tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post114730931196513882..comments2023-05-15T03:17:32.214-05:00Comments on Letters to the Webmaster: Why would anyone want to be an atheist?Dave Van Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.comBlogger141125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1160361266808822492006-10-08T21:34:00.000-05:002006-10-08T21:34:00.000-05:00Hello...so, did i get this right? Believe "just in...Hello...so, did i get this right? Believe "just in case"...???<BR/>What if you are the best person ever....nothing but good deeds and a wholesome life....you just didn't believe in God. Should you then fry in hell for eternity?<BR/>And what if you are a religious person in church every week and preaching a holier than thou attitude but in the meantime are a corrupt slimeball (ala Jimmy Swaggart?)....should this person be allowed to go into heaven just because he 'believed'?<BR/>It's just plain rediculous.<BR/>I am not gonna 'believe' just to have insurance i am going to go get into heaven. You are asking me to be a hyprocrit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1151452581557223952006-06-27T18:56:00.000-05:002006-06-27T18:56:00.000-05:00Reasons why it's good to be an atheist:Knowing tha...<B>Reasons why it's good to be an atheist:</B><BR/>Knowing that life isn't a gamble<BR/>No fear of hell, Satan, demons, or other magical things<BR/>Your thoughts are your own: only the government is listening (we'll take care of that later, lol)<BR/>Being able to read anything you want, without fear that your peers will disapprove<BR/>Sneaking an extra pork chop during prayers<BR/><BR/>Now, if you want to ask that question again, ask a Hindu or a Jew why they don't believe in Jesus, "just in case." You're the one whose scared. You're the one who believes there's a chance you could suffer for eternity, not me.<BR/><BR/>You have a choice. A choice to not be afraid. You are not required to believe.<BR/><BR/>A question from me: why did God make the rule that non-believers must go to hell? Please justify. Thanks!Hellbound Alleeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10268832216080854759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1148102471570763512006-05-20T00:21:00.000-05:002006-05-20T00:21:00.000-05:00Oh shit! There's drinking and orgies in Muslim he...Oh shit! There's drinking and orgies in Muslim heaven?! Well, I better pretend I worship Allah, you know, just in case . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147804226628050802006-05-16T13:30:00.000-05:002006-05-16T13:30:00.000-05:00I believe that someone earlier said that the fact ...I believe that someone earlier said that the fact that the tomb was opened proved that Jesus was a hoax and he questioned why the tomb would have to be opened if it was his soul that was resurrected. Actually, resurrection of the body is one of the main tenants of atleast the catholic (original) faith. Many christians do not even know this, but it is not your soul that goes to heaven it is your body on the last day of judgment. It's true. Ask any priest. I believe this bit of doctrine comes from St. Augustine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147640079848826292006-05-14T15:54:00.000-05:002006-05-14T15:54:00.000-05:00To any and all anoymouses who may be inclined to s...To any and all anoymouses who may be inclined to say "We didn't come from no damn monkeys, or there is no proof that evolution is true," I would suggest that you read Leonard's post above, on the process of evolution, and one of the most clear, concise and scholarly attempts I have ever seen to explain it. <BR/><BR/>I would suggest you make copies of it and pass them out to all of your evangelical friends. I am sure that Leonard is a scientist or has considerable empirical education. He says: "Finally, about 200,000 years ago, Homo Sapiens arose from Homo Erectus in Africa, and about 140,000 years later followed the footsteps of Erectus, eventually populating the world, taming livestock, cultivating crops, building cities and inventing gods", which leads me into my own not so scholarly, nor scientifically accurate version of how we came to be, and started making up Gods in an attempt to explain it.<BR/><BR/>Isn't it strange that we climb down out of the trees, and in the last 100,000 years or so, learn to walk upright, learn agriculture, and domestication of other animals for food, learn to speak and write, and one of the first things we do is create God. Isn't it even weirder that this God is just a bigger stronger version of ourselves. People of every religion, and there are thousands, believe those of a different religion are doomed to go to some version of hell when they die, and only they will be in a paradise forever<BR/><BR/> Isn't even stranger that man refers to God as a male, and he gets angry, makes mistakes, is jealous, demands our love and devotion, and is vengeful? We are talking about the "cause of everything," and we think of it as powerful human male.<BR/><BR/> Of course the cause of everything "God" had to have a nemesis, so the designers of the Christian religion have God creating a character who in many cases is superior in strength to Himself, and lets him run amuck over the earth doing harm to people, and God seems to be incapable or unwilling to "Stifle" this character.