ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

God is not mocked

I couldn't help but think of Galatians 6:7 when I read about the tragic death of this father on his misguided trek in remembrance of his dead son.  "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

I can't link to the story, for some reason, but the headline is: Oregon Father’s Memorial Trek Across Country Ends in a Family’s Second Tragedy. So you can probably find it on Google or wherever.

The American elites have declared that there is nothing wrong with what God calls abomination. The usual suspects will insist, in defiance of both traditional morality and secular logic, that there is no such thing as objective universal morality while simultaneously insisting that homosexuality normal and it is wrong to say otherwise.

But at the end of the day, God's Game, God's Rules. Are they arbitrary? Perhaps. So is the intentional grounding rule. That doesn't make them nonexistent and it doesn't mean we can safely ignore them, given that we are warned about what the wages of sin are.

That being said, I very much doubt that the grieving father was struck down by God simply because he was on a personal crusade to popularize the acceptance of a particular form of sin; the ironic malice involved tends to strike me as the handiwork of a very different supernatural being.

This is something many Christians don't seem to understand. Evil revels in grief, pain, and suffering. Not good. And not God.

Labels:

343 Comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 343 of 343
Anonymous Ann Morgan October 17, 2013 5:46 PM  

Slarrow wrote: **Here's the short case for knowing murder is wrong that includes God. We are created by God in His image and have the "law written on our hearts." Thus, to the extent that our intuition makes us recoil at the sight or thought of murder, it can be trusted that we are reacting according to that natural law. We can also see the tremendous damage that murder does not only to individuals but to the relationships between people that constitute society and conclude reasonably about the undesirability of the act.**

Slarrow, the fact that most people find murder repulsive is not evidence of God. The second part of your statement contained a reason why it is advantageous for most people to find murder repulsive, which is that it is destructive to society. Since living in a society usually gives an individual a better chance of survival and reproduction than living alone in the wild, natural selection will favor those individuals who live in a society, and by extension, those who do not engage in behavior that is destructive to the society they live in.

God is not necessary, all that is necessary is for people to be taught at an early age that some behavior is 'wrong' by their parents. Which is often, but not always, behavior that is destructive to the society they live in. Most people in the US, for instance, find eating insects to be repulsive. In other parts of the world, insects are often eaten. Neither eating insects nor finding them repulsive is evidence of the existence of God, it is simply evidence of what people were taught by their parents and culture.

Another example - almost all people speak some sort of language. However, language is not 'written on our hearts' by God. We learn language from those around us. Feral children do not learn language, and, in fact, if re-introduced to human society at too old an age, can never learn it.

Anonymous Mudz October 17, 2013 5:48 PM  

God is not necessary

Wrong.

There. I answered your post with one word. I'm incredibly efficient.

Blogger Dominic Saltarelli October 17, 2013 5:48 PM  

JartStar October 17, 2013 5:34 PM
Ann said it... "bronze age" ... Good little monkey.

160 IQ. Believe it.


Naruto!

Anonymous Catan October 17, 2013 5:50 PM  

Most people on the bottom of the social ladder in our schools probably DREAM of actually being ostracized.

Yeah, pretty accurate. That describes the situation I was in during middle school quite well, actually.

Except it was vicious girls and their orbiters doing the incessant bullying, and it wasn't because of any specific reason (except I was smarter than them), it was whatever damn reason they wanted it to be at the moment, because that's what bullies do. They don't hate you for some rational reason. They hate you because they want to hate someone, and you're it.

Bullies bully because they want to. Someone is going to be a target, whether 'gay' itself remains an insult or not. Making being gay socially acceptable isn't going to increase or reduce bullying in schools, because they will just find another rationalization and do what they enjoy doing anyway. It's a ridiculous argument all around.

Anonymous Daniel October 17, 2013 5:51 PM  

Well, technically, the intentional grounding rule is not arbitrary.

But I don't want to get too controversial.

Anonymous GG October 17, 2013 5:51 PM  

"GG, don't be an ass. You're hopelessly incompetent, and there's a reason no-one's interested in demonstrating intelligent trolling technique to you"

Thank you for rewarding my honesty and civility with cruelty. You do reap what you sow, you know.

Anonymous VD October 17, 2013 5:53 PM  

However, the statement made by VD is also crap, if he thinks that the worst thing happening to homosexuals (not to mention those with too much or too little intelligence, the physically deformed, or anyone else who falls outside the norm) is simply 'being ostracized' then he is either severely deluded, or a flat out liar. Most people on the bottom of the social ladder in our schools probably DREAM of actually being ostracized.

Shut up, Ann. I said nothing of the sort. Do not attempt to summarize what I have said again as you are observably incapable of doing so properly. See the rules.

Anonymous Mudz October 17, 2013 5:53 PM  

Don't doubt it for a second. Bear it in humility, bro.

Anonymous Mudz October 17, 2013 5:54 PM  

^ @ GG (obv)

Anonymous Ann Morgan October 17, 2013 5:58 PM  

Dystopic: **This is absolutely hilarious. Infanticide? Really? Because Christians protesting against abortion are all about killing babies. **

I'd suggest you actually read the bible. All of it.

Anonymous Josh October 17, 2013 5:59 PM  

Do not attempt to summarize what I have said again as you are observably incapable of doing so properly

But she has an IQ of 166!

Blogger tz October 17, 2013 6:00 PM  

As Job found out, God's ways aren't arbitrary, but beyond human understanding - so far above things as he sees every moment of history in an instant.

The specific irony is deeper as the Father was apparently asleep as his son descended into disorder, and he was killed by a trucker who fell asleep.

We are commanded to love the sinner, hate the sin. Both. It's hard, especially when the sinner insists that if you don't accept the sin, you don't love him. A quick answer is to start cigarette smoking and see if you can do it in the sanctuary of the lesbishopess's cathederal.

But as to God "the Father" being arbitrary, any son needs discipline. It might seem arbitrary to make him unhappy by preventing him from slacking or doing something dangerous, or similar, but any real Father wants his Son to exceed him in every ability and virtue and goodness, truth, and beauty.


semi OT - for a rhetorical example against new atheism, check out loser letters

Anonymous Mudz October 17, 2013 6:00 PM  

I'd suggest you actually read the bible. All of it.

I suggest you cite a scripture and make a point.

Anonymous George of the Hole October 17, 2013 6:05 PM  

As I've mentioned before a 3000 year old tablet engraved with the 10 commandments and made entirely of a pure, stable, transuranic element would definitely get my attention, as it would eliminate the possibility of liars, delusion, and present or past human beings.

A 3000 year old transuranic element could neither be pure nor stable. This is akin to saying only a square circle could make you believe in God.

In other words, you are completely closed minded when it comes to God.

Blogger tz October 17, 2013 6:12 PM  

@Ann
Proofs of God]

No matter what evidence was presented, you would find some excuse - you would call it false even if all the people or you yourself personally found such an item buried in a way it could not have been a "plant".


Sufficient evidence exists today if you would be willing to accept it. If you are unwilling, nothing which could ever exist would suffice.

It would also be more impressive if it were not the case that those who talk loudest about being 'Christians' are also those who most often advocate killing, rape, infanticide, genocide, and spew out obscenities about my speaking out my vagina. If that is the end result that the practice of their religion has on them, it doesn't seem to be very worthwhile.

Many who are atheists did far more than talk. You are in the camp of Stalin and Mao. You don't separate those who talk about being "Christians" from those who hold to the doctrine, so why should you be shown the same courtesy - that those who talk about "Atheism" shouldn't be held responsible for every horror and crime committed in the name in Atheism?

Your brain might have a 160+ IQ which may emerge from the lips surrounding your mouth, but there seems to be a great deal lost when you speak from your other labia.

If when you speak from your vagina, you cannot be considered to be anything other than a stupid cunt - not by prejudice but by objective analysis of what comes forth, why should you be upset? Try clearly speaking your mind through the opening intended for speech.

Jesus said what comes out is what causes condemnation - not what goes in.

Blogger slarrow October 17, 2013 6:13 PM  

Ann, your comment is exactly backwards. Intuition does not prove God's existence--it's God's existence that validates intuition as having useful insights. . Likewise, claiming that our reasoning can happen without recourse to God assumes logic is trustworthy where God is unnecessary. Given God, all else follows.

Your challenge isn't to just say, "well, I don't believe God exists." Fine. Given that, you've got to get to the notion that we can know that murder is evil/wrong regardless of society or circumstance (or admit that it isn't) and, if you're going to use moral intuition and reason in that endeavor, first establish why those are trustworthy. The theist doesn't have to do that--his worldview states why they're reliable (because of God.) You do.

Blogger Chris Ritchie October 17, 2013 6:15 PM  

Ann, we need to back up here. What Slarrow was pointing out is the very structure of our biological existence argues for rules that discourage murder. If we are formed in such a way that reproduction takes a lengthy amount of time (and we are, and it does), then that argues for a moral code that discourages us from murdering one another. So where did that moral code come from? Biology alone? Prove it.

There are other biological systems based not on cooperation, but on quick reproduction and death. In those cases, the only way the community of organisms survives is to quickly remove older organisms out of the ecosystem to make way for the exponential increasing of its new members. As an example, look what happens when fast reproducing species are introduced into a foreign environment such as the introduction of Nile Perch into Lake Victoria. It displaced hundreds of other native species. Is that good? According to whom? Against what metrics? Why? For whose benefit? Who should win those arguments? The strongest? The best-looking? Evolutionary theory has not answered these questions in an intellectually satisfying way so the theory is waning in significance despite compulsory education's attempt to prop it up. In fact, it is immoral, but without God you struggle to say why.

The fact that humans are not built this way is circumstantial evidence for the existence of a God that wants us to value life. That humans are at the top of the sentient chain of life also argues that death is not the preferred way for us to interact with one another or the rest of the species on this planet. Our species would soon be extinct. This means we need to step back another step to something above man that "caused" our Biological Imperative to behave this way. What could that be?

Now you will claim that our biological predisposition has been set by Evolution. Unfortunately, Evolution is more properly called a religion or a philosophy than any sort of real science. The learned Christians of the world see the same evidence and interpret it as Intelligent Design, leading back to a Creator. We always have to go outside of ourselves to find the prime cause, the Why.

Otherwise, as has been ably pointed out above, we have only one another to depend upon. Do you really want to base your morals on the survival of the fittest? You're a woman. What does that mean for you when a fitter, younger, male wants the resources you claim as your own? The Evolutionists never take their theories to their logical conclusions.

I challenge you to provide an example of an Atheistic society that valued life over power.

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum October 17, 2013 6:22 PM  

Evil revels in grief, pain, and suffering. Not good. And not God.

That is not entirely correct.

Pain and suffering can sometimes be a good thing, and we actually should rejoice in it.

In fact Jesus said something along those lines:

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Matthew 5:11-12 (NIV)


If one is being persecuted, and are experiencing "grief, pain and suffering" for Jesus' sake, you should rejoice, because even if you're a complete screw-up in every other part of your life, you're at least doing one thing right.



Shit's gonna happen in your life, deal with it like an adult.

Because all the shit you went through during your life, and all the joys you experienced, all the money you made, your large houses, the fancy cars you bought, all the toys and other things you acquired during your Earthly life will mean nothing when you're taking your last few breaths, dying.

You who haven't come to the edge of it, would be extremely surprised how quickly Death focuses the mind and changes your behaviors to yourself and to the people around you.

Anonymous AlteredFate October 17, 2013 6:24 PM  

"Guy went on a trek to endorse an abominable lifestyle that destroys those who are caught up in it. God has killed people for other reasons in the Bible. Korah is an immediate example of what happens. Did God directly bring about this father's death? I can never answer that." - Guitar Man

When ever someone attributes some accident or what have you to an act of God, I always like to point out Ecclesiastes 9:11 "...because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all." and follow it up with James 1:13, "For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone."

Did God cause this man to get hit by a truck? The scriptures above would indicate to me that no He did not. The man is as blood guilty for his own death as the man who fell asleep at the wheel, which ever degree of blood guilt it may be. Walking along side any road is inherently dangerous. But the man will be judged on what is in his heart by God's appointed judge, Jesus Christ. What he will find there we can not know for sure.

