to say that neither of us has any evidence to support our beliefs, guess that makes us equal. The difference between us is that you claim written material as being divinely inspired writings, which can be easily dismissed and invalidated, I on the other hand have nothing more then my relationship with my God. Kind of hard to trash it, since it does not matter whether the relationship is real or not in the eyes of others.
Since there is no heaven, no hell, he, Oral Roberts, lived a life of luxury, messed up a lot of lives, and died. End of story. No more Oral Roberts. Perhaps we should do what a lot of theists do, make up a story that he recanted, in this case recanted his faith, on his death bed. This would be a suitable insult, were the man around to know it.
Holland: I don’t know what happened to you that has driven you to work so hard to debunk Christianity. But you are at least straightforward about it. You are not that far from salvation, if you really are honest in your research.
dw, as far as I can tell, is just another atheist wacko. Christianity is not about Oral Roberts. It is about Jesus Christ, risen from the dead and providing the only avenue to eternal life. I’m afraid God is wholly unimpressed with your views.
hugh
To Hugh
Would you like to know why it is that I despise Christianity to the extent that I do. It is because after I was brought into the Faith I became a Christian to find the answers I needed to know what had happened to me. And I found many of those answers in the public teachings of Jesus. And I recognized Jesus as a man of God and a teacher of God. And as I learned Christianity I tried to teach this that Jesus was a man of God a teacher of God but was not God.
And I learned that in Christianity this was not acceptable that to believe in Jesus and his teachings I must also believe in the teachings of the Christian Church. And this I could not do. There is no God/Jesus there is only Jesus the man of God. And this I cannot forgive. Christianity turned one of Gods many Gifts into one of the greatest Evils ever to be foisted upon mankind.
You turned what should have been the greatest teacher of God this world has ever known into the greatest evil that this world has ever known. I despise you and Christianity for this and if it is the last thing that I do on this earth I will see the death and destruction of the Christian religion.
swswswswswsw:
Jesus Christ is myth. Everything in the bible about Jesus is contained in the four famous canonical books. All have been forged, all by authors other than those stated, all almost 2 centuries after the supposed Jesus lived. These four books were created to give the figure Jesus a history, as the Gnostics believed he only existed on the spiritual level. Christian forgeries are rampant throughout the ages, all attempts to provide a history for Jesus, to make it seem as if he were a real man at some point, and to instill within Jesus the idea that he was god incarnate made flesh.
Christians are unwilling to suspend their rational minds, which some do indeed possess, except when it comes to the unbelievable nature of their faith. Then they will believe all kinds of balderdash.
DW: Interesting that you make such sweeping assertions about Christianity. Every comment is easily refutable. Bet you’ve never been wrong, as far as you are concerned, huh? And they say Christians are dogmatic!
-hugh
It’s not so much that I have never been wrong swswswswsw, as you have never been right.
Roberts and his ilk could not have caused the damage they did if they had not had gov’t tax breaks.END THE TAX BREAKS NOW.
Oral Roberts = Snake oil salesman
Lets all celebrate the gullibility of the evangelical christian.
No, let’s celebrate the angry and bitter hedonist that is the profile of the average atheist.
hugh
Yeah, like you know WTF you’re talking about.
To Hugh
I would rather accept the angry and bitter hedonist before accepting the angry and bitter Christians who are servants to and followers of the greatest evil that this world has ever seen.
“Better a drunken heathen than a sober Christian.” – Melville.
swswsw
The average atheist is far more educated, far more wealthy, and far more moral than the average evangelical christian (that means you). That’s the stats! And that makes you a liar. Par far the course you play on.
? a new oral roberts.It is clear a tetonic change is underway -the displacement of the american middleclass as we have know it.With millions of middle class jobs gone for good and life savings/retirement reduced.Is this more likely or less likely to produce another oral roberts.
KA
Do you understand now why having a Theist attack Dog in your pocket is a valuable commodity JCC has reduced his posts and attacks knowing that the moment he shows I will be there. Hugh has even slowed his attacks to at least ask why I despise and hate Christianity. The other theists will learn quickly that I will denounce their bible and beliefs in less then 3.4 seconds.
I understand why you attacked me as a theist when I first arrived but can you now accept me as an ally and not as an enemy to Atheists.
Dude, I’d not give myself too much credit if I were you. JCC has probably skulked off to check the archives to make sure nobody’s been deleting posts, & Hugh’s just a drive-by. Trust me, I’ve walked that road so often, I can do it blindfolded.
No, I attacked your opinion, which is not the same thing as the person.
The only people I consider enemies, are the folks who’d value mythology above humanity. Folks like little mouse & Hugh, for instance.
KA
Thanks.
KA: You never disappoint me! You are quintessential! Do you have substance or just rhetoric? I actually wondered what atheists are about. I am learning. Thanks. Will it bother you if I suggest that atheism is only a temporary religion. It ends for everyone in about 70-80 years when they get to explain themselves to the God of the Universe.
-hugh
Hugh – glad I don’t disappoint you. Wish I could say that’s mutual. My ‘rhetoric’ has real substance, unlike yours.
Atheism isn’t a religion, & there’s nobody upstairs to answer to.
Strange how the simple people demand complexity, & the intelligent people demand simplicity.
Lloyd Blankfein is another religiously deluded man that made lots of money selling his brand of snake-oil. He even has a synagogue named after him. When is Mr. Silverman going to blog about him? Why wouldn’t he?
Nobody cares but you. Email David about it.
Wrong, people do care i know you and rice don’t care for each other KA but RICE has a point. Someone like the ceo of goldman sachs saying the bank is doing gods work and has a synagogue named after him is a fair target.Jews do have power in this country that is not good or bad just a fact.With power comes responsibility.
Mr. Silverman’s blatant bias has and will only hurt American Atheists.
Reason – I’ve already agreed w/him on this, I’ve advised him to email Silverman about it. Or maybe file an on-line petition. Either way it’s a moot point, & posting OT comments about it will have little impact.
I also care and have often pointed out Silvermans lack of posts that are critical of jews. Its because of this obvious bias that I do not support American Atheists with financial donations but instead give lots of my money to FFRF.
But is obviously is not moot. And it is obviously unacceptable.
Of course, what was I thinking? Jews in power, we should be frightened because….why exactly?
KA
You have distorted what Reason wrote to suit your purpose. He never said there is anything wrong with a jew having power. Hopefully he/she obtained such power through merit rather than tribal collusion.
I’m not distorting any such thing. Otherwise, I’d have blockquoted the specific statement.
We’ll just have to assume the former unless the latter can be proved, then.
But the facts do show their is collusion.
KA
You are one weird dude. Any body can read through the last few short posts to see that you have distorted what Reason wrote.
Here we go again. Got proof?
Actually, no, I haven’t. I asked a question, evoking a response.
Subtlety is still lost on you?
Here I am. Waiting patiently. For proof.
Collusion:
Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage[citation needed]. It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production. It can involve “wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties.”
Seems we have another conspiracy theorist who think the Jews are all in cahoots to screw the rest of us.
Good riddance.
KA
Like your response on this.It is a fact that climate change is normal but there is no legit data that carbon increases temp.Massive fraud is going on for the benefit of the power hungry and business seeking a profit.Do you still support this crime against humanity by the likes of al gore,george soros and ilk.
That’s incredibly off-topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=3
Turns out that the reichwingers were suppressing facts after all…
Sec.of state clinton has pledged a 100 billion of your tax money for global warming aid.What a waste,fraud.