<BR/><BR/>But the most crazy thing about the way man designed God is the way they say he loves all of his creations, when all we have to do is look around us and observe the way life actually is. The strong are favored over the weak, the more intelligent over the stupid, the attractive over the ugly. Millions of people are starving. Millions more are diseased and malformed. Tyrannical rulers are committing genocide on their neighbors. We have assembly lines that slaughter billions of other animals in order to feed the 6 billion humans on earth. The "population bomb" is on a collision course with disaster. Billions of us will die without the slightest consolation from the force that created us. This very obvious reality for the most part is totally ignored by believers in the Christian religion, and also believers in most other religions.<BR/><BR/> Skeletons of literally billions of life forms, that have come and gone, litter the earth, and attest to the fact that every species that has ever lived, has just been an experiment or stepping stone, if you will, for the next one that was capable of reproducing faster or surviving better. In other words, the creatures who were the best at killing and having sex became our ancestors. Where is the love in that? "Natural Selection" is very efficient to the extent that it does insure that life will forge ahead in some form or other, but an ABSENCE of love is the operating principle. "Eat or be eaten," find some way to reproduce faster and better and become smarter or you will become extinct, like the millions of species that preceded us have.<BR/><BR/>Just look at the characteristics of the opposite sex that generate what we call LOVE for them. Men are attracted most to females for their baby making physical characteristics first (Big breasts and hips, and shapely gluteus Maximus's) and then by their brains. Women are attracted to men with power, who are good providers, and nest builders. Very few people are attracted to the stupid ugly, and defective. These people quite often go through life without mates. If love for all people were an innate quality in us, like the religious like to pretend, we would all be striving to help the sick and starving people that are suffering everywhere.<BR/><BR/>After the bible was being pieced together by the Roman Empire, from fragments oral and written history, and proclaimed to be the only legal belief a citizen could espouse, anyone who openly opposed this State Religion was immediately identified and silenced, bringing on a very long period of rule by the officials of the church. The Dark Ages or rule by the church finally ended, only after millions of unbelievers apostates, heretics, witches, people possessed by demons, and otherwise innocent people were tortured and murdered in the name of God.<BR/><BR/>It is my personal belief that with the advent of mass communication whereas the common man has access to instant rebuttal by brilliant people to all of the mythology being peddled, ancient scenarios of murderous vengeful Gods, casting anyone who doesn't pay homage to them into a lake of fire, along with all the other illogical stuff that has persisted in human storytelling, will become obsolete, sooner than later.<BR/><BR/>I will finish with another quote from Leonard: <BR/><BR/> "Personally, I find it infinitely grander to realize that I am part of a gigantic tapestry of life, rolling from its beginnings, billions of years ago, in the blazing furnace of a dying star, than to believe a petty, incompetent and vicious God made my ancestor from dirt, 6000 years ago" <BR/>Dan (Who is amazed by the journey of man, from one cell to being what he is today, and that it only took 4 billion years)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147634945588775912006-05-14T14:29:00.000-05:002006-05-14T14:29:00.000-05:00CC, Every arguement every Christian has thrown at...CC,<BR/> Every arguement every Christian has thrown at me in an attempt to reconvert me doesn't make sense because it is just fiction. It's nothing to do with hating Christians or 'spirital blockage' or anything. You know, like the tales of fairies and ghosts and unicorns, Zeus and Mount Olympus, and the epic of Gilgamesh are all made up. Demon are not expelled because demons do not exist. The bible was written by men who saw the world in all it's painful glory and in an attempt to make sense out of it,attributed it to a god or gods and also to make the poor ordinary types behave and stay in line. It just so happens that the collection of kiddology called the bible still has a hold on the modern mind, it's filtered through for some reason. There is no god, no afterlife, what you get is what you see. By the way, history books find no evidence of the Exodus, the drowning of the soldiers et all, neither do they find objective, undoctored evidence that Jesus the Christ ever existed. It's just like someone appearing and saying they believe that Olympus is a real place and Zeus is now living inside them and when their time comes they will go off to the holy mountain to live forever in bliss! I'm sorry, but I won't be convinced otherwise and it hurts to think of you believers so deluded. Unless you're believing because the threat of hell keeps you in line.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147634717599757762006-05-14T14:25:00.000-05:002006-05-14T14:25:00.000-05:00Anonymous, Don't expect a one-size-fits-all ans...