As for this "gem"...

"If Jesus had been real, he's accept gays more than he would accept phony "christians" like the average American tea-tard." -a. dumbass

I'll leave you with a quote from my Lord who is not the long-haired-accepting-of-all-liberal-hippy so many sinners like to think him to be.

"Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword." -Jesus Christ


Anonymous realmatt October 17, 2013 6:42 PM  

These parents amaze me. They're so proud of raising weak pitiful creatures who resort to suicide and want the entire world to know. Their desire to abdicate all responsibility is what lead to their children's demise in the first place. Gay or straight they put them in schools and let other people raise them.

Anonymous bob k. mando October 17, 2013 6:43 PM  

Ann Morgan October 17, 2013 5:25 PM
Most people on the bottom of the social ladder in our schools probably DREAM of actually being ostracized.




ostracism is an active shunning, to be forcibly excluded from the group.

i don't know of any other alternatives to outgrouping other than ostracizing or ignoring.

are you saying that the people at the bottom of the social ladder are being ignored and they would prefer to be ostracized, Ann?

Blogger wrf3 October 17, 2013 6:46 PM  

Ann wrote: I'd suggest you actually read the bible. All of it.

I have. Many times over the past 35 years. Where in the Bible does it say that Christians are to kill babies? (Hint: I know exactly how you're going to answer this and I'm quite prepared to show that you don't know what you're talking about. Not that it will do any good.)

And, while we're on the subject of you not knowing what you're talking about, you never did respond to direct questioning in the thread on P. Punctatus.

Anonymous bob k. mando October 17, 2013 6:54 PM  

Ann Morgan October 17, 2013 5:58 PM
I'd suggest you actually read the bible. All of it.



specific instructions to specific Hebrews at a specific time and a specific place for a specific reason does not equate to Christians advocating for infanticide, you dunce.


you're as ridiculous as Jews who claim that Christians are trying to accelerate the end times so that we can kill Jews. conveniently forgetting that it's the Anti-Christ who is going to kill Jews wholesale.



George of the Hole October 17, 2013 6:05 PM
A 3000 year old transuranic element could neither be pure nor stable.



i keep telling you guys, the IQ is stated in Base7. it explains everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transuranium_element
"All of these elements are unstable and decay radioactively into other elements."

Anonymous Marellus October 17, 2013 7:01 PM  

From the New York Times :

The Rev. David Wilkerson, an evangelical minister and author who founded the Times Square Church to minister to the downtrodden in one of Manhattan’s seedier precincts, but whose later writings included apocalyptic predictions for New York City and beyond, died on Wednesday in an automobile accident in Texas. He was 79 and lived near Tyler, Tex.

Mr. Wilkerson’s car veered into oncoming traffic on a highway near Cuney, about 110 miles southeast of Dallas, and was hit by a tractor-trailer, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety told The Associated Press.

His wife, Gwendolyn, was seriously injured but is expected to recover, Mr. Wilkerson’s brother, the Rev. Donald Wilkerson, said on Thursday.

David Wilkerson was known to a broad readership through his many books. His most famous, “The Cross and the Switchblade” (1963), chronicled his ministry among gang members in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, where he had arrived as a young preacher in the late 1950s.


God was not mocked by this man ... but this man's death did not glorify Him either ...

Why ?

Anonymous Theodd October 17, 2013 7:19 PM  

In other words, you are completely closed minded when it comes to God.

I don't get that from her comment, she's simply saying to prove the supernatural you need something that doesn't have a plausible natural explanation.

Anonymous Noah B. October 17, 2013 7:27 PM  

"But she has an IQ of 166!"

I've cracked the code. She's using a base-7 number system.

Anonymous Mudz October 17, 2013 8:01 PM  

I thought I'd offer some spectatorial spice on the engagement between the VP Ilk and the Tad germplex, just for what-the-hey. I'm cool like that. (Also, I have to stay awake.)

1. Lol, Ann's proposed IQ isn't even worth mockery. He only made that up as one of his Chinese toss-out toys. No effort, no risk, no investment, no purpose except occupation and attempted disorientation at no cost. The fact that it's ineffective daunts him not. He perseveres with monotonal endurance. He will toss these out at random whenever his creativity experiences a flicker of dull life. He doesn't think about them, and neither should you. With the obvious exception of entertainment purposes. A caveat appended to all Ant interactivity..

2. I love reading the detailed replies, and they serve a purpose all of their own obviously; but just for the peace of mind of all concerned, observing, and unfamiliar, it pleases me to bring to your attention you that absolutely everything Ann et al. produces is completely artificial and of no value in itself, to us or him. He could be oh-so-secretly a Deist and he'd still be here, day after day, bleeding out nonsense one day at a time. He's apparently not dying quickly enough, and this is his choice of accelerated entropy. None of it is sincere, and I mean none of it, beginning with the name itself. And it's all dedicated to the dubious purpose of occupying attention. For him to act sincere, and especially to be caught doing it, would be perceived as a failure on his part. The larger reason is simply because he's knows his intellectual powers are insufficient to the task of strong debate, so he's falling back on the ancient boyhood conceit of 'don't try, never fail' to obscure his intellectual inadequacies and emotional weaknesses to face an honest and constructive exchange of fire. Any time in the past that he did attempt to make a serious argument, because he thought he had a winner, he would have immediately retreated into his safety shell as soon as he realised he was failing. To recognise his own ineptness would probably hurt him quite deeply, so he expends all effort to avoid confronting it.

As a result, don't expect any efforts you make for his sake to be respected. He doesn't understand it. His wires are all crossed.

Literally the only reason to engage him is for the exercise, or the amusement, if you're uninvested. Any results you produce, he will exert all effort to absorb and conceal, and immediately attempt to frustrate you for the trouble. Because he's just that likeable.

3. The funny thing is, Ann/Tad/GP/Everybody is apparently either v.young/alwaysbored/lamebasementnerd/tryingtoimpressboringgayfriends, because he's doing what I did for about one single day when I was thirteen, except I had a purpose, and immediately grew out of it the same day. And without the boring gayfriends. Just to whip that out there in the breezy non-judgmental open.

Additional notes: Ann talks to himself a lot. I don't know why, since it doesn't occupy anyone elses time. Kinda weird.

*

I think that sums it up!

And that concludes this episode of 'Troll Hunter: Irrelevance in the Wild'!

Anonymous bob k. mando October 17, 2013 8:41 PM  

Noah B. October 17, 2013 7:27 PM
I've cracked the code. She's using a base-7 number system.



by jove, you're brilliant!

you know there are only 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and everybody else.

Anonymous Mudz October 17, 2013 8:49 PM  

* I guess he could be a Satanist, come to think of it. Dedicated to obstructionism, with however many phantom egos and phantom arguments he is able to make. It would explain the sort-of work ethic in the face of eternal pointlessness.

Anonymous Outlaw X October 17, 2013 9:01 PM  

That being said, I very much doubt that the grieving father was struck down by God simply because he was on a personal crusade to popularize the acceptance of a particular form of sin; the ironic malice involved tends to strike me as the handiwork of a very different supernatural being.

You are right Vox, If God struck people down or those who.sinned we would all be struck down.

Romans 1:
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Blogger tz October 17, 2013 9:15 PM  

@Mudz 1. Lol, Ann's proposed IQ isn't even worth mockery

It only means her rationalization hamster can break the sound barrier.

Just as someone who could lift 300 or 400 pounds is strong, but it is irrelevant for many things, an IQ that can break down and analyze various logical constructs is similarly irrelevant. The former would threaten to beat up physically, the latter intellectually, but both would not be seeking truth but acceptance or even dominance.

Blogger Glen Filthie October 17, 2013 9:38 PM  

Thank God.

I was beginning to think I was the only one who hadn't been grabbed by the Body Snatchers or some other mind-controlling alien race.

No, homosexuality is not normal, and it doesn't matter how many liberals and stupid people line up in a row to say otherwise. My daughter came out of the closet 3 years ago, and I know of which I speak. I ain't drinking your koolaid, the rectum is not a sex organ, and most of these people have some very serious issues that go deeper than may eccentricities associated with gays.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn October 17, 2013 9:39 PM  

I see that Ann is determined to draw attention to herself yet again. How dull.

a 3000 year old tablet engraved with the 10 commandments and made entirely of a pure, stable, transuranic element would definitely get my attention

Ah, so in order to "get your attention", all you require is something that defies your current, limited understanding of physics. Of course, you will then promptly revise your understanding of physics to account for it.

Pray, why should anyone desire the "attention" of such as you?

spew out obscenities about my speaking out my vagina.

Then cease being a mewling quim.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn October 17, 2013 9:46 PM  

You are deliberately misunderstanding me and responding emotionally, rather than logically, something I'm sure VD has experienced before when he is being misunderstood.

I doubt that, as just before she wrote to you, she specially sought and found that bit of Scripture for you. As she did, she looked to me and said, "He's going to ignore this completely, because he's so crazy he can't process logic and doesn't get that his weird ideas don't trump God's expressed word."

Once again, I do not have the moral authority to speak for God, I simply speak my Truth as I know it. Take it or leave it.

Ah, splendid. Do get around to sharing "your" Truth. Doubtless it will be fascinating to know what you are exhorting others here to embrace, and why.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 17, 2013 10:00 PM  

"Guess what, you got nothing constant to hold onto without God. You only have man. And you know in your gut just what a poor specimen he really is through your own craven depravity. Which we all share by the way. Don't feel picked on. You're in good, but ultimately doomed without God, company."

There are any number of values and combination of values that a person could hold on to as a guide to living a good and proper life. They may not be grounded in the notion of an authoritative law giver, but they could be committed to with equal endurance and sincerity as the person who holds on to morals based on a supernatural law giver. This can't be denied.

It seems however that the response to this form of moral grounding sans god is found wanting by some theists because they feel they can't trust the non-theists with their non-theistic morals to be could people. I have no problem with that concern. It's a reasonable concern.

However, the same concern can be leveled at the person who grounds their values in a supernatural lawgiver. After all, no theist will argue they are without sin. They fail to live up to the values they believe in.

So why is one form of values and morals, one prescription for living a good and proper life better than the other??

Anonymous Jack Amok October 17, 2013 10:03 PM  

There is a reason it was considered a psychological illness until recently.

It is a cruel joke that homosexuals are called "gay." They are not, in general, very happy people. Our cultural decision to celebrate them cause them to self-segregate into their own circles, where they are surrounded by other generally unhappy people. That would seem to be a recipe for suicide.

Now compound that by the over-sexualization of youths today. Sexual issues are tremendously charged emotional issues to begin with for any person. Sexual failings or frustrations can cause a mature heterosexual person to snap. Now subject a teenager to it, and add in the entire homosexual angle...

Should this sort of outcome really be a surprise?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 17, 2013 10:07 PM  

"Correction: there is no proof you are willing to accept. Evidence for God's existence can be found."

Actually the correct formulation is there is no proof for the existence of god. Evidence? Sure. But it is utterly inconclusive and anyone who argues otherwise simply doesn't understand the meaning of "proof" and certainly doesn't appreciate the accepted meaning of "truth". It can be said with perfect rationality that "it is true we do not know there is a god, but believe in one nonetheless."

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn October 17, 2013 10:10 PM  

There are any number of values and combination of values that a person could hold on to as a guide to living a good and proper life. They may not be grounded in the notion of an authoritative law giver, but they could be committed to with equal endurance and sincerity as the person who holds on to morals based on a supernatural law giver.

And, naturally, these moral claims would never be "altered occasionally in the future as the mind and views of man change".

Anonymous Golf Pro October 17, 2013 10:12 PM  

"
Your challenge isn't to just say, "well, I don't believe God exists." Fine. Given that, you've got to get to the notion that we can know that murder is evil/wrong regardless of society or circumstance (or admit that it isn't) and, if you're going to use moral intuition and reason in that endeavor, first establish why those are trustworthy. The theist doesn't have to do that--his worldview states why they're reliable (because of God.) You do."