(Chuckle) Even bible historians, and most theologeons realize that the bible is a collection of myths. Bits and pieces of history mixed with religious propaganda. And while sw etc. and JaCCoff want to challenge us to read and know the bible, I have read every word. And if they think I will take a knee and worship the asshole that murdered every man, woman, and child on the planet in the flood, because they forgot to worship him, and tell him how awesome he is, he and them can go fuck themselves.
And the god who sent Joshua and his army into Jericho to slaughter every man, woman, and child, including livestock, he can suck my package.
To hell with the god who used bears to slaughter the kids who made fun of Elisha because he was bald.
This column I could continue until everyone got bored of reading, but, the point is:
Compared to Yahweh (Jehovah), Satan seems like a devoted social worker. Let’s tally the murders.
Yet, assholes like JaCCoff and sw seem to think that they worship a loving god figure, and admonish us to learn about him, the more we learn, the more we realize he is the incarnation of evil. That’s not only ironic, but borders on hilarious.
NeoWolfe
To Neowolfe
Could you please give me the verses in regards to the bears and to the Joshua posts. I know the Joshua stories but can never remember the verses. And I do not remember ever hearing the bears killing kids verses. I might add them to my bible,lies pages.
MarkHolland,
Enjoy your insights.
The rather bloody myth of “bears killing kids” is in 2 Kings, 2:23-24. Gee, no wonder my teachers got pissed when I wisecracked on their bunions or their fright wigs. Unfortunately for them, the school district didn’t fund bear-baiting–just the paddle with the airholes in it
Neowolfe: Bitterness and vitriol become you! Did it ever occur to you that the Bible is not about you or me or our hedonistic values. It is about the Sovereign God of the Universe. Your judgement of God’s morality is what is laughable! He owes you no explanation, and I am confident He is quite unimpressed with your evaluation. It is only His amazing grace that affords life for any of us. We don’t deserve a moment of His mercy. The question is not why people die, but why any of us are allowed to live! Now, you and your friends will revile me for these comments. That’s expected, since you are so blindly invested in your religion. But I am compelled to offer you the Truth.
-hugh
JCC:
The book “The Christ Conspiracy” by Achary S.
http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Conspiracy-Greatest-Story-Ever/dp/0932813747/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261147481&sr=1-1
Me:All four were written long after the supposed jesus walked the earth
Jcc:
By long I mean long after the people could have possibly been still alive that witnessed the so called Jesus. Like 2nd and 3rd Century.
all four were not written by the purported authors.
It is a known fact that the dead cannot write books. I have always backed up claims, always slaughtered your assertions, but your faith has blinded you to that.
Get away gnat.
Jcc:
Marcion was branded a heretic so that he could be dismissed. He was a Gnostic, who did not believe that Jesus came and took human form. He believed in a spiritual Jesus only. So did all the other Gnostics.
In an effort to create a history for a corporeal Jesus, Marcion’s work was altered, passages added, passages removed, by zealous Christian individuals.
As usual your assertions, destroyed, but are you able to admit it.
Get away gnat.
Oh dear, the book that inspired the sloppy, grossly exaggerated, error-filled and easily refuted “Zeitgeist” video—that was so blatantly misrepresentative of the truth that even Doug didn’t buy it’s pathetic lies?
Oh dear, again. Unfortunately, you’ve failed to consider the existence and harmony of the Pauline letters which irrefutably antedate the Gospels by decades.
You really should broaden your knowledge horizons.
Yes, because you and some idiot who wrote a demonstrably flawed book said so…
Who said they could?
yes, with thoroughly researched, fully substantiated and bullet-proof references like the one you cited above..
with really mature come-backs like, “Another heaping shovel of sh…,” and demonstrable lies like: “Atheism does not promote itself to anyone.”
Me, blinded by faith?—need I remind you of our discussion on what constitutes “reason” and your own admission of having to acknowledge unprovable “first principles” in order to cite it?
For once you got something right!
That’s funny—let me guess, that was in your highly esteemed, impeccably “scholarly” Christ Conspiracy book too…
Yes, my assertions were just blown out of the water…
To JCC
When you were talking about a terribly written and error filled and easily refuted book you were talking about your own bible right?
JCC, do you consider yourself a happy person?
Happier than you’ll ever know…
So, this unrelenting, merciless, spiteful anger you constantly expose to us here is just a fluke? Because you seem to respond fairly often. If your replies are any indication, you don’t seem a very happy person at all.
…and I suppose you consider, “is it possible to have this idiot banned from this blog,” to be the epitome of kind, inviting, and above all, tolerant “love?”
Usually, only as necessary.
Are you seriously not aware of how you come across here when you’re referring to me?
No one ever said atheists, free thinkers, secularists, et al have to tolerate those they deem as ignorant, offensive, or themselves intolerant. I had used the term idiot after observing that you deny reality in favor of the imaginary. Namely, you’ve cherry picked certain scientific discoveries and breadths of knowledge to be as false based on your personal beliefs and assertions of which stem from your life with the bible. If denying the reality that one lives in in favor of their own imagination isn’t suggestive of a “foolish or stupid person” as the term idiot implies, well… I hope you accept my humble apology =)
It would just seem that you’re quite fond of expressing your angry side every time someone says things you disagree with because they disagree with your personal beliefs, hence why I asked if you’re a happy person, because again if your comments on these blogs is any indication you strike me as someone who doesn’t have any real joy in his life.
And I’d imagine the general consensus here would be that I am curious and confused as to how someone who wouldn’t believe it if Jesus himself told him the bible was a fallible, man-made, non-divine construct can consistently and explicitly employ incendiary and hostile tactics against the majority populace of this board and not be reprimanded for it. If that isn’t evidence of the atheists’ “kind, inviting, and above all, tolerant love”, I’m not sure what is.
Then why is “tolerance” such a lofty virtue to them?—why do they constantly accuse those they despise of being “intolerant?”
Really? What “reality” did I “deny?”
Are you referring to so-called “man-made global warming?” If so, how was pointing out the fact that “scientists” who supposedly know more about it than anyone else have been exposed as having discarded, doctored, and denied the actual data that contradict their opinions of what it should be? If anyone has been “cherry picking” aspects of “scientific discoveries,” it’s been the global warming alarmists, not me.
Oh what a “sincere” and heartfelt apology…
Wow, I think you just broke the run-on sentence record for this blog with that one… but seriously, you really are blind to the raw, seething rage your compatriots direct at me here, aren’t you?
I think I spoke too soon about the run-on sentence record being broken. But to the point (that I believe you were attempting to make): If Jesus himself were to speak to me face-to-face, then that, by definition, would render any doubt as to the validity of the Bible null and void. And secondly, I’ve been posting here for 4 ½ years using virtually the same tone and haven’t been kicked off yet, so don’t get your drawers in a wad about someone who’s only been fighting fire with fire.
Oh dear, the forged Pauline letters.
The information is true. The sad thing is believers will not accept it. Their brains are on the hormones generated by their belief and those hormones are addictive. It is the happy hormone. It over rides the reason and logic of the human mind and allows them to believe the unbelievable. If only they knew they don’t need the imaginary trappings of religion to achieve happiness, the brain will produce the hormone necessary simply if the person smiles.
Enjoy your self-delusion.
The letters thought by most scholars (and computer analysis) to be completely forged are
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
The letters that a very small majority of scholars consider forged (for political reasons) are
Ephesians
Colossians
Second Thessalonians
The letter thought to have been written by an associate of Paul who supported Paul’s ideas but was nethertheless not Paul is
Hebrews
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pauline_epistle
- “Then why is “tolerance” such a lofty virtue to them?—why do they constantly accuse those they despise of being “intolerant?””