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/> Don't expect a one-size-fits-all answer to your question. People come here for different reasons. Personally, I am often amused by the visiting Christians who post here, but when they resort to wearisome repetition of unsupported dogma, and keep posing and posting and posting, I too start asking myself what they are doing here. There's only so much "God this" and "God that" I can take when there is nothing at all offered to support the existence of such a being in the first place, and nothing close to a definition of such a being either. So, in summary, I actually do enjoy seeing different points of view here, and interacting with such posters, so long as they are willing to engage in meaningful dialog; I do not appreciate being preached at or talked down to, and I don't think anybody else here does either. Does that help?Jim Arvohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15494085654138988523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147633905916467852006-05-14T14:11:00.000-05:002006-05-14T14:11:00.000-05:00Why are you complaining about the christians comin...Why are you complaining about the christians coming on your website?Wouldn't it be a boring and very empty site if they didn't. Imagine you members just asking each other about the weather.The debates is why your here. if nothing but friendly hello's were posted, who would waste their time reading any of it? Quit complaining! You know that you enjoy this!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147632257327967602006-05-14T13:44:00.000-05:002006-05-14T13:44:00.000-05:00Leonard, you have far more patience than I. Kudos...Leonard, you have far more patience than I. Kudos on a very well-written summary.<BR/><BR/>Way back there somewhere you concluded a post with "Maybe you should do what WE did and use your brain. It took four billion years to evolve. It would be a waste not to use it." Well put. I like that.Jim Arvohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15494085654138988523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147629301448805222006-05-14T12:55:00.000-05:002006-05-14T12:55:00.000-05:00Hello CC. I notice you did not address the problem...Hello CC. I notice you did not address the problems with the Gospels I mentioned.<BR/>Oh yeah... and if the miracles in other religions come from demons... how do you know the miracles you experience are NOT caused by demons, who want to keep you away from the TRUE god... Quetzalcoátl? What will you tell the Feathered Snake when you face His divine judgment? "Sorry, Lord, I did not believe you existed."<BR/><BR/>--<BR/><BR/>Hello "Anonymous" (why did you not use a name?)...<BR/><BR/>You say the notion that we "came from monkeys" is far less believable than the notion that an invisible, all-powerful being made us from dirt/earth/dust/clay approximately 6000 years ago?<BR/>Well, I am sorry, but this only shows you don´t actually know anything about the subject. But, nil desperandum! I will attempt to explain to you the scientific view of the matter.<BR/><BR/>First of all, you need to understand something. All life on Earth (that we know of :) ) is based on the chemical element carbon (C). In fact all life on Earth we know of is based on DNA, the crystalline macro-molecule described by Watson and Crick.<BR/>Now... all life forms use the same four bases as information-carriers in the DNA structure... Adenosine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine. Every single life form - animals, plants, fungi, slime moulds, complex single-celled organisms, archaea and bacteria - you name it. All of them. Now, to me, this at least suggests that all life forms are related... because there is no good reason why independently emerging life would all use the exact same system and the exact same base pairs.<BR/><BR/>(A Christian jokingly told me that humans and bananas have 60% of their DNA in common, and then asked whether it meant we are related. Well, yes, that is exactly what it means.)<BR/><BR/>Of course you could say that God, having invented ACTG-based DNA (pun), decided to use it for ALL the millions of different life forms, without creating even one with a genetic matrix based on a different molecule. Not very imaginative, especially for a God, but hey, it´s conceivable.<BR/><BR/>Now, DNA´s base pairs are arranged in genes - base sequences that code for something in the cell (as you know, every living cell has its operations managed by the chemical program contained in the DNA). Now, as it turns out, different life forms nevertheless use the same gene sequences for the same or similar purposes. A nice and famous case in point is that the same gene that codes for segments in flies codes for rib growth in mice.<BR/><BR/>Seems to indicate they both inherited that same gene from a common ancestor.<BR/>What was the last common ancestor of vertebrates and arthropods? Probably a worm-like creature in an early Cambrian sea.<BR/><BR/>In any case... the genetic similarities seem to oddly increase with perceived relationships. For instance, as it turns out, humans and chimpanzees have more than 95% (maybe as much as 98.5%) of our DNA in common.<BR/><BR/>But it´s more than that. There are retroviral DNA remnant sequences.<BR/>You see, you got these tiny parasitical molecular machines named viruses. You can´t really call them alive - they´re more like rogue bodyparts of cells, if you will. A virus consists of some DNA (or RNA) and a protein shell. The shell only serves to hook on to a living cell and inject the virus itself. The parasitical DNA then breaks down the cell´s own genetic material and uses the A, C, T and G to copy itself a couple of thousand times, after which the assembler code of the viral DNA builds new protein shells. The cell then breaks down and the new viruses are released.