One does not have to KNOW murder is wrong in order to present reasons for deeming it wrong. It's similar to theism. One does not have to KNOW a god exists in order to present reasons for believing a god exists.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn October 17, 2013 10:17 PM  

Indeed, and there is no proof that "Golf Pro" is not a syphilis-addled catamite who harbours a mad lust for Vox. Indeed, there is evidence, of a sort, but it is utterly inconclusive, and anyone who argues otherwise simply does not understand the meaning of "proof", and certainly does not appreciate the accepted meaning of "truth".

Anonymous Mudz October 17, 2013 10:25 PM  

It only means her rationalization hamster can break the sound barrier.

Just as someone who could lift 300 or 400 pounds is strong, but it is irrelevant for many things, an IQ that can break down and analyze various logical constructs is similarly irrelevant. The former would threaten to beat up physically, the latter intellectually, but both would not be seeking truth but acceptance or even dominance.


What I mean is that it was completely made up. Completely thoughtless and spurious, conjured for purely tactical purposes. Because this is a higher-than-average IQ forum, he selected it specifically, instinctively, to arouse a sense of rivalry or jealousy. The best bait he could think of. Ann only flicked it out there because he's constantly trying, rather unsuccessfully, to throw people off-balance with cheap props, such as, for example, the other time when he made up an anecdote about 'her' childhood in evil religious school which could not be verified, but a sufficiently insecure person would react out of the fear that it might be true, and act on that assumption without closely examining what he's actually saying. He's trying to capitalise on a timidness or psychological insecurity that doesn't exist in this forum significantly enough for the tactic to really be effective in exploiting the psychological weakness he's attempting to attack.

All it does is give people the excuse to rant, which fulfills the only other primary benefit of a troll.

It wouldn't matter either way, but I'm just emphasising that it's an instinct-based tactic, not information of any kind. It makes no difference how intelligent he actually is, it had nothing to do with what prompted him to throw out a (presumably) high number. It's to do with his psychology, which is wrapped around the primacy of deceit and badly waged psychological warfare, like children are. The fact that Ann's intelligence doesn't even remotely approach anything extraordinary, is tangential, but also happens to be true, regardless of wisdom.

Yours and Vox's explication of intelligence combined with wisdom is absolutely true in the circumstance you're describing, but this is something different. It's pure non-rational lurkerthought of lies. I think it's hilarious that its so ludicrously ineffective, that it doesn't matter if people know or not.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 17, 2013 10:29 PM  

"And, naturally, these moral claims would never be "altered occasionally in the future as the mind and views of man change".

Certainly societies' basic values change over time. So has the churches for that matter. There' snot much inquisitioning going on these days for example.

Anonymous Mudz October 17, 2013 10:34 PM  

The thing is, the germplex of the AnnTad collective etc, could be made completely irrelevant simply if Vox decided to create a Big Rule For Non-Interaction with Tad and plaster it all over the forum wallpaper, or have a tech guy put in a crypto profile-blanker that automatically deletes/obscures Tad and all his incarnations without alerting him, that can be easily updated by a mod. So that the effort is ridiculously excessive for Tad to be able to keep up, and wouldn't be of much use anyway.

But Tad does serve a purpose. He's a good dummy target to whale on, as well as development of counter-troll skills. So it works out. :D

It means there's always something to do. If one feels like it of course. I'm pretty much bored of the guy at the moment.

Anonymous Mudz October 17, 2013 10:36 PM  

There' snot much inquisitioning going on these days for example.

Detectives are still popular.

Anonymous Heh October 17, 2013 10:37 PM  

But she has an IQ of 166!

And yet observably stupid as shit... where did that number come from?

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn October 17, 2013 10:41 PM  

Certainly societies' basic values change over time. So has the churches for that matter.

Which churches? Are you one who assumes that all Christians are Catholic, perchance?

There' snot much inquisitioning going on these days for example.

You seem unaware that the Office of the Inquisition remains, merely under a different name. But I suppose Monsignor Mueller will forgive you; nobody expects it, after all.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn October 17, 2013 10:48 PM  

And now, bored half to death with Tad's ineptitude at trolling, I go to bed.

Anonymous Mudz the Mutt October 17, 2013 11:29 PM  

"He's a good dummy target to whale on, as well as development of counter-troll skills. So it works out."

So, in essence, open season on Tad and company. How mighty Christian of you.

Anonymous Mudz October 17, 2013 11:35 PM  

Thank you. And I don't even go to a gym.

You know what's hilarious? My nickname is Mud Dog. You have no idea how funny it's been to see people try to insult me with it. :D

Anonymous Outlaw X October 17, 2013 11:35 PM  

Your logic is flawed.

Actually the correct formulation is there is no proof for the existence of god. Evidence? Sure. But it is utterly inconclusive and anyone who argues otherwise simply doesn't understand the meaning of "proof" and certainly doesn't appreciate the accepted meaning of "truth".

Lets pretend that I killed someone and there was not even any evidence and therefore no proof. Is it then not the truth I did kill someone? Truth doesn't require proof. Whether proved or not the truth remains I killed some one.

Think before you post.

Anonymous Mudz October 17, 2013 11:37 PM  

Hahahahaha, It's fucking great to be me. ;D

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 12:01 AM  

tz wrote: **Sufficient evidence exists today if you would be willing to accept it. If you are unwilling, nothing which could ever exist would suffice.**

The problem with your statement, TZ, is first of all, that what I see here is repeated claims that 'sufficient evidence exists' (of the existence of God), but the presentation of the actual evidence is not forthcoming. Furthermore, your qualifier - **if you would be willing to accept it** - can be said to be true of almost anything. For instance, sufficient circumstantial evidence to 'prove' that Queen Elizabeth is actually responsible for the murders attributed to Ed Gein probably exists - if you would be willing to accept it. After all, she probably can't account for where she was and what she was doing every second of every day during the time period the murders took place, so she COULD have been taking an airplane to Wisconsin and killing people.

** If you are unwilling, nothing which could ever exist would suffice.** Also a common excuse given for not producing better evidence of God's existence. And a false one. I would probably be willing, for instance, to believe that Queen Elizabeth committed the Ed Gein murders if very good evidence were produced. Such as her fingerprints on the murder weapon, one of the crown jewels in the stomach of an exhumed victim, etc.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 12:07 AM  

Outlaw X wrote: **Lets pretend that I killed someone and there was not even any evidence and therefore no proof. Is it then not the truth I did kill someone? Truth doesn't require proof. Whether proved or not the truth remains I killed some one.**

That's technically true. Truth exists independent of the ability to prove of provide evidence for it. For instance, there's probably a large red giant star with a particular diameter somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy. And the star exists regardless of whether or not human beings are aware of, or able to prove it's existence.

But... it's extremely foolish to make statements about the 'truth' without proof. An astronomer who went around claiming that a red giant star existed at such and such a spot in the Andromeda galaxy without proof, such as images of the star from a telescope, would be laughed out of his profession. And it's flippant to insult people for refusing to accept some 'truth' for which there is no good evidence, and immoral to deprive people of their rights, based on some 'truth' for which there is no evidence.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 12:16 AM  

Mudz wrote: **I suggest you cite a scripture and make a point.**

Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”.

1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless "suckling" infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.

Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.

Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”

Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”

Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it.

Psalms 137:8-9 Prayer/song of vengeance “0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

Exodus 12:29 God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh’s actions in the first place.

Joshua 8 God commanded the deaths of 12,000 men, women, and children of Ai.

Anonymous kh123 October 18, 2013 12:17 AM  

" all the toys and other things you acquired during your Earthly life will mean nothing when you're taking your last few breaths, dying."

True, but I've seen more than once the flipside of this: Those so preoccupied with their perception of holiness that they leave the financial - or other responsibilities - in tatters. Whether the holiness is a legitimate aim is another matter, but it seems to fit the old saying of "head in the clouds", sans the feet on the ground.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 18, 2013 12:20 AM  

"Lets pretend that I killed someone and there was not even any evidence and therefore no proof. Is it then not the truth I did kill someone? Truth doesn't require proof. Whether proved or not the truth remains I killed some one."

Your logic works and is maintained only if you give yourself access to the Godview of the world and in your hypothetical deny it to all other potential observers. Yet in my example you quoted, I assume all have access to the same evidence. I know you see the difference.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 18, 2013 12:23 AM  

"True, but I've seen more than once the flipside of this: Those so preoccupied with their perception of holiness that they leave the financial - or other responsibilities - in tatters. Whether the holiness is a legitimate aim is another matter, but it seems to fit the old saying of "head in the clouds", sans the feet on the ground."

It's not merely the theist who is often oblivious to worldly responsibilities, nor is it primarily the theist and when a theist is is oblivious to worldly responsibilities it's doubtful it's due to their theism as you suggest.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 12:24 AM  

George wrote: **A 3000 year old transuranic element could neither be pure nor stable. This is akin to saying only a square circle could make you believe in God.**

A square circle is a logical impossibility. Transuranic elements exist, but break down quickly. Seems to me that any God worth his salt, can prevent them from breaking down. I wouldn't even require 100% pure. The same degree of purity as the gold or silver used in bullion coins would satisfy me. Or are human beings more powerful than God, that they can achieve a greater degree of purity in processed elements?

Or how about this - God supposedly spoke to people in the bible. How about a booming voice from the sky, or even a private message to a single person containing actual knowledge (rather than insults against homosexuals) that the person could not have come up with themselves, such as the solutions to 5 mathematical proofs that are currently unsolved, or the cures to 5 minor diseases. Or the names and addresses of 20 women who will give birth to triplets next year.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 18, 2013 12:32 AM  

"Indeed, and there is no proof that "Golf Pro" is not a syphilis-addled catamite who harbours a mad lust for Vox. Indeed, there is evidence, of a sort, but it is utterly inconclusive, and anyone who argues otherwise simply does not understand the meaning of "proof", and certainly does not appreciate the accepted meaning of "truth"."

But in fact there is such evidence to the contrary or in support of this and it is actually exacting evidence. A test could conclusively show that I am or am not infected with syphilis. No such test exists for evidence of a God. Put another way, a mathematical proof one way or another could be constructed concerning myself and an infliction of syphilis. No such proof could be constructed for god.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 12:34 AM  

tz wrote: **Many who are atheists did far more than talk. You are in the camp of Stalin and Mao.**

And you are in the camp of Torquemada and Gilles de Rais. And a Hindu is in the camp of Thug Behram. What is your point?

**You don't separate those who talk about being "Christians" from those who hold to the doctrine, so why should you be shown the same courtesy - that those who talk about "Atheism" shouldn't be held responsible for every horror and crime committed in the name in Atheism?**

Athiests generally do not attempt to pull a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy and try to claim that Hitler and Stalin were not 'real athiests'

**Your brain might have a 160+ IQ which may emerge from the lips surrounding your mouth, but there seems to be a great deal lost when you speak from your other labia.

If when you speak from your vagina, you cannot be considered to be anything other than a stupid cunt - not by prejudice but by objective analysis of what comes forth, why should you be upset? Try clearly speaking your mind through the opening intended for speech.**

Can I assume that your obscene and hostile references to female anatomy are indicative of what the practice of Christianity accomplishes in people? Certainly Vox has made similiar remarks.

As for upsetting me... why should I be upset? I have a vagina, though I can't talk out of it, and the prevailing belief here that any woman is capable of such a thing indicates a severe need for a remedial course in anatomy and physiology. I also have a clitoris, ovaries, and an extra vertebrae in my neck. If you wish to discuss anatomy and sexuality, I can go on at length about the shape of opossum genitalia (forked in both the male and female of that species), species that change gender and the conditions under which that takes place, homosexual behavior in orangutans, temperature based gender determination in snapping turtles, and the difference between genetic based gender determination in birds compared to mammals.

So... did you want to talk about sex, or were you just attempting to show that Christianity induces a mental state similiar to Tourette's syndrome?

Anonymous outlaw X October 18, 2013 12:35 AM  


That's technically true.


No, it's absolutely true and you completely missed the point.