Because saying, “I do not believe in god” is for whatever reason outright offensive. Because those we deem intolerant are prejudiced and bigoted against those not part of their faith. Because we’re tired of being bullied by self-righteous egotists who look down their nose at anyone not of their faith. We do not deserve your anger, scorn, hatred, dismissal, nor condemnation simply for saying, “I think you’re wrong”.
- “Are you referring to so-called “man-made global warming?” If so, how was pointing out the fact that “scientists” who supposedly know more about it than anyone else have been exposed as having discarded, doctored, and denied the actual data that contradict their opinions of what it should be? If anyone has been “cherry picking” aspects of “scientific discoveries,” it’s been the global warming alarmists, not me.”
There’s one reality that you deny. Out of THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of emails, they quote mined, what, 2? 3? And that isn’t cherry picking? Have you made any attempt to actually read the entire emails? Have you researched at all the context of what the scientists were talking about and why they were talking about it? Of course not. That’s why I said you deny reality in favor of the imaginary. The decades of climate research have shown that, without a doubt, man’s contribution to CO2 production IS having an effect and we’re foolish to do nothing about it. I’d say it’s downright idiotic to deny it.
- “Wow, I think you just broke the run-on sentence record for this blog with that one… but seriously, you really are blind to the raw, seething rage your compatriots direct at me here, aren’t you?”
You act as if you do not deserve said anger. Might as well punch a guy in the face then profess yourself the victim of the situation after he curses you out and punches back. You’ve earned every bit of the scorn you receive with your unprovoked, inflammatory commentary the moment a new post is made that says something you disagree with or take, for whatever reason, personal offense with when the blog shouldn’t offend you at all… unless you’re exactly the kind of person it’s referring to.
- “I think I spoke too soon about the run-on sentence record being broken. But to the point (that I believe you were attempting to make): If Jesus himself were to speak to me face-to-face, then that, by definition, would render any doubt as to the validity of the Bible null and void. And secondly, I’ve been posting here for 4 ½ years using virtually the same tone and haven’t been kicked off yet, so don’t get your drawers in a wad about someone who’s only been fighting fire with fire.”
Even if Jesus said, “The bible is bullshit, it didn’t get anything right about me”? When the one person who could validate it invalidates it, that means it’s been validated? XD ROFL!
And four and a half years using that “tone”, eh? I reiterate: If that isn’t proof of atheist tolerance, I do not know what is <3
Hugs and kisses, JCC
dw:
Ok, for argument’s sake, let’s take those letters in doubt out of the discussion. But unfortunately, for you, that leaves seven letters (including Romans—the single most important of his epistles to Christian theology) whose authenticity are not in dispute, hence leaving no question of the historic existence of Paul of Tarsus and the event that changed his life and those he associated with.
Sorry, to have to rain on your parade, but no historian worth his salt would seriously suggest that Paul never existed or was the synthesis of “conspirators.” And given the internal consistency of not only his writings, but with that of other NT authors, you gotta tough row to hoe to disprove the historic actuality of Jesus of Nazareth based on textual criticism of the Epistles of Paul.
The authenticiy of the letters is completely in question. How were they authenticated? Did they just decide that this or that letter pleased them, and then proclaim it was authentic? There was no way to authenitcate them, they simply decided which one of the letters were authentic.
JCC:
However it has been suggested that he did not know of a material, corporeal Jesus.
Huh? You’re kidding… Even About.com does not question the authenticity of these letters. Paul’s letters are the earliest surviving Christian literature. (http://tinyurl.com/yf2rgxd — please note the reference to Encyclopedia Britannica at the bottom)
By the internal consistency of their content with other authentic, contemporary historic writings; by the extreme closeness in time of their writing to the events they depict; by the number, quality and temporal closeness to the originals of the extant copies made of them made by their recipients; by the fact that (again) no historian worth his salt would seriously refute his existence… what more do you need?
No. One central tenet of the early church was to determine the authenticity of the content of its Canon—this was not something they took lightly.
Hogwash. The early church could easily (and most certainly did) contact the recipients of his letters to verify their authenticity.
Really? Then what was the cause of his conversion? That’s a pretty lame “suggestion” if you ask me.
Really JCC, do any of the voices in your head ever advise you to shut the hell up?
CPT_BRUMBL3Z:
So, “deeming” someone you disagree with as “intolerant” justifies your own intolerance of them and what they believe?
You’ve been “bullied” by Christians?—or could it possibly be that you’re misconstruing that with their defending their Constitutional right to practice their faith? And by the way, Christians, by definition, don’t “look down their noses at anyone not of their faith.” We’re called to share our faith with those like you.
The only anger we show is towards those who are attempting to deny us our Constitutional right to practice our faith. We don’t “hate” non-believers, we pity them—that’s why we want to share our faith with them.
Ok, then could you please put
in it’s proper context by explaining what Kevin Trenberth really meant by it?
No, (have you?) but the “quote mined/cherry picked” ones are quite self-explanatory—it doesn’t take a conspiracy-theorist-whacko to fabricate an intentional “mis-reading” of their content.
Really? Then why does Trenberth think it’s a “travesty” that his data doesn’t fit his desire?—or that NASA had to admit it was wrong about 1998 being the hottest year on record and changed it to1934 instead?—or that temperatures have actually dropped over the past decade?
Uh no. It’s foolish to jump to unconfirmed conclusions that have an untold negative economic impact on the well being of the entire species—it’s downright idiotic to assume that a tiny sampling of an enormously complex and poorly understood system like global climate is, in fact, correct.
Yes, self-defense is an inalienable right.
You obviously haven’t read many of the old threads here…oh, but that’s right, you seem to have trouble with confusing your subjective interpretation of what you read with what is objective reality.
So, if Jesus could invalidate it, then wouldn’t that, by definition, invalidate him?—do you always analyze things by circular reasoning?
Mark H wants to know about the genocide at Jericho. Well, dude, just google it and you will not only find the fundies trying to justify it, but you will find actual biblical account. If you study deeper, you will find theories of the whoar who dropped a rope to Isrealite special forces who opened the gates from inside. What is unforgivable is that no inhabitant was left alive, except for the whoar. Personally, I like whoars, bless their hearts, I just wonder how it all fits into god’s genocide.
NeoWolfe
Historical evidence shows that Jericho was deserted @ the time of the ‘invasion’.
& what’s a ‘whoar’?
God’s genocide. What small understanding!
Because of course, if your imaginary friend does it, it’s okay. That’s special pleading.
It’s also a bag load of crazy.
I will be received by a much-younger Paul Newman-or Steve McQueen, either/or.
Hope you are right, for your sake.
-h
Oral Roberts died? I hadn’t really noticed he was still alive.
Cry4turtles
I will be received by a much-younger Paul Newman-or Steve McQueen, either/or.
Yum! Two of my faves-at any age. Also, a mature Harrison Ford. But unless I get my libido back after death, we might as well be playing cards!
Mark Holland
If you are so anti-xian and don’t believe in the god of Christianity, why do you believe in Satan? I’m confused.
Get in line…
Priceless!
Had a great worship celebration last Sunday! The Holy Spirit was present and people’s lives were changed. Christmas is just a couple of days away! What a season of joy! I cannot wait to exchange gifts with the people I love to commemorate the greatest Gift to mankind. The precious Son of God, sent to offer salvation to a fallen world! What amazing love!