<BR/><BR/>But some viruses don´t do that. Retro-viruses enter the cell like a normal virus, but then the parasitical genes interweave themselves with the host´s DNA... sneaking in, as it were, like a spy in a row of soldiers. Then, it does nothing. But every time the cell divides, a copy is made of the new DNA... until a certain moment or event triggers the virus, and the cell dies in the birth of an army of viruses.<BR/><BR/>But sometimes something goes wrong. Sometimes the virus never activates, instead becoming a permanent part of the host DNA. If you know where to look, you can use such foreign DNA sequences as markers. If your father possessed such retroviral DNA sequence remnants, you would of course have them too. And your children would too, plus any new retroviral remnants your reproductive cells might have picked up. Doesn´t happen often... and that´s exactly what makes retroviruses so important to tracing human ancestry.<BR/><BR/>You see, humans and chimpanzees have retriviral DNA sequence remnants in common. Several of them, in fact. And that by inclusion means that humans and chimps must have had the same ancestors.<BR/><BR/>Chimps and humans also each have retroviral sequences the other species does not have. This means they were sustained since humans and chimps split off. Now, the rate at which new retroviruses are sustained is more or less ( :) ) a given. It´s sometimes known as the molecular clock. Using this, it has been estimated with reasonable accuracy that humans and chimpanzees were one species, a little over five million years ago.<BR/><BR/>The fact that this notion is supported by a large car trunk full of ancestral primate fossils is just the icing on the cake. That humans are descended from ape-like primates is not seriously in question and has not been for - well, a while now.<BR/><BR/>Now, you ask, how is this possible? How does evolution work?<BR/><BR/>Well, first of all... variation is very important. All life forms are based on DNA. DNA contains such an enormous number of chemical connections, that it is inevitable that alterations are caused by reactive chemicals or radiation. If such a chemical change occurs, it is usually corrected by the self-adjusting nature of DNA. However, every now and then a change is permanent. Maybe it won´t affect the cell; but if it does, the cell usually either self-destructs or is destroyed by other cells.<BR/>But sometimes neither happens. Sometimes a cell will have a permanently altered function (and that is putting it simply. A single atom shifting can alter a base pair, which alters an entire codon, which changes the entire gene, which affects other genes, which affect other genes in turn...). A mutation.<BR/><BR/>And sometimes, the cell that is altered is a reproductive cell. A sperm cell or ovum. Then, every cell in the entire new organism will be a mutant cell. (He was in Dragonball Z).<BR/>Now, even so, the individual might not be what you would call a mutant, or a "hopeful monster". In fact, on average, every person has four mutations in his body that his or her parents did not have, and obviously we are mostly similar to them.<BR/><BR/>But sometimes, the change will be profound, even if its on a small scale. Your stomach acid may be different. You might have stronger bones, or more brittle ones. You might have more muscle tissue. You might have a fourth kind of sensory cell in your eye, allowing you to perceive color in a way us normals cannot understand (there actually are such people).<BR/>Now, in nature, if such a change would benefit your ability to have offspring, of course you would have more children. And odds are, at least half (and more if the gene was recessive to begin with) will have the mutated gene in them as well. Now, if the gene is recessive, they might not have the mutated TRAIT, but they will have the mutated GENE in them... and it will slowly spread throughout the population. If the mutation indeed benefits people who have it, eventually every individual of your species will indeed possess the new trait. <BR/><BR/>But of course, if circumstances change, the mutation might then become negative. If a mutant had thicker fur than his normal brethren, he would have an advantage when it was cold, but at a disadvantage if the climate changed.<BR/><BR/>That is why variation is so important. The more variation exists in a species, the more likely it is to be able to adapt to changing circumstances. Bear in mind it is the SPECIES that changes, not the individuals.<BR/><BR/>Now, along with variation, large numbers of offspring are also important. Almost every species in nature (mammals less so) produce far more offspring than can possibly survive. The random shuffling of genetic traits that occurs every time an animal procreates results in genetic variation in every batch of newborns, ensuring that no matter what the circumstances, at least some will survive to breed in turn. And the ones that survive will logically be the ones with the most effective collection of genes. <BR/><BR/>So, under stable circumstances, what is usually described as "evolution" (the radical changing of species into new species) would not occur. A species would remain the same as long as the circumstances did, perhaps becoming better and better adapted to that specific set of circumstances, resulting in extreme specialization. But such a species would be vulnerable to rapidly changing circumstances.