Blogger Dystopic October 18, 2013 12:38 AM  

Athiests generally do not attempt to pull a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy and try to claim that Hitler and Stalin were not 'real athiests'

Given that Christians are forbidden to murder, steal, etc., a person who commits these acts and does not repent of them can legitimately be said to not be Christian regardless of what they claim to be. Atheists cannot use the same defense since there is no unified belief system with them that we can compare to.

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 12:40 AM  

“Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

Yes. What's your point?

In fact, let's skip right to the end, and assume you're represented it all accurately. God killed babies, and gave provisional orders to kill babies.

What's your point? This is God doing God stuff. What significance does it haveto Christian infanticide policy, which is clearly 'don't kill babies'?

Feel free to ramble. We both know you're incapable of actually providing anything of substance, let alone achieve victory.

Anonymous Vic October 18, 2013 12:45 AM  

The problem with your statement Ann, is that you demand more evidence than what exist. It is God himself that set up prophesy as the evidence provided.

But Jesus says that if you will not believe prophesy, you would not believe even if you witnessed someone return from the dead = Luke 16:19

As I watch you try and argue away this evidence, I think I see were Jesus is coming from. Surely you would opine that the dead man just swooned, blacked out for a while, had too much to drink, only appeared to be dead...ect.

So your argument is with God, not any of his followers.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 18, 2013 12:47 AM  

"Given that Christians are forbidden to murder, steal, etc., a person who commits these acts and does not repent of them can legitimately be said to not be Christian regardless of what they claim to be."

They definitely can legitimately be said to be christian. Even the bible is clear on this. What they can't claim is to be acting in a christian manner. We know that no one is perfect and we know that no Christian is without sin. Does a christian stay a Christian when not sinning, then stop being a member of the faith when they sin, then become a Christian anew when they ask for forgiveness, then no longer hold the status of christian when they sin, then repent and become a christian anew? That's not how it works.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 12:49 AM  

CR106 wrote:**Ann, we need to back up here. What Slarrow was pointing out is the very structure of our biological existence argues for rules that discourage murder. If we are formed in such a way that reproduction takes a lengthy amount of time (and we are, and it does), then that argues for a moral code that discourages us from murdering one another. So where did that moral code come from? Biology alone? Prove it.**

CR, the chances of an individual surviving and reproducing are greater if they live in a society, rather than off on their own in some cave. This would tend to favor the selection of those individuals who do not engage in behavior destructive to that society, and by extension, societies which take steps to prevent actual destructive behavior (which, btw, is not synonymous with behavior that merely offends some, or even a majority of people).

We do know that biology exists. Natural selection and selective breeding are proven mechanisms. If a particular scenario can be explained using that which is already known, then the burden of proof lies upon those who propose the un-known to prove that the unknown exists. Let's use a very greatly simplified scenario to demonstrate this.Suppose we lived in a very simple universe made entirely out of iron. It had iron stars, iron planets, iron people. If a bag (made of iron) was known to have contents inside weighing 50 lbs, the simplest explanation in such a universe would be that the bag contained 50 lbs of iron. If you wished to propose something else, say that part or all of the 50 lbs in the bag was actually some previously unknown element called 'gold', or that there was some additional element in the bag that didn't add any weight called 'helium', the burden of proof would be on you to show that such things as 'gold' or 'helium' existed, when the weight of the bag could be explained simply by it containing iron without resorting to complex explanations of unknown and unproven elements.
(more in next post)

Anonymous Golf Pro October 18, 2013 12:49 AM  

"What's your point? This is God doing God stuff. What significance does it haveto Christian infanticide policy, which is clearly 'don't kill babies'?"

How do you know that according to Christian doctrine or scripture that it is immoral to kill babies?What's your point? This is God doing God stuff. What significance does it haveto Christian infanticide policy, which is clearly 'don't kill babies'?

Anonymous Golf Pro October 18, 2013 12:51 AM  

"The problem with your statement Ann, is that you demand more evidence than what exist. It is God himself that set up prophesy as the evidence provided.

But Jesus says that if you will not believe prophesy, you would not believe even if you witnessed someone return from the dead = Luke 16:19"

Surely you understand it's not a good strategy to quote scripture to prove the validity of the entity that was supposed to have revealed the scripture

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 12:53 AM  

How do you know that according to Christian doctrine or scripture that it is immoral to kill babies?

Because God says so in the Law that He gave to the ancient Israelites. Eye for an Eye was cited directly for causing a miscarriage, the penalty of which was a life for a life. Also, the big one, Thou Shalt Not Murder. General laws that prohibit murder of children, or murder at all, the Law which only God Himself holds authority over.

:)

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 12:54 AM  

Surely you understand it's not a good strategy to quote scripture

Surely you understand you used the wrong tab to make your posts?

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 12:57 AM  

I am having fun imagining you trying to fury-type copy-paste all over the place though. I didn't want to spoil it. Keep it up.

Anonymous bob k. mando October 18, 2013 12:58 AM  

GG October 17, 2013 5:22 PM
I do not believe we are supposed to ever ostracize anyone, not if you're going to call yourself a disciple of Christ anyway.



herpderp. even wikipedia knows better. the Amish are somewhat famous for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_discipline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning#Anabaptism


question:
just WHAT would you call what Christ did to the moneylenders? was he greeting them in brotherly love?


Anonymous Golf Pro October 18, 2013 1:00 AM  

"Because God says so in the Law that He gave to the ancient Israelites. Eye for an Eye was cited directly for causing a miscarriage, the penalty of which was a life for a life. Also, the big one, Thou Shalt Not Murder. General laws that prohibit murder of children, or murder at all, the Law which only God Himself holds authority over."

Ok, that all makes sense to me. By the way, do all the laws given to the ancient Israelites apply to Chrisitians?

Also, according to the Law, is it immoral to clone human beings? What about removing feeding tubes from a brain dead, but still breathing, person?

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 1:01 AM  

**There are other biological systems based not on cooperation, but on quick reproduction and death. In those cases, the only way the community of organisms survives is to quickly remove older organisms out of the ecosystem to make way for the exponential increasing of its new members. As an example, look what happens when fast reproducing species are introduced into a foreign environment such as the introduction of Nile Perch into Lake Victoria. It displaced hundreds of other native species. Is that good? According to whom? Against what metrics? Why? For whose benefit? Who should win those arguments? The strongest? The best-looking? Evolutionary theory has not answered these questions in an intellectually satisfying way so the theory is waning in significance despite compulsory education's attempt to prop it up.**

First of all, evolution HAS answered the question of who should survive. Whatever manages to survive is what should survive. It doesn't matter if it does it by being strongest or most beautiful, or for any other reason. It isn't the job of evolutionary theory to determine what is 'good' or 'bad', and more than it is the job of a plumber to determine what is 'good' or 'bad'. Evolution theory is simply about what organisms will survive and reproduce, it doesn't make any judgements as to why or how. What we call 'morality' usually tends to correspond to what is best for the survival of human beings, based on our particular biology. If our biology were very different, it's likely our morality would be different as well. There is, in fact, a very good story about this. You can read the first chapter at this link: http://lesswrong.com/lw/y5/the_babyeating_aliens_18/


**The fact that humans are not built this way is circumstantial evidence for the existence of a God that wants us to value life.**

It's evidence of nothing more than that we happen to be built this way. If we were built a different way, we'd be arguing about that.

**That humans are at the top of the sentient chain of life also argues that death is not the preferred way for us to interact with one another or the rest of the species on this planet.** Other than infectious diseases, few or no species have abilities that are not 'trumped' by our intelligence (and the infectious diseases game is probably going to come to a close at some point in the future, barring a TEOTWAKI disaster). That we are on top of the food chain is exactly what should be expected for an intelligent species.

**Our species would soon be extinct. This means we need to step back another step to something above man that "caused" our Biological Imperative to behave this way. What could that be?** Again, human societies that did not behave that way probably died out. (more in next post)

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 1:10 AM  

By the way, do all the laws given to the ancient Israelites apply to Chrisitians?

You mean do we exist under the Old Covenant? No, we're not bound by national law. It's the basis through which we have an interpretation of God's moral values, which provides a foundation for the moral philosophy that binds us as Christians in the New Covenant. We're not Jews, that privilege remains theirs.

Honestly, you should know by now that your moves are predictable.

Also, according to the Law, is it immoral to clone human beings? What about removing feeding tubes from a brain dead, but still breathing, person?

Cloning, no. Murder is bad, attempts to create life, foolish perhaps, but there's nothing I can think of that indicates it's inherently bad. As for feeding tubes, yes, it is immoral to kill a living human, one who is apparently capable of imbibing food. I'll be generous and even remind you that there are brain dead people who have recovered from their brain dead condition.

Still, wouldn't hurt to check with a Hebrew scholar, as I always suggest.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 1:16 AM  

**Now you will claim that our biological predisposition has been set by Evolution. Unfortunately, Evolution is more properly called a religion or a philosophy than any sort of real science. The learned Christians of the world see the same evidence and interpret it as Intelligent Design, leading back to a Creator. We always have to go outside of ourselves to find the prime cause, the Why.**

Admittedly, we don't know why evolution works the way it does, any more than we know the ultimate reason of why water behaves the way it does. But the fact that we don't know the ultimate 'why' of either biology or plumbing is not proof of any 'God', much less the Christian 'God' in particular. Mind you, there's at least one very good reason to think that something(s) with abilities that would probably justify calling it (or them) 'God' exist. Which is that an antropormorphic, human centered universe is a severe error in thinking. Simply because we are the smartest and most powerful thing on the planet Earth doesn't mean that we are the smartest and most powerful thing in the entire universe. Or what may be lots of universes. In fact, it's highly unlikely. And given the large amount of space, time, and other existence, it's quite likely that SOMETHING(s) exists, somewhere capable of such tasks as creating real or simulated universes, or making a copy of all beings that exist and putting them in some sort of 'afterlife'. But for the same reason, that an anthropomorphic, human centered universe is a mistake in thinking, I also find it highly unlikely that such an entity would simply 'happen' to find the same sorts of minor variations in human sexual behavior disgusting that *we* happen to. It's far more likely that we either created our 'God' in our own image, or if some people have some awareness of an entity(ies) with abilities such as I mentioned, that they mistakenly attributed human prejudices to it.

**Otherwise, as has been ably pointed out above, we have only one another to depend upon. Do you really want to base your morals on the survival of the fittest? You're a woman. What does that mean for you when a fitter, younger, male wants the resources you claim as your own? The Evolutionists never take their theories to their logical conclusions.**

The fact that for the most part, we don't have such societies, indicates that there is some severe evolutionary disadvantage to them. The problem with your scenario is that your proposed 'younger, stronger male' does not exist in a vacuum, and that strength is not the only way of dealing with a problem. What happens to your 'younger, stronger male' when, after accumulating a harem of 20 women by bashing them over the head, one of the women poisons him or slits his throat in his sleep? Or 20 older, weaker, but by no means decrepit males decide to sooperatively gang up on your 'young, strong, male', bash him over the head, and divide up the harem of 20 women amongst themselves. And are smart enough to offer them a better deal such as pretty shells, more food and caring for their children. If they're smart enough to do that, now the 20 men have a significant advantage over 20 other men, even 20 stronger men, because they now have the loyalty of their women, and it makes it very hard for one man to defeat another man, even if he is stronger, if he has to deal with a woman hitting him over the head with a large stick at the same time as he is trying to defeat the other man.

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 1:27 AM  


Hahaha, trapped between your commitment to insincerity and evolutionary apologia. One of 'em has to go! This is fantastic. No matter what happens, you've done something positive for us.

You just admitted there is no morality inherent in evolution, that you don't know how evolution works. You believe the existence of a God-like being is highly likely, even if for weird reasons. And now it's just your random ejaculations of thought that no-one takes seriously anyway. You don't think God is like that, well the evidence we have suggests that He is. And having more evidence of the biblical God than evolution, God is therefore proven, as described, with the views we've ascribed to Him.

You're a blessing. Keep going, laddie! Y'ron fire!