-hugh
Too bad none of those folks you believe in exist.
– “So, “deeming” someone you disagree with as “intolerant” justifies your own intolerance of them and what they believe?”
::: As hypocritical as it may sound, the only people we cannot tolerate are the intolerant. And this isn’t a matter of disagreement here because we have no problems with the beliefs themselves, just what people do because they have them, 9/11 being the most powerful modern example I can think of.
– “You’ve been “bullied” by Christians?—or could it possibly be that you’re misconstruing that with their defending their Constitutional right to practice their faith? And by the way, Christians, by definition, don’t “look down their noses at anyone not of their faith.” We’re called to share our faith with those like you.”
::: Yes, we are bullied. “Become a Christian or burn in Hell!” is bullying. “Atheists are not citizens/good people/moral/intelligent” is bullying. You treat us with disdain for not being like you, which is what the expression “looking down one’s nose” implies: a self-claimed betterment over others. In other words, arrogance.
– The only anger we show is towards those who are attempting to deny us our Constitutional right to practice our faith. We don’t “hate” non-believers, we pity them—that’s why we want to share our faith with them.
::: And we have a constitutional right to privacy and freedom FROM religion. Insurance salesmen have the right to sell insurance, but you’d be telling them to fuck off when they’ve interrupted dinner for the umpteenth time with a phone call or door knock. Respect is a two way street, and until you show us some, why should we sugar coat our aggravation?
– “Ok, then could you please put
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
in it’s proper context by explaining what Kevin Trenberth really meant by it?
No, (have you?) but the “quote mined/cherry picked” ones are quite self-explanatory—it doesn’t take a conspiracy-theorist-whacko to fabricate an intentional “mis-reading” of their content.
Really? Then why does Trenberth think it’s a “travesty” that his data doesn’t fit his desire?—or that NASA had to admit it was wrong about 1998 being the hottest year on record and changed it to1934 instead?—or that temperatures have actually dropped over the past decade?”
::: The short of it: the answer’s right in that bit you quoted. He’s angry that the results their tools and equipment provide aren’t coinciding with what the data should reflect as per continuing research and is venting his frustration that he has equipment not allowing him proper study. As to the rest, try some youtube on for size.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg – watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo – watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY – watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4 – Feel free to investigate the rest of these channels of these vids regarding climate change. They’re incredibly informative.
– “Uh no. It’s foolish to jump to unconfirmed conclusions that have an untold negative economic impact on the well being of the entire species—it’s downright idiotic to assume that a tiny sampling of an enormously complex and poorly understood system like global climate is, in fact, correct.”
::: Modernizing our energy infrastructure and energy use would be an economic BOON. Nevermind the clear health and environmental benefits of using so-called Green energy sources, and furthermore the fact that oil, natural gas, and coal will run out one day.
– “Yes, self-defense is an inalienable right.
You obviously haven’t read many of the old threads here…oh, but that’s right, you seem to have trouble with confusing your subjective interpretation of what you read with what is objective reality.”
::: When you stab something with a spear, you’re supposed to use the sharp end, not the blunt end. You’re pretty good at arguing without making points =) If it’s not relevant to the conversation, don’t talk about it. Otherwise, say something constructive and not something akin to crimson colored fish.
– “So, if Jesus could invalidate it, then wouldn’t that, by definition, invalidate him?—do you always analyze things by circular reasoning?”
If Muhammad said the Koran was bullshit, would that invalidate Muhammad? If Krishna said the Baghavad Gita was bullshit, would that invalidate Krishna? If Charles Darwin said The Origin was bullshit, would that invalidate Darwin? I simple use Jesus because he’s the Christian god. If your god said your holy book was wrong, how would that invalidate your god? If the author falsifies his own authoring, that doesn’t make the author suddenly not exist. And are you suggesting something like, “God wrote the bible which the bible says he wrote” isn’t circular reasoning?
May I suggest you try using “blockquotes” to make quoted text easier to differentiate from your own? To do it, surround the text you’re quoting with blockquote “tags” like this:
<blockquote>Text to be blockquoted.</blockquote>
When posted, it looks like this:
(don’t forget the backslash in the closing tag).
You’re right, that is hypocritical—doesn’t that bother you?
Are you serious? Have you not read the thread topics Silverman posts and what other atheists think about Christianity here?
That’s a distinction without a difference.
I don’t understand—defending ourselves against those who are at war with us is a “religious” thing to do?
While I agree that some Christians do engage in that kind of rhetoric, the fact is, the Bible calls us to share our faith with respect: Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect- 1 Peter 3:15
I disagree. What you interpret as “disdain” from me is my measured and reasoned (though sometimes sarcastic) response to the disdain and arrogance that atheists show me here.
Oh dear… it’s a poor “scientist” who has to resort to blaming the quality of his equipment because he’s not getting the results he wants from it…besides, wasn’t that same (or even inferior) equipment used to collect the data that supposedly established this “trend?”
Thanks, but I’m pretty up to date on all the so-called supporting “data” purporting a dramatic change in an enormously complex and poorly understood system. It seems that now, even the ultra-liberal BBC isn’t buying it.
To who?—the carbon “brokers?”—but more importantly, what viable “modern” energy sources are you referring to?
Not in my, or my children’s lifetime. Are you unaware of the vast untapped reserves there are of each?
I am? What points have I failed to make?
I generally don’t. Only when the thread topic is so lame that it draws one or two posts do I use it to try to elicit worthy discussions—like climategate.
Uh, yeah—Muhammad dictated the Qur’an…
That isn’t what I meant. If Jesus suddenly reappeared and denounced the Biblical account of a Jesus, then one of the two would be an imposter—not non-existent. It sounds like you’re acknowledging that Jesus actually existed, am I correct?
Block quotes, eh? Didn’t know the appropriate code for these boards. Doumo arigatou.
Of course not. Would you rather we tolerated intolerance? “Oh, he hates you because you’re black? A woman? Have an accent? Drive a non-American car? I can tolerate that!” LOL, please =P
There’s a difference between the Christianity scorned here and the Christianity we support. I like to put it this way: One’s a religion, and one’s a faith. Faith guides you in life. Religion leads your life for you. Faith says, “Jesus loves all, and so shall I.” Religion says, “Only we deserve Jesus’s love.” Faith says, “Be good, and you’ll feel God in your life.” Religion says, “Feel God in your life, or you’re evil.” Faith is friendly, tolerant, and helpful to all regardless of beliefs because their faith says that they ~should~ be. Religion is cruel, hateful, and destructive to all except of their own beliefs because their religion ~demands~ they be. Faith is open minded to the differences of others. Religion makes you drive passenger jets into buildings. If I may be so bold as to make this claim: with the way you react to this blog and the way you treat us, you’d be of the religious Christianity. And that’s the kind we don’t like. So, if you took offense, you’re welcome. We meant it =)
You clearly misunderstood me. If a Muslim shared with me his belief in Allah, I’d give him a thumbsup but respectfully tell him I do not have that same belief. If things ended there and then, more power to that muslim. But… if he then told me that I MUST believe in Allah or be punished? I’d flip him the bird and tell him to shove his Koran up his ass. Again, there’s a HUGE difference between having a belief and acting on that belief against the will of others. If the religious never acted on their beliefs, New York City would still be home to the twin towers. This is why America was founded with a separation of church and state and why atheists are so vocal and, as you’d describe them, hostile and offensive.
Wow… You clearly DO NOT understand. If my previous quote responses don’t make it click in your head, then you never will.