<BR/><BR/>Now... on human evolution. Just WHY primates (and although it is technically speaking wrong to call them apes, it is not entirely unjustifiable) split off a branch (SPLIT OFF. "If humans came from apes, why are these still apes?" Because not all apes evolved the way we did. Some evolved differently.) which evolved bipedalism about five million years ago is not clear. Climate change is usually considered the most likely cause, with the desiccation of forests and the emergence of large plains benefiting walking upright over a semi-quadrupedal stance which combined well with tree-climbing (although Elaine Morgan offers some compelling arguments that suggest our ancestors were at some time actually semi-aquatic).<BR/><BR/>In any case, the first step from (a fairly chimpanzee-like) ancestor to modern humans was walking upright. Or at least walking exclusively on the hind limbs, freeing the hands for manipulating the environment. <BR/>The next step appears to have been the change of the diet - from herbivorous to omnivorous. Eating meat, a rich source of protein, allows a double, parallel development... the reduction of the intestine and the increase of brain size.<BR/>When we had gotten this far, the first species in the genus Homo emerged - Homo Habilis, about two million years ago.<BR/>Homo Erectus, its much larger descendant (slightly smaller than us) fanned out over Asia and Europe from Africa, apparently parenting Neanderthals (in Europe) and Homo Floresiensis (in Asia).<BR/>Finally, about 200,000 years ago, Homo Sapiens arose from Homo Erectus in Africa, and about 140,000 years later followed the footsteps of Erectus, eventually populating the world, taming livestock, cultivating crops, building cities and inventing gods.<BR/><BR/>The genetic evidence is clear in suggesting all of this. So is the fossil evidence. What do YOU have to support YOUR views?<BR/><BR/>Personally, I find it infinitely grander to realize that I am part of a gigantic tapestry of life, rolling from its beginnings, billions of years ago, in the blazing furnace of a dying star, than to believe a petty, incompetent and vicious god made my ancestor from dirt, 6000 years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147628307081945552006-05-14T12:38:00.000-05:002006-05-14T12:38:00.000-05:00To Anonymous (5/14/2006 11:01 AM EST): Given th...To Anonymous (5/14/2006 11:01 AM EST):<BR/><BR/> Given the wealth of information in print and on the web, there's really no excuse for not doing a bit of reading about evolution before posting your opinions on the matter. Don't expect to be spoon-fed here. I've tried to do that with a number of Christian visitors here and frankly, it's not worth my time. Once you've taken the time and initiative to educate yourself a little, come on back and we can have a meaningful discussion. I suggest starting your next post with a list of books that you're read on evolution. Fair enough?Jim Arvohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15494085654138988523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147627064335679052006-05-14T12:17:00.000-05:002006-05-14T12:17:00.000-05:00xrayman said "What the hell is the deal with throw...xrayman said "What the hell is the deal with throwing in the word 'Orthogonal' in your post?"<BR/><BR/>Ha! You know, I actually hesitated after writing that word, but decided to leave it. I figured that anybody worth having a discussion with would look it up if they didn't know what it meant. (By the way, a fantastic on-line resource is <A HREF="http://www.onelook.com/" REL="nofollow">One Look</A>. I use it all the time. I am now of the opinion that simply looking up a word is not sufficient; you need to look it up in multiple dictionaries to get a real sense of usage--and that's what One Look does.)<BR/><BR/>xrayman: "Why do these fucking Christians keep coming back? I couldn't see popping into a Christian message board for a second,..."<BR/><BR/>I've actually posted on a number of Christian web sites, but I adhere to a couple of basic rules when I do so. First, I never challenge the participants who simply engage in mutual affirmation of their beliefs, or discuss abstract theological matters. I will only speak up when I see blatant bigotry/hatred expressed toward atheists, or wildly fallacious arguments that purport to be "scientific". My second rule is to always be an polite as I can possibly be. In general, I do not chastise any of the believers; I merely ask questions, clarify scientific principles, provide links, etc. (There are exceptions to this. Occasionally I encounter believers to invest significant effort into denigrating atheists, and often with such unbridled contempt and dishonesty that I feel I need to be more direct in my challenges. But that is the exception, not the rule.)<BR/><BR/>What I have found is that often (maybe half the time) my remarks are met with blatant contempt. I've been called many nasty names, simply because I identified myself as an atheist. I've never tried to perform any kind of objective study, but my subjective impression is that, on average, the typical Christian visitor here is treated better than a typical atheist visitor on a Christian web site. In my opinion, that is the nature of belief; it is antithetical to questioning, and to a diversity of views. It tends to be insular. Hence, the very presence of an "outsider" is dangerous and disturbing.