*watches Ann struggle to amass cognitive weaponry*

Take your time. I'm gonna watch some TV.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 18, 2013 1:31 AM  

"As for feeding tubes, yes, it is immoral to kill a living human, one who is apparently capable of imbibing food. I'll be generous and even remind you that there are brain dead people who have recovered from their brain dead condition."

Where does scripture refer to feeding tubes? Also, is there any place in the bible where it declares we must take any all means to keep a terminal person alive? Because I see no place in the bible where either of these circumstances. Rather, in order to "know" that God doesn't like this, you need to interpret various parts of scripture through your own intellect, intuition and experience. This approach to determining how to act properly seems reasonable to me.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 18, 2013 1:35 AM  

"You just admitted there is no morality inherent in evolution"

Nobody in their right mind would ever submit that there is "Morality inherent in evolution" anymore than they would suggest there is some morality inherent in the Laws of thermodynamics. But it would be interesting to watch the mind-challenged person try.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 1:38 AM  

Mudz wrote: **I'll be generous and even remind you that there are brain dead people who have recovered from their brain dead condition.**

No. Being 'Brain Dead' is a specific medical term. People have recovered from COMAS, even those who have been in them for years. Nobody has recovered from being brain dead, and absent very significant advances in technology, which would include having some sort of copy of the personality of the person in question to be 'downloaded' onto a regrown brain, nobody is going to recover from that. But such technology would let us resurrect the 'dead-dead' as well.

Anonymous Vic October 18, 2013 1:38 AM  

Surely you understand it's not a good strategy to quote scripture to prove the validity of the entity that was supposed to have revealed the scripture

Why not? Can I not compare prophesy to history and validate the claims therein?

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 1:40 AM  

Mudz wrote: **that you don't know how evolution works**

Bullshit. I know how it works.

Anonymous Golf Pro October 18, 2013 1:46 AM  

"Why not? Can I not compare prophesy to history and validate the claims therein?"

Actually, no you can't verify that prophesy in the bible has been demonstrated to have come true.

But that's not what you did in any case. You quoted scripture in order to present an argument for accepting the truth of scripture.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 1:48 AM  

CR106 - just to make things clear, there is one big flaw in the story I put a link to, which is that it's extremely doubtful that highly R-selected creatures such as the 'Baby Eaters' could have intelligence. The reason why is that the existence of large brains (needed for intelligence) pretty much necessitates a creature that is fairly K-selected. Large brains and intelligence require a large parental investment in the young, both in terms of providing nutrients to grow the brains, and in terms of the time necessary to educate the young. Absent education, big brains are worse than useless. It takes a lot of food and oxygen to operate your brain, so it had better be of some significant use to you if you have one. Feral children who don't know language may just barely survive, but aren't going to out-compete even a cooperative stone age tribe that has language and spears. And there is no way I can see for a parent to educate even a small percentage of their children if they have 400 at a crack, like the 'baby eating' aliens in the story. The closest I can envision to such a thing would be something like an intelligent species of social insect, in which a 'queen' has a lot of babies, but they are cared for and educated (including being taught language) by some sort of 'worker' class.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 1:50 AM  

Mudz wrote: **And having more evidence of the biblical God than evolution, God is therefore proven, as described, with the views we've ascribed to Him.**

Really? You have more evidence for the biblical God than for Evolution? You have physical objects proving the existence of God, the way there are physical fossils showing the evolution of various species? Let me guess, they're locked in the Vatican and that's why nobody has seen them.

Anonymous bob k. mando October 18, 2013 2:48 AM  

Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:34 AM
Athiests generally do not attempt to pull a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy and try to claim that Hitler and Stalin were not 'real athiests'



weren't you busy calling someone a flagrant liar just upthread?

denying that Mao and Stalin were acting as atheists is THE PRIMARY ATHEIST DEFENSE against their genocides. it strains credulity to believe that you've never observed this.

then again, so do your assertions of high intelligence.



Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:24 AM
A square circle is a logical impossibility. Transuranic elements exist, but break down quickly. Seems to me that any God worth his salt, can prevent them from breaking down.



at which point you would assert that 3000 year old transuranic elements which have NOT broken down are prima facie evidence that the tablets have been faked and are either not 3000 years old or not transuranic.



and, oh look everybody! Ann has discovered the c/p function! and evilbible.com! aren't we all so proud of her! any day now she'll be composing her own sentences.





Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children.


yes. would you care to venture a guess as to WHY?


Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
God of course obeys


*facepalm*

NO, God does NOT 'obey'. God MAY grant a request to spare punishment ( Abram, provided conditions are met ) and He MAY refuse a request for punishment ( Jonah ) but He does NOT 'obey' and He is NOT 'bound' by the word of ANY man.




Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?



logically incompetent.

IF
you stipulate to a God who created *all* things and who has dominion over all those things which He has created
THEN
whatever the span of your life and however He chooses to end it ( if He decides to actively involve himself in your demise ) is perfectly 'natural'.





Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.



the Hebrews are carrying out wholesale genocide and you're playing mumblypeg about abortion?

oh, yes yes, it's that fundamental female subjectivity thing again.

anyways, WHY was this act ordered?




Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.



liar.

*God* doesn't promise to do anything but remove his presence from the land in this passage. the springs and fountains will dry up ( verse 15 ) and, consequently, there will be famine. a people in a drought stricken land will be weak and subject to the depredations of other tribes.

verse 16 is a description of what those other tribes will do of their own accord.

Anonymous bob k. mando October 18, 2013 2:50 AM  

Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”.


allows? well, yes, 'allows'. just as He 'allowed' Eve to eat the fruit. just as He 'allowed' Adam to follow Eve. just as He 'allowed' Lot to be seduced by his daughters. just as He 'allowed' Cain to murder Abel. just as He 'allowed' Joseph to be thrown into the pit. just as he 'allowed' Rebekah to steal Esau's birthright.

there can be no free will if there can be no choice and most of the OT is full of descriptions of all peoples ( including the Hebrews ) making horrendous choices.

the acts which this verse references are committed by Menahem ...
verse 17-18
17 In the nine and thirtieth year of Azariah king of Judah began Menahem the son of Gadi to reign over Israel, and reigned ten years in Samaria.
18 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not all his days from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.


questions:
what kind of a man was Menahem?

Did Menahem follow the instructions of God?


Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless "suckling" infants.



He commands the death of the entire nation of Amalek.

once again, you're raving about infanticide when a whole nation is being genocided.

WHY WAS THIS INSTRUCTION GIVEN?


Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.


*facepalm*

perhaps IF you had read the whole Bible you'd have just quoted Exodus instead of screwing around with a couple of offhand comments in Psalms.

but that would require you to educate yourself ... and you are so, SO satisfied with your ignorance. and your plagiarism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt

i won't quibble about the fact that most of the firstborn were NOT, in fact, infants. it's certain that some of them were infants. but by the very fact that many of them had younger siblings, it's logically obvious that most of them were weaned.

WHY DID THEY DIE?


Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”



liar.

God doesn't 'command' anything. the Psalmist prophecyies that Babylon will be dealt with in the same manner that they had dealt with Israel.

Anonymous bob k. mando October 18, 2013 2:50 AM  


Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”



liar.

God doesn't 'command' anything. the Psalmist prophecyies that Babylon will be dealt with in the same manner that they had dealt with Israel.Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”



sooooooooo
you think children who are old enough to curse their parents are infants?

you certainly don't lack herpderpitude.


Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it.



liar. God 'commanded' no such thing.

Jephthah, of his own accord, swore an oath that he would sacrifice the first thing which walked out of his house ( knowing full well it was likely to be a person ) when he returned home

this oath, in itself, was a sin.



Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
Psalms 137:8-9
Exodus 12:29


perhaps if you weren't a flagrant plagiarist and had done your own research you'd not have double posted the same incidents.



Ann Morgan October 18, 2013 12:16 AM
Joshua 8 God commanded the deaths of 12,000 men, women, and children of Ai.



so He does.

for what reason?

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 2:58 AM  

Bob K Mando wrote: **at which point you would assert that 3000 year old transuranic elements which have NOT broken down are prima facie evidence that the tablets have been faked and are either not 3000 years old or not transuranic.**

If there were good evidence that the tablets were 3000 years old, and made of a stable transuranic element, I would not claim any of the above simply for the sake of claiming it, unless other evidence turned up that they either were faked, or the people performing the tests (to determine their age and composition) were lying or made a mistake. And such an artifact would eliminate the possibility of human construction, or human delusion or lies. So it would get my attention as being very good possible evidence of God, as it would eliminate the possibility of present or past human beings (though not aliens, time travellers, or other things unknown that I can't speculate on).

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 3:00 AM  

Bob K Mando wrote: **denying that Mao and Stalin were acting as atheists is THE PRIMARY ATHEIST DEFENSE against their genocides. it strains credulity to believe that you've never observed this.**

Can we then assume that Torquemada, Gilles De Rais, and Vlad Tepes were acting as Christians?

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 3:06 AM  

**In the secular framework, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao didn't really do anything wrong. They just had a different set of priorities than some people. Stop judging and just accept people for who they are. Because diversity.**

In the Christian framework, Torquemada, Gilles De Rais and Vlad Tepes didn't do anything wrong. They were just obeying God. So we shouldn't look with horror on their acts. Because Bible.

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 3:08 AM  


No. Being 'Brain Dead' is a specific medical term. People have recovered from COMAS, even those who have been in them for years. Nobody has recovered from being brain dead, and absent very significant advances in technology, which would include having some sort of copy of the personality of the person in question to be 'downloaded' onto a regrown brain, nobody is going to recover from that. But such technology would let us resurrect the 'dead-dead' as well.


Yes, 'brain dead' is a specific medical condition which people have recovered from. Oh, lawlz. I try to help you out, from the generosity of my copious spirit, and you still fall over yourself. Well, doesn't bother me, it's kinda funny. You can venture onto the Google or not at the discretion of your own bravery.

Really? You have more evidence for the biblical God than for Evolution? You have physical objects proving the existence of God, the way there are physical fossils showing the evolution of various species? Let me guess, they're locked in the Vatican and that's why nobody has seen them.

No. You're standing in it, and it's called the universe. The biggest most visible object there is. Enjoy the view.
You also have the bible, a formidable historical record. You also have Jesus, an intermediary and independent source of direct eyewitness confirmation of God.

Since I don't believe seances are reliable, all you have is bones in the dirt.

Nobody in their right mind would ever submit that there is "Morality inherent in evolution" anymore than they would suggest there is some morality inherent in the Laws of thermodynamics. But it would be interesting to watch the mind-challenged person try.

By all means, I'm not stopping you.

Bullshit. I know how it works.

:D

You're invited to explain it, back it up with evidence that couldn't be the result of anything but Darwinian evolution, since if evolution does exist I don't believe that it would be something as improbable as punctated evolution, or directed evolution, so that there's absolutely 0 chance of distortion or false testimony and results by liars or incompetents, or intereference from quantum activity and accidents, or unknown forces that could have theoretically intervened in the physical evidence you ascribe to evolution.

Then I'll judge the merit of your case.

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 3:11 AM  


In the Christian framework, Torquemada, Gilles De Rais and Vlad Tepes didn't do anything wrong. They were just obeying God.


Who are they, and why should we care?

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 3:12 AM  

Mudz, a little medical lesson for you: http://www.deathreference.com/Bl-Ce/Brain-Death.html#b

I would suggest that if you don't have the 'wherewithal' to understand that actual brain death is irreversible, distinct from such things as a coma and vegetative state, and that nobody has ever recovered on it, then you certainly don't have the 'wherewithal' to comment on any ethical decisions relating to brain death.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 3:14 AM  

Mudz wrote: **Yes, 'brain dead' is a specific medical condition which people have recovered from.**

Bullshit. Give me one example of someone who was actually Brain Dead (not simply mistakenly referred to as brain dead when they were actually in a coma or vegetative state) who has recovered.

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 3:17 AM  


Where does scripture refer to feeding tubes? Also, is there any place in the bible where it declares we must take any all means to keep a terminal person alive? Because I see no place in the bible where either of these circumstances.