Well, regardless of “who started it” so to speak, you sure as heck do not speak with gentleness let alone any ounce of respect on these boards. None of the Christians whom I’ve read responses of have shown any effort to adhere to that verse, you included.
SOMEtimes sarcastic? You SOMEtimes make a comment that has no baring on any arguments being put forth by either side and all you actually make are pure flames. If you can’t be honest with yourself, how do you expect any of us to take you seriously?
Tell me, if your thermometer always told your the outside temperature within the margin of error of 1 degree Fahrenheit, then proceeded to buy a new thermometer, and now you’re getting readings within a 10 degree margin of error, would you not be upset? When observations of others, tests by others, experiments by others, and by you previously all well coincide with each other, and then suddenly your newest experiments, tests, etcetera are not providing results akin to what previous data predicted, would you not think your equipment may be to blame?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gasses keep in heat from the sun. The industrialization of civilization has lead to a vast amount of man made CO2 to enter the atmosphere. We know that the El Nino/La Nina cycle on earth affects global temperatures, as do cycles of the sun among various other less significant factors. We also know that as we enter a La Nina, which means colder weather due to colder oceans, global temperatures should be dropping accordingly. We are unreasonably warm by comparison, and El Nino is also far warmer than it has been. The culprit, it has been discovered, is the excess of CO2 increasing the greenhouse effect.
I just summed up climate change in one paragraph for you. You really need to let go of your biases and preconceptions and really critically think about all this. That way, the only thing you have to work with are the bare boned facts that have been known prior to global warming ever being a public issue. And these days, we know far more facts and the facts are far more understandable. These facts say that global warming (more accurately described as climate change as this can cause dramatic cooling, as well) is happening.
Biofuels, wind energy, and solar energy are a big three. There’s also hydroelectric energy (you know, dams), geothermal energy, as well as nuclear fission and, hopefully in the very near future, fission’s far superior and cleaner cousin, nuclear fusion. (Apologies if I flipped the terms around) Investing in these forms of energy guarantees new jobs, modern jobs, better jobs, safer jobs, cleaner jobs, as well as provide the PERFECT opportunity for America to reclaim its title as the earth’s manufacturing center that created the middle class (of which has been slowly destroyed over the years as we’ve lost so much of our manufacturing power and infrastructure). If that wouldn’t be an economic boon, I don’t know what would.
And, with perhaps the exception of natural gas, these are not clean burning, no matter how good our technology becomes. Wind, solar, fusion, and to a far greater extent than coal or oil, biofuels are all much cleaner forms of energy. And best of all, these won’t pollute the air, causing many known health and environmental problems. With any luck, within your children’s lifetime we’ll see the end of smog and a huge drop in respiratory disease due to a change in our energy sources from coal and oil to solar and wind et al.
So far, the vast… VAST majority of your comments either have no points because they’re nothing but insults and flames, or any points you intended to make are lost in a sea of, well… insults and flames. Debate demands mutual respect between both parties and an understanding that one shouldn’t take certain word choice seriously enough as to diminish the validity and effort of real debate unless it’s clear the other person wishes only to insult your character and position instead of rebut your argument. If your opponent is not offering you that mutual respect, just drop the debate =P Be a good Christian and turn the other cheek!
Climategate is not a worthy discussion because it was an intentionally timed effort by climate change denialists to disrupt the validity and importance of the climate talks in Copenhagen. Three emails of thousands quotemined with at-face-value surprising and harmful comments that are cleared up and made innocent by a thorough reading of said emails do not suddenly make decades of legitimate research, plenty of which was well established before climate change became a topic of discussion, illegitimate.
Don’t ignore the point I made. So he had a ghost writer. He’s still the author. He doesn’t suddenly become invalid if he said the Koran as we know it today was false and wrong.
I believe a historical Jesus person existed, but I do not believe the biblical Jesus existed for the exact same reasons the Greek Heracles never existed. No one who wrote anything about the life of the biblical Jesus was actually there to document his life. If there was, we’d only have one gospel and not four (why not have just picked one, anyway? They all contradict each other…) and the historical Jesus person would fit FAAARRRRR better alongside the biblical one. For the record, I’m quite sure that there was some person who existed who could be considered the founder of a religion for many of the religions today, even though we may lack any historical evidence for some of them. That doesn’t somehow validate their particular affiliated holy books, however. You, for whatever reason, chose Jesus as opposed to Mohammad, Zoroaster, Krishna, Lao Tzu, Confucious, and sooooo many others. More power to ya, I don’t care which ya pick or why. Point still remains that if the person responsible for their particular “bible” said that their bible is in fact wrong, that doesn’t change the fact that they were responsible for it if not outright authored it, and could then explain what’s wrong with it.
You’re welcome.
Interesting… Are you familiar with the concept of “compartmentalization?”
First, you’re misconstruing “tolerance” for acceptance in your application of it to Christians. And second, regarding your question, isn’t that exactly what your asking Christians to be of you?
That’s a remarkably accurate perception of the differences—I’m impressed. It’s rare that an atheist actually understands that here. However, given how little of all I’ve ever posted here that you’ve actually read:
indicates just how little you really know about me and how much you falsely assume to be true of me.
Maybe because what you’ve just described is precisely the difference between belief and faith—a difference I’ve articulated on this blog many times.
And this is where your description (and perception) departs from reality. A Muslim, if unsuccessful in converting you, is called by Muhammad to kill you—a Christian, on the other hand, is called to love you in spite of your poor choice.
Ok, my apologies, I misunderstood what you meant—it sounded like you were equating Bush’s retaliation to the 9/11 attacks as a religious fanaticism.
Yes, but the Constitutional intention there was not the twisted, anti-religious fascism that modern atheism has successfully co-opted it to be.
While I’m guilty of not being as gentle as I should, respect, particularly simple, basic respect, on the other hand, is something I do maintain for everyone I converse with here. If you’ll notice, I do not engage in, or return callow, schoolyard epithets.
Yes, sometimes. Is sarcasm invariably pejorative to you? In case you haven’t noticed, my sarcasm is directly proportional to the level of disrespect being shown to me.
Examples please?
That’s a rather subjective assertion.
I’ve been nothing but completely honest with myself here. I’d say your visceral hatred for what I believe in coupled with my indelicate, politically incorrect delivery is what prevents you from objectively evaluating me and what I have to say.
Absolutely, but surely you’re not seriously asserting that that was the case here. Our ability to accurately measure atmospheric temperatures is not technically challenging and we’ve been doing it—accurately—for well over a century.
Apparently, you are serious… you’re starting to sound like a conspiracy theory whacko.
Really? Thanks for the update.
…which pales in comparison to what natural volcanic eruptions produced at the end of the Cretaceous.
“Unreasonably?” You’re kidding, right? We’ve been freezin’ our butts off for the past 3 years—or haven’t you noticed?—maybe if you’d actually visit some of my links…?
No, the “culprit” is an enormously complex and poorly understood, dynamic global climate system that is far more driven and affected by its primary heat source (i.e. the sun) than anything human beings can ever do to it.
Yes, I-I had absolutely no idea how it all worked… I’m eternally indebted to you for my unmerited tutelage.
Yes, “critical thinking” is evidently not my forte… Have you ever considered that you need to stop assuming every Christian you blog with here is by default, a benighted hayseed—lacking his full complement of teeth?
And these bare-boned “facts”… are they verifiable, repeatable, open for public scrutiny—open for public interpretation—or are they under the strict purview of the elite, materialist “scientists” with a completely objective desire and pursuit of the truth—completely devoid of any anti-capitalist, socialist agenda and worldview?