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I can understand why you wouldn't even be interested in visiting them. I've found a few in which interesting theological discussions take place, but generally I find them to be quite boring and superficial.Jim Arvohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15494085654138988523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147624947388704212006-05-14T11:42:00.000-05:002006-05-14T11:42:00.000-05:00Before he/she went off on the typical smug fundie ...Before he/she went off on the typical smug fundie tangent about how we sinners are going to roast, Anonymous wrote: "Please do not say that we evolved from monkeys. Now that is a far more far fetched idea then ours, you know, it just don't seem to work with all the different races that we have.I never hear any explanation on how that could have happened."<BR/><BR/>That's about the weirdest argument I've ever seem suggested. For starters, that there are different physical characteristics among the races - but very little genetic difference - does more to uphold than disprove evolution. <BR/><BR/>And, BTW, evolution explains the diversity of life on earth; it does not and was never intended to explain how life originated in the first place. It is possible, therefore, that there was some creative force that started the process, and that force might be called "god," for want of a better term. I don't know if this is true or not, and I don't think it is knowable, so that makes me an agnostic. Because I don't and can't know if there is a god, I can't "believe" in it, so that makes me an atheist (which merely means not having a belief in god).<BR/><BR/>But, let's put logic aside and declare that there absolutely, positively IS a god, no question about it. (No, I haven't lost my mind; it's just a hypothetical.) That still provides no evidence of the god described in the bible. <BR/><BR/>In fact, the more I tried to find biblegod and jesus, the more convinced I became that christianity, like other organized religions, is a scam. They were all invented by men, many with political/social agendas, and since it appears that humans cannot know the nature of god, their ideas are no more valid than mine or any average Joe Blow's. <BR/><BR/>Also, it seems to me that if I wanted to invent a religious cult, the first thing I'd try to do is convince my followers that they MUST BELIEVE, without questioning, or else be punished eternally.<BR/><BR/>I realize that fundies may get some kind of thrill from "sharing" their religion, but, since all your arguments boil do to "I believe because I believe because I believe ... and you'd better too or you'll go to hell," I don't think you'll be able to persuade anyone here. We've been there, done that, wised up, and utterly rejected it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147624739506537932006-05-14T11:38:00.000-05:002006-05-14T11:38:00.000-05:00Yo, Anonymass(and any other stray X-ians who have ...Yo, Anonymass(and any other stray X-ians who have zero clue what evolution means),<BR/><BR/>For the bazillionth time, evolution doesn't say that "a man came from a monkey". To start with, evolution is both theory(like atomic "theory")...AND it is a fact(like gravity is a "fact") Theories in science are both testable AND falsifiable. On the other hand, spontaneous creation(Creationism) is neither fact NOR is it a theory. That's ....NEITHER. <BR/><BR/>Shooting "holes" in evolution does not, and WILL not, make true by "default" what is essentially "magic"(creationism). Magic has no referant in reality, and this is why man created a "God", as a being who CAN do "magic". But even more to the point--if you'd just surrender to the notion that one day you will cease to exist, you wouldn't be "forced" to believe such bullshit. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147623264366186112006-05-14T11:14:00.000-05:002006-05-14T11:14:00.000-05:00"I would like to hear your theory."I don't know, t..."I would like to hear your theory."<BR/><BR/>I don't know, therefore, Jesus, the flying, un-dead god-man, exists. <BR/><BR/>Logic, it's not for Christians anymore.Dave Van Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147621948007377922006-05-14T10:52:00.000-05:002006-05-14T10:52:00.000-05:00xrayman wrote: "Why do these fucking Christians ke...xrayman wrote: "Why do these fucking Christians keep coming back? I couldn't see popping into a Christian message board for a second, not even to take a peek. I have no interest."<BR/><BR/>I know the question was not directed at me, but if I may interject my opinion, it is that (1) they are very insincere and uncomfortable in their "beliefs," knowing that they fail every test of rational thought, and and they therefore keep regurgitating them to try to shut out any other thoughts, and (2) they are arrogant, insufferable assholes who just like to see their own words.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I recommend visiting christian forums from time to time if just for the comic relief. These people are so stupid it's downright amazing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147618909825329692006-05-14T10:01:00.000-05:002006-05-14T10:01:00.000-05:00xrayman,That was a nice descipiption of your brain...xrayman,That was a nice descipiption of your brain and the way that the thought process works,pretty amazing isn't it.To believe that all that complicated human makeup just "happened". Use that brain of yours,God, The God of the bible made you in this complicated,thought processing,free choosing way! Please people,explain what your thinking,ever working mind has decided as how us humans came about. I would like to hear your theory.Please do not say that we evolved from monkeys. Now that is a far more far fetched idea then ours, you know, it just don't seem to work with all the different races that we have.I never hear any explanation