That's because your grammar is messed up. You really expect me to take it seriously? I used neither feeding tubes nor responsibilities for preservation as an argument. Try something different.

Rather, in order to "know" that God doesn't like this, you need to interpret various parts of scripture through your own intellect, intuition and experience. This approach to determining how to act properly seems reasonable to me.

By applying ones intellect to understand God's word, to comprehend the morality delivered therein? Sounds reasonable to me, too. I'm glad you're onboard with this.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 3:23 AM  

**No. You're standing in it, and it's called the universe. The biggest most visible object there is. Enjoy the view.**

The existence of the universe says nothing about whether a 'God' created it or not.

**You also have the bible, a formidable historical record.**
A lot of Greek myths contain verified historical facts. That doesn't mean that all parts of them, such as the parts about people fighting cyclops or being turned into pigs are accurate.

**You also have Jesus, an intermediary and independent source of direct eyewitness confirmation of God.**
With no good evidence of his existence or resurrection.

**Since I don't believe seances are reliable, all you have is bones in the dirt.**

Since you don't believe senses are reliable, are you willing to back up that statement? Pick any active railroad track you like, lie down across it, and remain there even when your sense of hearing hears rumbling and a whistle blowing, and your sense of light sees a train.

You can pretty much handwave away any and all evidence by claiming that the senses are unreliable, but unless you are willing to back up your statement by lying down on the tracks and staying there when your senses tell you a train is coming, then you are a liar.

Don't like trains? Ok, go to the roof of a 50 floor building that is 200 feet across, and walk at least 400 feet in a straight line in any direction you choose, even when your senses tell you that you are running out of roof. Or walk into a burning building, even when your eyes see flames, your ears hear crackling, your nose smells smoke, and your skin feels heat.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 3:27 AM  

Mudz wrote: **In the Christian framework, Torquemada, Gilles De Rais and Vlad Tepes didn't do anything wrong. They were just obeying God.

Who are they, and why should we care?**

So basically, you're ignorant or mistaken about biology, astronomy, physiology, and history, yet claim to know all sorts of private things about the God that you claim is responsible for all of the above. Because - bible.

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 3:29 AM  

Bullshit. Give me one example of someone who was actually Brain Dead (not simply mistakenly referred to as brain dead when they were actually in a coma or vegetative state) who has recovered.

Hmm, no I don't think I'll accept that condition, but as a modification with an admission.

You are right, I was wrong that the Brain Death is actual, because by definition any Brain Death recovered from is no longer termed a brain death, but retermed a coma.

So I'll accept the correction. Technically, Brain Dead patients by definition, don't recover. But for practical purposes, there are patients who are diagnosed Brain Dead, who do. For example, Hyperthermia is indistinguishable from 'brain death'. And other 'brain death mimics'.

So there's no difference to my argument, because the point is that they can't differentiate with perfect precision between the only 'temporarily brain dead' or coma patients from the 'will be brain dead forevs', so are killing possibly recoverable patients.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9223408/Miracle-recovery-of-teen-declared-brain-dead-by-four-doctors.html

http://neurology.about.com/od/Symptoms/a/Understanding-Brain-Death.htm

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 3:32 AM  

So basically, you're ignorant or mistaken about biology, astronomy, physiology, and history, yet claim to know all sorts of private things about the God that you claim is responsible for all of the above. Because - bible.

Yes. :)

The existence of the universe says nothing about whether a 'God' created it or not.

Yes it does. By definition, nothing else could have.

Since you don't believe senses are reliable, are you willing to back up that statement? Pick any active railroad track you like, lie down across it, and remain there even when your sense of hearing hears rumbling and a whistle blowing, and your sense of light sees a train.

Seances, Ann, seances. Communication with the spirits of deceased flesh. Take a deep breath and try again.

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 3:34 AM  

A lot of Greek myths contain verified historical facts. That doesn't mean that all parts of them, such as the parts about people fighting cyclops or being turned into pigs are accurate.

What are you, an idiot? You say that like that's new information.

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 3:55 AM  

You just can't win can you, Ann? I allow you diversions, dodges, the honour of attack, and you still can't muster any meaningful argument. I go out of my way to help you along, and you're still flailing in the wind. I don't think you would know how to resolve an argument even if you tried.You're deadlocked by your own inability to resolve anything according to a good and honest judgment of the facts.

Dude, I barely have to pay attention to my end of the argument. You can't even take proper advantage of it when I hand it to you on a silver platter.

In order to gain any traction, you're going to have to learn how to think.

Anonymous Outlaw X October 18, 2013 3:58 AM  

The Bible is neither a biology, astronomy, or physiology book. But it is a damn good history book.

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 4:05 AM  

Yes, but in defense of Ann's argument, there's a lot of history I'm ignorant of. Just not the most important bits.
And I'm ignorant of many of the areas explored by science, just like everyone is to greater or lesser degrees.

So it was a rather futile attempt to land a pathetic barb, but Ann's not exactly packing a full load to begin with.

Blogger hasnain raza October 18, 2013 4:40 AM  

Lols Gag is the the Best Lol Network Ever, where you can every thing is lol and Funny, Troll Images, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, funny planet, funny facts, funny cartoons, funny movies pics, iphone funny, funny jokes, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited.
lolsgag.com

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 5:09 AM  

Mudz wrote: ** if evolution does exist I don't believe that it would be something as improbable as punctated evolution, or directed evolution **

Mudz, first of all I'm going to make an assumption, which is that the word you meant to use is 'punctuated', by which you mean that sometimes the fossil record appears to show evolution occuring in steps, rather than gradually. There are a couple reasons why this is the case:

1. Fossilization is the exception, not the rule. Most animals rot completely, bones and all, when they die. Or are eaten or otherwise destroyed. Only extremely rarely does an animal die in a place with just the right conditions for being fossilized. That there should therefore be large holes in the fossil record is exactly what we should expect.

2. Not all mutations necessarily will have very tiny intermediate steps. Take for instance, achondraplasia (dwarfism) such as the actor Peter Dinklage has. Dwarfs have arms and legs which are approximately half the length of that of normal people. That's a pretty radical change. And there are no intermediate steps like people with limbs 7/8 of the normal length or 3/4 of the normal length, between normal people and dwarves. A normal person who has a child born with achondroplasia will go from normal limbs to half length limbs in 1 generation. And if there were some selective force that suddenly killed everyone over the height of 4'6", only dwarfs would be left, and future archeologists would probably wonder how human anatomy could change so radically so quickly. But they would be wrong to automatically conclude 'God'.

3. Evolution is not 'directed'. There is a selective force, which is that of survival and reproduction. Animals that survive and reproduce will pass on their genes (and possibly their behavior if they are of a species that trains or educates their young) to the next generation. Those that survive and reproduce better, will pass on their genes and/or behavior to a greater number of young. No more 'direction' than a pack of hungry wolves is necessary for deer to gradually get faster and more agile as time goes on. The slower and unwary ones get eaten by the wolves. If none of the deer are particularly slow or unwary, those that happen to be somewhat slower or less wary than the rest will get eaten by the wolves. It's highly unlikely that none of them will get eaten by the wolves, who are also evolving as well (the faster wolf will catch the only deer around and get enough to eat, while the slower wolf starves to death).

All this makes no judgement about WHAT traits will be selected for. If being slow somehow increases survival, animals will be selected for being slow. As, arguably, has occurred in turtles, it's heavy shell is a good survival strategy, but slows it down.

Reproductive fitness is also selected for. If female peacocks mate preferentially with those males that have the largest and most ornate tails, you will get some pretty large and ornate tails. Never mind if they slow you down and somewhat increase your chances of getting eaten. So long as they don't slow you down all that much, and get you 10 times the chance of reproducing as a male peacock with a short dull tail, so far as your genes are concerned, it's 'worth it'.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 5:09 AM  

**so that there's absolutely 0 chance of distortion or false testimony and results by liars or incompetents, or intereference from quantum activity and accidents, or unknown forces that could have theoretically intervened in the physical evidence you ascribe to evolution**

lies, incompetence, and accidents are always possible. As are mischeivous or evil aliens creating fossils somehow and planting them for purposes unknown. However, despite the statistical rarity of the fossilization of an animal after death, there are still an awful lot of fossils. You can go to almost any rock shop, or even take a hike, and find one. There is no corresponding physical evidence of God. All things considered, the chances of something for which there is a great deal of physical evidence somehow all being a mistake of some kind is (to my way of thinking) far less than the chances of something for which the main evidence is stories told 3000 years ago being a mistake.

There's also the engineering angle. Biology gets consistent, concrete results. We can breed, clone, and genetically engineer plants and animals to suit us. We can very accurately predict the traits of offspring based on the traits of the parents (absent very statistically rare mutations). There are no similiar consistent, concrete results for religion. The number of supposed 'miracles' of people cured after being prayed for is far less than the number of people not cured after being prayed for, and I've no idea how the results compare to the recoveries of people not prayed for, but still getting just as much attention from their friends and family. If biology got results that poor, farmers wouldn't bother paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for stud service or frozen sperm from prize bulls and horses.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 5:16 AM  

Mudz wrote: **You just can't win can you, Ann? ... .You're deadlocked by your own inability to resolve anything according to a good and honest judgment of the facts.**

Claiming that you don't regard your senses as reliable, therefore refuse to accept the evidence of fossils is not good judgement of the facts. It's not possible to 'win' against someone who declares that any and all physical evidence that contradicts their predetermined conclusion is automatically invalid, but that assumptions and hearsay that agreed with their predetermined conclusion were somehow proven facts.

**In order to gain any traction, you're going to have to learn how to think.**
Albert Einstein himself would not be able to 'win' an argument against someone who declared any and all physical evidence he didn't like to be invalid, and that assumptions for which there was no evidence to be valid. Except in the sense that an audience would conclude that Einstein was right and the other person was an idiot.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 5:20 AM  

Mudz wrote: **or by nature (however great the odds).

The universe.

You seriously didn't know this?**

The universe admittedly could not be created by present or past humans. But you haven't eliminated the possibility of it being created by nature.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 5:36 AM  

Catan wrote: **So there is never a reason to attempt to correct others' behavior if it is contributing to societal decay?**

If it is actually contributing to societal decay, then there is a reason to correct it. However, there are various behaviors often claimed to be 'harmful' to society, which must therefore be 'corrected', which actually fall into one of the following categories:

1. They are not actually harmful to society, but are harmful to a small handful of powerful elite people. Who may or may not use their power to then cause harm to society and attribute the resulting harm to those engaging in the behavior they don't like.

2. The behavior is not harmful, but offends people. Who then claim that their being offensive, and the spread of the offensive behavior is somehow 'harm'. Which is a poor criteria, and rather like claiming that painting a car bright pink is harmful, especially if it causes a lot of other people to paint their car bright pink. Because the color is an 'abomination'. Never mind that the car is still quite capable of functioning.

3. The behavior itself does not cause society to decay, but some people react to it in a way that DOES cause society to decay. Ei, some people claim that hiring negroes at a factory causes the factory to function poorly. The factory hires a few negroes anyways. So the people who object to this go on strike or even burn down the factory. They then point in triumph to the fact that the factory functions poorly when insufficiently staffed or not at all if burned down, as 'proof' that hiring negroes makes factories function poorly.

4. Behavior that arguably may cause society to function poorly to some degree, but which is a rational survival response to previous behavior by someone else that caused a far worse situation. For instance, claiming that buying gold causes society to 'decay' because it makes people 'panic' and destabilizes the economy. Which is slightly true, but the economy was put into a very bad situation in the first place by the government that created fiat currency. Blaming the people who buy gold for some amount of 'decay' that is nothing more than a drop in the ocean is like people who go about drilling holes in the bottom of a boat scolding those who try to put on a life jacket because their actions are making the crew 'panic' and the mad dashing back and forth of the crew is causing the boat to sink slightly faster.