Yes, and the public has no reason not to trust the stewardship of those “facts” to objective, virtuous “experts” like Al Gore, Phil Jones and Michael Mann…
Yes, “global warming” can mean anything the “experts” want. Hey, buddy, here’s a little secret they obviously don’t want you to know: the climate always has and always will be in a constant state of flux.
Uh, biofuels… don’t they contain carbon too? And is there really enough wind and do we really have the space and cloudless skies to harvest enough of those energy sources to supply our needs? Like I said, get real.
Really? I had no idea what that meant…
But seriously, we can’t build any more dams because the animal rights, tree-hugging whackos won’t stand for it.
Ok, so like people in Little Rock are gonna drill down to the Moho to tap into it?
…but there’s the tree-huggers…
And what if that’s still decades away? What’re we supposed to do until then—put up windmills in everyone’s backyard?
Uh, no, aside from the fact that they’re impractical and insufficient to meet our needs, it guarantees more government regulation, intrusion into the private sector, and destruction of private wealth.
Have you ever worked in the private sector?
Yes, and if Uh-bama gets his way, I’ll be branded a major source of pollution by merely having to exhale.
There you go again…which “biofuels” do not contain carbon?
I asked for specifics and you’re just repeat yourself.. Wanna try again?
Really? Is that why you opened this conversation by referring to me as an “idiot?”
I wasn’t, I was merely pointing out the fallacy of the example.
Huh? Muhammad never claimed to be divine—and his Qur’an’s “validty” speaks for itself—you can’t compare him to the claim the Bible makes of Jesus Christ.
Hmmm. That’s not what the Bible says…
What?!?—So there can only be one eyewitness to a historic event in your opinion?
Uh, for variegated perspective?
They do?—they all end differently?, have different main characters, and took place in different locations?
I don’t understand what you mean by that.
Maybe because it makes the most sense…is grounded in historic fact…can withstand scrutiny…and is the only one that’s internally consistent?
Really?
Well, too bad history isn’t an empirical science, huh?
Since when did tolerance mean acceptance? Tolerance suggests mutual respect. I do not have to accept your beliefs, nor you mine. That was NEVER the case. Tolerance demands, however, that we respect each other’s rights and freedoms to hold those beliefs. Take a moment to think about what I am saying next time, because I’m tired of you shoving words into my mouth and completely misrepresenting me and my position.
I have watched you and the other apparent Christians that frequent this board with confrontational posts all doing the same things: Deny outright the claims of the opposing side simply because they think their opponent is wrong without thought or analysis, refuse to acknowledge valid arguments and evidence that refutes them, turn what the others say in a general or even specific sense not directed at them into an offense directed solely at them when they were clearly not the intended target of the perceived offense, demand evidence and then ignore it when presented, act with authority without evidence, ignore challenges made to their points by moving the goal posts or changing the subject or using sarcasm/insults/etc., and overgeneralizing their opponents’ position by building strawmen and otherwise attempt to diminish their opponent’s argument without rebuttal. The fact that you are so stringently adamant in your particular beliefs despite what proves you and others wrong (and I’m not talking religious views here, I mean basic reality stuff) inclines me to think that you are not of the “faith” descriptor but of “religion”.
Wuh? What are you talking about? Faith is contingent on belief and vice versa. If you do not believe in it, you have no faith in it. If you have faith in it, you believe it. They’re one and the same. Faith is just a more metaphysical and spiritual way of conveying the same meaning.
Actually, it’s the Hadith that demands Muslims to kill apostates. The Koran itself says nothing of killing non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslim (and I’m pretty sure it’s got nothing about killing apostates, either). In fact, it’s non-Jews (or I guess in your case, non Christians) that are an exception to God’s rules time and time and time and time again as he kills, or has others kill in his name, innocents whose only crime was not being Jewish and believing in him. Oh, and BTW, Uganda wants to pass a death sentence for homosexuals because their Christian affiliates from the USA demonize it. What was that about Christian love despite choice again? After all, you claim homosexuality is a choice, right? Remember what I said about acting with authority without evidence? And that goes for both the Christian love thing as well as the homosexuality being a choice thing…
Actually, considering he considered the wars a crusade and used biblical paraphernalia among the troops, I very easily could, which is actually… right on point. If it weren’t for him being pulled by strings of oil companies and feeling pressured to impress daddy, I’d be inclined to believe his whole purpose for Iraq and Afghanistan was a religious retaliatory crusade against Islam.
Remember when I said you were overgeneralizing and putting words into my mouth?
Remember when I talked about being honest with yourself before anyone here can take you seriously?
Just in this response, or over this whole blog? Something tells me I’ll hit a character limit if I had to fit this response AND a list of every example I can find just from this particular blog post alone into just one comment response.
Remember what I said about outright denial of an opponent’s position despite evidence, and what I said about overgeneralizing?
Remember what I said about outright denial of the opposing side, of moving goal posts, and of strawmen? Either he’s working in a more fledgling aspect of weather and climate sciences or his instruments were faulty or both. It happens. Now, do you want to refute the point or insult the example intended to portray said point? Oh, yeah! Remember what I said about sarcasm and making attempts to diminish the opposing view without rebuttal?
Remember what I said about sarcasm and insulting the other’s position without a rebuttal?
Remember what I said about sarcasm?
Remember what I said about moving goal posts? We do not live in the Cretaceous. We live NOW. Right NOW, CO2 levels are reaching a point of greenhouse effect that is causing ice caps to melt and causing oceans to heat up. Right NOW, we’re suffering from some of the most devastating hurricanes in recent history due to that extra heat. Right NOW, we’re witnessing rising ocean levels that, given time, will rise high enough to make thousands upon hundreds of thousands of livable space to be underwater. Right NOW, climate change is happening because man-made sources of CO2 are contributing to a tilt in the relative “balance” of the current period (of which is not the Cretaceous, if I may reiterate).
My use of the term warm is misleading, and I apologize, because global warming itself is a misleading term since the whole climate change umbrella leads to more extremes on both ends. “We” is also a relative term. This is the first time my area’s gotten a proper snowfall in December in a few years. We had a remarkably mild summer. Couple years prior? And for a good many prior still? I distinctly remember some scorching summers as well as some winters where even the lows had trouble going under freezing and weather so mild we’d be in t-shirts and shorts in the middle of December and January on some days. But, to stick to short-term memory and rely only on your experiences relative to your geographic location is rather insulting to climate science and the current trend of global warming because it’s ignoring numerous other factors. Keep in mind, while I might be experiencing a drought and atypical 90 degree weather, somewhere else on the globe someone’s getting pounded with a lot more than average rain and unseasonably colder weather. It’s “Global” warming, not “within 20 square miles of my house” warming.
Remember what I said about outright denial despite evidence and moving goal posts? The sun, being one of the factors, will continue to be better understood over time. Thing is, right now, there’s major correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. Here’s a fun fact, btw: Venus, because of its intense cloud cover of greenhouse gasses (one in particular being CO2) is actually hotter than Mercury despite the distance difference. And furthermore? If it weren’t for that ridiculous concentration of greenhouse gasses on Venus, it’s far enough away from the sun that it could have become (if it weren’t at some point) earth-like and supported life, perhaps even intelligent life capable of inter-stellar travel like we’re growing into. Heck, if Mars still had an atmosphere worth bragging about, it, too, could be (and most definitely once was) life bearing and earth-like while we’re on the subject, but back to the topic at hand.