on how that could have happened.Maybe you out there do not like the punishment of the torture chamber,as I have seen on here as the reference to hell,but I'm sorry to say that we have no choice in the matter.Just because you want to live the way that you feel like living and commit the sins that we all stuggle with,does not mean that by saying how wrong that eternal punishment is,that it's not going to happen to you. You guys on hear trying to get through to the ex christians must be commended for your efforts! Keep up the good work! Don't let them make you mad insulting what WE CHRISTIANS know is right.So far, you are impressive. I think I would have given up by now. I don't think the majority of them will have a change of heart, but maybe someone that comes across your wise and patient words will be touched and change. You will recieve your reward for your efforts.Good Luck and God bless you special guys.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147617971652032112006-05-14T09:46:00.000-05:002006-05-14T09:46:00.000-05:00Servant said: "I am interceding with God on your b...Servant said: "I am interceding with God on your behalf, that He would draw you with His Holy Spirit, and reveal to your heart that He loves you, so that you would believe, and follow Him." <BR/><BR/>And I am praying that the great <A HREF="http://www.venganza.org/" REL="nofollow">Flying Spaghetti Monster</A> will reveal himself to you, servant. I prophesy that we will find equal success in having our mutual prayers answered.Dave Van Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147617487212957762006-05-14T09:38:00.000-05:002006-05-14T09:38:00.000-05:00"Whoa...once again this is getting heated."Who's g..."Whoa...once again this is getting heated."<BR/><BR/>Who's getting heated? Personally, I'm entertained.Dave Van Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147614923729073522006-05-14T08:55:00.000-05:002006-05-14T08:55:00.000-05:00That's your entire answer to all those verses Serv...That's your entire answer to all those verses Servant? Excuse me, but where are your verses showing FREE WILL?????????<BR/><BR/>Again, let's not have your private interpretation based on loosely constructed stories. I want verses that say that all people have the power and freewill to believe whenever they choose. <BR/><BR/>Better yet, I challenge you to genuinely believe in leprechauns right now. Can you do it? If not, why not?Dave Van Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288914445803411893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147585350866695022006-05-14T00:42:00.000-05:002006-05-14T00:42:00.000-05:00Going back a ways, CC at some point said "So if yo...Going back a ways, CC at some point said "So if you think the contents of the gospel were altered by people who were not there and did not know what took place, I'm afraid modern historians would have to disagree."<BR/><BR/>That's an absurd statement that is trivially refuted. I already gave you a list of modern scholars who find that large portions of the NT were "invented" and embellished. I could list many more. The majority of the scholars who participate in the Jesus Seminar would quality. The evidence for invention and embellishment is so broad and varied that I'm stunned you could hold the position that the gospels are legitimate "history"; even a good many conservative scholars have abandoned that provincial idea.<BR/><BR/>As one small example, you are aware that the ending of Mark (the last 12 verses) was probably added much later, right? It was apparently amended by a variety of unknown authors. So that alone would count for the Bible being "altered", but it goes WAY beyond that. Dozens (perhaps hundreds) of other passages were altered by scribes, right up through the 17'th century.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, the gospels disagree on fundamental points; for instance, the resurrection stories have numerous elements that cannot be reconciled without doing serious violence to the language. The first gospel (chronologically) was Mark. "Mark"'s gospel is very primitive compared to those of Luke and Matthew, who later redacted Mark's account to be more complete and "theologically correct". John, of course, took this to an extreme. Observe that the Jesus of Mark performs the miracle of restoring sight to a blind man by spitting into his eyes. Matthew and Luke removed that crass detail, and opted for a more dignified performance. There are many many examples of events being "cleaned up", made more miraculous (e.g. the fig tree), and put into closer conformity with OT "prophecy" in later gospels. When one places the early epistles (which contain nary a word of an earthly Jesus) before the gospels (ordered chronologically, with late interpolations and forgeries removed), followed by the other epistles, an unmistakable pattern of legendary embellishment emerges. More and more of the life of Jesus is filled in and purified as the (purported) events recede into the past. Exactly as a legend would develop.<BR/><BR/>And here's one of my favorite "smoking guns". Matthew, in an apparent attempt to retroactively have Jesus fulfill a "prophecy", leaves an incriminating trail. Matthew was obviously familiar with Zechariah 9:9, which said (in English translation):<BR/><BR/>"...thy king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass."<BR/><BR/>Matthew apparently felt that this reference to a "King" simply had be a prophecy of Jesus (context not withstanding, as usual). It would follow, then, Jesus must have done this. Matthew inserts this new prophecy fulfillment into his gospel account, but renders it in a way that betrays his ignorance of idiomatic Hebrew; he is apparently unaware that clauses are often repeated for emphasis. Matthew wrote<BR/><BR/>"Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon." (Matt 21:1-7)<BR/><BR/>Matthew makes the laughable blunder of putting Jesus astride *two* animals, just so he could fulfill a (non-messianic and misinterpreted) prophecy. He doesn't realize that the phrase "even upon a colt..." is referring to the *same* animal. It's quite clear, then, what happened. This clearly shows that Matthew got at least some of his material by mining the OT, and NOT from divine inspiration, or reliable witnesses (who would not have mistaken one animal for two).<BR/><BR/>By the way, CC, your answer about not "testing" god was very predictable. But how do you know he would be "insulted" by such a request? Was god insulted when Thomas asked for proof? Didn't Jesus purportedly comply (albeit while heaping greater praise on those who do not require proof)? Why would you not let god make that decision? Do you know the "mind of god"?Jim Arvohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15494085654138988523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147583492374164922006-05-14T00:11:00.000-05:002006-05-14T00:11:00.000-05:00CC: "Another problem is how most people hear [sic]...CC: "Another problem is how most people hear [sic] consider God to be a total monster.... So I must ask, which of these commandments are you so opposed to?..."<BR/><BR/>I can't say that I'm "opposed" to any of them (except for the ban on homosexuality; I think that's up to the individuals, and nobody else), but at the same time they do not afford any kind of substantial basis for morality. I say that because they purport to be absolute, and thereby ignore all the truly difficult moral issues. For example, what do you do when you must kill to save another life? Is it okay to lie if that will spare somebody physical harm? What if "turning the other cheek" results in massive harm to others? I should also point out that these injunctions did not originate with the Bible. Many cultures (e.g. the Chinese) had codified such principles, and even grappled with some of the difficult cases when they come into conflict, long before Mosaic law. So, if you were trying to build a case for your religion with your list of "do not"s, you've not succeeded.<BR/><BR/>So let me ask you a similar question. Which of the following do you think are acceptable actions:<BR/><BR/>1) Rip open a pregnant woman.<BR/>2) Dash a baby against the stones.<BR/>3) Hamstring an animal.<BR/>4) Force a person to eat their own child.<BR/>5) Slaughter a child in front of its parents.<BR/>6) Slaughter and entire community, young and old alike, and then pillage.<BR/>7) Stone a disobedient child to death.<BR/><BR/>I could go on, but I find it absolutely nauseating to list the atocities of the Bible. It's one of the most foul books I've ever read in my life. Yes, there are some bits of wisdom, and some passages with literary value. But as Thomas Paine put it, they are as pearls in dung.<BR/><BR/>We can do much better than that, CC. But to do that we must break the spell that religious cults (including Christianity) have on so many minds. I find it very disturbing that people can read the grisly violence of the Bible, and NOT be outraged by it. People complain that violent video games make kids jaded to violence (and they probably do). I wonder how much worse it is that there are millions of adults the world over, some in positions of power, who can acquiesce in the repugnant violence of the Bible. In a very real sense, we are still in the Dark Ages.Jim Arvohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15494085654138988523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147582950556344852006-05-14T00:02:00.000-05:002006-05-14T00:02:00.000-05:00Hi Anti CCThats cool.I use Forever and ever to bri...Hi Anti CC<BR/>Thats cool.<BR/>I use Forever and ever to bring attention to stupid bible translation.<BR/>Aion greek.<BR/>You would think that forever would be long enough to be tormented but not if your christian is has to be forever and ever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147581991470667112006-05-13T23:46:00.000-05:002006-05-13T23:46:00.000-05:00Gee, sorry about that Forever and ever. I guess I ...Gee, sorry about that Forever and ever. I guess I jumped the gun a little too quickly. You have to admit, a name like "Forever and ever" sets off some alarm bells, and people could jump the gun. I'd take being mistaken for a fundie probably a lot more harshly than you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3424478.post-1147580690641378102006-05-13T23:24:00.000-05:002006-05-13T23:24:00.000-05:00Hay xray, I posted my reply before I saw yours. W...Hay xray, I posted my reply before I saw yours. We ended up making many of the same points. One thing that you caught and I missed is that all this talk of belief is orthogonal to what is true anyway. Believing something does not make it true (as I've heard many a Christian say to non-believers, totally oblivious to the fact that it applies to them in spades).<BR/><BR/>Ever get the feeling that this place is attracting an increasing number of proselytizing Christians? (Would it be too crass to suggest that it's like swatting at flies? Yeh, probably. Forget I said that.)Jim Arvohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15494085654138988523noreply@blogger.com