As a subcategory, there are also classes of behavior which arguably cause some decay to society, but which at this point would be advisable to tolerate (at least in a legal sense) and simply clean up after as best we can, because thus far, any solutions for forcibly eliminating the behavior, as desirable as they might be in theory, in reality, create a far worse decay to society than the original problem. Prohibition, for instance.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 5:42 AM  

Mudz wrote: **Seances, Ann, seances. Communication with the spirits of deceased flesh. Take a deep breath and try again.**

Mudz, you aren't making any sense. You used the word 'seances' in connection with fossils of ancient organisms. I assumed you meant 'senses', because talking with spirits has absolutely nothing to do with the study of fossils, and to use that word in connection with fossils, or claim to refuse to accept the evidence of fossils, and that they are therefore nothing more than bones in the ground, because you don't believe in 'seances' is ludicrous. That's like claiming that you refuse to accept the evidence of craters on the moon that it's been hit by numerous meteors in the past, because you can't talk with the magic fairies that lived on the meteors. There may or may not be such meteor fairies, but their presence or absence or your ability or your personal ability or inability to talk with them has absolutely nothing to do with the physical evidence of the craters as proof that the moon was hit by meteors.

Anonymous MPC October 18, 2013 5:45 AM  

Ann, I've set foot in a church twice in my entire life, and not by choice, so I'm no what you'd call pious. However, I can say from a perfectly secular perspective you are observably a stupid, insufferable, and above all, DULL, annoying cunt.

Golf Fag, get back to the clubhouse, there are balls that need to be washed.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 5:56 AM  

Mudz wrote: **You are right, I was wrong that the Brain Death is actual, because by definition any Brain Death recovered from is no longer termed a brain death, but retermed a coma.**

It isn't 'retermed' so much as it is correctively termed. People do not and cannot recover from actual brain death. The few instances of people 'recovering' from supposed 'brain death' are results of misdiagnosis. They were not actually brain dead. Doctors are not infallible. They make mistakes. The mistakes are growing less as time goes on, but will probably never be eliminated. Read sometime about graveyards in the middle ages. It's common to find coffins with scratches inside. People were often (relatively to what happens nowadays) buried alive due to conditions that made them appear (due to poorer knowledge of medicine) to be dead, such as allergic reactions, strokes, comas, or other conditions. It did not help that they didn't have refrigeration or embalming in the middle ages, so were often in a big hurry to bury a body before it started to stink to high heaven. They were aware of their imperfections, however, and sometimes the dead were buried with a string around their finger, leading up through a pipe that went from the coffin to a bell hung above the ground. If the person happened to awaken in their coffin, they could ring the bell and get dug up.

**So I'll accept the correction. Technically, Brain Dead patients by definition, don't recover. But for practical purposes, there are patients who are diagnosed Brain Dead, who do. For example, Hyperthermia is indistinguishable from 'brain death'. And other 'brain death mimics'.**

A valid diagnosis of brain death must meet a lot of criteria, including a person repeatedly showing no brain activity at all in several tests taken some time apart. It's unlikely that a person would be suffering from hypothermia for such a long time, and not have their low body temperature noticed. A doctor who simply takes one set of brain waves from a patient with hypothermia, and declares 'brain dead' without taking additional brain waves at a later time, or other tests to eliminate hypothermia is not doing his job as a doctor properly.

** So there's no difference to my argument, because the point is that they can't differentiate with perfect precision between the only 'temporarily brain dead' or coma patients from the 'will be brain dead forevs', so are killing possibly recoverable patients.**

I agree that they may possibly be killing a very small minority of recoverable patients due to misdiagnosis. But those people who are actually brain dead (and not simply misdiagnosed) do not recover. If you want to propose that more stringent tests to determine brain death and avoid misdiagnosis are needed, I would be all for it. However demanding that all brain dead people be kept alive by machines endlessly because of the extremely slim possibility of misdiagnosis in test after test is not a good idea for several reasons.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 5:58 AM  

MPC wrote: **stupid, insufferable, and above all, DULL, annoying cunt.**

That's probably preferable to what a lot of people are.

Blogger Unknown October 18, 2013 6:35 AM  

"The American elites have declared that there is nothing wrong with what God calls abomination. "

God calls nothing an abomination...humans wrote all the words they attribute to God

Anonymous Carlotta October 18, 2013 9:24 AM  

Ann context is key here.

Saying a man was beaten, hancuffed, interrogated and held against his will sounds horrible until you read the context that he was caught raping a child.

You chose to remain historically and contextually ignorant because it suits your purposes. The problem is you just are too stupid to conceive that others are not sporting the same self inflicted handicap.

Anonymous Carlotta October 18, 2013 9:32 AM  

Yes. And the paintings a painter paints say nothing about them. The food a chef cooks, the writing a writer writes.

You just keep smearing your own feces on the wall and demanding we clap for your art.

Blogger Dystopic October 18, 2013 9:37 AM  

They definitely can legitimately be said to be christian. Even the bible is clear on this. What they can't claim is to be acting in a christian manner. We know that no one is perfect and we know that no Christian is without sin. Does a christian stay a Christian when not sinning, then stop being a member of the faith when they sin, then become a Christian anew when they ask for forgiveness, then no longer hold the status of christian when they sin, then repent and become a christian anew? That's not how it works.

All people, including Christians are sinners. Christ makes that clear in this passage:

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

However sincere repentance is a command of God:

Acts 17:30 "God now commandeth all men every where to repent"

You cannot know God if you lie about his commands:

Jer 9:6: "Your habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, says the LORD."

But if you seek God, and seek to obey him, you will not be forsaken:

2 Chronicles 15:2 "and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, "Listen to me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: the LORD is with you when you are with Him. And if you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you."

Golf Pro, your understanding of Christianity is superficial and farcical. You can remedy that, if you so desire, by gaining a more complete understanding of the Bible and its teachings. You will notice that much of the book is contextual and builds on itself.

How can you be a follower of Christ (which is what being Christian means), if you ignore the commands of God and feel no guilt nor repentance for having done so?

Blogger Chris Ritchie October 18, 2013 10:43 AM  

Wow. Looks like Ann was up all night heroically answering as many posts as she could. I had to go to bed. I appreciate the answers Ann provided, but she never got back to a prime mover argument.

She even intimated that she didn't fully understand why or how the universe came to be or why or how humans are made the way they are, they just "Are." She chooses to interpret these things through the lens of Naturalism, which is a religion. Christians see the exact same evidence and interpret it differently.

The point is that Materialism, Naturalism, and Evolution as a final explanation are not covering all the bases of human experience as they claim to. Mathematics and Physics are being exposed as fallible because of their inability to account for known anomalies.

- Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

- The Double Slit experiment

- Is light a wave or a particle?

- Mathematical possibility of multiple co-existing universes - I think it's up to 11 now

- Quantum theory, String theory, the search for the "God" particle, Higgs boson

- Irreducible complexity - the eye was Darwin's nemesis.

- Why is the Greek "Golden Ratio" beautiful to our eyes?

These are just the few examples off the top of my head. In reality, the Materialist worldview has placed "Science" in God's place. Why not just admit that you don't know and that given our finite nature, there is a good possibility that a personal God has created you? Instead you just weakly admit that perhaps it IS Aliens or some other higher power. But you can't admit to a God. Why? - The rest continued in the next post.

Blogger Chris Ritchie October 18, 2013 10:45 AM  

I think it has to do with the freedom of choice and the fear of accountability for our choices. I think it also has to do with a complete denial of the historical Jesus. Christians believe the accounts because scientifically, legally, and morally, Jesus has been "proven" as much as he can be. Check out Lee Strobel's apologetic books. I could list more books (and better written) from older scholars in previous centuries, but Strobel is adequate in our day.

For a scientific view of the possibility of life after death, check out Dr. Maurice Rawlings amazing book, To Hell and Back. The next book is out of print, but you can find it in pdf by using Google's filetype search function. "Dying Testimonies of the Saved and Unsaved."

To me, you are willfully ignorant of the evidence presented. But, you are close to admitting the possibility of God. Despite the combative nature of the debate here, I'll bet most of the Christians do actually love you. We love you enough to forcefully present our views to rescue you from error.

And that is the biggest battle: Pride. To come to God, you must lay down your own pride and humble yourself. We have all done it and continue to do it as we battle the sin so prevalent in our lives. God really does love you Ann.

After seeing you stay up all night answering comments, I'm moved to compassion for you. Did you sleep at all? Do you have a job that you must attend to today? If so, what motivated you to stay up and answer all the charges? I know you're tired. I know the effort it takes which is why I don't post as much here as a "Josh" or a "Nate" or a "Mudz."

You're getting closer to God. And He is pursuing you. But you must relinquish your pride. It is one of the seven abominations that God hates. (Proverbs 6:16 has the full list, but Pride is at the top of the list) I'd recommend you read God's answer to Job. Pride is actually the original sin. We traded the knowledge of good and evil for the knowledge of God. We made a Faustian bargain. This is because we WANT to be like God, but without the relationship to Him that preserves our life. You'll disagree with me, but I see someone so intent on proving their point that they stayed up all night and sacrificed sleep in order to prove themselves right. This is the very definition of Pride and love of knowledge.

Then read Psalm 119. Then go back and read the gospels with an open heart. Jesus is real Ann. We can all promise you that. But you must come willingly. Drop your defenses.

Blogger Unknown October 18, 2013 11:58 AM  

"CR106"

What you're calling Naturalism is another word for the prevalent Environmentalist cult. The idea behind Environmentalist theology is that the natural world is a delicate, mysterious system and that humans must "walk-on-eggshells" lest we upset the balance. It's another life-denying doctrine of the pagan pantheon of Political Correctness.

Blogger keifer.wynn October 18, 2013 12:01 PM  

I have never thought about it that way. I've never thought that Satan could be acting in such a way as to provide ironic evil.

Anonymous jay October 18, 2013 12:17 PM  

The good news? You irrationals are doomed..

....

In a 2011 LifeWay survey of pastors and people who attend Protestant churches, one in four churchgoers (26 percent) agreed that “If a person is sincerely seeking God, he/she can obtain eternal life through religions other than Christianity.”

This is also particularly true among the young. A separate LifeWay study of 1,200 young adults under age 30 found:

Nearly three in four (72 percent) call themselves “more spiritual than religious.”
More than two in three say they rarely or never pray with others, attend worship services, or read the Bible or other sacred texts.
More than one in four (28 percent) said God is “just a concept,” and four in 10 said the devil is merely a symbol.
Only half said that “Believing in Jesus Christ is the only way to get to heaven.”

Thom Rainer, the president of LifeWay Christian Resources who cited the research in his book on these 18-to-29-year-old millennials, called the Nominals “mushy Christians.”

“Most,” he said, “are just indifferent.”

Anonymous Carlotta October 18, 2013 12:20 PM  

That was nice og Sigyn. Fight the good fight.

Yep. He had to spout that Oprahism about "his truth". Christians are susposed to only care about The Truth.

But that is haaaaaaarrrrrdddd!

Blogger Chris Ritchie October 18, 2013 12:21 PM  

Isn't it interesting that in an article about death, "jay" celebrates more death. Apparently, being logical and dying is more important than really understanding truth. Jay's glee is akin to "He who dies with the most toys wins!" Thanks for stopping in Jay.

Anonymous Carlotta October 18, 2013 12:32 PM  

@ keifer

Why should those who chose satan as their Master ever expect him to be a benevolent one?

Baited hook meet fish surprised to be eaten.

Anonymous Luke October 18, 2013 12:58 PM  

Prediction: eventually there will be a cheap test for a fetus being likely to grow up with the homosexuality perversion. The fetuses testing positive will either be cured or aborted in most cases, as 70% of future Down's babies are currently when detected pre-birth (by amniocentesis/karyotyping).

Homos are potentially uniquely vulnerable to the majority getting tired of them, as no other minority is largely born from others not of its type.

Blogger James Higham October 18, 2013 1:40 PM  

the ironic malice involved tends to strike me as the handiwork of a very different supernatural being

Very much so.

Blogger Unknown October 18, 2013 2:18 PM  

I think this was in the movie Heathers.