Remember what I said about sarcasm and diminishing without rebuttal? Funny thing, though, because if you already knew how it all worked, you wouldn’t be so adamantly against the idea of climate change and global warming.
Remember what I said about general commentary being taken as personal attacks, and about sarcasm, and about shoving words into my mouth with overgeneralization?
I have no clue what you’re even trying to say here. “Public interpretation” stands out, though. Science isn’t something to be interpreted, it’s something to be understood. You don’t interpret history, or mathematics, or spelling. Science is no different. “The sky is blue because of the gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere” can’t be interpreted, only understood. “The standard number describing the force of acceleration by gravity on Earth is 9.8 m/s/s” is nothing that can be interpreted. “Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom make a water molecule” sure as hell can’t be interpreted any other way than H2O makes water. “High contents of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect” also cannot be interpreted any differently. Science can only be understood. This is why there’s only one essential “science” behind the many phenomena of the natural world. As a point of reference, something that DOES require interpretation is religion. Why else would humanity have gone through surely millions of different forms of religion, or why Christianity alone has over 30,000 different sects and denominations? Nevermind the variety of Abrahamic religions, as well!
Whatever you disdain or distrust for those men is does not illegitmize good, real science, regardless of what they have or have not misconstrued, exaggerated, or ignored. Might as well not trust a mathematician because he doesn’t show all his work or takes shortcuts that still lead to the same conclusion.
If it’s a secret, then why do they make it an effort to make such knowledge public, such as how the sun and the earth both have cycles that effect the earth’s temperature, and then ALSO talk about green house gasses? And if men with Phd’s in earth and climate sciences are not the experts, I’d love to know who qualifies, because it surely isn’t you or me, and I’m inclined to believe them over you.
They’re still an option and one that should be considered, and I never said they weren’t somehow completely clean. Also, where do you get off telling me about how the sun causes the earth to heat up and then say we can’t harvest its energy for electricity and fuel? You do realize there are sky scrapers today and in the works that will be nearly if not entirely self powered by solar panels integrated into the building, right? If we lack the room, we’ll find ways to make it, and technology is always improving. And improving it is, as we’re on our way to cars fueled only by water. The future is looking amazing.
Remember what I said about insults and sarcasm without making any form of rebuttal?
Remember what I said about you not making points and only insults that distract from the debate? I’m inclined to take my own advice and drop this because you’re not making a genuine effort to debate respectfully whatsoever with all the reminders I have to make for you.
For consistency’s sake… Remember what I said about not making points and only insults that hurt the debate?
It really isn’t. In fact, if we had a government that put science and knowledge on the forefront of its budget priorities list, we might have had it already. It’s a real shame that America has fallen far from its leadership in scientific, technological, and medicinal discoveries. With any luck, once Obama can focus on rebuilding America’s energy grid and investing in new energy technologies we’ll see some real progress within the next 5 years and start weening off of oil, et al.
If people believed that when we started industrializing, we wouldn’t be on our computers right now. You’re making baseless claims now. Remember what I said about speaking from authority without evidence?
Why would it matter or somehow compromise the validity of a statement of fact? New technologies will lead to new jobs, and if America jumps at the opportunity, we will bring back our manufacturing sector from the dead.
Remember when I talked about sarcasm and gross overgeneralizations?
I think the amount of times I’ve needed to give you reminders in this response alone speak for themselves.
Actually, YOU brought that up. Remember what I said about diminishing the validity of the debate? My idiot comment wasn’t make during any actual debate between us. If you can’t drop it for purpose of debate, you compromise the foundation of your position with worthless filler.
How is “Divinely inspired illiterate writes holy book by dictating an angel of God” that significantly different in divine “validity” from “Son of God in book written by God”? The validity of both books speak for themselves.
The Bible has a lot of things that it doesn’t say. Yet, for some reason, people claim it does anyways. And, well, the gospels indeed were not written by anyone who knew Jesus during his life time and were written after he died and resurrected and reascended.
Remember what I said about moving goal posts and shoving words into my mouth?
Umm, if we really wanted varied perspective and not just four retellings of the same basic story, wouldn’t one of the gospels have been written by a Roman with Roman biases? And another by a non-Christian Jew with Jewish biases? When four perspectives are all telling a story from the same eyewitness testimony, the only differences would be in their particular way of telling the story, and any differences in what was purported by the eyewitnesses. It’s like asking four Lord of the Rings nerds to retell The Hobbit from beginning to end from memory; some things will be different because each will remember certain things better or worse and some will emphasis or skim over certain things out of personal preference, but in the end it’s about Bilbo helping Thorin and co. get the dwarf’s treasure back from Smaug and which point he then heads back to Hobbiton with Sauron’s ring not knowing its true nature.
Remember what I said about moving the goal posts? And shoving words down my throat?
Remember what I said about speaking from authority without evidence and outright denying the opposing view despite evidence? The Bible Is NOT: grounded in historic fact; able to withstand scrutiny; internally consistent. It also does not make any sense. I couldn’t even finish Genesis, it was so ridiculous. Besides, there are others here with far more knowledge about the Bible than me who have pointed out where the Bible fails at historical fact, fails at scrutiny, fails at consistency, and is utterly nonsensical, yet when presented with their argument… Remember what I said about denying despite the evidence? And insults? And moving goal posts? And perceiving insults? And building strawmen?
Certainly relies on it, though, or we never get the full picture.
You’re more than welcome to waste your time responding to this, but I likely won’t respond to whatever you may post. You’re clearly dead set in your personal views and no amount of rebuttal and no amount of evidence will change your mind. Besides, given the numerous times I’ve had to give you reminders throughout this final response, I’m going to take my own advice and drop the debate because you’re not sharing the same respect for it as I am.
Unfortunately, you say you won’t continue this conversation, so be it—but given all that you said that was demonstrably wrong, I feel compelled to correct them for the record.
Since atheists have been trying to shove the man-made “global warming” hoax down the country’s throat—and are attempting to lower my standard of living and deprive me of my right to consume natural resources that I can pay for; since atheists have been trying to shove the legalization of homosexual marriage down the country’s (in general) and Christian’s (specifically) throat; since atheists succeeded in making abortion the state sanctioned sacrament of their religion; since atheists have singled-out and systematically targeted any form of pubic Christian worship as a violation of a non-existent clause in the Constitution.
Theoretically, yes, but in reality, that’s only expected when it suits the purposes of moral relativists. I can “tolerate” homosexuals doing what they want to each other as long as it’s in private, but the atheist expectation of me to accept the legalization of same-sex marriage isn’t for the sake of “tolerance” or “mutual respect,” it’s a wanton act of moral war. There’s not an ounce of respect for my side of that issue by yours. Likewise with abortion and the never ending crusade against Christians and Christianity by ACLU-backed atheists.
Ok good, so can you honestly now say you respect my non-acceptance of those issues?
I neither shoved words in your mouth nor did I misrepresent you. You were the one who accused me of being “intolerant.”
Do you really think I’m here just to gainsay without the ability to back up what I say?
You assume that just because you think you’re right about an issue automatically makes what you say a “valid” argument?
I don’t “ignore” your evidence—I point out it’s weaknesses and use it to undermine your assumptions.
Like where?
I don’t intentionally ignore challenges—I don’t have time to address every bit of minutia thrown at me here. And if pointing out the fallacies and weaknesses of evidence is “moving the goal posts” then brother, you’d better think twice the next time you are asked for such.
Oh, so your standard of proof is objective, universal and immutable, huh?—no criticism of it from dolts like me can ever move your goal posts…
Wow, you swerved into it then claim you can’t see the forest for the trees. Try this: belief is cheap—anyone can say they believe something is true, but faith (in order for it to properly be faith) must be acted on. Are you willing to die for your atheism?—if so, then you have faith in it—if not, then it’s just a belief.
Wrong: if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.- Qu’ran 2:191
It’s a sovereign nation, they can do what they want despite it being contrary to what Jesus taught.
Right.
The “authority” is the Bible, not me; the evidence is clear: there is virtually no evidence for a genetic predisposition for sexuality, and those who exhibit bisexual behavior have long been acknowledged to “choose” with whom they wish to satisfy their desires. Like a vast array of other conditioned behaviors, human sexuality is ultimately an individual preference.
Yes, only us rightwing fundies are guilty of “acting with authority without evidence,” or “over-generalize,” or “aren’t honest with ourselves”…
Yes, I’ve managed to completely persuade myself that I’ve never returned callow schoolyard epithets here…
Just one will do.
Again, it seems only people like me resort to “over-generalizations” or “outright deny an opponent’s position despite evidence,” or use “sarcasm and insult the other’s position without a rebuttal.”
This is sad. I make an easily verifiable fact claim, and you think your trite, hackneyed little accusations really are sufficient to refute it.
Oh PLEEEEEEASE. What an incredibly lame excuse—measuring surface and atmospheric temperatures is a “fledgling aspect of weather”—and you say I’m the one who’s not honest with himself?…
I REFUTE THE POINT and pour on the much deserved derision—as if you’d not do the same to me! Your hypocrisy and pompous self-righteousness is really wearing thin.
Yep, remember what I said about hypocricy?—at least I’m upfront with my sarcasm.
I wasn’t moving goal posts (and your constant whining doesn’t prove that I am), I was pointing out that the global climatic system can handle massive influxes of CO2 without plunging into “irreversible” greenhouse warming.
…like they’ve been known to do for the past half-billion years—it’s a cyclical thing, driven primarily by the sun. Go look it up.
Yeah, this past season was a real doosie…
Uh huh, so much so that Al Gore had to lie through his teeth about it.
Neither you, nor Al Gore, nor Phil Jones nor Michael Mann have any reliable, repeatable, or conclusive scientific proof of that.
Nothing can create cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer…
Like common sense and real, objective science. What’s insulting is how these anti-capitalist, “climate change” charlatans are given carte blanche to preach their junk science by the main-stream, lap-dog, sycophant media with no pretense of their leftist agenda and bias.
Yeah, because that seems to be the only response you can give to anything I say.
Uh, no, it’s a well known fact that higher CO2 levels follow prolonged periods of warming… but alas, that’s just an “outright denial despite evidence, and a moving of goal posts”…
Oh joy, another pedantic demonstration of your “superior” intellect…
Oh please…stop! My sides are splitting… not the ol’ unequivocal, “Martian meteorite” claptrap theory—based on the gas content of a pore space no bigger than the head of a pin!!!
Ah HA!!! You finally, come right out and say it—for anyone with half a brain, the issue is settled; the science is irrefutable; there can be no debate and anyone who dares question it must be an idiot. WHAT AN ELITIST SNOB…(by the way, that wasn’t sarcasm—that was righteous indignation).
Oh right—even when the evidence is inconclusive, it’s to be understood, not interpreted…help me Lord.
We most certainly do interpret history. Do you think the Islamo-fascists view 9/11 through the same “objective” lens as the west?
You clearly have a very poor concept of science and how it’s used both politically and technically.
…when enough facts are available—otherwise it must be interpreted.
What? Their work is beyond reproach, inscrutable, not subject to criticism?
What will it take to demonstrate to you that that “conclusion” is not universal among climate scientists?
…or that their net derived energy is economically viable or ecologically friendly…
Uh, ‘cause if it were so, we’d have done it by now… solar cells are cheap—and again, it gets cloudy too often over the places that could use it.
Yes, it’s up to us, and we’re up to the task…
that require as much energy to strip the hydrogen from the oxygen as the hydrogen can provide to the car…now that’s a viable, eco-friendly solution.
…it’s so bright, I gotta wear shades…
Oh please. If you can’t handle a terse, accurate and yes, sarcastic, response to overly optimistic, Pollyanna assertions, then this ain’t the place for you.
Yes, the good ol’ government is the answer to all our needs—yep, with the efficiency of the Post Office, and the compassion of the VA, good ol’ Uncle Sam can do it better than anybody.
Wow, you really are naïve.
Self-righteous platitudes are a poor excuse for not being able to provide proof of an accusation.
Oh, well, that certainly justifies it then.
Uh, one claims authority from a man, the other from the creator of the universe—and the historic actuality of Jesus Christ supports that claim?
But it absolutely does say that those who wrote about Jesus Christ were actually there to document his life.
Oh, so Matthew and John—you know, the apostles “did not know Jesus during his life time?”
How pathetic. You can’t even answer a straight-forward question without hiding behind your worn-out “moving the goal posts,” excuse.
It was. It’s call the Gospel According to Mark.
Surely you’re not this naïve, or ignorant—it was too: the Gospel According to Matthew.
They don’t; John’s perspective is distinct from the synoptics—yet they all concur on who Jesus was and what he did.
Oh, so now speaking for myself is “speaking from authority”—let me guess, it’s because I’m “not honest with myself.”
Yes, because you, by virtue of “speaking from authority without evidence and outright denying the opposing view despite evidence” hath proclaimed it so!
Given your demonstrated ignorance and naïveté in so many other subjects, I’m not at all surprised. Maybe if you were to first attempt to read it in the historic and cultural context in which it was written, who knows, maybe it would?
A little judicious editing seemed called for there.
Not true. My mind has been changed many times regarding these topics precisely because of the nature of the evidence. If there’s anyone here whose closed his mind, it’s you.
Interesting thread, but I do wish the believers would come up with some new, and more reasonable arguments.
JCC
It is perfectly clear that you are so submerged in your own beliefs, assumptions, and ideals that you are either unable to or flat out refuse to consider, perceive, or examine opposing view points. Your little response has again spoken for itself. Nothing I, or anyone, says or shows you that would support our side and denounce your own has ever made you reconsider your positions and become more skeptical of them. Even when my side would admit to its faults, you treat that as an opportunity to make things out to be as if we only have faults and ignore the merits of our argument. You then blatantly ignore the faults of your own side and claim only merits of it. You are completely unable to acknowledge the merits and faults of both sides, seeing only our flaws and only your strengths. And, time and time and time again, instead of trying to argue points made, you do in fact automatically gainsay and continue to as we try to show more evidence, provide more examples, and reword our position to try and make it more clear for you. Each time, we’re made fun of, insulted, and treated to pointless sarcasm.
You are impossible to debate with because you walk into them feeling like you’ve already won. You don’t want debates, you just want attention and to make fun of the opposition because you’ve been raised on an “absolute” truth rather than a pursuit of truth. I can only hope, for your sake, something clicks in your head and you realize how foolish you’ve been and can face your fears of being wrong. If climate sciences and evolution are discovered to be incorrect, I’ve lost nothing, because the validity of those sciences does not effect who I am. If you discover your Christianity to be false, you’ve lost everything, because your Christianity represents everything that you are. That’s a very sad, pitiful fate to look forward to. No wonder you act the way you do because of how much fear you feel, not only of your god, but of being wrong.
Good bye and good luck.
That was Mabus. I spammed him.
Whoops, now no one knows what this comment alludes to.