Anonymous Sigyn October 18, 2013 3:19 PM  

More than two in three say they rarely or never pray with others, attend worship services, or read the Bible or other sacred texts.

I am closing on 29. This statement is true of me for the most part, except I daily read the Bible (not much use for other "sacred texts" because they are not "sacred" to me). Why? Because most churches are prohibitively heretical and I'll be darned if I'm going to go fellowship with people who don't care what God wants.

Meanwhile, Jay, you, the allegedly rational, can't tell the difference between "synthetic life" and "genetically engineered yeast", and yet you use it as "proof" of abiogenesis.

TL;DR version: You're a nitwit.

Anonymous Sigyn October 18, 2013 3:22 PM  

The fetuses testing positive will either be cured or aborted in most cases, as 70% of future Down's babies are currently when detected pre-birth (by amniocentesis/karyotyping).

...And now we've come full circle, except instead of leaving them to die on trash piles, their parents have them assassinated before they're born.

We don't even have a chance to rescue them. That's pure Satan right there.

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 10:45 PM  

Mudz, first of all I'm going to make an assumption, which is that the word you meant to use is 'punctuated'

That’s a good assumption, Ann. Your haphazard ability to spot typos will serve you well on the internet.

The rest of your post attempted to proceed on an assumption of Punctuated Equilibrium, therefore it fails the standards I posed for it, as well as offering nothing substantial in the way of evidence. It reads like a high school student’s essay.

lies, incompetence, and accidents are always possible.

Therefore, according to your standards, there is no reason to put any faith in evolution, therefore even the theory you tried to pass off as evidence fails to be persuasive.

Claiming that you don't regard your senses as reliable

Seances, Ann. Hahaha, holy shit, you can’t even get your head around English, let alone an argument.
You will not be allowed to pass this level until you get it right.

Albert Einstein himself would not be able to 'win' an argument against someone

Don’t whinge because I’m clearly capable of winning arguments agains you even though you hold to no scruples, rules of conducts or honesty or desire to resolve anything. You try to lie to wiggle out of defeat and you still fail. That’s impressive all on its own.

The universe admittedly could not be created by present or past humans. But you haven't eliminated the possibility of it being created by nature.

Yes. Because it is nature. It cannot be created by itself, idiot.


Therefore there is far more evidence of God, and the biblical God at that, than evolution that you can only inadequately explain in terms of a thought experiment. But we already knew that. But thanks for participating. Confirmation of the inadequacy of evolutionary theory is always nice.

Go on, try to come back with something clever. I know you put a lot of effort into the attempt.
You're wonderfully clumsy, but humour's good for the soul.

Anonymous Mudz October 18, 2013 10:49 PM  

I agree that they may possibly be killing a very small minority of recoverable patients due to misdiagnosis.

So you agree with me. People being diagnosed as 'Brain Dead' are being killed when they're possibly recoverable. Excellent. My argument is therefore sustained, and Victory is Mine! *warcry*

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 11:18 PM  

Mudz: The key word which makes your statement accurate is *DIAGNOSED* as brain dead. They were not actually brain dead. People who are actually brain dead do not recover (as you originally claimed), any more than people who are decapitated recover. If person A claims that person B was decapitated, and you later see person B running around fine and frisky, it isn't some sort of proof that people cover from decapitation (they don't). It means person A was lying or mistaken when they said person B was decapitated.

Your argument is NOT sustained. Your argument was that people who are brain dead sometimes recover. They don't, and you have actually admitted that fact in a roundabout way with your use of the word 'diagnosed'. People who are 'diagnosed' as brain dead sometimes recover, if that diagnosis was wrong. However, the wrong diagnosis means that they were therefore not actually brain dead, so their recovery is not an example of a brain dead person recovering, as you claim sometimes happens.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 11:33 PM  

CR106 wrote: **Why not just admit that you don't know and that given our finite nature, there is a good possibility that a personal God has created you? Instead you just weakly admit that perhaps it IS Aliens or some other higher power. But you can't admit to a God.**

CR, there is a possibility that a God created the universe, though not necessarily (but not necessarily not) the Christian God. I have never denied that there is a God, I have just said that there is no good evidence that he exists, and if so, WHICH God he is, and what his opinions might be. It's also possible that the universe was created by natural forces, aliens, time travellers, spirits, is a simulation of some kind, or had origins nobody has thought of yet. Perhaps the whole universe is nothing more than a pile of spilled food in some multi-dimensional restaurant. There is no evidence for or against ANY ultimate origin. That being the case, it is inaccurate to state for certain that any God exists (or doesn't exist) much less what his opinions might be.

It is not a good idea to run a human society based on things that are either subjective, or unknown. Right now, God is an unknown. Should actual evidence turn up that God exists, then it MAY be appropriate to run society based on that knowledge. Then again, maybe not, because it's definitely within the bounds of possibility that God is of such a nature that makes him an enemy of the human species.

Anonymous Anonymous October 18, 2013 11:42 PM  

CR106 wrote: **After seeing you stay up all night answering comments, I'm moved to compassion for you. Did you sleep at all?**

I work nights. My job consists of a lot of 'hurry up and wait'. It involves waiting for various trucks to bring products, putting the products out, waiting for the next truck, waiting until my shift ends in case someone calls in with a problem. I read and write a lot while I'm waiting.

**We traded the knowledge of good and evil for the knowledge of God. We made a Faustian bargain.**

Possible. But I'd suggest you read the graphic novel 'Watchmen' sometime. A creature without knowledge of good and evil, which will do anything it's master demands of it, without question, is the equivalent of some dogs owned by a serial killer of children in that comic book. And well fed on dismembered 6 year old girls. If the price of getting to heaven is turning myself into a subhuman monster (which is what a dog is, without knowledge of good and evil, it will follow a bad master as well as a good), then it's far too high for me. I'd prefer non-existence, it would be cleaner.

Anonymous Mudz October 19, 2013 12:36 AM  

The key word which makes your statement accurate is *DIAGNOSED* as brain dead.

Yes, it is. Well done. You only had to confirm my argument once, you know.

you have actually admitted that fact in a roundabout way with your use of the word 'diagnosed'.

Also well done. You are able to recognise, though apparently immedately forgetting, when someone uses the words 'You are right, I was wrong,' and inform you that he modified his argument according to the correction.

Heck, but don't mind me, keep pushing that replay button. I never get bored of watching my victory lap.

If the price of getting to heaven is turning myself into a subhuman monster (which is what a dog is, without knowledge of good and evil,

So, you deny morality, and get both subhuman monster and hell in the bargain. Your argument is as pathetic in it's tailspinning. You're failing so bad in your tactics, you're trying to revisit old ones that you don't realise doesn't bother anyone.

Anonymous Mudz October 19, 2013 12:45 AM  

The price of getting into heaven is holiness. Let yourself be inspired to the challenge.

Blogger Chris Ritchie October 19, 2013 10:32 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Anonymous October 19, 2013 7:18 PM  

I wrote: **If the price of getting to heaven is turning myself into a subhuman monster (which is what a dog is, without knowledge of good and evil**

Mudz wrote: **So, you deny morality, and get both subhuman monster and hell in the bargain. Your argument is as pathetic in it's tailspinning. You're failing so bad in your tactics, you're trying to revisit old ones that you don't realise doesn't bother anyone....
The price of getting into heaven is holiness. Let yourself be inspired to the challenge.**

Mudz, I think you are mistaken. I don't deny morality. I simply won't do what some posters here insist is correct, and define morality as complete, unquestioning obedience to 'God' regardless of how horrific the orders commanded by that 'God'. Such as killing infants and young children. It's Vox who thinks that's just fine, so long as God commands it. Not me.

As for 'holiness', let's just say that I agree with what someone wrote earlier that even God can't create a square circle or do other things that are completely logically impossible. That being the case, even if God let someone into heaven on the basis of their spending their life being a violent, subhuman sociopath (which is the only possible result of getting into a mental state where you are willing to kill 2 year olds on God's say so, I find it highly unlikely that a God that values that mental state before death, will - after death - choose to transform such a person into a transcendent, holy, merciful gentle being. And even if God does do such a 180 degree about face upon the death of all his obedient, sociopathic followers, even God can't do the logically impossible. The gentle, angelic being would not and cannot be the same personality and mind of the sociopath. It would be someone entirely different, and if it isn't actually YOU that goes to heaven, then there is very little point.

Anonymous Anonymous October 19, 2013 7:28 PM  

Luke wrote: **Homos are potentially uniquely vulnerable to the majority getting tired of them, as no other minority is largely born from others not of its type.**

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I'm not sure that you're correct. What about left handed people, or people with Rh- blood?

And I wouldn't be too quick to tinker with nature, based on being 'tired', or 'offended' by someone. Mind you, it is possible to improve on nature. The human eyeball, for instance, would be much improved by putting the blood supply behind the retina, rather than in front of it. But you'd better *really* know what you are doing first. Being tired, or offended, or quoting from a 3000 year old book doesn't really constitute knowing what you are doing. It would not be a good thing to eliminate homosexuals, then find out in 100 years that however offensive you might find them (and I happen to find them 'distasteful', as Tom Kratman put it, myself), that they actually have a purpose. Often you don't know what the purpose of something is, until you get a chance to experience it's absence. And offense or tiredness is a bad reason to completely eliminate something. I occassionally am offended by having to take a dump. But surgically removing my anus and either never taking a dump or getting a colostomy bag is probably a really bad idea.

Anonymous Anonymous October 19, 2013 8:15 PM  

Mudz wrote: **Yes. Because it is nature. It cannot be created by itself, idiot.**

Yet that is precisely what Christians claim regarding 'God'.

I was going to write you about something the other day, but my internet crashed, so I'll address it now. There is an expression from the Middle Ages that says: "Never buy a pig in a poke.". What this refers to is that during that time, it was common for farmers to bring baby piglets to market in a burlap sack (called a poke). This made it convenient for buyers, who could then simply carry the piglet home with no chance of it escaping. Unfortunately, sometimes unscrupulous farmers would put a cat in the poke rather than a piglet (cats being worth a lot less money). From the outside, the cat seemed a lot like a piglet, it was the same size, felt the same through the sack, wiggled around, made about the same noises. A wise buyer would open the sack and check to be sure what was in it, rather than just paying money and taking the sack home.

Right now, when it comes to the origins of the universe, humans are in the position of having SOMETHING in a sack that they haven't figured out how to open. And without opening it, it could be any number of things, including a pig, a cat, a puppy, a lobster, a clockwork device, or something involving bagpipes and a windmill that's pushed around and makes noises in the wind. Yet some people, despite the fact that we haven't even figured out how to open the sack, much less look inside, make statements so definitive that they say for certain that not only is it a piglet inside, but the breed of pig, the pedigree of the pig's mother and father, and the pig's particular preferences in food and sleeping arrangements. And the odds of their being right on even the most general of these things aren't really that good, and the odds of their being right on the more specific things are extremely small.

Anonymous Anonymous October 19, 2013 11:21 PM  

Regarding the comparison someone made to things like books being made deliberately by intelligent beings (humans), therefore the universe must have been made by an intelligent being (God), that's not a valid comparison. There have been repeated observations by numerous people of books being made by humans, so it's reasonable to suppose that if you come across any book - on this planet (more on that in a bit) - it was made by humans. There are no corresponding observations regarding how the universe came into being. The fact that it is large and impressive means nothing. Clouds are large and impressive as is the Grand Canyon and various cave formations, and they did not require humans to manufacture them. Absent further evidence, you cannot make the huge leap that the universe was made by any living creature, let alone an intelligent one, or the Christian God specifically.

Regarding books - if I were to come across an object that APPEARED to be very similiar to a book but was on a planet going around another star, I would not simply be able to make the assumption that it was made by intelligent aliens. I've seen rocks and insects with markings that look like foreign writing, various structures created by plants, minerals, and insects that are similiar to pages. If I knew much more than I did, had a number of such objects to compare and took them apart to see how they were made, then POSSIBLY I might be able to say 'Aliens'. Until that time, the answer would be a 'pig in a poke' or 'I don't know'.

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 343 of 343

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts