Enter the excavation

If Christianity is not true then it is a massive fraud and hoax perpetrated by evil men bent on making the world a place where Christ‘s commandment to ‘Love thy neighbor’ reigns supreme, which is the antithesis of the criminal mind, and hence the theory that Christianity is a fraud is entirely incompatible with logic and human nature.

Godspeed Dr. Kennedy

Dr. D James Kennedy  November 3, 1930 – September 5, 2007

`NEW!!! GODS HIT LIST!!!!`

  • Tristan Shuddery (He turned over to the dark side!)
  • Madalyn Murray O’Hair (God Won)

  • Michael Moore

  • Bill Maher

  • Lewis Black

  • George Carlin (God Won)

  • David Hume (God Won)

  • Salman Rushdie

omaha-police-release-mall-shooter-photos1.jpg

You are now entering a no Spin Zone:

 

 

 

 Atheist? by ryan.kelly65

Featured article of the month: I can’t stand atheists — but it’s not because they don’t believe in God. It’s because they’re crashing bores.

 

 

Welcome home Ardi, can you please join Ida in the hall? She’s looking for a good home.

The Ardi discovery, purported to debunk previously held beliefs of
Evolution theory, about their common ancestor mixed-up and confusion,
is a myth both belonging to the science fiction section.

Piltdown man was hailed as the invincible proof to evolutions theory
then, and many scientists and liberal paper herald that. When they
finally admitted to its fraud, why can’t anyone conclude that
something is terribly wrong to that small scientific community just
like today?

Anyone is familiar of the frauds that link to Evolution theory, fakes
after fakes had been shown to our world by the Medias, and shouldn’t
they be cautious again, this time? You have the AP/NYT running the
stories, what more proof do we need?

Since scientists of Evolution cannot dare say that bacteria and
decaying elements were not absence in that million of years, but why
belittle the power of “rotting, decaying”? If bones of such old age
are so well preserved to the tune by the millions of years, withstood
the time, and the decaying elements, then may I suggest we study the
Refrigerators which kept that intact.

May I suggest that Nobel Prize be given to me this year, go and find
that make-up of that Ardi bones which is so strong than any materials
of our day which fight the decadence!

All the ridicules against my message is a prove that what I have
written is true and powerful, and my analysis is precise than all the
nuts combined. Even the simplest minded but rational fellow will
attack the assumption of decay, which is my main Point and if they had
a valid point, but none stood up to my challenged.

All the personal attacks go to show how my truthful presentations hurt
their weak theory, and it bites them.

If, according to them, what I have written were baseless and useless,
deserving a further education, then easily would they have rebutted
me, and I would be shamed, instead of them. Forensic scientists, those
who do crime-scene, and investigation would suddenly be bless by
Carbon dating methods, dating bones and skeletons easily within the
realm of say, 10 to 20 years.

But, it is not so in our real world, Evolution myths aside.

If one cannot date “fossils” with fair amount of accuracy in such
short period of time, how could one be able to see matters into
million of years time frame? The premise of science state that,” one
must be able to observe”, so can we not ridicule those who cannot
observe stages of evolutions of man, and yet dare to propagate it like
the Communist in those days?

 

 

 

BEWARE!!! The “Ida” of March

A fossil discovered 26 years ago isIda being touted as the holy grail of evolution. Even the humanists over on Google has devoted their main interface page to the event.

Our friends over at Bread and Sham stated it best and I quote:

“Today, May 20, 2009 the secularists at Google (and many other media outlets) believe that they have lobbed a hand grenade into the laps of believers in Creationism and I.D.  The homepage at Google today depicts “Ida,” a fossil dated to be as old as 47 million years.  When you click on the fossil, you are essentially doing the equivalent of a “Google Search” for “Missing Link.”  The first link to appear in the list of results from that Google search brings you to this site; NY Daily News, US/World News.  I have cut and pasted the last portion of that article here:

The unveiling of the fossil came as part of a carefully-orchestrated publicity campaign unusual for scientific discoveries.

A History Channel film on the discovery will air next week.

A book release and a slew of other documentaries will follow.

There is plainly an lucrative agenda behind any publicity of Ida at Google, NY Daily News, or even last night’s ABC Nightly News (Tuesday, May 19, 2009). In fact, it would be considered press irresponsibility not to report on the unveiling of “Ida.” My concern is that we have yet to hear from Creationists why this whole matter is so absurd. For example, we are not genetically similar to a lemur-like mammal, according to Darwinian Scientists. They have been genetically mapping our similarity with the primates.

Secondly, there is today an anti-intellectual momentum.  We don’t know as much as we think we do, and we boast to know of something we know very little about.  There is so much room here for such things as schemes, rhetoric, religious/political agenda, hoaxes, etc.  There is such a thing as Pseudoscience.  Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status (from Oxford English Dictionary and The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.”

But is it a bombshell discovery or simply another hoax?

Read on:

 

Your modern atheist                             Our True Origins

atheist_idiot.jpgGod Creating Stars

Heir to the throne of atheism

clip_image001

The Origins Of Atheism

Do you know that if you make an endeavor to find out when and by whom atheism was authored you will not be able to find such information from any source? Not even the most “educated” atheists – particularly those associated with the most elite universities throughout the world can truthfully inform you when and by whom atheism originated. They can enlighten you as to who were its main perpetuators in different cultures; but they cannot identify its founder and when it actually originated.

eye_of_god1.jpgeye_of_god1.jpgThe absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon. But this phenomenon is highly indicative. It suggests that atheism is not of earthly origin – that it had its birth in another sphere before this state of time. Atheism is not a manmade doctrine but a doctrine of the demons. Its originator is none other than the old serpent himself, namely, satan. It had its origin from the very one it deceptively denies exists. It is a doctrine which denies the authorship and existence of its own author! This accounts for the absence of information in any literature embraced by atheists that identify both a human author and earthly time of origin for atheism.

The process by which atheism originated was much more involved than can be explained here, so a simple presentation of the basic principles that gave it birth must suffice. I will endeavor to explain how atheism had its origin by first directing your attention to a principle in the Bible found in Romans Chapter 9, verse 14. The Holy Spirit who spoke through the pen of the Apostle Paul, drew a conclusion from what is presented in the previous verses. In the entire chapter, He teaches that God is sovereign over the salvation and reprobation of humans – that God does not love everybody – that He decreed that some should be the objects of His eternal love and the rest should be the objects of His eternal wrath – that God, from His own will, has mercy on some humans while He hardens the rest. He has done this apart from anything they do good or bad. He teaches that humans are not truly masters of their destinies, but God is – that the details of their lives and destinies were foreordained by God in eternity past – before He brought any of them into existence. Then He asked the question: “…There is no injustice with God, is there?” We are then very emphatically given the divine answer: “May it never be!”

The Holy Spirit implies from the question that graceless humans who are informed about the truths of God’s sovereignty over the salvation and reprobation of humans will falsely conclude that God is unjust for loving some and hating the others – for decreeing that those He love should spend eternity in heaven and decreeing those He hates to spend eternity in the lake of fire, both apart fom anything they do good or bad in this world. A false conclusion that God is unjust for His actions is what began the birth process of atheism. It is very important to keep that fact in mind.

A conclusion that the Almighty Righteous God is unjust or wrong for any of His actions cannot be arrived at except through the total depravity of those who draw such a conclusion. So in order to understand how atheism had it origin, It is crucial to realize that the total depravity of the nature of Satan is the key principle that underlies the origin of atheism. The total depravity of both the human and demonic natures is really none other than an antithetical principle or law to God and His Law. If you liken God and His righteousness to light and the total depravity of humans and demons to darkness, you can understand the antithetical nature of the two to one another. Light and darkness can never coexist; the one always dispels the other. Thus, the two are ANTI to one another. When the one expresses itself in the presence of the other, the other repels and cannot agree with the other, regardless of the expression. Atheism had its origin through the practical mental reaction of satan’s depravity towards God’s actions. The response of Satan’s depravity was the false conclusion that the actions of God are wrong or evil.

Even though the conclusion that God is unjust is high error and was known by Satan to be so, his total depravity nevertheless made it impossible for him to conclude otherwise. Depravity must direct the hearts of its graceless subjects against God even though they know better. This is because of the very antithetical nature of depravity to God and His Law. The nature of both human and demonic depravity is an unvarying and uncompromising principle that works apart from what its subjects know and remains opposed to God at all times despite God’s actions and despite their knowledge that it is impossible for God to be wrong.

The negative expressions of God towards the existence and outworking’s of the depraved natures of humans and demons is always right, whereas the negative expressions and opposition of the depraved natures of humans and demons towards God are always wrong. The very antithetical nature of the depravity of graceless humans and demons invariably enslaves them to react negatively to God regardless of what God does. Therefore, their depravity reacts negatively to God, despite the fact that God can never do evil and despite the fact that He is always perfectly innocent. Here lies also the origin of insanity.

In order for Satan to have arrived at the false conclusion that God is unjust in the midst of full knowledge that it is impossible for God to be so, his depravity had to cause him in principle to haughtily and deceptively seek to raise himself above God in order to judge God’s actions. It was a haughty attempt of a measly, totally depraved creature to reduce the Almighty God to the level of a creature and to raise himself to the position of God in order to subject God’s actions to his own judgement. It is impossible for the Almighty God to be debased to the level of a measly, depraved creature; and it is just as impossible for a measly, totally depraved creature to be exalted to the level of the Almighty God. Satan understood this very well. However, his depravity nevertheless made him endeavor to assume such a deceptive role.

Forensics and IDIn order for Satan to have endeavored to judge God, there had to be in place some type of opinion, philosophy, religion, charter or law by which he used to try to judge God. But God is not subject to anything. Nothing exists whatsoever that God is subject to or responsible to obey. God is not subject even to the most noble law in the universe – the TEN COMMANDMENTS – which He made for mankind, nor to any law made for the angels. He is above all laws and does only His own will. So there is no law He can possibly violate by any of His actions. Therefore, He cannot be rightly judged to be wrong in any action He performs. The only choices satan had by which to seek to judge God were some form of his own depravity – the antithetical principle of evil – the law of sin, or the most noble Law in the universe – the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Either choice would be the evil one attempting to judge the Righteous One – evil trying to condemn the rightousness as being evil – an impossibility and absolute deception. But he probably chose the latter so as to make God deceptively appear wrong by His own Law. Again, an impossibility and absolute deception.

Once satan deceptively drew the conclusion that God is wrong, the inference created within him a deep, abiding but unjust hatred and wrath for God. The ultimate end of all hatred is the death or complete destruction of the object of hatred. The hatred that satan had for God was not satisfied with merely seeking to punish God. It was satisfied with nothing less than God’s annihilation.

But satan’s foolish wrath created huge dilemmas for him. Although he wrongly concluded that God is unjust and wanted God annihilated as a result, he also clearly understood that it is impossible for God to be subject to his or anyone’s feelings, opinions, religions, philosophies, charters or laws, or any law God has made. But he was nevertheless forced by his depravity to make a condemning judgement against God which sought God’s annihilation. (A condemning judgement against God in the midst of the absence of a law that can condemn Him is insane hatred pure and simple.) But then he was faced with his knowledge that it is impossible for God to be destroyed by anyone, any means or anything. But his depravity and insane hatred for God insisted that God be annihilated! The dilemmas only served to inflame his foolish wrath. So after ranting and raving to no effect, the only way possible for him to gain some satisfaction from his rage and a semblance of the destruction of God in the midst of his understanding that God cannot be annihilated was through deception. He had to begin to deny the existence of God in full knowledge of His existence. This was the actual deceptive and utterly foolish birth of atheism.

The birth of atheism deceptively made satan feel free from his responsibility to obey and worship God, even though he also knew he wasn’t free. It made him deceptively feel he had the freedom to think and speak whatever he wanted without the feeling that it was sin, even though he knew this was not so. It made him deceptively feel that there is no punishment from God awaiting him, even though he knows full well there is. With God supposedly out of the picture, satan could establish all of the various erroneous manmade and demonic philosophies, religions, opinions and etc. in the world and none of them would be wrong in the eyes of his atheism. Democracy could be established to give all these the right of existence. Hence the birth of demonic democracy.

Lets recount the demonic steps that led to the birth of atheism: First came the measly and totally depraved demon’s deceptive efforts to exhalt himself to the level of the Almighty God and his deceptive efforts to debase God to the level of a depraved creature. Second came his deceptive efforts to judge God’s actions by the demon’s own depravity or by the law God made for human or angels. Third came the demon’s deceived conclusion that God is unjust or wrong in what He does. Fourth came his deceptive effort to impose the sentence of annihilation upon God’s existence. And fifth came the deceptive denial of the existence of God as a substitute for an impossibe annihilation of God. As you can see, each step from beginning to end during the birth of atheism was pure deception on the part of one who knows the truth. This proves that atheism is pure deception.

You will find those five principles at work in the hearts of every atheist. The conclusion that the One and only True God doesn’t exist cannot be derived except through deception. Atheism didn’t receive its origin by a true absence of proof of God’s existence, because there has always been and always will be overwhelming proof to the contrary. Atheism had its origin by the expression of satan’s depravity towards God, and it is embraced, maintained and perpetuated among graceless humans as a result of their total depravity. In other words, atheists follow in the footsteps of their master, the devil.

It was pointed out earlier that “The negative expression and opposition of the depraved natures of humans and demons towards God in regards to any of His actions are always wrong”. It can’t be any other way, because God is perfectly holy and therefore incapable of performing evil in any of His actions. Thus, in every case wherein humans or demons judge God to be wrong, it is done through the total depravity and deep hatred of those who are evil and already condemned because of being evil. Evil can never rightly condemn the righteous or the innocent. Any attempt to do is nothing but injustce. The perfect holines of God, His inability to sin and the impossibility of any creature or thing to condemn Him is clearly understood by those who express their foolish wrath towards God. This understanding adds to the heinousness of atheism. Atheism was born out of the deep depravity and deceptive wrath of the lowest creature that ever existed. His anger towards God amounts to a deep desire to murder the Most High God, to get rid of all righteousness and establish evil as if it is good – in the midst of his knowledge that such is impossible. Thus, the wrath that he has towards God – his desire to murder and annihilate Him, has fallen on his own head. That is, the deep wrath of the Almighty God is upon him. He cannot carry out his wrath upon God, but there is nothing that can stop God from pouring out His wrath upon him. All who are of like mind as satan – who embrace his atheism also has the wrath of the Almighty God against them. If God doesn’t grant them His grace, they shall suffer eternal punishment in the lake of fire with satan. “…There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!”

The God-Haters

What have atheists in common with saints? A great deal, suggests top-rank Roman Catholic Philosopher Jacques Maritain, now teaching at Princeton, in the current issue of the quarterly Review of Politics. “The genuine, absolute atheist, with all his sincerity and devotion,” he concludes, “is but an abortive saint and, at the same time, a mistaken revolutionist.”

Does Jesus Wear Purple Pinstripes?

Writing “On the Meaning of Contemporary Atheism,” Maritain sharply differentiates between the various manifestations of Godlessness. There are the “practical atheists, who believe that they believe in God but who in reality deny His existence by each one of their deeds—they worship the world, and power, and money. Then there are the pseudo-atheists, who believe that they do not believe in God but who in reality unconsciously believe in Him, because the god whose existence they deny is not God but something else. Finally, there are absolute atheists, who actually deny the existence of the very God in whom the believers believe—God the Creator, Savior and Father . . . who stand committed to change their entire system of values and to destroy in themselves everything that suggests God’s name.”

Faith in Reverse. The absolute atheists, says Maritain, are represented today chiefly by the academic high fashion of existentialism and the militant mission of Communism. For them, he says, the casting aside of God is “a basic act of moral choice.” It is, in other words, an act of faith in reverse which, in pretending to deny religion, “is a full-blown religious commitment.” But it is a tragic failure. Example: the Communist, whose atheism begins as a declaration of independence, plunges into a new slavery “to a worldly demiurge crazy for human minds to bend and bow and yield . . . the blind god of history.”

Absolute atheism, writes Maritain, “deprives God and mankind of some potential saints, in making their attempts at heroic freedom a failure, and turning their effort to break with the world into a total and servile subservience to the world.” Conversely, saints have been the greatest revolutionaries. Maritain contends that for centuries the world’s temporal progress was fostered by the saints. It was only during the last hundred-odd years, when the results of the industrial revolution were bringing mankind more & more to social thinking and social action, that the saints dropped from the lead and the atheists took over.

The Decorative Faith. In this defection of leadership, Maritain sees “a kind of punishment of the Christian world, which for a long period had more or less betrayed Christianity in its practical endeavor, and despised the lessons of the saints, and forsaken the immense herd of the hopeless whom destitution and unlivable conditions of existence riveted to hell on earth.”

Want to avoid the world’s most atheistic country?

Bypass Sweden in your travels.

Sweden’s Population: 9,248,805

National Language: Swedish

% of Atheists/Non-believers: 46 – 85%

322 Comments on “Enter the excavation”

  1. Ramon Says:

    Of course there is no author of atheism – it’s the natural state. You’re born an atheist, then as you grow up you’re taught about an all-loving God who will cast you into a lake of fire for an eternity of unimaginable suffering if you fail to worship him (or worship the wrong deity).

    Luckily, more people are realising that there is no god, no demons, no satan.

    Dear Dolt,
    Having read a few of the other your delinquent attempts at logic, I like you, laughed until I had to run to the toilet. I would like you to understand a few things before I continue in what I hope you will qualify as a high quality rant.
    You are born with nothing, and that includes atheism.
    Atheism has no known Earthly Origins.
    Christianity does.
    The absence of any know origin is a highly strange phenomenon and must be treated for what it is.
    Your pathetic attempt at an intelligent dialog on this blog has not only embarrassed intelligent people, it has also managed to make us look as foolish as you for being caught in the same virtual community as you. We can only weep, and pray that we stop at this resemblance to you, as to look like you too…well, it’s a fate worse than death.

    Yours Respectfully,

    • smarmax Says:

      “Atheism has no known Earthly Origins.
      Christianity does.”

      Aren’t you supposed to believe that christianity has divine origins? This reads like an admission that man did indeed create god.

  2. Bill Says:

    As far as I’m aware, atheism isn’t a doctrine or belief system at all… it’s simply not believing in a God or Gods (or by extension, any supernatural beings such as angels, demons, ghosts, leprachauns, Santa Claus etc).
    Of course there are so-called ‘atheists’ who are actively anti-religion, but most will accept a person’s right to believe whatever they want to believe. I’m not an atheist myself, but I know people who are…

  3. Michael Says:

    Pity,and I thought that you were going to say something to refute the fact that atheism has no authors().For starters,you are exactly what a recovering fundamentalist should not become: an anti-fundamentalist fundamentalist. Anti-theists (and I do not necessarily mean atheists here) are often what I call “dry fundamentalists“—folks who refuse to do the hard work of leaving the pain of fundamentalism behind, opting instead to get stuck railing against their past.


  4. Ramon can you back up your appeal to an anonymous authority? Exactly who are these,”more people” and what are their numbers or are you just another post and run troll?
    Can you cite a source like the one I’m about to leave you with?

    More Believe In God Than Heaven…

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html

    Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles, according to the latest FOX News poll. Though belief in God has remained at about the same level, belief in the devil has increased slightly over the last few years — from 63 percent in 1997 to 71 percent today.The national poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation (search), shows that about a third of Americans believe in ghosts (34 percent) and an equal number in UFOs (34 percent), and about a quarter accept things like astrology (search) (29 percent), reincarnation (search) (25 percent) and witches (24 percent).

  5. Charles Jesus Says:

    Wow, Herr Goebbels would be proud of you; you spew more hate and misunderstanding against atheists in this one site than Joseph Goebbels and Adolph Hitler ever were able to do against the Jewish people. I feel sure that, given the chance, you’d be there driving us atheists into the “showers” and pulling the lever which drops the Zyklon B tablets into the room to kill us. But before you have an orgasm over the prospect, ask yourself, is this what Jesus would do?


  6. Dear Charles,
    That’s a matter of opinion since after all, Goebbels was a Socialist himself, and like the hundreds of millions that were slaughtered under atheist/Socialist regimes I’d venture to think that you would have been relatively safe during that time period as long as you didn’t profess your allegiance to God.

  7. Stormwarden Says:

    What you didn’t tell them:

    Hitler = Roman Catholic, was particularly fond of the writings of Martin Luther in regards to the Jews.

    Source: Mein Kampf (his own book).

    Throughout the centuries, the Abrahamic religions have killed far more people than any gun, bomb, or sword. BTW, next time you decide to be a coward and post anonymously on Ex-C, do keep your facts straight, troll.

  8. Blogmaster Says:

    Dear Stooge,
    Convieniently distorting the facts, and omitting relevant information makes you a model God-hating anti-theist so kudo’s for helping me prove my point when I state that you God-Hating anti-theists are simpletons, and need to be treated as such.I am an expert in the care, and feeding of you fools and am obliged to help you where, and when you seek my guidence..
    The truth is that Hitler rejected Christianity and here is one of dozens of correct quotes from the atheist/pagan himself:
    14th October, 1941, midday:
    “The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.”
    See the following website for many more quotes from Hitler that prove that you are nothing more than a pretender with no answer and alot of hot air.

    http://www.answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

    Were you aware that atheism has killed the equivalent or 2 world trade center disasters in one day multiplied by 10 years?
    That if a madman were driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe, and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.”As an anti-theist you are the damaged goods left over from a moral society and will be treated as such wherever you reveal yourself.
    With that being said dissapear bum-boy,you make my job too easy.

  9. Realist Says:

    GOTT MIT UNS – GOD WITH US

  10. BC Says:

    Here is a whole forum dedicated to the cause. http://www.samharris.org/forum . It is cavalier to start your own blog, why not attack atheists were they are instead of your own little world? You seem to be very sure you are correct, why not test out your arguments on real atheists and agnostics instead of consistetly blowing down straw men? Your sheeple are welcome as well.


  11. Been there, and done that.
    Ask David lain Greig moderator over at talk.origins who broke down in the middle of a debate during some tough questioning, and banned me when the fire of truth got too hot for him, and his religion of Evolution.

  12. Realist Says:

    This site is hilarious. The angry and highly emotional tone of the content here reveals the deep-seated frustration many theists feel when others refuse to see their imaginary friend. You “GOD/JESUS” lovers are intellectual children and the secular world has been dragging undeveloped minds into the modern world for centuries now. Give it up already. Clearly, it’s a losing proposition.

    p.s. No moderator on the samharris forum. You can embarrass yourself as often as you like.


  13. Welcome God-Hater, and I’m happy to have an impact on your dismal view of yourself, and the world that you live in.Ask yourself this,”If you don’t believe in Jesus/God then what drives you to attack them?”
    Somewhat odd huh?
    Read my section on Anti-theists and their Don Quixote Syndrome.”
    You foot the bill flawlessly.
    You atheists are full of flaws.You don’t know how to properly raise, and teach children what is right? Not one of you.You Satan inspired God-Haters say children should not be disciplined. You raise your children to be disrespectful to their parents – to
    disobey harm and murder them.You raise children to be violent, worthless and murderous.Your atheism is worthless. It does not have the ability to instill proper values in the youth or have anything positive to offer mankind.
    Send the SamHarris members over for a brutal intellectual beating if you like.Either way it makes no difference to me.
    I only moderate profanity, and not ideology.
    I teach the proper ideology to those that care to know the truth.

  14. WebMDave Says:

    This is “atheiststooges” other website:

    http://save-don-imus.blogspot.com

  15. camanintx Says:

    Can you tell us who invented Zeus and when? How about Ra? Mithras? I would even bet that you cannot name the author and time of origin of your own Book of Genesis. Using your logic, must we assume that it too was authored by Satan?


  16. Zeus invented by the Greeks 435 b.c.
    RA invented by the Egyptians 1370 BCE
    Mithras first century b.c by the Roman Empire.
    Atheism invented by Satan since it has no Earthly origin.

  17. Realist Says:

    And finally…GOD was invented by……

    Come on now – connect the dots – you can do it.

    Baby steps……………

    Who’s the author of atheism?
    C’mon now,even smaller steps……….

  18. camanintx Says:

    Yahweh invented by Israelites in 6th century BC.

    Atheism is simply the natural state we existed in before all of these myths were written down.

    You’re not only a talking monkey, but you’re a horses ass ass well.
    Now dissapear with your lies back into your tree, before I launch you into a state of depression that finds you curled up underneath your hospital bed donning a bedpan on your head you dolt

    • Rob Rusbt Says:

      And here we have another rational reply to a coherent statement.
      Very christian!!!
      This person must be very a weak individual to resort to biblical rants and threats whenever questioned logically.
      Mind you thats always the case when one questions religion.
      It certainly exemplifies the intellectual difference between believers and non believers.

  19. cybacaT Says:

    I come down smack in the middle of this discussion. I disagree with the stereotyping.

    Christians are stereotyped as a bunch of half-brained, door-knicking religious nutters who are on a crusade to convert you and everyone you know.

    Reality is, most christians don’t doorknock. Most just live good lives – often exceptional lives – and that is how people become curious about how they got to that point.

    Atheists are portrayed by some as soul-less, hateful, misguided antagonists with a chip on their shoulder and a complete inability to listen to reason.

    In reality, most of them just want to quietly keep their beliefs to themselves.

    So I say leave the stereotypes out. For me, I’m a Christian. I don’t doorknock. I don’t harass people. I am widely travelled and widely read, with an IQ that puts me in the “genius” category. That may surprise some, but it shouldn’t. In my experience at churches around the world, you get the full range of people – from babies to elderly, from professors to students, from scientists to doctors, lawyers to politicans, and every nationality on Earth. There is no christian stereotype aside from the fact we recognise a common God.

    Peace.

  20. Realist Says:

    It appears you don’t possess the intellectual horsepower to put together even one coherent thought. Your screenname says it all. ‘Stooge’ is highly apropos. I haven’t found even one piece on this site worth responding to. You may now continue barking at the moon and yelling at the clouds.

    All you are capable of is claiming that *everything* is a matter of opinion, that there are no such things as facts or truth.
    The argument is over, because you’ve degenerated into pointlessness….
    Now be a good howler monkey and climb back into your tree.

  21. Melchizedek Says:

    – +Sig+
    “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your
    pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and
    turn to attack you. “(Matthew 7:6 RSV)
    Investigating Jesus

    http://76.162.199.209/_/

    “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s
    clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15 RSV)
    ————————————————————
    Born Again – Understanding the Gospel – Willing to Believe
    For a limited time, these series are available here.

    http://76.162.173.93/members/=CD-R=r-c-sproul-2nd-set/

    login: guest password: guest
    ————————————————————
    Overview the Bible

    http://76.162.173.93/bible-study/=CD-R=ltb-24/

    There’s no hurry?

    “The best way to drive out the devil, if he will
    not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and
    flout him, for he cannot bear scorn.”
    Heaven & Hell

    http://76.162.173.93/prophecy/=CD-R=heaven-and-hell/

    The Gospel of Matthew

    http://76.162.173.93/bible-study/=CD-R=matthew-rv/

    A Primer on Prophecy

    http://76.162.173.93//prophecy/=CD-R=prophecy-101-small-wmv

    Born once, die twice. Born twice, die once.
    ————————————————————
    A Workman Approved By God
    A Hermeneutical Study on Bible Doctrine

    http://76.162.173.93/members/awabg/

    login: guest password: guest
    ————————————————————
    Wisdom of a Lifetime – Audio MP3 Collection –

    http://bibleweb.info/ftp/ftp-members-0002.html

    The Last (5th) Horseman

    http://bibleweb.info/ftp/ftp-members-0003.html

    The Facts About Jesus, the Bible & the Afterlife

    http://bibleweb.info/ftp/ftp-members-0004.html

    The Way – http://john-14-6.com/john-14-6.pdf
    A Tribute to THE KING

    http://bibleweb.info/public-a-tribute-to-the-king.pdf

    How to Spot a Counterfeit

    [audio src="http://76.162.173.93/guest/ar-mp3/ar-how-to-spot-a-counterfeit.mp3" /]

    But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there
    will be false teachers among you. They will secretly bring in
    destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and
    will bring swift destruction on themselves (2 Peter 2:1).
    Scriptural Christianity

    http://76.162.173.93/guest/=CD-R=scriptural-christianity/

    My Main Collection – http://Bibleweb.Info/
    Maranatha!


  22. Just what kind of ‘excavation’ are we entering here? One searching for a grain of truth in the sky-high pile of BS you’ve mounded up here? Of course atheism doesn’t have a single author–it’s the way you’re born. Then you fall victim to people who prefer superstition to actually acquiring a real understanding of the natural world, and you spend the rest of your life either being deluded or fighting those who are. Guess which camp I’m in?

    I’ll tell you a little secret. You’re also an atheist. You don’t believe in Zeus, Adonis, Hercules, Ra, Hare Krishna, Lord Brahma, or Quetzalcoatl. So, you’re an atheist as far as those gods go. It’s just that I believe in one less god than you do.

    It is apparent, from your definition of atheism, that atheism and
    theism exist in the same relationship as evil and good. Atheism cannot
    exist without theism, and evil cannot exist without good. But theism
    can get along perfectly well without atheism, and good can get along
    perfectly well without evil. Also, atheism opposes theism, and where
    atheism is firmly rooted, it destroys theism. Similarly, evil opposes
    good, and where evil is firmly rooted, it destroys good. A relationship
    of one entity to another wherein the first entity cannot survive
    without the second, while the second can survive perfectly well without
    the first, and wherein the first entity, where firmly rooted, destroys
    the second, is called parasitic. Thus, according to your definitions
    atheism exists in a parasitic relationship to theism. It owes its
    existence to theism as a necessary condition, and it is parasitic to
    it, i.e. deriving sustenance from it but making no good return, and
    detrimenting its host.Your definition of atheism makes it to be a sort of cancer on the human race.
    A perfect Satanic legacy :-)


  23. Atheism doesn’t need theism anymore than heliocentrism needs geocentrism. If people had never ascribed to geocentrism, heliocentrism would still be true and complete.

    Atheism is ‘rooted’ in a basic lack of superstition about the world. It is the absence of something, not the flip side of the same coin. Theism postulates a glass full of some liquid. Other religions postulate a different liquid. Atheism postulates an empty glass.

    -Infidelis Maximus

    http://infidelismaximus.blogspot.com

    Throwing out Red Herrings doesn’t make your case any weaker than it ALREADY IS. Atheism is a belief system, and therefore a religion but it lacks a basic human trait, and that is the civilized and moral ability to fight for the lives of innocent unborn human embryos and fetuses who will be aborted. Not a single one is an advocate for saving their lives. Your atheism is useless and murderous!
    You do not have the ability to stand up for the protection of the lives of the most innocent and weak human beings!
    You and your ilk lack the ability to love the most noble and perfect Law in the universe made for mankind – the TEN COMMANDMENTS?
    Your atheism is useless ,and immoral because you cannot even force yourselves to be an advocate of the only perfect Law there is.Which one of you has the ability to honor and glorify their Maker – the one and only true God?
    Which one has a love for Him rather than an enmity?
    Which one of you can admit His true existence? Not one!
    Your atheism is therefore utterly worthless because it causes you to deny the existence of the Almighty God as well as yourselves.
    You therefore worship and serve Satan and do his will while even denying his existence as well.
    Which atheist has the ability to stand up for true justice?
    Which one can stand to see true justice administered?
    Which of them know how to balance the scales and equations of justice and give criminals just and righteous punishment?
    Not one of them!
    They murder innocent human fetuses, and embryos while they feed, parole and reward death worthy criminals.
    Their atheism is worthless because they mete out injustice in the land. No one is sure that justice will be served.
    They therefore slap and spit in the face of victims of crime, protect criminals and dare the victims to take the law into their own hands.
    Which one is not a hypocrite?
    Which of is not full of contradictions?
    They call Hitler the greatest monster in history, who is said to have murdered a total of about 38 million people,
    but you refuse to count the total number of human innocent embryos and fetuses they are murdering and in favor of murdering. Hitler has ceased killing,but their number far exceeds Hitler’s and continues to increase.
    Furthermore, not one of the unborn babies they murder and in favor of murdering are criminals – all are innocent. And they are trying to spread this type of murder to the rest of the world. What hypocrites! Your atheism is worthless. You deserve the same death as you are giving innocent unborn babies!

    Which one of you are not full of deception? You call good evil and evil good. Atheists see justice and righteousness as “hate” and injustice and unrighteousness as “love”. They deceive themselves, their children, their colleagues, children in school, colleges, universities and the public.They write deceptive books, give deceptive so-called “expert” speculations and make deceptive laws. Their atheism is worthless. It can’t admit to the truth.

    Which of them can distinguish the proper roles of males and females? Not one of them! They think a man has the right to be effeminate or gay and a woman masculine and gay. They think the woman is equal to the man. They believe in same sex marriage and believe homosexuals should adopt children. Their atheism is worthless! It makes them worthy of both death and eternal hell!

    Which of them has the ability to understand the proper role of government? They say that ignorant, unwise, blind and totally depraved man should rule himself and should not be governed by the all knowing, wise and righteous God. They say there should be separation of church and state. They do not have the ability to appreciate righteous and proper government, because under such government they know they will not have the freedom to enjoy their depravity. THEY know THEY would be condemned to death by such government. Out of every foolish criminal and anti american atheist, which of has the capability to realize that they are incapable of ruling themselves?

    Which of them know how to properly raise and teach children what is right? Not one of them. The heathen atheists say children should not be disciplined. They raise children to be disrespectful to their parents – to disobey harm and murder them. They raise children to be violent, worthless and murderous. Their atheism is worthless. It does not have the ability to instill proper values in the youth.

    Which foolish atheist are not capable of realizing that they will one day stand before the very God that they reject to give an account unto him. Yes, one day, as all the other atheists who have died have found out in hell.

  24. Realist Says:

    Dear Lord Jesus,

    Thank you for not killing me before I had a chance to accept you as my Personal Savior.

    I believe that Liberals and Democrats are under the control of Satan and his sneering minions, the educated and the well-traveled.

    I do not want to be tossed into the incandescent flames of the sadistic hell you created for those who did not vote for George W. Bush or waiver in their faith by questioning the honesty, competence or syntax of Jesus’ anointed.

    Please Lord Jesus, I want to become a True Republican(TM) and a Real American(TM). I accept you as my Lord and Savior.

    I believe You died for my sins and rose on the third day and floated off to your invisible, exquisitely decorated mansion in the Holy Ghost’s subdivision in the clouds while an audience of early Republican prophets looked on.

    I believe that in voting Republican, I am doing the implacable will of God.

    I long to join my brother in Christ, George W. Bush, and every single True ChristianTM who voted for Him.

    I understand that all of America’s problems began when we allowed ourselves to be seduced by the pinko, pacifistic false version of Jesus found in the New Testament, letting non-Protestant foreign trash into Your divine nation and squandering time we could have been at war trying to make peace with perfectly good enemies, before renewing our hearts and joyously embracing Republican Christianity’s new improved, steroid-engorged version of Jesus Christ.

    I want to help eliminate the deadly disease of liberalism and assist my President and Your appointed servant on Earth to help rebuild this country into the Glorious Christian Nation it once was on the rocky shores of Puritan New England in the late 1600’s.

    I gladly tithe my mind and no less than 10% of my paycheck, renouncing the demons of logic and education for they will no longer hold sway in my heart, as I now have both Mr. Bush and Mr. Jesus as my co-redeemers!

    Amen!

    And once again people don’t ever ever buy into their claims that they are atheists.
    They are militant anti-theists and there is a huge difference.
    Although viewing themselves as “free thinkers”, they all have a Party Line they follow rather closely.
    But the militant atheists -the ones who have devoted
    their lives to refuting Christianity- are almost like the
    demons …who believe more firmly in God’s existence
    than do Christians !
    It can unequivocally be stated that militant atheists are some
    of the people who most solidly believe in God !
    Ain’t talking ‘practical atheists’ here …those who don’t
    even think much about atheism. They’re the true
    atheists.
    Professional atheists who’ve dedicated themselves
    to eradicating the Lord do so because they hate Him.
    They’re the God-haters.
    To which they’ll invariably reply: ‘How can we hate
    something we don’t believe in ?’.
    Exactly ! It’s their belief in God which drives them to
    relentlessly attack Him.
    Run of the mill, everyday ‘practical atheists’ don’t
    give God a second thought. They’re the ones
    I worry about.
    Whereas militant atheists are fighting against the
    innate knowledge of suppressed in their hearts.
    As a militant atheist I can unequivocally state that there is no time in your life that you
    totally disbelieved in God. And -in fact- were driven to
    work against the Lord by belief in Him !
    It isn’t that militant atheists don’t believe God exists.
    Instead: That they don’t want God to exist.
    So when debating don’t ever buy into their *how can we believe in a sky pixie* claim because they most certainly do though they will never admit it.
    They have a fire and hatred in their hearts for God and that is what brings them into religious newsgroups on a regular basis.
    They want to destroy your faith like they have destroyed their own.
    Amen!

  25. Realist Says:

    Friends, as True Christians®, we are obliged to try to save as many lost souls as we can. In witnessing at my country club to Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Democrats and other unsaved trash, I have heard time and again from people who are leery of our faith because they think life as a born-again Christian would be difficult. They actually think our lives are complicated. This gross misconception will ensure that countless people we know will wind up in Hell, roasting on one of Satan’s many pitchforks, as their privates burn to a crisp. We must all spread the message that being a saved Christian isn’t hard at all. In fact, it’s the easiest lifestyle imaginable.

    snip rest of brainless blather

    Stolen from: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/easyaspie.html

  26. myopinion Says:

    “I have despised atheism since I was knee high to my mothers apron strings.Thank God for every battle won against this dark and void-filled religion, and welcome to the excavation.”

    Ok. First atheism isn’t a religion.

    By who’s criteria?
    Opinons are not fact though you seem to be confusing the two.
    Atheism is a religion, and I have demonstrated that by logic, and not emotion though you God haters couldn’t tell the two apart if someone hit you smack dabb in the mid skull with a venn-diagram.

    Second what are your opinions of other religions including the other christian religions other than your own denomination, but I am really more interested others such as Muslims, Buddists, etc?

    The discussion is your hatred for God, and what drives you to incessantly fight against him.

  27. myopinion Says:

    Atheism – “Denial that there is a god.” – American Heritage Dictionary.

    Where in the definition does it say that atheism is a religion? I saw what I perceived as a flaw in your definition and wanted to correct it.

    “The discussion is your hatred for God, and what drives you to incessantly fight against him.” – why do you presume that I hate god and I am driven to incessantly fight against him? You do not even know what my beliefs are. You seem to be jumping to conclusions.

    Now, are you going to answer the question that I asked or not? If you do not choose to answer why are you having the blog anyway? All you seem to do is rant without engaging in intelligent debate. I would welcome an intelligent response without rambling and making presumptions about me and my alleged hatred (which by the way does not exist).

    What are your opinions of other religions including the other christian religions other than your own denomination, but I am really more interested others such as Muslims, Buddhists, etc?

    Can they be right? In many respects, yes. In all respects, no.
    There are not very many religions in existence in the world today claiming to be “the one true religion.” Almost all religions originating from Asia, Africa, and the Western Hemisphere of the world teach that there are many paths to the divine. The only major world religions claiming to be the one true religion are Christianity and Islam. There is certainly nothing irrational about claiming that one religion is true and others are false or at least false in some respects. As to why I think Christianity is the true religion, I base that claim on the evidence that supports the central and unique truth claims of Christianity. The issues of religious pluralism, tolerance, and truth are important ones in our society today. We have a 2000 + year old book that contains references to science not known of it’s day,prophesy told hundreds of years before they actually occured,the personal testimony of hundreds of independent witnesses to Christs miracles, death, and resurrection as well as his teachings. No other religion can claim any of this.

    Now if you are in the mood to answer another question – In your humble opinion is a person that chooses not to believe in a god or a religion as bad, worse, or better than a person that believes in a different god or religion than you? Deuteronomy only says to stone the person that tries to get you to worship another god, but nothing (that I am aware – I could be wrong) about a person who just does not choose to believe.

    I affirm that man has an innate knowledge of God, with enough clarity and content in it so that he is without an excuse in denying God. However, I deny that the entity of theology can be based on our natrual knowledge of God. Or, to say it another way, I deny that our abnegate, knowledge of God can be the first principle of a biblical worldview — there is insufficient substance, clarity, and objectivity, among other reasons.
    This is why I never appeal to intuition alone to justify any part of my theological views or to perform apologetics. An accurate understanding of the structure and the extent of our own natural knowledge of God comes from verbal revelation first and foermost.

    To say this yet another, although I acknowledge that we have an innate knowledge of God, we do not base our faith and assurance or our theology and apologetics in him on this intuitive knowledge; rather, we must base these things on verbal revelations.
    I do “appeal” to man’s innate knowledge in my testimony, but I never do this as if the truth of Christianity rests on this as its foundation, or as if this innate knowledge is itself proof that Christianity and God are true. Otherwise, this would become an appeal to man’s intuition, and the argument would become subjective.
    Instead, I appeal to this natural knowledge only to expose why biblical presuppositions are not denied in their practice but are implicitly accepted even by unbelievers, and to explain in what sense we have mutual ground or a point of contact with the unbelievers when preaching the gospel to them.

  28. John Says:

    This site is hilarious! Thanks for the laugh – I just love this religious satire stuff. Check out http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ for more.

    — John

    Heh…cold feet already ??? That’s too bad – I was rather looking forward to dribbling your severed head all over this blog…You have inherited (among other things) the same nervous twitch that the other God-Haters that park here have demonstrated so stop right there, you talking monkey…you shouldn’t be giving me anything less than the best ass kissing performance you are capable of.

  29. Chris Says:

    It’s people like you who made me turn away from christianity and become an atheist. Oh and i must thank x-christian to for helping me become an atheist to.
    You quote atheist to be immoral, satanists, dispicable and evil. Yet you don’t even look apon your own religion, which assuming it is christianity, has been used to justifie horrible acts, such as the crusades, spanish inquisition. You claim to have ‘morals’ from your book, but if you’ve ever acturly read the bible properly OT and NT (remember jesus said in the NT all the rules of the OT still are just as important) your’ll see that it is as immoral as you claim atheists to be. For example Exodus 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.” (Hum selling your daugther as a slave), oh how foolish of me to think of that as immoral, for I am an immoral atheist and this is God’s word, so it must be moral and just. But you will obviously say selling your own daugther to slavery is immoral, but I ask you where did you get that sense of right and wrong or morality from(because god did create man not knowing ethier), and satan was the one that tempted eve to eat from the tree of knowleage, therefor gaining knowleage and knowing what is right and wrong. So satan gave you your sense of right and wrong. So kinda looking hypocritical. But back to the main point, where does this sense of right and wrong come from, you surely don’t get it from the bible, (that if you acturly read the thing) as I have just demostraighted.
    You clearly pick the ‘good’ teachings from the bible and leave out the ‘bad’ ones, this shows that you make a beforehand decision wheather they are right or wrong, before you except them as things to live by, this shows that you have this sense of right and wrong before you even read the bible, so obviously then we don’t need the bible to be able to know right from wrong or be moral, so claiming atheists as immoral is unfound and basically ignorant.
    Also please don’t use certain people of how immoral atheists are. Like Richard Dawkins said Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches, but does that make all men with moustaches horrible immoral geneocide encoraging people. just the same for atheists and Christians and any other group of people, you can’t jugde a whole population of people from just 2 or 3 examples.
    Btw theres no point helping any atheist, for we are all beyond saving and forgivness, for as we are atheists we have denied the existance of the holy Trinity, that means the holy spirt to, and as Mark 3:29 says
    “But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”
    so in all truth your site has no meaning to it, apart from to make fun of people who are eternaly damned to a horrible, totured fate no matter what they do. And you say I’m immoral?
    I’ll leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Mark Twain “you belive in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, deamons, sticks turining into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sly, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones thst need help?”
    So whats your response to this? thats if you don’t ignore it like most religious zealouts would, you lot tend to ignore anything that might prove you wrong.

    I am determined to understand you -And I no longer despise you. However as one that may pull the wings off of flies to observe the results, I felt curiosity. I thought that it might be interesting to feel the pain that causes you to toy with another persons logic so flagrantly.
    I hereby present evidence pertaining to whence you were spawned and provide the reasons why you hide your identity and sexuality and why you need to use words to obfuscate rather than to communicate.You clearly hate God, and hate all Christians, and the fact is that you are a scared believer, and nothing more.
    The logic in which you use to post is a little more than a veritable wasteland.
    Lets address the miracle issue here since that seems to be your main theme.
    Before we can decide whether or not miracles can happen, we must first define what a miracle is. Basically, a miracle is an event that cannot be normally explained through the laws of nature. In the context of Christianity, miracles are the product and the work of God who created the natural laws as well as the universe.
    However, vital to the discussion of whether or not miracles can occur is the issue of a person’s presuppositions. If someone believes that there is no God and also believes in what is called naturalism – that all things in the universe are subject to natural physical laws – then miracles are defined out of existence. That is, the universe is defined in such a way as to make miracles impossible. Therefore, if someone says that miracles cannot happen, then it is most probable that he denies the existence of God and/or believe in naturalism along with its companion, evolution.
    On the other hand, if someone believed that there was a God and that God is involved in the world, then it is easy to acknowledge that miracles can occur. If God created the universe as the Bible states (Gen. 1), why can’t God also intervene in our world and perform miracles? Take the resurrection of Jesus, for example. With an atheistic, naturalistic presupposition the resurrection of Christ could not occur since people simply do not rise from the dead, no matter what is said. Therefore, the account of Jesus’ resurrection must be wrong. Either the Bible is untrustworthy, the witnesses collaborated on a lie, Jesus never died, He only appeared dead, His body was stolen to make it look like He’d risen, or someone else died in His place. Either way, the non-God, non-miraculous presupposition would not allow the skeptic to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, especially after three days of being in the tomb. It just could not have happened, no matter what. The problem is that with this kind of presupposition, objectivity can be thrown out the window. This is especially ironic since many atheists consider the Christians to be the ones who lack objectivity.

    Weigh the Evidence

    If someone believed that miracles were possible because he believed that God exists, then all he needs to do is look at the Bible, weigh the evidence and decide to believe or not believe in miracles — like Jesus’ resurrection. Again, consider Jesus. From the accounts of the eyewitness testimonies in the Gospels we can see many people believed that Jesus rose from the dead. After all, the Romans, who were expert at crucifixion, killed Jesus, and put guards on the tomb. Yet, the tomb was found empty. The disciples who had all fled and were in hiding, suddenly started proclaiming that Jesus had risen. These same disciples risked life and limb in order to teach that Jesus had risen. Why would they do that for a lie that would cost them their lives, their livelihood, their family ties, etc., unless it really happened?
    Since Christians do not have a presupposition that excludes the miraculous, we are able to look at the resurrection of Christ as recorded in the Bible, weigh the evidence, and make a choice to believe or not believe. Of course, Christians by default believed in the resurrection of Christ.

    Logic

    Finally, it would be basically illogical to state that miracles cannot occur. This is because in order to logically state that miracles cannot occur, a person must either know all things in the universe so that he can rightfully state miracles cannot occur, or he must have some logical proof why miracles cannot occur, or possess a sufficiently sophisticated knowledgebase to conclude the miraculous cannot occur, etc. Furthermore, it is not enough to state that there is no evidence for the miraculous since a person’s experiential base is limited. It may very well be that miracles have occurred and this person is simply not aware of it.
    Therefore, at best someone could simply say “I do not believe that miracles occur because (insert reason).” At least this leaves open the possibility that they may occur. And if they might indeed occur, why not have the possibility that Jesus who claimed to be God (John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14), who fulfilled Old Testament prophecies (i.e., Psalm 22:11-18; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6, Micah 5:1-2, etc.), who predicted his own death and resurrection (John 2:19-21; ), appeared to people after his public execution (Luke 24:39; John 20:25-28), did indeed actually rise from the dead? Since the eyewitness accounts have been accurately transmitted to us, would it not be logical to believe the witnesses who described what they saw? It would seem so.
    Can miracles occur? Yes, they can because there is a God in the universe.

  30. Chris Says:

    I’m sorry I am new to posting on these sorts of websites, so I do not understand how to include those pieces of information, so I’ll just leave them at the end.
    Firstly you don’t seem to even acknowledge my main point in your response, (the one on morality not miracles, that is not mentioned at all in my post, just a quote which briefly touches on that matter) but i do not mind, since i sort of expected this from your response, unless there is a misconception involved, then I’m sorry i did not make it clearer. But the main point was you have no basis on which to say we are immoral, since what you believe and do is pretty immoral yourself, but I’ll leave that alone until later.
    I do not hate Christians just their dogma, and that is it. Also I do not hate God, at least the Abrahamic God, because by its definition it cannot exist, and i would argue how can you hate something truly that does not exist.

    You state that,”do not hate God, at least the Abrahamic God, because by its definition it cannot exist”…my question is logically by who’s definition?…yours?
    This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means you would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since you cannot know all things (if you did he would be God), then you cannot logically say there is no God. Your position as an atheist is untenable.What you actually meant to say is that “I believe there is no God” and that is a conscious choice.

    It can unequivocally be stated that militant atheists are some of the people who most solidly believe in God !Ain’t talking ‘practical atheists’ here …those who don’t even think much about atheism. They’re the true atheists.Professional atheists who’ve dedicated themselves to eradicating the Lord do so because they hate Him.They’re the God-haters.To which they’ll invariably reply: ‘How can we hate something we don’t believe in ?’.Exactly ! It’s their belief in God which drives them to relentlessly attack Him. Run of the mill, everyday ‘practical atheists’ don’t give God a second thought. They’re the ones I worry about.Whereas militant atheists are fighting against the innate knowledge of suppressed in their hearts.As a militant atheist I can unequivocally state that there is no time in your life that you totally disbelieved in God. And -in fact- were driven to work against the Lord by belief in Him !It isn’t that militant atheists don’t believe God exists.Instead: That they don’t want God to exist.So when debating don’t ever buy into their *how can we believe in a sky pixie* claim because they most certainly do though they will never admit it.They have a fire and hatred in their hearts for God and that is what brings them into religious newsgroups on a regular basis.They want to destroy your faith like they have destroyed their own.

    These definitions are such as God’s omnipotence, omniscience and omni benevolence, God cannot be any of these things, because of the major paradoxes involved. And I’m pretty sure your aware of them, but probably ignore that issue. God cannot know all without know our futures, and knowing every murder, rape est. that we might commit, and knowing our birthplace, since religion is geographical, so if i was born in a different place I might grow up as a Hindu, and for that i would be sent to hell out of no fault of my own, like a sinner would be, since everything we do is predestined due to God’s omniscience, so we have no choice in what we do (no free will). This conflicts with God’s all loving definition, since a loving God would not send a person to earth to commit horrible acts against his/her will, and be sent to a eternal torture, merely because God predestined them to.
    Also without all knowing God cannot be all powerful (all powerful has it’s own paradoxes, but i will not go into them), since to be all powerful you would have to know all, do all, be eternal amongst other ones to. So God cannot be ether all powerful and all knowing while still being all loving, and if God is just all loving then God is not a god, (which I will leave alone, since I cannot be bothered to go into the lengthy reason why)
    So as I have just demonstraighted with logic, God cannot exist by the Abrahamic definition without paradoxes, and therefore cannot exist by those definitions.
    Once again,Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you’d have to know All things to know there is no God.

    Your logic
    By your logic of not being able to claim anything as certain without absolute knowledge, nothing at all can be proved wrong, since we do not have the means to prove it wrong.
    So I ask you this, can you prove there is not a pink invisible unicorn running around the field besides my house? no you cannot, but we both now this is absorbed, although your bible does mention unicorns (or rhinos, since some of you lot do claim that is what it really meant) Can you prove that evolution is wrong? no by your logic you do not have absolute knowledge, and therefore can only claim that you do not believe in it. SO by your logic nothing can be proven to not exist, that is illogical, and brings the argument to the point where we begin to argue like agnostics mostly do.

    Permit me to not reinvent the wheel here and provide you with an explanation of the illogic of your position.
    Though this may sound sensible to some, the problem you are introduced to an idea you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But, you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning it. Though I admit that an atheist can claim he lacks belief even after being exposed to an idea and contemplating its rationality, I still assert that a position of some sort is required.

    Lets pick a baby that has no awareness of the concept of invisible, pink unicorns. Later in life, when the baby is mature and is introduced to the concept, he either accepts the existence of invisible pink unicorns, rejects them as a ridiculous notion, chuckles about it and dismisses it, becomes unsure about them, holds off judgment until later, etc. Either way, he develops a position on the concept of invisible pink unicorns. He has to do something with the concept once he’s been exposed to it. He doesn’t continue in a lack-of-belief or a lack-of-awareness state of mind because the fact is, some sort of intellectual action must occur regardingit. He cannot become unaffected by the concept.

    Nevertheless, some might say that to hold off judgment until later is to be “atheistic” concerning pink unicorns and therefore support the atheist position of “lack of belief.” But, as I said earlier, after being exposed to a concept a decision is made about that concept even if it is to withhold judgment. In other words, a position is taken. This is not the same as going back to a state of unawareness. To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired. This is agnosticism, not atheism. It is an admission that not all information is acquired thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered. This is something atheists do not do by definition; rather, agnostics do this. Agnosticism is the position, in part, that “suspension of belief” is maintained until further information is acquired.

    If I said that there was an ice cream factory on Jupiter, what would you think? Would you entertain the idea as a serious possibility? Would you quickly dismiss it as an outlandish absurdity? Would you request evidence for it? Or, did you suddenly have a desire to go to Jupiter for some Jupiterian Swirl? Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous and we automatically know this so we naturally make a judgment on it. Thus, we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we’ve been introduced to it. We assign it to the that-is-ridiculous category.

    This is why the lack of belief defense of atheists is not logical. It ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection. It is our nature to do this. We don’t do nothing with information.

    http://www.carm.org/atheism/lackbelief.htm

    Now back to your response, I guess your response was mainly to my leaving quote from Mark Twain, since what you are arguing against couldn’t have come from anywhere else, but as I previously stated that is not what I was arguing
    I am a scared believer? I disagree, I am the one in the face of eternal torture and pain said that God did not exist, therefore damning me to that fate. Pretty brave I would think. You’re the scared ones, in the face of hell you coward, obeying anything they throw at you, doing anything you can to get in your egotistic God’s god book.
    Calling me scared from your position, how hypocritical, I laugh in the face of that danger, while you coward in the corner.
    Your all the same, It annoys me no end

    -Chris (a male non-believer from then country of Britain) I’ll let you guess my age, since you’ll probably comment on that if I included that.

    Your’e a paper tiger and a fool, and a weak one at that.You are scared and it’s sadly telling by tone of your entire tirade.Perhaps you should consider taking a course in logic as well. I certainly would recommend it.

  31. camanintx Says:

    You’re not only a talking monkey, but you’re a horses ass ass well.
    Now dissapear with your lies back into your tree, before I launch you into a state of depression that finds you curled up underneath your hospital bed donning a bedpan on your head you dolt

    Thanks stooge. This response does more to destroy your credibility than anything I could have said.

    You’ve never had any credibility to begin with monkey so keep climbing up into your tree where you’re safe from the pack.It’s a shame watching superior brainpower such as mine go to waste on a bunch of suicidal lemmings whose only retaliation is to threaten to beat me up by debating in real-life … but then again, you’re the faggots who supplied the ammunition in the first place thats now being utilized to suplex your ugly faces into the canvas.
    Hope this helps.

  32. Chris Says:

    haha thanks that was interesting, it’s good to get a response as full as yours are. I’ll ignore all the things that you said in there that conflict with other things you have previously said.
    Firstly I want to get this point through, I did not say a God could not exist, only a Abrahamic one and (whenever I refer to God I mean an Abrahamic one), due to its biblical definitions in the bible, which I pointed out and you merely brushed off as illogical,
    Hypocritical may I say?

    You mean the dodging you were doing?
    When will you learn that 10 minutes on an atheist web page and some fancy words, does not make you a Biblical expert.

    I do agree with some of your points though and I do except I am wrong on some, such as your argument on the lack of belief subject, but I do not deny the existence of God, because that would imply God exists, so I maintain that I do not believe in God, therefore without theist, or atheist (‘a’ meaning without).

    Atheist positions seem to fall into two main categories. The first is the lack-of-evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn’t good enough for him to affirm God’s existence. The second is the category where they believe that the idea of God’s existence is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand. To simplify, one says there isn’t enough evidence to conclude that God exists and the other says the evidence is contrary to God’s existence. For those atheists who simply lack belief and exercise no energy in the discussion, neither category applies because they are not involved in the debate. But, some of those who claim to lack belief in God are often involved in discussions where they are arguing against God’s existence.
    That would make you a believer logically.
    Your atheism is therefore an untenable position.The best you can say is you are an agnostic.

    I do not know where you got this concept of the ‘militant’ atheists having an innate knowledge of God within their heart, I fight against the concept of God, because it brings forth such harsh ideologies as Christianity, That’s if you take the bible literally, if not then arguing from this view would be pointless against you, but I do take it you have an issue with evolution, and by the image at the top, I can assume you believe God created us directly, meaning that you are probably a creationalist or an ID (correct me if I am wrong) and if you are a creationalist you will have issues with basically all sciences,

    Strawman argument.
    I hold a degree in science.
    Intelligent Design fits science like a velvet glove both beautifully, and fully.
    God is science and science is God.
    A more natural presupposition is that as an atheist you basically have problems with all science.
    Some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.Biologists’ investigation of DNA have shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved. My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”

    since most of them tend to point away from the literal interpretation of the bible(OT) So I pose you the same question, I say we are all have the innate knowledge that God doesn’t exist and is created later on in life by our own imagination, and your the one going out of his way to prove yourself wrong in spite of your knowledge that he doesn’t, Writing blogs, Responding to dis-believers to prove them wrong, Creating a web-site based on the concept that they are ‘fools’ , and many other things,. Who are you to say I am fighting so hardly against this belief, when you are fighting just as hard against your dis-belief in God, I could argue then that you never truly believed in God in the first place, and are just trying to suppress the knowledge within you, that your God does not exist, and you are merely trying to trick yourself into believing this nonsense of the bible and its God. (Note I am not saying God as in all possibilities of a different God) with your ‘logic’ and ‘interpretations’ You desperately want God to exist, so you make him exist because you merely believe God to exist and you then twist facts and logic to suit your needs in order to prove his existence, So in fact you disbelieve in God so much that you have to physically go out a prove his existence to others, so they acknowledge it as true, making you feel more like it’s true, because of social acceptance of that belief.
    The true believers would not need to go out and disprove others to justify their belief, just like you claimed with the atheists. Déjà vu?
    Or are you just being a plain hypocrite?
    Wow don’t fundy Christians and fundy Atheist sound so much alike. I wonder why that is. Maybe because we have all the innate desire to justify our own existence, by whatever means it is, having a god, ourselves..
    Well I’ll end it there with this leaving message.
    Better to be a weak paper tiger than a blind puppet like you are.
    You need a horrendously complicated supreme being, just to justify your meaning, whereas all I need is myself, because I am obviously a fool for thinking we create our own meaning in life.
    Btw, please stop going on about how I am scared, you’re the one that’s scared, scared that you might be wrong and wasting your whole life believing in complete nonsense. So you must feel to justify it on other people. Or maybe we are both wrong, because it would only be illogical to assume that is not a possibility.

    Is this seat emoty?
    Thank you,
    You God-Haters argue in circles, and when you are done being revealed as what you are,you will pretend you won, and run away and then start the exact same
    arguments that you know have been debunked, all over again with someone new. Now you know why I don’t bother with the forums anymore. And I gave you
    you your last chance to prove your claims about your propensity to deny God rather than demonstrate a detached feeling.You couldn’t do it and did exactly what I said you would do and now, as also predicted, chase me around, claiming to have proof. DA is the most popular right now.
    You appear to imply that mysticism cannot be rational. Mysticism is a belief in realities or existences outside our perceptual and/or one’s intellectual apprehension. This would include the idea that God exists. But, is it irrational to believe that there are things in existence beyond our apprehension? Of course not. Furthermore, you have not demonstrated why belief in God is not rational. You just state it is not rational. In so doing you commit the fallacy of begging the question; that is, you assume the thing true you are trying to prove. You assume atheism is true and label theism as irrational mysticism. This is neither a competent nor logical assertion on your part. At least you are stating an opinion when you say that you “think” belief in God is irrational. If I had stated it was irrational without logical support, you would be offering nothing but opinion in the place of fact. This is, to be sure, what many atheists accuse Christians of doing in believing in God. So in closing let’s point out that your defense here is basically worthless. You state that the “absence of evidence or convincing argument for the positive” is what makes atheism viable. But this is nothing more than a statement centered around subjectivity; namely, your subjective atheistic presupposition. Your atheistic presupposition does not allow you to view theistic arguments with any serious acumen because you have already stated that you believe that theism is irrational. Therefore, by default, any argument proposed for the existence of God must be, according to your presupposition, irrational and invalid from the beginning. What you have done is effectively cut off any true and convincing dialogue on the existence of God and forced all logic and evidence to fit into your subjective mental box or else it is irrational. This is not the method of serious intellectual inquiry. All of your “attempted proofs” are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? Besides, if there were a proof of Gods non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we dont hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying Gods existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheisms truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.That makes atheism a secular religion.

  33. Lee Says:

    Excellent, stories about demons, devils and talking snakes, ghosts and other supernateral critters in an attempt to argue creationism as a serious competetor to science, keep up the good work.

    Can I say a quick ‘Hi, hows it hanging you fictional old bastard’ to the holy ghost just to ensure my eternal damnation.

    Right on Schedule :-)
    Oh, and the word you were looking for is spelled,”competitor.”

    • sallya Says:

      @ lee-who created science anyway? isn’t it God?

      • Lithp Says:

        Well, according to the blogger, Satan did.

      • sallya Says:

        @ lithp- i don’t believe satan created it. science is a gift but the demons trying to corrupt it. you know demons are always finding a way to corrupt everything here on earth..

    • Lithp Says:

      And I’m sure this “corruption” refers to anything that doesn’t sit right with the Bible, which is to say, nearly everything we know about the universe.

  34. Arcid Says:

    The simple explanation is that atheism has no doctrin or dogma that require an originator. Atheism is the default state that we start off with regarding all the gods of legend. You and I are both atheist in general, I’m simply atheist about one more god than you.

    Atheism is a religion, and I’ve demonstarted that already so stop beating a dead horse.

    I think the problem is that atheism scares you.

    On the contrary, it’s apparent that it is Religion that frightens you right out of your shoes.
    Practical atheists don’t give God a second thought nor do they debate on the issues at hand.
    You are what is commonly understood to being a “scared believer.”

    The thought that so many people can independantly reach the same conclusion, and that the conclusion is so different from your worldview seems to frighten you so much that you want there to be an originator so that atheism can be brought to the level of a dogmatic religon such a christianity. Atheism doesn’t need dogmatic preaching to be accepted, no threats are made if you don’t take it up, no grand rewards are offered if you do accept it. Given these facts and the fact that there is no authority or unique origin for atheism, the number of people who arrive at it independantly must seem like a real kick to you.

    For the record I did believe in a god at one time, but learning about the wonders of universe around me plus looking at the bible and the lack of anything that corroberated the existance of God made me stop believeing. That said I do consider myself to have an open invitation to any deity to show its existance unambiguously.

    In short you fear atheism because it spreads without the large scale structure of the church, it appears where nobody has heard of it before and it doesn’t require the constant indoctrination of your church to maintain. In short atheism spreads like only truth can.

    Also when you say you have a degree in “science”. What exactly do you have a degree in. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because, apart from the problems of the evidence not fitting and going on some pretty wild suppositions and assumptions it lacks conditions that will disprove it. Tell me any condidtion that you accept will disprove intelligent design and that will go some way making it more like a scientific theory.

    And finally thank you for putting up that Dane Cook video, it has helped me to realise something. I couldn’t be a christian, I simply can’t hate anyone the way christians seem to hate other people.

    You are simply and unremarkably a militant atheist – one of the ones who have devoted their lives to refuting Christianity- are almost like the demons …who believe more firmly in God’s existence than do Christians !It can unequivocally be stated that militant atheists are some of the people who most solidly believe in God !One of a group of professional atheists who’ve dedicated themselves to eradicating the Lord do so because they hate Him.They’re the God-haters.To which they’ll invariably reply: ‘How can we hate something we don’t believe in ?’.Exactly ! It’s their belief in God which drives them to relentlessly attack Him.Run of the mill, everyday ‘practical atheists’ don’t give God a second thought. They’re the ones I worry about.Whereas militant atheists are fighting against the innate knowledge of God suppressed in their hearts.As a militant atheist I can unequivocally state that there is no time in your life that you totally disbelieved in God. And -in fact- were driven to work against the Lord by belief in Him !It isn’t that militant atheists don’t believe God exists. Instead: That they don’t want God to exist.

    Mail me if you want to discuss any of this further

    I don’t chase people around.
    You have the url so use it at your own discretion.
    By the time I’m done with you, your rusty metal is going to end up even more rusty than before with more than just a hint of structural fracturing.

  35. Jamale Says:

    I’m wondering if you can answer this paradox:

    If God is omnipotent and benevolent why does he do nothing to prevent all the current evil in the world? If he can see it all and did nothing in advance to prevent it then he is not benevolent. If he didn’t see it coming, or did see it coming but could do nothing to stop it happening, then he is not omnipotent so why call him god?

    Atheists always toss the problem of evil at Christians as if it were a ticking time bomb.
    The short and sweet asnwer being no, God did not create evil nor is evil in His nature. God created the law and those who transgress against it are the ones who do evil. When God created Adam and Eve they were created perfectly good and innocent.When they were tested they had fallen and are the ones that are held responsible for their actions. The same can be said about Satan as well.
    Yes God created us all but He did not take action through us nor did he force us to do evil and therefore it is illogical that He should be the one held accountable for wickedness. If you have children and God forbid they go down the wrong path and murder an innocent individual does it mean that you are evil since your children are a part of you and came from you? Does it mean that you created evil?
    Evil is allowed to exist because through it God accomplishes a higher purpose. Through evil God demonstrates His love for mankind by sending His only Son Jesus to die for our sins. I think the stories in the scripture are 100% accurate and true. I’m convinced that the scriptures are divine in origin and that is why I believe that the messages contained within it.

    The next logical sequence of questions would then be,”Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people.
    He doesn’t and bad things happen to everyone.
    There are no good and rightous in the world, and all have fallen short of the glory of God.

  36. Arcid Says:

    *Looks at website*
    *looks at the pieces of slander on website*
    *gets annoyed at lies bring spread about people like me*
    But of course, if I respond to any of the slander it’s “because I hate god”, not because of any of the half truths or outright lies that are being propigated, because if you thought that it would mean you would have to admit that you were wrong on some respects, and if you admit that you were wrong I suspect your entire belief system.

    Quote “Atheism is a religion, and I’ve demonstarted that already so stop beating a dead horse.”

    It seems to me that that sentence should read “I have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt as far as I’m concerned and entirely to my own satisfaction tha atheism is a religon”

    The trouble is you’ve convinced nobody else.

    Here’s something, the atheists that post to this site don’t hate god, they don’t believe in such a thing. It’s the christians like you and the way they act that annoys people like me, try to look at people actions with an open mind and not assume that because people don’t accept the same set of narrow, unprovable beliefs that you do that that those people are evil. After all from my point of view you are acting in an evil manner, spreading lies and misinformation. However I assume that you’re doing this simply because you’re misinformed and have been indoctrinated to believe certain things. I don’t believe that you do it because you want to do your part to plunge the world into the chaos and fear that I can see resulting from superstitions being taken as truth.

    Also, I invite you again to tell us what your degree is in, as “science” is not a degree I have heard of as being offered anywhere. Also if you could let us know a condition that would disprove creation theory that would go some way to it being more like a scientific theory.

    Also

    Quote “By the time I’m done with you, your rusty metal is going to end up even more rusty than before with more than just a hint of structural fracturing.”

    Please try to respond in a civil manner and not to resort to threats

    Also in response to what you said

    Quote “When God created Adam and Eve they were created perfectly good and innocent.When they were tested they had fallen and are the ones that are held responsible for their actions.”

    So they were created perfect but then failed when tested. Those two are mutually exclusive

    I don’t speak tardese you pitiful talking monkey.
    You can’t keep you mind on nothing eeeeeeeeeeeeeeelse. Not even the fact that it’s not a healthy idea to bare one’s heart in front of a group of people whose sole goal is to make fun of you. From this point on, you’ll be referred to as “Cisqo The Dancing Clown.”
    I read the above post.
    Notice the sympathetic wince?
    JUst another chattering howler monkey in a string of many.
    Say something important.
    Give me something hard to address because between you and DA I’ve managed to bore myself to death.
    You’re nothing but a two bit no talent parrot that’s never beaten anyone that’s even borderline respectable.
    Hope this helps dummy.

  37. Arcid Says:

    I see I’ve struck a nerve. I will however not respond with name calling and idle threats.

    I’ll ask the main questions again:

    Can tell us what your degree is in, as “science” is not a degree I have heard of as being offered anywhere.

    I am an Airline Pilot who holds a masters degree from an Ivy league University.

    Can you tell us of any condition that if observed would disprove creation theory as you call it. (It does require these conditions to be a valid scientific theory).

    There are no conditions to disprove creation theory.
    There are hundreds to disprove evolution though.

    Quote “When God created Adam and Eve they were created perfectly good and innocent.When they were tested they had fallen and are the ones that are held responsible for their actions.”

    So they were created perfect but then failed when tested. Those two are mutually exclusive. Can you give a reason that perfect being would be incapable of passing a test of this sort.

    It’s called free will, and nowhere in Genesis did it state that they were perfect, and without free will,but you already know that.

    You asked for something hard to address, there it is, you have three questions above to answer.

    Quote “I don’t speak tardese you pitiful talking monkey.

    Well, at least you’re accepting evolutionary biology now, that’s a good start.

    Now I have a few questions for you.

    Where are all of these museums with these alleged intermediate fossils?

    If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

    Where did the first living cell come from?

    Why has evolution never been observed in any laboratory yet touted as observable fact when it’s never been observed happening in the past nor is it being obseerved happening today?

    The human eye?

    The Tornado in a junkyard?

    If a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg” that existed before a big bang?

    If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning.

    A further consequence of the second law is that when the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory.

    First Law of Thermodynamics
    The first law of thermodynamics states that the total energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. In other words, energy (or its mass equivalent) is not now being created or destroyed; it simply changes form. Countless experiments have verified this. A corollary of the first law is that natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce mass and energy—the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe—then it is even less likely that natural processes can produce the much more complex organic (or living) portion of the universe.

    Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the universe were infinitely old, everything should have the same temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A beginning suggests a Creator.)

    Space, Time, and Matter
    No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of space, time, or matter. Because each is intimately related to or even defined in terms of the others, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others.
    If, as evolutionists teach, the solar system evolved from a spinning dust and gas cloud 4.5 billion years ago, the slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25–30% less heat during its first 600 million years than it radiates today.a (A drop in the Sun’s radiation of only a few percent would freeze all our oceans.) Had this happened anytime in the past, let alone for 600 million years, the ice’s mirrorlike surfaces would have reflected more of the Sun’s radiation into outer space, cooling Earth even more in a permanent, runaway deep-freeze. If so, all agree that life could not have evolved.

    Evolutionists first tried to solve this “faint young Sun” problem by assuming Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it.b Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age.”

    A second approach assumes Earth’s atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases. Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic.

    A third approach assumes Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Sun’s radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth’s temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable.

    Evolutionists have never explained in any of these approaches how such drastic changes could occur in almost perfect step with the slow increase in the Sun’s radiation. Until some evidence supports such “special pleadings,” it does not appear the Sun evolved.

    If the Sun, a typical and well-studied star, did not evolve, then why presume that all other stars did?

    Evolutionists claim the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4,600,000,000 years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun. Colliding asteroids also would create dust particles that, over millions of years, would spiral in toward the Sun. (To understand why, see the “Poynting-Robertson Effect” .Particles should still be falling into the Sun’s upper atmosphere, burning up, and giving off an easily measured, infrared glow. Measurements taken during the solar eclipse of 11 July 1991 showed no such glow.a So the assumed “millions of years” and this explanation for the solar system’s origin are probably wrong.
    Disks of gas and dust sometimes surround stars. That does not mean planets are forming in those disks. Some disks formed from matter suddenly expelled from the star.b Other disks formed (via gravity and the laws of physics) from impact debris or other matter near the star. Early astronomers called the disks planetary nebula, because they mistakenly thought they contained evolving planets.

    Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin of heavy elements. (A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and lithium.) The other 100+ elements supposedly formed deep inside stars and during stellar explosions. This theory is hard to verify, because stellar interiors and explosions cannot be carefully analyzed. However, a vast region of gas containing the mass of 300,000,000,000,000 suns has been found that is quite rich in iron and other heavy elements. The number of nearby visible stars is a thousand times too small to account for the heavy elements in that huge region.a Heavy elements are even abundant in nearly empty regions of space that are farthest from stars and galaxies.
    Most hydrogen atoms weigh one atomic mass unit, but some, called heavy hydrogen, weigh two units. If everything in the universe came from a big bang or a swirling gas cloud, heavy hydrogen should be uniformly mixed with normal hydrogen. It is not.Comets have twice the concentration of heavy hydrogen as oceans. Oceans have 10–50 times the concentration as the solar system and interstellar matter.

    An incomplete list of Evolutionary hoax and parascience:

    Human Ancestral Frauds

    Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

    Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

    Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his “missing link”). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

    Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: “Skull fragment may not be human”, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

    Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: “Upgrading Neanderthal Man”, Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

    http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

  38. Matt Says:

    The questions you pose in response to ‘Arcid’ indicate a distinct lack of knowledge into many regards of the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, they are common ‘brainbugs’ which people continue to talk about despite them being countered and explained many times already.

    To save my own time, I will list the topics and provide some links where you may read the answers you seek.

    Fossils are available through the world’s museums in many locations.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

    http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article56

    Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Instead, monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

    The first cell? That was thanks to the process known as abiogenesis which has been carried out in numerous experiments and found to work very well indeed.

    http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article13

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

    Microevolution has been observed many times in laboratory conditions and even in the wild.

    http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article4

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    The human eye, well even Darwin had established a reasonably good description of how that formed.

    http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article65

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

    Big Bang:

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

    Laws of Thermodynamics:

    http://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article10

    Any other questions?

  39. Arcid Says:

    Quote “I am an Airline Pilot who holds a masters degree from an Ivy league University.”

    I’ll ask you again what your degree is in. I’m sure you got it from a good university but that doesn’t tell us what you studied. Come on, your credibility as a scientist is suffering, while you’re starting to develop a reputation as someone who has lied about his credentals and uses a false appeal to authority (the Ivy league university comment) to back up his falling reputation

    Q:Come on, your credibility as a scientist is suffering, while you’re starting to develop a reputation as someone who has lied about his credentals and uses a false appeal to authority (the Ivy league university comment) to back up his falling reputation

    A: How can you tell?

    A:Premise: Because I said so

    Q: What is the argument’s conclusion?

    A: “You are using a false appeal to authority”

    A: How can you tell?

    A: “to back up his falling reputation” is a conclusion indicator.

    To sum it simply and beautifully all up, here’s the argument made: “you’re starting to develop a reputation as someone who has lied about his credentals, and uses a false appeal to authority (the Ivy league university comment) to back up his falling reputation”

    Premiss: someone who has lied about his credentials to be a fact.

    To sum up, here’s the argument made: “you’re starting to develop a reputation as someone who has lied about his credentals, and uses a false appeal to authority (the Ivy league university comment) to back up his falling reputation.

    Therein lies the problem with your false premise. Every statment given as a fact must have at least one condition that will prove it if that condition is observed.

    You’ve just commited two of the most common logical fallacy’s known in academia ,and those are;Ad hominem coupled with a tu quoque agument therefore proving all of your assumptions wrong.

    I think people will be able to take it more seriously if you work along the lines of “We intend to show this is correct by taking into account all the evidence” as opposed to the “any evidence that disproves this theory is wrong and will not be taken into account”

    To show all of the evidence against evolution would contain a time and space constraint therefore give me your best.Large copy and pastes will not be approved therefore you must provide summary and links only.I will read them and then we can all watch your arguments commit suicide together.

    Quote “Where are all of these museums with these alleged intermediate fossils?”

    If you mean fossils that are a stage along the evolutionary path then you just have to look in any museum that displays fossils. if as most creationists do you mean “a fossil which is a combination of two largely unrelated modern animals” then you won’t find any (and they would be a disproof of the current iteration of the theory of evolution.

    Yea that’s the ticket,there is so much evidence I seem to have missed it on my trips to the Museum.
    The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of transitional fossils. If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to find as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla. From the very beginning these organisms were just as clearly and distinctly
    set apart from each other as they are today.Instead of finding a record of fine gradations preserved in the fossil record,we invariably find large
    gaps.This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution. Consider well these immense Gaps:

    The imagined jump from dead matter to living protozoans is a transition
    of truly fanciful dimension,one of pure conjecture which overlooks the works
    of Redi,Spallanzi, and Pasteur,who disproved spontaneous generation.

    There is a gigantic gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
    complexity and variety of the metazoan invertebrates.

    The evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates is
    completely missing.This is absolutely incredible since evolutionists propose
    100 million years of developmental time between the two,which would have
    involved billions of transitional forms,Yet,not one has ever been found.

    The evolutionary advance from fishes to Amphibians is totally
    nonexistent.The timeline allegedly took millions of years….(30
    million)…and yet no one has been able to produce even one fishibian.

    There are no connecting links between and the altogether different
    reptiles.Seymouria has been offered as such a link,but it allegedly occurs
    in the geologic column some 20 million years after other reptiles had
    already appeared.

    There are no transitional forms between mammals and reptiles.

    There is no connecting evolutionary link between reptiles and
    birds.Archaeopteryx was once highly acclaimed as such a link but has since
    been acknowledged by Paleontologists to have been a true bird.

    There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
    ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually
    either fossils of ape or a man or neither.There is no valid Scientific
    evidence to suggest that they are fossils of animals intermediate between
    men and apes.

    Quote “If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?”

    Common ancestor with monkeys, not evolved from modern monkeys. That should be all I need to say.

    That’s far from sufficient as an answer. We are yet to find the missing link yet, so why is that? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans today? Huh? Did the monkeys just decide: “Oh, hey, I dont think we need to keep evolving into humans.You fail to see how rediculously unscientific this idea is, and has it fall flatly into the realm of para-science with Bigfoot,Ufos. and Chupacabra.

    Quote “Where did the first living cell come from?”

    Is frankly very dependant on your definition of a cell, the simpler ones (the ones that were held to gether purely because of the attraction/repulsion qualities water had on their membranes came before modern cells.

    I asked you the first living cell,where did it originate from?

    Quote “Why has evolution never been observed in any laboratory yet touted as observable fact when it’s never been observed happening in the past nor is it being obseerved happening today?”

    I’ll just put in the fact that it has been observed http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3790531.stm


    I’ll leave you with a statement half way down the page and let the readers decide just how unscientific your arguments are, “Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied – Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae – represent one species or two is still debated by biologists.”

    Hardly proof huh?

    As to both your irreducible complexity arguments, please remember that those areguments are for going straight from chemical stew to modern cells. This is not what is predicted in the Abiogenisis or Evolutionary theories, and so is an attack on something that is not predicted.

    I’m glad you brought up the subject even though it is in the context of begging the question set forth.Theories abound, but no direct evidence for the beginning of the theoretical evolutionary climb of life up what Richard Dawkins and many evolutionists call “mount improbable”.No one has been able to locate convincing fossil (or other) evidence to support it. The plausibility of abiogenesis has changed greatly in recent years due to research in molecular biology that has revealed exactly how complex life is, and how much evidence exists against the probability of spontaneous generation.Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.

    Regarding the universe having a beginning, yes it does. Likewise a partical at the quantum level can start to exist at a point, and then cease to exist after a time. What does this imply about this partical?

    Operative word here being “can” which negates your answer as proof, placing it fimrly in the halls of conjecture ,thereby making my case even more solid.I’ve given you a fact and you’ve returned with a vague theory from Quantum mechanics which can coincidentally in theory place my cat on two seperate but same parallel worlds, making it science fiction much like evolution being.
    Question, who are these evolutionists. I hope it’s not an attempt on your part to reduce accepting the facts to the level of a religon. It does imply that your own arguments are not strong if you have to try to sneekily attempt to erode the credibility of a group by name calling.

    Evolution is already a religion, and time is the evolutionists God.

    Of course the “faint, young sun problem” theory is that the sun coalesced from the matter available, and that it made it much easier for the formation of the planets to occur in orbit by providing a stable point of gravity which would also drive the rotation of the newly forming planets (Looks at planets, sees that they are all rotating)

    Once again you have given me poor guesswork and theory in lieu of hard observable scientific fact which means you cannot, and have not produced any argument from observable science since my threads beginning,while eveything I have given you has, and is being observed by science today as we speak.
    You assume that the Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it. Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age.”

    Quote “Until some evidence supports such “special pleadings,” it does not appear the Sun evolved” Should read “Until some evidence supports such “special pleadings,” I will not accept the Sun evolved”

    Are you a brain dead idiot? …everything evolves that sustains and expends energy.
    You are grasping for straws, and it’s pitiful to watch you sinking fast.I’d trow you a life raft but why make Darwin,”Who co-incidentally was not a scientist,” proud.
    Notice the sympathetic wince?

    The question of dust
    *Thinks*
    *Looks at planets*
    *Notices big gravity wells around the planets*
    *Remembers that the moon landings showed that there was a dust layer more than 9 feet thick on the moon*
    *Remembers how Jupeter is referenced as something of a “cosmic vacume cleaner” because of the way its gravity well sucks up debris and dust*
    *Wonders if there could be a connection with the lack of dust and all the things that are sucking the dust up*

    Need I say more?

    Yes you do need to say more,you didn’t address the original scientific observation with the scientific facts that I’ve presented to you.Need I say more?

    The Question of heavy elements, the same heavy elements that are more likly to form during the final phases of a stars life as the star collapses in on itself. You say that the concentration is too high for modern stars to account for.

    Say I started to put down newspapers in a barbique to burn them. Say I had a pile of 20. Say I burn 15. Would you say that I could not have burned any because “The number of unburned newspapers cannot account for the amount of ash?”

    Huh? That was pitiful. Even for a howler monkey.

    Quote “An incomplete list of Evolutionary hoax and parascience:

    Human Ancestral Frauds”

    These actually show one of the things I love about science. If it were a dogmatic process as you imply these would go unchallanged. However science works more strictly than that, and so whenever a fraud is entered it’s going to be found by people who are interested only in getting the facts, not promoting a point of view no matter what (Creationists could learn something from this attitude)

    However you have my sympathies. You seem to have been conditioned with a dogmatic acceptance of a religous worldview and a desire to attack anything that doesn’t bend over backwards to conform to it.

    I have been trying to help you to see the world without this bias, and I hope that in some ways I’ve suceeded.

    Evasion noted on support for lack of fossilization.
    You’re just another paper tiger that wouldn’t know real science from a horses ass.

  40. Arcid Says:

    Quote “Quote “I am an Airline Pilot who holds a masters degree from an Ivy league University.”

    I’ll ask you again what your degree is in. I’m sure you got it from a good university but that doesn’t tell us what you studied. Come on, your credibility as a scientist is suffering, while you’re starting to develop a reputation as someone who has lied about his credentals and uses a false appeal to authority (the Ivy league university comment) to back up his falling reputation

    Q:Come on, your credibility as a scientist is suffering, while you’re starting to develop a reputation as someone who has lied about his credentals and uses a false appeal to authority (the Ivy league university comment) to back up his falling reputation

    A: How can you tell?

    A:Premise: Because I said so

    Q: What is the argument’s conclusion?

    A: “You are using a false appeal to authority”

    A: How can you tell?

    A: “to back up his falling reputation” is a conclusion indicator.

    To sum it simply and beautifully all up, here’s the argument made: “you’re starting to develop a reputation as someone who has lied about his credentals, and uses a false appeal to authority (the Ivy league university comment) to back up his falling reputation”

    Premiss: someone who has lied about his credentials to be a fact.

    To sum up, here’s the argument made: “you’re starting to develop a reputation as someone who has lied about his credentals, and uses a false appeal to authority (the Ivy league university comment) to back up his falling reputation

    Therein lies the problem with your false premise. Every statment given as a fact must have at least one condition that will prove it if that condition is observed.

    You’ve just commited two of the most common logical fallacy’s known in academia ,and those are;Ad hominem coupled with a tu quoque agument therefore proving all of your assumptions wrong.

    I’ll ask you again, what was your degree in? There, no other comments. Are you going to tell us now?

    First compel me to give you that answer by telling me why that is of interest to you? I could have made anything up in a mere second yet have not done so,and why? Because I always tell the truth, and the truth is my shield.

    Oh, and could you edit the above post and put all your responses into italics as is your standard procedure on this message board. that’ll make it much easier for everyone to see who is saying what.

    I’ve been attempting to do that, but have glossed over a few that have neglected to catch my editing skills

    Quote “Is frankly very dependant on your definition of a cell, the simpler ones (the ones that were held to gether purely because of the attraction/repulsion qualities water had on their membranes came before modern cells.

    I asked you the first living cell,where did it originate from?”

    I’ll have to say it again, it depends on what you consider the be a living cell,

    And I’ll state it again,”The first living cell., the one that contained life”

    after all most of the organelles (like mitochondria) in a modern cell have characteristics that suggest that they may have originally been cell like structure in their own right. So when I ask you for a definition of a living cell I want to know if you mean a cell with organelles like mitochondria, modern like cells without some of the organelles, modern type cells without any organelles, mitochondria-like ancestors of modern cells or self replicating protein based chains of amino acids with a lipid outer shell?
    All of thse will have occured at different points of the development of the modern cell, so please be specific.

    “Any living cell will suffice.”

    Quote “That’s far from sufficient as an answer. We are yet to find the missing link yet so why is that? Why are monkeys still not evolving into humans today? Huh? Did the monkeys just decide: “Oh, hey, I dont think we need to keep evolving into humans.You fail to see how rediculously unscientific this idea is, and has it fall flatly into the realm of para-science with Bigfoot,Ufos. and Chupacabra.”

    You do understand how evolution works, don’t you? It requires many, many generations for even minor changes to occur, it’s not a case of a “flash of light and there’s a new species” like in cartoons or on star trek.

    That begs the Punctuated Equilbrim theory,the one in which a bird can give birth to some other random animal out of it’s “kind.” Yet another failure in a long list at explaining the theory of evolution with verifiable scientific proof plus all of the random guesswork added as chud.The science currently is that there are NO transitional fossils, and there is NO proof that the fossil record confirms macro-evolution period.Evolution is para-science by it’s very evidences.

    Frankly saying evolution can’t be correct because you don’t see new species of primates emerging all the time is like claiming “Plate tectonics cannot be correct because I have not seen a new mountain range appear in my lifetime.”

    False Dichotomy noted.
    Want more science? Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation

    Also, don’t forget that evolution is not trying to got towards some final goal. Primates are slowly progressing towards a form that is better adapted to their environment.

    Please stop handing out a false Analogy here:The topic is macroevolution and not microevolution.You are switching topics, and your inablity to remain concentrated on one topic is in serious doubt here.

    Quote “The imagined jump from dead matter to living protozoans is a transition of truly fanciful dimension,one of pure conjecture which overlooks the works of Redi,Spallanzi, and Pasteur,who disproved spontaneous generation.”

    Whew, glad that spontanious generation isn’t included in the theory of evolution then. I’ll elaborate on what I said before. The idea of going from a chemical stew to a modern cell is Unique to creationists. Nobody else thinks that it happens or could happen, it’s a strawman argument.

    So it’s a strawman argument simply because you say it happened? Ut un that doesn’t cut it.
    You’re either dumber than I thought you were ,or your’e trolling this forum with brainless answers like this.
    The fact is that evolutionists want us to believe that we came from goo to zoo to you is the backbone of the evolutionary theory, and you make an assinine assumption like this? So now that you want to redefine evolutions main argument give me your theory, and we’ll see if we can add it to the long list of evolutions failures and redefinition after redefinition

    To look at the theory of abiogenesis you’ll see that it’s primarily about the generation of amino acids in the environment, the combination of these at random, the dominance or self replicating chains of these amino acids and the gaining of other characteristics via the addition of extra amino acids, the loss of amino acids.

    So you are saying that you believe by faith,which makes your belief a religion.
    Huge leaps of faith are required to jump to the conclusions that you draw from your faith.
    Your statement begs the synthesis of micro-evolution with not a shred of macroevolution behind it when linked to your above statements.

    Quote “I’ll leave you with a statement half way down the page,”Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied – Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae – represent one species or two is still debated by biologists.”
    Hardly proof huh? ”

    Now I only did biology to A-Level, but if I recall correctly speciation is one of the key elements of evolution. If it being debatable whether two groups are the same species or seperate species at a given instant doesn’t make this a significant then evolution isn’t in line with the theory

    Ok so that’s your theory that,”two groups are the same species or seperate species at a given instant.”
    Wheres the science to back that up then?
    Where are the lab results?
    Speciation does nothing to advance the claim of universal common ancestry. Speciation is fully compatible with the claim that multiple lineages were created independently and endowed with a degree of genetic adaptability. The fact one species can give rise to another similar species does not mean there are no limits to the process, that a bacterium can give rise to a human.
    One need not be a creationist to question the extrapolation from speciation to universal common ancestry. As Brand a noted scientist once stated in 1993, “Some scientists are beginning to doubt that the microevolutionary process extrapolated over time is adequate to produce more significant changes. They suggest that larger scale evolution must involve a different mechanism than microevolution and that it happens rapidly.Are we at checkmate yet?
    Everything I’ve given you is verified.
    Everything you’ve returned is blind faith.

    Quote “No one has been able to locate convincing fossil (or other) evidence to support it.”

    Interesting fact, did you know that a fossil of a species that existed between the niches of land mammals and the whales was discovered a while back. Not to mention the fact that whales do have the bone structure of leg type limbs. I’ll see if I can find a link to it

    Please do as I’d love to destroy it logically, and from verifiable and observable evidence.

    Also, in the above post I asked the question ” A partical at the quantum level can start to exist at a point, and then cease to exist after a time. What does this imply about this partical?”
    does it imply a creator of the partical, if so why are there such well defined types of particals with no differentiation from one of the baselines?

    That is just my point, you implied this without any evidence to support it.Even if you had evidence,(of which you don’t)all that would do is place the creator at the top level of the equation.

    Quote “There is a gigantic gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
    complexity and variety of the metazoan invertebrates.”

    Interestingly you have to look at a pond to see the sort of creature that are present day analogues of what those organisms would have been. A drop of pond water under a microscop is a fascinating thing.
    Also, how many single cell cells or collections of them do you expect to leave fossils (What with them not containing and hard tissues to fossilise and such)?

    Chreeeeist there you go again with that cumbersome phrase ,”would have.”
    Do you have any real hard science for me or are you just going to roll the dice and hope they come up in your favor?

    Quote “The evolutionary advance from fishes to Amphibians is totally
    nonexistent.The timeline allegedly took millions of years….(30
    million)…and yet no one has been able to produce even one fishibian.”

    Your starter for 20, what “B” is an area of land that is being constantly eroded away by the sea, resulting in an environment that will make it virtually impossible for a creature dying there to leave a fossil?

    We have cataloged every single living protozoan, and life form on this planet within our reach(of which fossils if they existed should easily have been )I’m putting your example in the realm of para-science once again with Bigfoot, and UFO’s where it belongs, and not in a textbook let alone a science book.

    If you answered “Beach” then give yourself 20 points.

    If you anwser one of my rebuttals with science, and not guesswork give yourself 100 points.

    Now, for another 20 points. What “B” is the area that the remains of the first protoamphibians would most likely have been left when they died.

    If you answered “Beach” then give yourself another 20 points.

    Answer: Operative words “would most likely” subtract zero from you total score of zero

    Quote “There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
    ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually
    either fossils of ape or a man or neither.There is no valid Scientific
    evidence to suggest that they are fossils of animals intermediate between
    men and apes.”

    Correction “There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
    ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually
    either fossils of apes with humanlike characteristics or a humans with apelike characeristics or neither (That is to say fossels displaying both humanlike and apelike characteristics but not enough of either to put them definatly into either category). There is no valid Scientific
    evidence to suggest that they are fossils of animals intermediate between men and apes
    except for the Scientific evidence.”

    Tired of being a blowhard yet?
    Give me just one.

  41. Arcid Says:

    Quote “You assume that the Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it. Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age.” ”

    Really? I didn’t know I was assuming that there was 1000 times the CO2 in the atmosphere. I was going on the fact that I remember the sun is about half a billion years older than the earth, and so the earth was still in the process of forming while the sun was faint. How does this translate into assuming that there was 1000 times the CO2 in the atmosphere? I hope that you’re not trying to imply I’m accepting a disproved theory simply because I do not agree with you and so must be knocked down by any means nessescary.

    Quote “Huh? That was pitiful. Even for a howler monkey.”
    Quote “Evasion noted on support for lack of fossilization.
    You’re just another paper tiger that wouldn’t know real science from a horses ass.”

    Nice to see name calling again, really makes you look like you have all the answers.

    So the truth hurts I gather.

  42. Arcid Says:

    Quote “Yes you do need to say more,you didn’t address the original scientific observation with the scientific facts that I’ve presented to you.Need I say more?”

    What answers in particular did you purposefully miss?

    Ok, I’m going to have to assume that the fact that there are a lot of gravity wells sweeping in all the dust they encounter isn’t going to work as an explanation for you, because that doesn’t involve a constant stream of dust falling into the sun, which has been disproved therfore goddidit. Of course I am talking about a mechanism that does eliminate the idea of dust falling into the sun, which has been shown not to happen.

    I’m afraid I’m not going to be using disproved theories, hence I’m not going to be going with your assumptions that as I accept scientific fact I must accept disproved theories. (Don’t ask me how you came to that conclusion, you’re the one who’s been demonstrating it with your assumptions in the responses you’ve made.)

    I came through to that conclusion through verifiable science, and not psuedoscience such as the explanation you offered up that it is not observable and never was observable.
    Go back to your fairy tales and quit while you’re still behind.

  43. Jamale Says:

    You didn’t answer my question.

    And you neither mine.

  44. Fred N. Nielson Says:

    I find it sad that a so called religious person such as yourself feels HATRED and ANGER towards other people who don’t share their beliefs.

    What makes you think that I hate you? I’ve never even met you so it would be impossible for me to make a personal assumption about you.What I am familiar with is your belief system though, and that I despise along with your propensity to insult religion ,and call all who don’t subscribe to your fairy tale unintelligent and that’s all.I am living proof that there are hundreds of thousands of highy educated religious believers in the world ,and much more so than you claim or think that you are capable of ever being.

    Although I have met religious folks who are very kind and accepting of their fellow man, I have been turned off to religion because of your type who espouse hate, disdain and contempt for those who do not harbor your beliefs. Sad, sad, sad.

    What’s sadder is that I NEVER met an anti-theist without a hateful ,and condescending attitude towards others that don’t subscribe to their religion, and that includes yourself. pitiful,pitiful,pitiful.

    Oh by the way atheism is NOT a religio. Religion is the worship of some kind of god and atheists do not believe in god…… Don’t feel bad though we not only don’t believe in your god, we don’t believe in any of the other religion’s gods either. We are an equal opportunity group.

    Live long and prosper.

    Being an atheist, you have the least defensible position of all, from a standpoint of reality and logic. Atheism is a declaration that “there is no God”—a claim that could logically be made only by someone with exhaustive knowledge. In my experience, persons who claim to have exhaustive knowledge are almost invariably quite arrogant and/or out-of-touch with reality.The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Atheism warrants the same protection as all other religions, and has spoken of “religions based on a belief in the existence of God [and] religions founded on different beliefs.” This, obviously, contradicts the your definition.

    Live long, and stop denying something that you know to be true…”God”

  45. Arcid Says:

    Micro and macro evolution? Sorry, those are meaningless definitions.

    Your Slothful Induction is meaningless in the scientific as well as the logic arena.
    Maybe you should pick up a Biology textbook sometime before running off at the mouth with diarrhea again.

    Micro Evolution:

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

    MacroEvolution:

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

    You accept that what you call micro evolution is occuring. Then you accept evolution is occuring full stop. Unless you can give an example of some sort of mystical way that something stops evolving before there is enough of a change for it to become a different species to what you started out with.

    I accept micro evolution between kinds, and I observe that everyday.
    I’ve yet to see macro evolution ever occuring either in the lab or anywhere on the face of planet Earth and I have been to many countries.
    It’s just a fairy tale

    Quote “So it’s a strawman argument simply because you say it happened?”

    Ok, this will take a bit
    Scientists know spontanious generation didn’t happen and say so.

    It’s a strawman argument because you claim that scientists say that spontanious generation didn happen despite this not being true.

    Citations?

    Quote “So you are saying that you believe by faith,which makes your belief a religion.”

    No, it’s simply that I trust the people who are studying the subject to know what they are talking about. You might consider a belief in basic human decency to be a religon. if you do so be it.

    For every logical and decent me, you’d need 10 of you to even the score so don’t preach to me about logic you hypocrite.

    Bottom line, saying that I accept the facts because of faith instead of evidence doesn’t make it so, no matter how much you want it to be

    I’ve merely demonsrtated that you believe in a system with no evidence, and have made it your religion.A system with not a shred of truth to support it, and that is why Darwinism and Darwin (The apostate preacher with no degree) will be dead in 10 years at best.

    Quote “Ok so that’s your theory that,”two groups are the same species or seperate species at a given instant.””

    Will you please stop misrepresenting me. Speciation is a result of evolution, when one population isolated from the rest accumulates differences to the point that the species can be considered to be two seperate species. The point of speciation is therefore an interesting to observe to see exactly what sort of adaptations are causing the speciation.

    Your begging the question once again.

    Evidence of speciation does nothing to advance the claim of universal common ancestry. Speciation is fully compatible with the claim that multiple lineages were created independently and endowed with a degree of genetic adaptability. The fact one species can give rise to another similar species does not mean there are no limits to the process, that a bacterium can give rise to a human. On the contrary, the experimental lab data suggests quite the opposite.Apparently there is nothing more deceptive to you than an obvious fact.

    Regarding the Whales legs

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/432.shtml

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html

    Yea that’s fresh post a link to a couple of sites containing thousands of archive by other God-Haters such as you.
    Gosh because they said it it must have happened huh?
    Here two can equally play at that game if all you’re going to do is quote mine:

    A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic

    http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

    Regarding the first cell

    http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/life-2.htm

    Regarding Regarding the first cell:
    The major links in the molecules-to-man theory that must be bridged include:
    evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules,
    evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules,
    evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules,
    eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules, and
    eventually evolution into the first cells.

    You have demonstrated none of these with your Google article.

    Many people don’t realize that even the simplest cell is fantastically complex—even the simplest self-reproducing organism contains encyclopedic quantities of complex, specific information. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 base pairs[11] (compare 3 billion base pairs in humans, as Teaching about Evolution states on page 42). Of course, these genes are functional only in the presence of pre-existing translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing other more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. So evolutionists must postulate a more complex first living organism with even more genes.

    More recently, Eugene Koonin and others tried to calculate the bare minimum requirement for a living cell, and came up with a result of 256 genes. But they were doubtful whether such a hypothetical bug could survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment.[12]

    Molecular biologist Michael Denton, writing as a non-creationist skeptic of Darwinian evolution, explains what is involved:

    Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the extreme complexity and ingenuity of biological adaptations more apparent than in the fascinating new molecular world of the cell… To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.

    Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy…

    It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.[13]

    For natural selection (differential reproduction) to start, there must be at least one self-reproducing entity. But as shown above, the production of even the simplest cell is beyond the reach of undirected chemical reactions. So it’s not surprising that Teaching about Evolution omits any discussion of the origin of life, as can easily be seen from the index. However, this is part of the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (molecules to man),[14] and is often called ‘chemical evolution.’ Indeed, the origin of the first self-reproducing system is recognized by many scientists as an unsolved problem for evolution, and thus evidence for a Creator.[15] The chemical hurdles that non-living matter must overcome to form life are insurmountable, as shown by many creationist writers.[16]

    Quote “Chreeeeist there you go again with that cumbersome phrase ,”would have.””

    Citations?
    You must have mistaken one of your threads for one of my own.

    Sorry, I prefer accuracy over brevity (I am writing this for people who may stumble on your site and might otherwise get taken in by some of the plausable and neatly packaged inaccuracies you’ve posted).

    Sigh….In other words I’ve destroyed any weak arguments that you’ve so lamely presented me with, and now you’re gonna run away, and start the very same arguments on other Religious blogs and forums..If you were any more vacuous your head would implode.

    Quote “Everything I’ve given you is verified.” Because you believe it I assume.

    Quote “Everything you’ve returned is blind faith.” Because you don’t believe it I assume

    Quote “You’ve yet to show me otherwise.”

    Quote “Tired of being a blowhard yet?
    Give me just one.”

    Still name calling I see

    If the show fits wear it snugly.

    Wel, it’s been fun to see how flustered you get, how evasive you get when asked to tell us what your degree is (and for the record I asked as a clarification when you claimed that you know creationism is a valid theory because you have “a degree in science”) and how abusive you get when someone calls you on misinformation that is present in your responses (I’m not implying that you’re deliberatly giving false information, but have been duped by other creationists. This may or may not be giving you more than due credit given how you have misrepresented my responses above)

    However I think I have done enought to prevent people being taken in by the misinformation you have provided.

    I may not be back on for a while, so it’d be better to not include questions in your response, as I don’t know when I’ll next be on here.

    And to everyone else my best advice is not to take the view you like and leave it at that, but to keep on digging and you’ll find the facts

    You are exactly what a coward and a fool should not be.
    A moron with a keyboard and Internet access.
    Now run away like the good little God-Hating synchophant that you are.
    You’re almost as full as Red Herrings, and the begging of questions as you are full of monkey shit.
    I’m laughing all the way to the bank. You’re simply crying because I’ve put you in a mental wheelchair for life.
    Lay off the illegal drugs, you rodent. I heard the toilet scrubbing company you work for, will be doing random tests soon. You might want to be careful..

  46. Arcid Says:

    Just had a quick look in, and for all the world I seem to be the one who’s responding in a calm, rational manner, while you seem to be the one doing all the name calling, throwing insults etc.

    So how about presenting evidence.
    I hate hypocrites, and you are deludional.
    And being calm does nothing in the defence of your claims.
    My sharp whit and the fact that you just had to peek back in here must have you on the defense huh?

    Quote “So the truth hurts I gather.”

    Sticks and stones my break my bones, but calling me names on the internet… (readers are invited to finish this sentence)
    ~ok,I’ll finish and here’s one scenario!
    “but lies will always expose me.”

    You have my mail address should you feel like a civilised debate.

    So you hacked your teletubbies tandy into the mental wards network.

    Quote “You are exactly what a coward and a fool should not be.
    A moron with a keyboard and Internet access.
    Now run away like the good little God-Hating synchophant that you are.
    You’re almost as full as Red Herrings, and the begging of questions as you are full of monkey shit.
    I’m laughing all the way to the bank. You’re simply crying because I’ve put you in a mental wheelchair for life.
    Lay off the illegal drugs, you rodent. I heard the toilet scrubbing company you work for, will be doing random tests soon. You might want to be careful.. ”

    Nice name calling and basic insults aimed at someone you don’t expect to be back by the way

    And I noticed you never refuted my rebuttals to all of your claims?
    And no ….more questions and posturing to someones questions is not debating,it’s called trolling, and it’s something that your’e an expert at.

    I don’t hate your god, as I don’t believe in it.

    You hate God ,and that’s what drives you here.
    Why aren’t you over on the flying spaghetti monster forum tirading againg them?
    I’ll tell you why,it’s because you are what’s called a “scared believer”.
    A hypocrite that wears the mark on his sleeve like an open wound.
    The only person you’re kidding here is yourself.

    As I’ve said before it’s people like you who spread falsehoods and try to pull the wool over peoples eyes that annoy me.

    Yea that’s fresh make a statement that makes no sense and is backed up by even less then run away claiming you’ve one.
    It’s a game all of you parrots play and it’s revealing as to the true nature of the anti-theistic God hater.
    I’m bored. I think you might be the reason.

  47. Arcid Says:

    Oh yes, you still haven’t told us what your degree is in

    Oh yes, you still haven’t told me why you care.

  48. Teleros Says:

    Well I certainly had a good laugh reading the above article, but it felt more like a story than a serious look at the origins of atheism.

    Just one thing other thing for those readers out there wondering about sources: Michael Denton may not be a creationist, but he’s strongly involved with the pro-Intelligent Design organisation, the Discovery Institute:

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

    Anyway, knowing me I’ll have forgotten about this by tomorrow, so before I do I’d like to offer an invitation the author to hop on over to http://www.stardestroyer.net – despite the name, the forums there have a dedicated section for science, logic and morality. And whilst I cannot promise a friendly audience, I can promise that any arguments you put forth will be attacked with intellectual rigour. Plus, I find a forum much easier to use than the comment system of a blog ;) .

    I have debated on all of the major atheist forums including Infidels.org and talk.origins.
    I’d be glad to have the newbies from over there pay me a visit anytime for a chat.
    David Lain Greig the mod over at talk.origins had a melt down in the middle of a debate that shocked even his closest devotees.
    I have debated on Podcasts, and refuted Richard Dawkins ideology one claim after the other on a youtube video dubbed over a discussion by Dawkins on a video.(I only wish I had the chance in real life as do other educated theists but Dawkins is out of his yard being only a biologist.
    In short, I’m in the big leagues now and, am ready to strut my stuff at any University that will have me as a guest speaker.
    This may be the minor leagues dealing with a group of quote mining parrots in here but it nevertheless does keep my debating skills finely honed.
    In other words you’re being used for my pleasure and academic recall,and nothing more.
    And just barely at that.

  49. Arcid Says:

    Quote “Oh yes, you still haven’t told me why you care.”

    Because you have said that you understand science because you have a degree in science. I have simply asked you what that degree is and at every step you have evaded the question. That has frankly made me suspiscous about what it is and if it’s relevant

    My, my, obsessed with me already are we?
    Yes I do indeed hold a masters, and graduated in the top 10 of my class.

    Again I ask you why this is relevant to getting your face shoved into the dirt by myself?

    Are you going to tell us or are you going to evade again?

    My degree takes care of itself, and provides a handsome income as a fulfilled creationist.

    Quote “Why aren’t you over on the flying spaghetti monster forum tirading againg them?” Because it’s a good parody, why should I be tirading a good parody?

    So by your own admission ,the next logical conclusion is that you would be parked over here because it is not a parody, and taken very,very seriously by you, and I’d take a new logical leap, and state that you probably lose sleep over this God thing you don’t believe in but love to debate about.
    Have you tried the pink-Unicorn forums yet?
    Much lighter reading, and much better suited to your logical understanding, and comprhension.

    Quote ““but lies will always expose me.””

    Is that an admission of guilt? if so good for you, admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

    ROFLMAO!!!–So I see that just like the other predictable God-Haters that you parrot, you take bits and snippets of whole sentences from myself, and draw them out of context just to prove to everyone just what a pathetic howler monkey/parrot you actually are when you are losing a debate.
    Who was it earlier that was pointing the finger, and accused the other of not remaining calm and throwing out ad-hominem attack?
    I wear you around like a stain you chattering monkey.
    Pot-Kettle-Black and all.

    And two points from the grammer nazi in me (I know they’re spelling errors, just go with it)

    LOL!
    Excuse me,after all I am simply a Captain on a B747.
    I was going to expose you earlier for butchering your spelling up in quite a few threads until I realized that it’s not that you don’t have a spell checker,it’s just that you don’t know how to spell–and whit is a word dummy!
    I thought I’d be the better person but you leave me no choice Mr. Grammar Nazi:

    and I quote

    “That has frankly made me suspiscous about what it is and if it’s relevant”

    “It’s a strawman argument because you claim that scientists say that spontanious generation didn happen despite this not being true.”
    and my plausible favorite!

    “Sorry, I prefer accuracy over brevity (I am writing this for people who may stumble on your site and might otherwise get taken in by some of the plausable and ”

    Maybe the Grammar Nazi needs to go back to school.

    Quote “My sharp whit and the fact that you just had to peek back in here must have you on the defense huh?”

    That should be “My sharp wit” and “must have you on the defensive”

    “I’m not implying that you’re deliberatly giving false information, but have been duped by other creationists.”

    That should have been “deliberately” ……but I understand that’s what idiots do when they are losing an argument.

    But as an idiot pointing out others errors while laying down a ton of them yourself it should all be reserved for the latently retarded.
    Understand that downs syndrome on your behalf is no excuse.

    Quote “Yea that’s fresh make a statement that makes no sense and is backed up by even less then run away claiming you’ve one.”

    Should be “claiming you’ve won”

    “Thanks for pointing that out to me while my kid was tugging on my leg and the spouse was ringing me up all at once.”

    Mine was an error due to distraction, yours is straight out stupidity.

    Quote “anti-theistic God hater.” Still don’t believe in your god, still can’t hate it.

    Still it’s fun to watch how angry you seem to be getting at sombody simply not rolling over and believeing everything you say.

    I like you had to run to the toilet from laughing so hard at the sheer imbecility of that mess that you label a thought train and compulsive propensity to mispell the simplest of words.

    *Waits and wonders if you’re going to tell us what your degree was, or if you’re going to evade again*

    You’re a fool and this is the best you can do when you can’t win an argument.
    You suck.
    Don’t do anymore drugs. you’re “deliberatly” frying an already comatose brain–~snickers~

  50. Robert Walper Says:

    I must admit I had a great laugh reading your “lack of authors of atheism”.

    There’s a lack of authors on the disbelief in Santa Clause, Dragons, Unicorns, Boogeyman, Tooth Fairy and many other fictional concepts, including your god.

    I’m an atheist because there isn’t a single shred of empirical evidence, logic, reason or rational arguements for the existence of your god, or any other for that matter. The day any religious individual and believer can propose one, I’d be *delighted* to hear it.

    Thanks for the comment God-Hater but I have a nasty surprise for you.
    The day that you can prove that there isn’t a single shred of empirical evidence, logic, reason or rational arguement for the non-existence of God,the day any anti-theistic God hater such as yourself can provide one, I’d be *delighted* to hear it. :-)
    Now go back to your hole and don’t return. No one likes you. No one will ever like you. You are destined to be alone and miserable…FOREVER.
    I’m sure all you do is jump from forum to forum all day long and your mom constantly sobs in her room because of what a failure you are. I’m even more sure that if she had the chance, she’d kill you and start over with a new sack of protoplasm.
    That’s a good little weak atheist….now run along boy

  51. Robert Walper Says:

    ////////
    Thanks for the comment God-Hater but I have a nasty surprise for you.
    ////////

    Ah, you start you reply off with lying. Can’t say I’m surprised, actually. I never claimed to hate your god or any god of any kind. I don’t *believe* in your god, the same way I don’t believe in Santa Clause. This doesn’t mean I hate Santa Clause.

    Claims are not proof.
    You’re here which means you hold a position, and that position is logically concluded and demonstrated by you as one of fear and that you do believe,and to hate you must believe.
    Therefore your position as an atheist is not tenable. Refuting evidences for Gods existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, you have a position that is intellectually indefensible.
    That makes you an agnostic. A self denying one at that.

    In regards to your religion, I only ‘hate’ the stupidity it spreads, with an excellent example being yourself.

    You are simply a militant atheist -one of the ones who have devoted their lives to refuting Christianity- and almost like the
    demons …who believe more firmly in God’s existence than do Christians ! Having been around atheists for three decades, I
    can unequivocally say that militant atheists are some of the people who most solidly believe in God,and that includes you.
    Seriously, think about it, why are you even here attacking something that you don’t believe in? I’ll tell you why, and that;s because you are what’s coined a “scared believer.”You take a positive position therefore you are not neutral, and the practical atheist that you claim you are.
    You are a pretender.

    ////////
    The day that you can prove that there isn’t a single shred of empirical evidence, logic, reason or rational arguement for the non-existence of God,the day any anti-theistic God hater such as yourself can provide one, I’d be *delighted* to hear it.
    ////////
    So other words you get to pick and choose what is science and what is not.
    Though you have no education and are here simply because you hate God and would like to destroy theists is sadly telling.You are weak….very weak indeed and have no idea that your emotions do not substitute as science or fact.
    You’re not very believable, and have offered up no supportive evidence for this claim.
    By coming here like Don Quixote and fighting windmills, you abandoned intelligence so fast you didn’t even have time to turn around, and just did a Michael Jackson moon walk backwards at breakneck speed. I won, end of story. Now come in here and honor your master.

    I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Burden of Proof concept. This is an element of logic, something I’m quite certain you’re not familiar with.

    Brushing your Hasty Generalizations aside and delighting you with the fact that Christianity has a plethora of truth and centuries to support it, and since atheism cannot be proven, and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, you have a position that is intellectually indefensible. The issue isn’t us proving God exists (proof is different than persuasion). I tried to point out that since atheism cannot be proven to be true and since disproving evidences for God’s existence not prove there is no God, the atheistic position is intellectually indefensible.

    ////////
    Now go back to your hole and don’t return. No one likes you. No one will ever like you. You are destined to be alone and miserable…FOREVER.

    I’m sure all you do is jump from forum to forum all day long and your mom constantly sobs in her room because of what a failure you are. I’m even more sure that if she had the chance, she’d kill you and start over with a new sack of protoplasm.
    That’s a good little weak atheist….now run along boy
    ////////
    :D Is this the ‘surpise’ you mentioned? I knew better than to expect an actual rational arguement from you, but something as so obvious as a Ad Hominem attack and laughable threats is quite amusing, although ultimately boring.

    You can’t address my arguement, and so you resort to petty and childish name calling. I’m like the teacher who tells the student “Two plus two is four”, and you’re the child who stomps his foot screaming “No it’s not, poopy pants!”

    My guess is you’re going to respond with more Ad Hominem tactics, rather than an arguement. That’s because you don’t have one. Prove me right by replying with further insults and no arguement. Or don’t reply at all, showing your cowardice when challenged to back up your claims. :)

    I hate that noise! It goes right through me! You know, the noise that the legs of the tables make against the floor, when someone’s trying to turn them.
    Put up or shut up as you’re my best argument thus far for someone that hates, and is afraid of his divine creator.You have the IQ of a salad bar

  52. Jamale Says:

    You cut out most of my response. Was that an error or the fact that you can’t answer it and so spin-doctored my response to appear that you’re winning? So much for honesty is my shield.

    You are a repetitive nit, and that’s why I truncated your garbage after having addressed your questions, and having you run from mine by switching topics constantly.
    Repeating something 20 times over is spam.
    I don’t validate spam.
    You have proven that you are human junkmail.

  53. Teleros Says:

    Thanks for the comment God-Hater but I have a nasty surprise for you.
    The day that you can prove that there isn’t a single shred of empirical evidence, logic, reason or rational arguement for the non-existence of God,the day any anti-theistic God hater such as yourself can provide one, I’d be *delighted* to hear it.”

    Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is a need for God – Occam’s Razor is there after all to remove the unnecessary terms from an argument or theory. Of course, this doesn’t prove that God exists – or that he doesn’t – it just shows that he is unnecessary for whatever it is that you’re talking about. That, and the fact that we’re dealing with an entity that is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and so on makes it virtually (if not actually) impossible to disprove his existence. What you can say however is that it is very unlikely he does, or that the evidence we have does not support the existence of God. To believe in God thus requires a leap of faith.

    What you are attempting to do is to convict of irrationality generations of human beings, whole cultures for whom
    belief in the divine and worship are part of what it is to be a human being? Were all those millions, that silent
    majority, wrong? It’s undeniable that to think something against the grain of the whole tradition of human experience
    is not to be done lightly. It is, need one say it, presumptuous to pit against that past one’s own version of the modern
    mind. This suggests that the present generation is in agreement on things incompatible with belief in God. Or that all
    informed people now alive, etc. etc. Meaning, I suppose, that all present day skeptics are skeptics.It is therefore a
    prima facie argument against atheism drawn from tradition, the common consent of mankind both in the past and in
    the present time.This is only one evidence amongst thousands for the existence of a supreme being and we havent
    even touched Intelligent Design yet.The burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the skeptic. Yes. And the skeptic is the first to admit this-or at least to exemplify it. I would hazard the view that more attention is paid to theism, religious belief, the existence of God, as a problem to be dealt with, as something that is an intellectual task, by the skeptic than by the believer. I have met many more militant skeptics than I have believers who look as if they were going to toss and turn all night unless they developed an airtight proof for the existence of God.

  54. Robert Walper Says:

    Claims are not proof.

    Oh, I quite agree, hence my earlier statement about empirical evidence, logic, reason and rational arguements. As expected, you provided none.

    I have literally hundreds of proofs regarding the Bibles authenticity and accuracy as being the true word of a supreme being.
    Let’s get started with only 2.
    Takes these apart before we move on to other more difficult ones for you to answer.

    (1)The balloon-borne microwave telescope (called “Boomerang”) examined the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang. The angular power spectrum showed a peak value at exactly the value predicted by the inflationary hot Big Bang model dominated by cold dark matter. This model predicts a smaller second peak, which seems to be there, but cannot be fully resolved with the initial measurements. The presence of the second peak would all but seal the reliability of the Big Bang model as the mechanism by which the universe came into existence.

    Implications:The Bible says that the universe was created in finite time from that which is not visible. In addition, the Bible describes an expanding universe model. The Bible describes the Creator being personally involved in the design of the universe, so that we would expect to see this kind of design in His creation.

    (2) Since you are an anti-theist and therefore one that hates your God you are constantly looking for the simplest explanation for the universe, hoping to avoid any evidence for design. A Big Bang model in which there was just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe would have provided that. However, for many years, it has been evident that there is less than half of the amount of matter in the universe to account for a flat universe. A cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning. The supernovae studies demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10120,6 which is:

    1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
    And there you have it.I eagerly await your explanantion with a logical and scientific refutation.

    You’re here which means you hold a position, and that position is logically concluded

    You’re quite correct here.

    I know

    and demonstrated by you as one of fear and that you do believe,and to hate you must believe.
    Therefore your position as an atheist is not tenable. Refuting evidences for Gods existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, you have a position that is intellectually indefensible.
    That makes you an agnostic. A self denying one at that.

    I am indeed an atheist, as the term is well documented in our dictionaries. An atheist can be an individual who believes there is no god, or one who merely lacks belief in any god. My position is the latter. I can’t say I’m surprised that you are as linguistically retarded as you are intellectually. Even my cat knows that a single word can have more than one meaning, merely by the tone of my voice. Apparently you are not yet as evolved as my cat.

    You have yet to address my contention that you are indeed not an atheist by your own involuntary admission.
    Demonstrate it,once again claims are not proof.
    Practical atheists don’t give God a second thought, and they are the ones that I worry about.
    You on the other hand are an easy study.You hate God, and that is what drives you to attack him, and religion.
    You have what I coined the Don Quixote Syndrome.You are fighting invisible enemies.
    You are a pretender just by the fact that you’re here in a debate forum.
    I’ve known atheists for over 30 years, and have failed to ever see one single practical atheist in a debate forum.
    I’ve run into literally thousands of scared believers such as yourself that demonstrate fear and spitefulness.
    Two traits that beg a belief.

    You are simply a militant atheist -one of the ones who have devoted their lives to refuting Christianity-

    Refuting christianity is hardly a lifetime effort. Ten minutes and a intelligent person understanding the arguements against it will easily suffice.

    You’ve had your ten minutes, and you’re like a one armed man trying to climb a rope.Arguing in circles, and avoiding the request for proof that you are not an atheist does not help your case.If this were a court and jury you’ve been convicted of lying on thread number 1.

    Guess which criteria at this point you have failed? :D

    and almost like the
    demons …who believe more firmly in God’s existence than do Christians ! Having been around atheists for three decades, I
    can unequivocally say that militant atheists are some of the people who most solidly believe in God,and that includes you.
    Seriously, think about it, why are you even here attacking something that you don’t believe in?

    Because the arguement entertains me and functions as an amusing diversion. You are like the dull rock upon which the swordsman sharpens his blade.

    Once again that begs a belief, and your presence here demonstrates that belief being vented through hatred.
    And once again to hate something you must believe in it.
    Practical Atheists are neutral,show us where you’ve demonstrated the neutrality to support your claims?

    I’ll tell you why, and that’s because you are what’s coined a “scared believer.”You take a positive position therefore you are not neutral, and the practical atheist that you claim you are.
    You are a pretender.

    (At this point I snipped the balance of his messages due to repetitive redundancy and begging the question. Let’s now see if he can answer the questions put forth in a logical convincing manner.)

  55. Robert Walper Says:

    I have literally hundreds of proofs regarding the Bibles authenticity and accuracy as being the true word of a supreme being.

    So why not submit your ‘proofs’ to a scientific peer reviewed panel so they can evaluate your claims? Of course you haven’t, because you know they be rejected out of hand easily because you don’t have any proof, only delusional opinions.\

    To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, on the basis of observational features of the world, are capable of reliably distinguishing intelligent causes from undirected natural causes. Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction-notably forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (as in the movie Contact)…. Whenever these methods detect intelligent causation, the underlying entity they uncover is information. Intelligent Design properly formulated is a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of intelligent causation as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Intelligent Design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow. Intelligent Design is therefore not the study of intelligent causes per se, but of informational pathways induced by intelligent causes.”
    Dembski

    Let’s get started with only 2.
    Takes these apart before we move on to other more difficult ones for you to answer.

    (1)The balloon-borne microwave telescope (called “Boomerang”) examined the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang. The angular power spectrum showed a peak value at exactly the value predicted by the inflationary hot Big Bang model dominated by cold dark matter. This model predicts a smaller second peak, which seems to be there, but cannot be fully resolved with the initial measurements. The presence of the second peak would all but seal the reliability of the Big Bang model as the mechanism by which the universe came into existence.

    Implications:The Bible says that the universe was created in finite time from that which is not visible. In addition, the Bible describes an expanding universe model. The Bible describes the Creator being personally involved in the design of the universe, so that we would expect to see this kind of design in His creation.

    I’m still not seeing any evidence, merely your opinion which you seem to think is evidence.

    He “feels” is the key word there folks. Not “knows”. I see no reason to bore people with repetition. He needs to.

    (2) Since you are an anti-theist and therefore one that hates your God you are constantly looking for the simplest explanation for the universe, hoping to avoid any evidence for design.

    There is no evidence for design. If there were, you’d present it.

    In order to state that there is no proof for God’s existence, you would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God’s existence. But, since you cannot know all things, you cannot logically state there is no proof for God’s existence.
    At best, you can only state that of all the alleged proofs you have seen thus far, none have worked. You could even say that you believe there are no proofs for God’s existence. But then, this means that there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there and that you simply have not yet encountered one.Outside of the reams of data begging an Intelligent designer and the fact that Darwinism is on it’s way out (10 years more max)and since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God’s existence, or at least supports his existence.It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God. But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence.
    Therefore, it is possible that God exists.
    But you know already that God exists and that’s why you attack him.By your very behavior you’re about as atheistic as Satan or mother Theresa.As I stated before you are a pretender and nothing more.I given you a mere fraction of the evidence (Entropy and Causality ) and you decide to play ostrich by sticking your neck in the mud and refuse to consider any of it because you hate.And to hate you must believe.If being a whining, snideful, arrogant, spewer of hatred is the result of being a “freethinker,” i’d rather stay a Christian, since i don’t want to be like that.
    Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God’s existence, would the atheist be able to accept it given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God’s existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God’s existence and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.em>

    And I find your condescending reference to “looking for the simpliest explanation for the universe” hilarious. :D

    A bit of advice: Come up with a better way to disguise your evasions. You are being way too obvious in your replies.

    A Big Bang model in which there was just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe would have provided that. However, for many years, it has been evident that there is less than half of the amount of matter in the universe to account for a flat universe. A cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning. The supernovae studies demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10120,6 which is:

    1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
    And there you have it.I eagerly await your explanantion with a logical and scientific refutation.

    Ah yes, the appeal to statistical probability as ‘proof’ of design. Sorry, that isn’t evidence. Try again.

    How is this an appeal?
    It’s mathematics,it’s science,and it’s a fact that has been proven on paper and in theory, and it’s been established as fact. I really enjoy debating on religious topics because it provides a good way to me to see two points of view and, if opponents make an effort to respond to the arguments raised by both sides, get an idea of where the evidence really leads. When one side does what appears to me to be playing games to avoid addressing issues I take issue with that and will impose a 50 byte limit on your responses.
    Thus far you’ve given me nothing but emotions as your form of logic and you need to try a little harder if you want to run with the big dogs.

    You have yet to address my contention that you are indeed not an atheist by your own involuntary admission.

    Dictionary reference isn’t good enough for you? I explicitly made it clear I don’t believe in any god, therefore I’m an atheist.

    I’ll say it again.
    You are in direct opposition to the definition of an atheist and are using the very weapon that you claim as a shield against you.
    I’ll say it again,have mommy read this to you real sloooowwwwww ok?
    You have yet to address my contention that you are indeed not an atheist by your own involuntary admission.
    Demonstrate it,once again claims are not proof.
    Practical atheists don’t give God a second thought, and they are the ones that I worry about.
    You on the other hand are an easy study.You hate God, and that is what drives you to attack him, and religion.
    You have what I coined the Don Quixote Syndrome.You are fighting invisible enemies.
    You are a pretender just by the fact that you’re here in a debate forum.
    I’ve known atheists for over 30 years, and have failed to ever see one single practical atheist in a debate forum.
    I’ve run into literally thousands of scared believers such as yourself that demonstrate fear and spitefulness.
    Two traits that beg a belief. Once again that begs a belief, and your presence here demonstrates that belief being vented through hatred.
    And once again to hate something you must believe in it.
    Practical Atheists are neutral,show us where you’ve demonstrated the neutrality to support your claims?

    Demonstrate it,once again claims are not proof.

    *yawns* The motivation to discuss any subject, fictional or not, has no bearing on whether an individual believes in the specific subject. I’ve discussed Star Trek on many occasions with other people…does that mean I therefore must believe it’s real? :D

    I already explained why I bother discussing the subject. I find it entertaining and enjoy pointing out your irrational beliefs, lack of logic and frankly pathetically limited intellect.

    This is just a diversion from your inability to support your suppositions

    Truth be told, this is getting somewhat *boring*…you haven’t provided a shred of evidence or rational arguements for your postion despite my repeated requests. You seem to think throwing around insults and opinions is supposed to convince me, despite the fact in my very first post I explicitly laid out what is necessary.

    Truth being told this is the method you dishonest God-Haters use.You try to belittle Christians and you make completely unscientific statements, as if they are indisputable fact.You think that by making the claims you do and telling people that they don’t understand science, that you can intimidate them. The reality is, you’re just a pretender, who is more ignorant of science, than most and you try to cover it up, with your slams. At the same time, you also try to cover up the fact that you’re intentionally slamming people, by trying to sound scientific. However, you don’t succeed, since it is you who does not comprehend the basic premise of science,let alone anything else about it.

    You’ve had your ten minutes, and you’re like a one armed man trying to climb a rope.Arguing in circles, and avoiding the request for proof that you are not an atheist does not help your case.If this were a court and jury you’ve been convicted of lying on thread number 1.

    This is just a diversion from your inability to support your suppositions

    I am an atheist, as I clearly stated given the definition of atheist. If you disagree with English definitions of terms, that’s your own stupidity and problem, not mine. It’s just a further indication you’re delusional.

    Once again that begs a belief, and your presence here demonstrates that belief being vented through hatred.

    I bear no hatred towards you, or anyone else. In fact, I quite honestly pity you, as would the teacher who pities the child incapable of grasping the most simplistic math.

    This is just a diversion from your inability to support your suppositions and once again to hate something you must believe in it.

    I never said I hate your god, you or christians, only your religion for the stupidity it spreads. One can argue I hate Nazism as well, but this doesn’t mean I believe in it. Only a delusional indvidual would argue…whoops, forgot what kind of person I’m talking to.

    Practical Atheists are neutral,show us where you’ve demonstrated the neutrality to support your claims?

    I’ll tell you why, and that’s because you are what’s coined a “scared believer.”You take a positive position therefore you are not neutral, and the practical atheist that you claim you are.
    You are a pretender.

    (At this point I snipped the balance of his messages due to repetitive redundancy and begging the question. Let’s now see if he can answer the questions put forth in a logical convincing manner.)

    Still no arguement, still no evidence…it’s becoming apparent you’re not interested in providing any. Your entire site is a Burden of Proof fallacy whereas you’re demanding atheists to prove a negative.

    I’ll ask you again…where’s your evidence and proof atheism has a author or requires one? You continue to ignore this question, and until you answer it I’m just as free to ignore your questions. :D

    Robert doesn’t want to deal with me because he has finally run into the wall of someone who doesn’t put up with his nonsense, and who drops tons of bricks on his head every time he tries to throw a brick on someone else’s. He obviously does not like eating his own upchuck.
    I replied to ALL of the stuff that he think is proof for his much needed validations. As of this morning, he is back in the rear seat with today’s Infidel.org’s upload. Nothing unresponded to out there.His main magilla for his statements is that he wants to play with factsby his own emotional rules which comes from, so he says,valid sources or versions of his debate given by others before him that he thinks validates his arguments and shows that he’s still saddle-sore from trotting through.If being a whining, snideful, arrogant, spewer of hatred is the result of being a “freethinker,” I’d rather stay a Christian, since I don’t want to be like that.Christianity is a falsehood you say,that is sweet of you, in an odd way.
    Likewise, I hope you realize the truth of Christianity and find God.


  56. To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, on the basis of observational features of the world, are capable of reliably distinguishing intelligent causes from undirected natural causes. Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction-notably forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (as in the movie Contact)…. Whenever these methods detect intelligent causation, the underlying entity they uncover is information. Intelligent Design properly formulated is a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of intelligent causation as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Intelligent Design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow. Intelligent Design is therefore not the study of intelligent causes per se, but of informational pathways induced by intelligent causes.”
    Dembski

    Let's see, no evidence, no logic, no rational arguement...I clearly layed out that these are the requirements for your beliefs to have any objective consideration. Your refusal to do so is alone proof you cannot submit any.

    What did I tell you about being stupid and repetitive? 50 byte limit remember.I've given you way more than that this time. Stop trying to act intelligent. It just makes you look what you already are,"dumb."
    Use your spell checker next time also dolt.
    You believe the theory of evolution despite the huge questions about it that are still unanswered - yet you claim that you have to know all the answers to every last possible question about the Bible before you can believe it. (And you are a believer :-) )
    Like a monkey petitioning to join a tribe you've come flinging your crapola and expecting hospitality. Have you consulted with the condo board's directors on owning primates in the building? It might be helpful to lay down some money so they don't have to worry too much about the various implicit liabilities. I can only imagine the consequences as passersby and vehicles are pelted with stool from the monkey on the fourth floor.

  57. Robert Walper Says:

    Like I said, you cannot deal with my points, so you ignore them.

    You have no empirical evidence, no logic, no reasoning and no rational arguements. Concession accepted. :D

    You talk about ownage, but yet you have bottled out of every challenge known to man. You use the same lame tactics over and over and this is how you get owned time and time again. Lets make this ownage official shall we.

    Accept that I am going to hound you with every lie you create.
    You know that by honestly confronting someone with a brain that I’d take you to hell and back and lay you out like a gutted fish so you avoid any kind of honest dialog with people.
    House rules.
    You’re a simpleton

    Checkmate :-) :-)

  58. Teleros Says:

    “What you are attempting to do is to convict of irrationality generations of human beings, whole cultures for whom belief in the divine and worship are part of what it is to be a human being? Were all those millions, that silent majority, wrong?”

    Based on the evidence at hand, almost certainly.

    Everything in existence is measured against human intelligence, and the human mind, and you make a false, and unsupported statement such as ,”based on the evidence at hand.” Who’s evidence? Your evidence? Based on what criteria? Yours? That’s a very poor proof to submit.
    So you make a blanket statement with no supportive evidence to back it up other than you said so, ~strike one~ as well as snip the balance of my statement which supports the premise which stated.

    “Surely to think something against the grain of the whole tradition of human experience is not to be done lightly. It is, need one say it, presumptuous to pit against that past one’s own version of the modern mind. This suggests that the present generation is in agreement on things incompatible with belief in God. Or that all informed people now alive, etc. etc. Meaning, I suppose, that all present day skeptics are skeptics.”

    But even if a belief in God is irrational, so what? Does that make someone who believes in God a bad person, or a lesser person? Of course not! Religion has helped do great good in the world (although it has helped do great evil too): I don’t care if your belief is rational or irrational if it’s encouraged you to do good (or bad) deeds.

    “It’s undeniable that to think something against the grain of the whole tradition of human experience is not to be done lightly.”

    Quite right: but human experience is a poor substitute for science and the scientific method. When you have no knowledge of the fact that the Earth is spherical a belief in a flat Earth is understandable. But in this case, as with many others, science proved the better of the two.

    Isaiah 40:22 ‘It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers, and hanged the Earth upon nothing”

    “This suggests that the present generation is in agreement on things incompatible with belief in God.”

    You talk of claims made in a book with no independent empirical evidence. The miracles were the supporting evidence of claims, and the believers were the witnesses who did the examining, who gave testimony, and recorded for our benefit their findings. Each report was originally an independent entity written by each eyewitness for the benefit of others, which were only later collated into an individual volume for convenience since they all dealt with the same subject. The Bible had 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years, so you cannot conclude that there was collusion designed to subjugate humanity by deceptive presentation of the facts. Also there were reported the sign gift abilities given to his followers for the promotion of his kingdom during the church’s infancy, which authenticated Jesus Christ in the fulfillment of his promises to them. Try to explain these away among so many witnesses and recipients. They were public demonstrations of faith manifesting the power of God, no man claiming them as his own, but as the work of God.
    Then there is the resurrection from the dead. Jesus Christ had many hostile witnesses, but none of them could successfully refute the facts that were public knowledge, though they had ample opportunity to do so. Jesus Christ changed and influenced history with lasting results as no man has ever been able to do. As I have already said, Jesus Christ himself was the empirical evidence of the existence of God – not his claims. His claims were validated, supported, reenforced, and authenticated by his miracles, which the people obviously recognized as supernatural in nature, and which none could refute – his enemies could only mock saying they were of the devil. As far as cults are concerned, their counterfiet miracles are of demonic origin. One must consider the source.

    I don’t think what we know about the universe has to be incompatible with a belief in God: it just requires that the belief system change, rather than stick to outdated dogma.

    Once again you are appealing to anonymous authority.By what criteria must our belief system change? By what specific formula or criteria can you offer up in proof that the Bible is outdated? The Bible is as valid today as it was thousands of years ago, and is still the most popular book in the world.The same printing press that Voltaire claimed he would use to destroy Christianity with was used to print thousands upon thousands of Bibles after his death.You are full of emotion and not fact.Give me science and statistics and not your emotion or desires.

    My point is that science shows that God is not incompatible with what we know, merely unnecessary. Although it should be said that scientific knowledge is incompatible with some of the stories surrounding God (eg age of the Earth).

    God is science. I am still waiting for you to support all of your statements.Just because you state it with conviction does not mean that it contains a grain of truth does it. Give me all of this awful evidence that you have and I’ll go over it.But mind you I’ve taken a look both scientifically and Biblically and see a perfect union and always have.
    As far as your contention that all theists are dumb, and hate science I fly an MD-80 as a captain, and began my career as a First Officer on the B747.
    I also hold a masters degree in Electrical Engineering, and graduated with honors.
    And I owe it all to my God and theism.

    “Meaning, I suppose, that all present day skeptics are skeptics.It is therefore a prima facie argument against atheism drawn from tradition, the common consent of mankind both in the past and in the present time.This is only one evidence amongst thousands for the existence of a supreme being”

    Just because people believe in something does not mean that it is the truth. This is especially true when we talk about something that people actively want to believe in – such as the idea of an eternal paradise in the form of Heaven.

    My point exactly,just because you believe it does not make it truth does it.The idea of eternal paradise is backed up by the evidence both biblically,historically ,and scientifically. We have millions of people from around the world both atheists, and believers alike that have been visited by dead loved ones,we have the documentation and verification of NDE’s.We have the testament of Christ.We have the testament of science namely Entropy, and Thermal dynamics, and the transference of energy.We have the Vatican Phd’s that have verified the existence of demonic posessions in individuals that have defied all scientific explanations — ad nauseum.
    What we don’t have is no-proof.

    “and we havent even touched Intelligent Design yet.”

    Frankly I prefer people who are honest about being Creationists rather than those who dress their beliefs up in pseudoscience and call it ID.

    Frankly I prefer an honest dialog with someone and not one that claims they are sincere then makes unsupportive statements like ID is not science when it’s growing in leaps and bounds,and I know that scares you.
    ID is based off of sciences and is based off of probability.
    Frankly to myself and other intelligent people it must take an enormous leap of faith for someone to think they come from mud.

    “The burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the skeptic. Yes. And the skeptic is the first to admit this-or at least to exemplify it.”

    Nonsense – if a term in an equation is unnecessary (ie God), it’s up to you to prove why it should be included, not me to prove why it shouldn’t be. Suppose I start debating the origin of thunder and lightning with a Viking, and show him proof of how lightning is formed in the clouds. If he then insists it’s Thor throwing lightning bolts or causing the clouds to create lightning, it’s his job to show why, not my job to show why not.

    You lack belief in Gods yet you defend that position? Doesn’t it make more sense to say you are defending the BELIEF that there are no gods? How do you defend a non-position?
    There are no “proofs” that God does not exist in atheistic circles; at least, none that I have seen – especially since you can’t prove a negative regarding God’s existence. Of course, that isn’t to say that you atheists haven’t attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But your attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can’t. Besides, if there were a proof of God’s non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we don’t hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying God’s existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism’s truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for God’s existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.

    There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is possible doesn’t mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than “It is possible,” or “There is no evidence for God,” otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.

    I would hazard the view that more attention is paid to theism, religious belief, the existence of God, as a problem to be dealt with, as something that is an intellectual task, by the skeptic than by the believer.”

    Not really: with the proper application of logic and rational thought God ceases to be a “problem to be dealt with” for the skeptic – whilst the believer, being a believer, doesn’t see God as a problem to be dealt with at all. The only problem, as I see it, is when a religion attempts to set itself above things like science (as in the situation surrounding evolution, the big bang or age of the Earth), or attempts to impose itself on other people (ie removing the separation of church and state in the USA).

    The identity of the Intelligent Designer is left to the individual — it is not a matter for discussion within the parameters of the Intelligent Design movement itself. There are both Christians and non-Christians in this movement, as well as those who are agnostic. It is a far wider-reaching category of thought than creation as discussed above, but includes it. There is too much to be said in the creation/evolution controversy for ignoramus such as yourself to be allowed to lead the way.
    And I have a problem with atheists imposing their faith upon us by removing the separation of church and state in the USA as well

    “The Bible describes the Creator being personally involved in the design of the universe, so that we would expect to see this kind of design in His creation.”

    What kind of design? Just because a theory fits measurements taken doesn’t mean it’s proof of a creator: rather, it’s proof that the theory is a well-formed one.

    “How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe?”

    You tell us, and while you’re at it tell us how that question begs evolution while you’re at it.

    The fact that science cannot yet explain why we have a particular cosmological constant doesn’t mean it was God. It also doesn’t mean that life in some shape or form can’t emerge in a universe with a different set of physical laws.

    And then again maybe it does.After all if one looks at ID deeply one must come to that logical conclusion.

    “Refuting evidences for Gods existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage.”

    Correct, but it does let you say how probable it is that God exists – ie, based on the evidence at hand, it is extremely unlikely that God exists. You can’t rule God out because given his nature this is one negative that’s literally impossible to prove, but you can say that his existence is very unlikely.

    (See all of the above)

    As for the article by Dembski, I’m not sure quite what to make of it: it looks like a load of nonsense to be honest, given how vague it is about what the information discovered is like. I mean, DNA is just a form of encoded information, so analysing it from his point of view you MUST conclude an intelligent designer. Talk about wide goalposts :P .

    And your arguments from Fallacy of Exclusion in all of your posts dictate that you cannot provide sufficient proof where I have filled in the gaps for you, and you are not believable sorry,though I have tried I cannot take the giant leap of faith that you do.A tornado in a junkyard building us a Ferrari,talk about an even wider leap of faith!

  59. Robert Walper Says:

    :D Well, I’ve conclusively proven to your viewers that you have no evidence and arguements. Now let’s see if you have any grasp of logic whatsoever (I personally doubt it).

    See if you can, *in your own words*, explain the following concepts:

    “Burden of Proof”
    “Appealing to Ignorance”
    “Proving a negative”

    If you wish to ignore the questions, I’ll take that as an additional concession on your part that you don’t even know how to make arguements in the first place. :)

  60. Jester Says:

    In all truth.. I believe what I do, and disbelieve in what I disbelieve. I think you have the same rights that I do to believe/disbelieve. I will usually only call someone to task on those things that have been empirically proven to be false. Such as the global flood with no verifiable hydrological or geological evidence. I do realize that the writers of the Bible did not have the tools to ascertain the spherical nature of the Earth. So I don’t fault them for that.
    Thank you for calling me to the task, and allowing me the opportunity to show you where you’ve missed the boat.(no pun intended)
    There are many more untitrated scientific articles that support the flood in cyberspace.The one presented here was designed for the layman such as yourself.
    FACTS ABOUT THE FLOOD

    http://www.ldolphin.org/cisflood.html

    Today, no one but the lunatic fringe believes the world is flat. Why people cannot realize that using the same logic (horizon and all) it makes sense that the ‘world-flood’ is just as much a story is beyond me.

    Isaiah 40:22 ‘It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers, and hanged the Earth upon nothing”

  61. Teleros Says:

    “Who’s evidence? Your evidence? Based on what criteria? Yours? That’s a very poor proof to submit.”

    How about the age of the earth? Evolution? How clouds form, what lightning is, the big bang theory… all these are based on science and don’t require God to work. In fact, NO scientific theory needs God, full stop. Ranged against this is the fact that lots of people believe or have believed in God (an appeal to populism), and the Bible (which if you believe was divinely inspired is an example of begging the question, otherwise it’s just an old, popular book).

    Quick switch topics before anyone notices!

    “Each report was originally an independent entity written by each eyewitness for the benefit of others, which were only later collated into an individual volume for convenience since they all dealt with the same subject.”

    Implicit in this is the assumption that there’s no hyperbole, exaggeration, lying and so on. Let’s replace the Bible with, say, the Silmarillion. It’s all made-up, but for people who believed in magic, gods and demons and so on, it could easily form the foundation of a religion.

    What I want is evidence and not your emotion.Why are you unwilling, or better yet incapable of providing any evidence?

    “The Bible had 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years, so you cannot conclude that there was collusion designed to subjugate humanity by deceptive presentation of the facts.”

    I’m not saying the Bible was designed to subjugate humanity (although governments in the past have put it to that use). Some of the authors may also have included bits designed to reinforce their current system of government – I don’t know – but I don’t think the Bible is some vast conspiracy as you seem to be suggesting.

    You are misinterpreting me,either purposefully or ignorantly,I never stated nor believe the Bible is a conspiracy.You’ve stated that.

    “Then there is the resurrection from the dead. Jesus Christ had many hostile witnesses, but none of them could successfully refute the facts that were public knowledge, though they had ample opportunity to do so.”

    Again, this assumes that what is in the Bible is the literal truth, and that bits haven’t been left out, forgotten, destroyed, invented, lost due to the passage of time and so on.

    This is a good assumption judging from the witnesses both hostile, and non-hostile that were present at the time of the crucifixion,the fact that Christianity has survived in spite of people such as yourself, and the fact that millions around the world have a personal relationship with Christ.The continuing miracles happening around the world along with the inerrant prophecy from the Bible all coming to pass except the return.
    That is in the future.Your problem is that you have a cold and darkened heart and Satan has his fist wrapped around it and you are playing right into it.
    Someone needs to tell you that you’re on your way to hell and you need alot of prayer.

    “which the people obviously recognized as supernatural in nature”

    Reminds me of that comment by Arthur C. Clark. You know, the one about advanced enough technology being indistinguishable from magic ;) .

    I see you believe in another dead atheists comments but you won’t accept the mountain of evidence from the Bible and history.You are myopic indeed and need prayer.

    “By what criteria must our belief system change? By what specific formula or criteria can you offer up in proof that the Bible is outdated?”

    I think the main thing that is outdated is the creation of the Earth: modern science has shown that the Earth is much older than the Bible says for example.

    “still the most popular book in the world.”

    Again, an appeal to populism. Just because something is popular does not make it right.

    “Give me science and statistics and not your emotion or desires.”

    Anything in particular? I mean, there’s a lot of literature on things like the big bang or age of the Earth :P .

    “God is science.”

    How? He is omniscient, omnipotent, can’t be measured, falsified (in the same way as a scientific theory), analysed or whatever… how is that science?

    “As far as your contention that all theists are dumb, and hate science”

    Don’t put words in my mouth. Just because the Archbishop of Canterbury believes in God doesn’t mean I think he’s dumb or hates science.

    “The idea of eternal paradise is backed up by the evidence both biblically,historically ,and scientifically”

    Where’s the scientific proof then? It’s an idea that features in many religions, but the scientific proof…?

    “We have the Vatican Phd’s that have verified the existence of demonic posessions in individuals that have defied all scientific explanations”

    1. And these Vatican types with their PhDs are of course absolutely impartial and don’t bring their own beliefs along when they look at these things. Right.
    2. Just because something doesn’t yet have a scientific explanation does not mean one should turn automatically to the supernatural in order to find an answer.

    This is a pretty silly assumption even for yourself.
    Then how would you explain the paranormal?
    Gee, and to think I mistook murder for homicide

    “ID is based off of sciences and is based off of probability.”

    That it is based on something does not mean it is that something. For starters, it is not parsimonious, it is not empirically testable and/or falsifiable – and all (yes all) proper scientific theories are. After all, how can I test intelligent design? How can I attempt to disprove it? I can attempt to disprove general relativity or conservation of energy… but how do I do that with ID?

    “There are no “proofs” that God does not exist in atheistic circles; at least, none that I have seen – especially since you can’t prove a negative regarding God’s existence…”

    Yes I think we’ve already agreed that you cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, only say that it’s very unlikely he does.

    “And I have a problem with atheists imposing their faith upon us by removing the separation of church and state in the USA as well”

    Phooey – the “faith” you accuse atheists of imposing is that of tolerance of different beliefs! The separation of church and state means that you can practice your beliefs freely, and not have anyone impose their beliefs on you. Conversely, a state that imposes a religion or morals based on a specific religion on the general population doesn’t allow for this. A person in the USA today can be Christian, atheist, muslim, buddhist or whatever. You can even be a satanist if you want. Try being a satanist openly in Saudi Arabia, and see how long you last until the authorities imprison you and have you stoned to death or something. Whatever you or I may think about nutters like satanists though, the point is that we don’t force our beliefs onto them.

    “And then again maybe it does.After all if one looks at ID deeply one must come to that logical conclusion.”

    Nope. A supporter of ID looks at an improbable event and concludes “it must be designed that way”. A scientist looks at an improbable event and concludes “it was improbable”.
    The other thing of course, is that the ID supporter is looking at a very specific end (eg humans on Earth, in the Milky Way… etc etc etc) – which of course is very improbable. The scientist looks at something wider in scope – say carbon-based life (or life in any form) – because he doesn’t have any reason to believe that humans are particularly special. Another example is having blood that clots. The probability of the method we humans use is low, but the probability of blood that clots is much higher – because there can be (and are) various other means by which blood can clot.

    I’ll pray for you indeed.

  62. spectre Says:

    Not wanting to post this on your webpage. But wish to know your frame of reference. Are you Christian, Fundamentalist, Catholic, Jewish, Moslem?


  63. And why would that be of interest to you spectre?

  64. Justin Says:

    ‘Science': Although one can use the scientific method to prove a theory, it is backwards thinking to start with a conclusion and work out a method which you think will automatically lead to this conclusion, like ‘creation science’ does.


  65. Although one can use the scientific method to prove a theory, it is backwards thinking to start with a conclusion and work out a method which you think

    Ok so how does your Slothful Induction justify it’s position?will automatically lead to this conclusion, like ‘creation science’ does.
    Typical evolutionist.
    Hit and run

  66. Justin Says:

    It’s not a ‘hit and run’, just a statement of fact re ‘creation science’, since I saw it mentioned on this web page : namely, that it’s not a real science.

    I reckon your first respondent Ramon had it about right. You on the other hand seem to maintain that atheism is a specific philosophy contrary to religion. But nobody has to be taught atheism. When someone tells you about God for the first time, everyone’s first reaction, even a child’s, will be disbelief (although not usually explicitly stated). Even a very gullible child will take quite some convinving – usually indoctrinated via church or school or parents etc. In my eyes this means everyone started out as atheist by default.

    Nobody taught me atheism. I just never swallowed religion, unlike yourself.

    Okay, on with the name-calling.


  67. Justin,
    You are using an argument that has been refuted time, and time again.
    We are born with no knowlegde but acquire it through experience and living.God gave us all the inate knowledge of his sovereignity, and you simply chose to reject him.
    One must learn atheism early on just as one must learn religion.Everything is subjective.
    Nice try though.

  68. Seeking Says:

    p>The problem I have with your arguments, atheiststooges, is that they require no proof. They only require that you say them to be true for them to be true. Even if you are quoting the Bible, how do you know that how the Bible says things is true?

    If you make the statement “God does not exist” then you must
    also substantiate that statement. The fact that it is a negative
    statement does not excuse you from backing it up.

    Let’s take the fact that you hate God into consideration.
    This is part of the pattern of denial that goes hand in hand.
    When something is threatening,the mind tries to deny it.In Psychology this is called repression.

    It is translated from a different language, and translations often are not accurate. Furthermore, it was translated by humans, which are imperfect. So you are writing words without proving them and expecting us to believe you. What gives you this power? Are you a god that you can speak words to me and have them be taken as true without any reason or proof, while as a human I can speak words to you and have them be taken as lies no matter how much logical evidence I have to reinforce my statements? You say that God is all-powerful, without providing me a shred of evidence as to why He is all-powerful other than the fact that you say He is. Am I to believe any words that anybody speaks to me, then, without any proof? If a man tells me that a rock are not solid, am I to believe him whether or not it supports my weight? I am not saying that what you are telling us is wrong, I am saying that I want you to give me a reason to believe it other than that you, an imperfect human, say it is true.

    You see, the problem is, you’re comparing a high school education of the world with a 6 year old understanding of the Bible. No theologian, or philosopher, even before the sciences with Aquinas and Augustine have ever took it as scientific fact of God’s existence in the sky. It’s been common knowledge of God’s outside of space and dimension in the Book of Job. It’s common knowledge, stated by Ptolemy in the Middle ages.

    P.S. I do realize that you can assert that any logical argument made is not to be believed because it is made by humans. But, then how can anybody believe anything that anybody says, if any argument can be wrong whether or not any reason for it to be wrong is found?

    I know you didn’t intend to say that atheism needs evidence, but I am just following the implications. If atheism is inherently unsupportable, I don’t find any reason to be an atheist. I’m under the assumption you’re a strong atheist. Let’s define God as a being of infinite will, intelligence, who created Nature as having attributes of time and space and dimension. If Nature is a creation, then it is implied that God does not take up space, and is timeless. This covers most theists and deists .Ha… if you only knew what you’re saying… as if theres no intelectual side of belief. Then why will you find Steven Hawking in a church every Sunday. Even if he believes in the Christian world view it shows that there is a reason to believe in more than what can be seen with the human eye.

  69. Seeking Says:

    Allow me to clear myself up. I personally do believe that humans can logically arrive at a correct answer. I mentioned the opposing possibility merely to account for the fact that you may have used it as an argument against me. I do agree with your assertion that atheism must be substantiated. For myself, it is substantiated in the fact that I have not been presented with sufficient evidence to logically arrive at the conclusion that God exists, independent of being told directly that He does exist. If valid evidence of that nature were to be presented to me, then of course I would logically be forced to reconsider my beliefs. For myself, merely being told that God exists and that I must take that fact on faith is not enough. If you can either logically prove God without using faith, or convince me that faith is a valid method of obtaining the truth, then you will have a convert.
    Your atheism requires much faith as well.
    Too much to be exact.
    You believe in talking rocks,magic monkeys,and flying pigs.
    I believe in Intelligent design.
    I see a building and know it has a designer.
    Evolution is all about placing a tornado in a junkyard and coming out with a Mazzerati.
    That is the impossible equivalent of a miracle without a miracle worker.
    Oh,and I don’t wish to convert you or anyone else.
    You see that is the false premise that you atheists cling to when entering into a dialog regarding religion.
    You sound like an intelligent person,and that’s why I am surprised that you buy into the fairy tale of evolution.

  70. chris Says:

    athiests believe in talking rocks, magic monkeys and flying pigs??
    I do not understand how you came to this conclusion, but anyway, your beliefs arent far off ether, you believe in talking bushes, talking animals, people rising from the dead, walking on water. so you can barely argue the point that our beliefs are absurbed as you claim them to be, when yours pretty much meets it at the same level.
    Except that we had independent and reliable witnesses to the above but I’ve yet to see someone witness a rock turn into a human.That sets us apart.
    The truth.
    oh and with that ‘you see a building=designer’ arguement, you forget we can go see this ‘designer’ we can observe the process of how this person designs it, so we can obtain indisputible evedience of the designer, (through observable evidence) yet we in no way in this life can visit God, no way we can observe how he/she/it designed our know universe.

    Please do not use the boeing 747 arguement, that has been rebuted so many times it bothersome, and it shows your ignorance to what evoultion is really about.

    Hey kid claims are not proof did you know that.It’s never been refuted and begs a designer.The entire tornado in a junkyard hypothesis.You unlike me believe in a miracle without a miracle worker that’s all.
    and btw im not atheist, before you start ranting about that, as i have previously noticed in your comments, I’m an agnostic
    Chris
    Evolution is nothing more than talk on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.It sucks, and is a horrible unsubstantiated theory lacking observation,labs,transitionals,and just plain old logic.Keep believing in your fairy tale kid.
    In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

    Oh and agnostic is one nights sleep away from atheist.I don’t differentiate the two.You come off more as an anti-theist more than anything else.For starters,this is exactly what a recovering fundamentalist should not become: an anti-fundamentalist fundamentalist. Anti-theists (and I do not necessarily mean atheists here) are often what I call “dry fundamentalists“—folks who refuse to do the hard work of leaving the pain of fundamentalism behind, opting instead to get stuck railing against their past.

  71. chris Says:

    ‘Except that we had independent and reliable witnesses to the above but I’ve yet to see someone witness a rock turn into a human.That sets us apart. The truth’
    What? who are these, ive never heard of any real ones, that are reliable.

    You should study more.

    and mere reference to a man named jesus would not be proof anyways, since there were many people in that time named jesus, (even if one of them claimed to be the son of god, which many in that time did)

    Once again claims are not proof,the documentation is there and there were hundreds of hostile witnesses to Christ that turn up in the scriptures.
    An odd thing to say in lieu of the fact that you hate God and are deliberate and calculating in your ignorance.

    Even if there was a reliable reference to these witnesses, how are we to know these original claims were not fake in the beginning?

    You need to make up your mind as you seem a bit confused.

    Yes it has been refuted as an arguement against evolution, just continous use of it by ignorant creationalists have held it afloat. like many other arguements that are used from them.


    Let me get my dunce translator out,everything about that sentence was awful, and mispelled.
    How do you expect to be taken seriously when your grasp of basic English is horrid?

    lets put it into the real context of evolution.
    first, this tornado would be lasting billions of years. (because this is the time scale of evolution)
    now lets say every time one piece of ‘junk’ hit another and if each piece was correct for eachother (for the making a piece for the overall 747) and these pieces joint together and stayed together, then after awhile after there were many smaller piece for the 747 assembled, when these piece of ‘junk’ hit eachother and correct were for eachother, they join together. and so on until you end up with a 747.

    Nice ripoff from Dawkins.
    Unfortuantely for secular humanists there is no evidence for macro-evolution….zero. Darwinism is being taught as a fact today in schools. It is being taught as though it is as provable as the law of gravity, even though Charles Darwin himself called it “grievously too hypothetical.” The 98-99 percent similarity is actually not based on comparison of the genetic code of chimpanzees and human DNA. Human DNA has about 3 billion of its 4 nucleotides, which are the alphabet of the genetic code. Only a small percentage of those sequences have been identified. The claim of 98 percent is based on a process called DNA hybridization. I don’t want to get too technical, but it consists of splitting some human DNA into single strands. They found they could rather conformably make it form a double strand with chimp DNA. And they infer from that the 98-99 percent similarity. But let me say this — since men and chimps look so similar, it wouldn’t be surprising that the DNA, which dictates their physical appearance, would also turn out to be somewhat similar. I would expect human DNA to be more similar to chimp DNA than to whale DNA on the same ground that you would expect two software programs for word processing to be more similar than a spreadsheet application.

    With this on a time scale of billions apon billions of years it most probably would happen. so theres a rebute.

    Operative evoutionary argument = probably,could have,might,and may have…possibly,as far as we can guess.

    ‘Evolution is nothing more than talk on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.It sucks, and is a horrible unsubstantiated theory lacking observation,labs,transitionals,and just plain old logic.Keep believing in your fairy tale kid.’
    Yes claims are not proof…
    Also no matter how hard you discredit it through emotive langueage, it makes not impact on how true it is
    And yes there has been hoaxes, so what? they have been thankfully discovered for what they really were.
    There has been many hoaxes of the supposed noahs arc and many other things related towards your religion inorder to claim that their ‘truth’ is the truth to futher there careers in a sense.
    But all have been proven hoaxes, but does that make the idea any less true, just because people are willing to make hoaxes, of couse not.

    Or take the case of Nebraska man, which was a single tooth shown to Henry Fairfield Osborn, director of the American Museum of Natural History. He said it belonged to an ape-man. He showed it to two specialists on teeth at the American Museum of Natural History, and they confirmed it was from an ape-man. Many others did the same. But it turned out when they did further digging at the site in Nebraska, that it actually came from a peccary, which is a relative of the pig. This happened again and again in the study of fossils. People were proved to be wrong when led by preconceptions.

    Whoever made the Piltdown man fraud was certainly trying to do that. A lot of these people were, I think, just honestly led by their misconceptions.

    The most recent case of apparent fossil fraud was the archaepraptor. It’s not in my book because it is so recent, but the archaepraptor was promoted in National Geographic as the missing link between dinosaurs and birds. And National Geographic even had a picture in the magazine’s November issue showing a baby T-rex with feathers on it, and the fossil was put on display at their Explorers Hall.
    Turns out the fossil is a fake. It is a bird fossil put together with parts of a dinosaur fossil. Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian, said, “National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated tabloid journalism. It became clear to me that National Geographic is not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.” These problems with hoaxes have been going on for a long time.
    That kind of takes us off of Darwin’s theory and moves us into a whole different field. However, we do have a chapter on that in my book on carbon dating and evidence for an “old earth.”
    The whole fossil record itself of animal life does not support Darwin’s theory. He recognized this himself in his own time. Here’s what he said: “The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great if this theory be true.”
    Now, he didn’t find those fossils in his own day, and he assumed they would show up, but they haven’t. Steven J. Gould of Harvard, certainly a leading evolutionist, went on record a few years ago as saying the absence of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology. Colin Patterson, the director of the British Museum of Natural History says, “Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied myself with the problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. I will lay it on the line: There is not one such fossil for which one can make a watertight argument.”

  72. Tony Higgins Says:

    <blockquote>”You are born with nothing, and that includes atheism.”</blockquote>
    <em>Even if it were true that people are born atheists and not theists, it would have no bearing on whether or not atheism is true. As I’ve always said , infants are born without the knowledge of airplanes, but that has no bearing on the validity of airplanes whatsoever. So, the point you attempt to make is useless.
    <blockquote>Atheism has no known Earthly Origins.”
    If we were born with nothing, then we were born without humor, for example. Humor has no earthly origins because no one invented it, therefore humor (and every other emotion) must have been spawned by Satan?</blockquote>
    </em><em>Humor is not a belief system,it was induced through us by God’s delicate hand.
    Atheism on the other hand has no Earthly origins.</em>
    <blockquote>Look, I have respect for any Christian apologist and any *reasonable* argument they might make, but yours is just plain silly. You’ve lost all credibility as far as I’m concerned because you’re making ludicrous claims just to piss off non-believers. FYI, I’m a Christian (saved 43 years, apologist for 26). No one will respect us or the Lord’s work we’re supposed to do if we come across as crackpots and wackos. I’m on your side here. Try to stay on *ours'</blockquote>
    <em>Not only are you a troll but you’re a liar as well,and not a very good one.
    You think that your silly little posturing game is going to convince me or others that you don’t hate God?
    You remind me of a one armed man trying to climb a rope.
    You have trouble grasping my infinite dominance over you like other witless Troglodytes that hate God.
    You’re very attentive to my needs even though if you were any more vacuous your head would implode.</em>

  73. Tony Higgins Says:

    I’m a troll and a liar?

    That would be correct yes,you are a liar.

    You are a deeply disturbed man, and very angry.

    Projection problems I see right Tony?
    How Christian like of you.
    You are a bullshitting anti-theist and nothing less
    .

    I’m not sure what it stems from and I don’t think I really want to know.

    What ever gave you the idea that we know or need to know each other.

    But it troubles me even more that you’re a pilot. Please let us know where you’re flying next because I really don’t want to fly if you’re at the helm. You’re not a bad guy I’m sure, but you really do need help. Post this comment in its entirety if you have the guts.

    Trust me in my job I must be fit both mentally and physically.
    They have all of the rigorous tests done every six months.
    My IQ is above average.
    But I don’t like when you piss on someones leg and tell them it’s raining.
    Stay off of my ship.
    You are not welcome as well.

  74. riley Says:

    I’m going to f*** your whore mother in the a** and the shoot my **** down her throat. And you’ll watch with glee.
    <em> Of course they have science on their side and don’t hate God….of course!! :-)</em>

  75. TB Says:

    You guys are a disgrace to your own religion too.
    Evolution says:
    We didn’t descend from apes, ape species and human species have a common ancestor species who lived millions of years ago.
    I’d say you guys are atheist trolls.

    Talking rocks,breathing mud,flying pigs,and magic monkeys
    You call that science?
    I’d say you are a disgrace to the human race and I’m embarrased to be on the same planet as you.

  76. Jared Says:

    Is this site real, or is it a parody? Just curious. Cheers.

    About as much a parody as your faith.
    Cheers!

  77. Jared Says:

    Well, then this must be a parody site because I am, in fact, an old testament creationist Jew (conservative, fomerly reformed). I have faith in G-d. I just wanted to know if you did. So, please tender an honest answer. Is this legit or just an elaborate ruse?

    Explain your presumptions in detail please?
    If you are a Jew what are doing here?
    You don’t belong in Judeo / Christian forums.
    That’s of course assuming that you really are a Jew.
    In all honesty if you are a Jew let me tell you how your people missed the messiah and that the one your waiting on isn’t coming anytime soon.
    He’s due for round two of which 145,000 jews will be saved.
    Will you be among them?
    That is of course assuming that you really are a jew, and not a God Hater in disguise.
    And the (G-D) won’t throw anyone off.
    You’re dealing with an expert here.

  78. Jared Says:

    My brother-in law sent me a link to some MySpace page that’s be circulating around his office. He’s a DHL pilot, although I’m unaware of the connection to you.

    I’m happy for your brother-in-law, but I fly passenger jets.
    It requires a much greater skill and responsibility level.
    Boxes and people are two different things although he may fall under part 135.
    I am Part 121.
    Part 135 are the frieght dogs.
    Long since passed that.

    Anyway, he asked me to take a look at it and wager a guess as to the site’s validity.

    Once again, why doesn’t your brother-in-law look for himself?
    Or is he as fictitious as your post appears to be?

    And what do you mean about the G-d not throwing you off? That’s how Jews write the Lord’s name.

    That’d be correct, but somehow I’m having trouble believing you’re a jew, and not something else.

    What are you an expert in? Judaism? At any rate, we (Jews) don’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah; we see him as a historical Jewish prophet who preached goodness and love. As for the 145k, beats me. That’s a question for G-d, and not you or I. I’ll assume that this site is legit (in the absence of an answer). Thanks for your time. Email me if you’d like to discuss this offline. ~ Jared S.

    As I’ve said the Jews have missed the messiah, and now they are paying for it in spades.
    If you want you may E-mail me.

  79. Jared Says:

    Bruce is a former air force pilot (couldn’t tell you what he flew), but now retired. He took the DHL gig to keep himself busy and some extra pocket cash, I guess. He flew for Alaska Air for a short spell, but he didn’t enjoy it for one reason or another. Not sure why. Anyway, I don’t what that Part 121/135 stuff means, but I’ll ask him this weekend. He looked at your site and thought it was a joke, then he asked me for my opinion. Okay, so you’re not convinced I’m a Jew. Okay, no problem, whatever. Seriously, let’s chat sometime. I’ll be happy to speak Hebrew with you, if you’d like. I’m jpselman on Skype. Ring me up any time.

    I’m not familiar with the 145k who are supposed to go to heaven, but I’ll look it up so we can have something to discuss
    Jared,


    Then we have alot in common,I’m not familiar with the hebrew customs neither.

    I am a Judeo / Christian and align myself with the inerrancy of the Torah.
    I am also Pro-Zion.
    The differences between us are the New testament, and Christ being the Messiah, of which you denounce.
    I have no problem with that, as I am quite confident in my beliefs.
    The brother in law thing was nothing but a cheap shot by you, and I label it for what it is.
    So your brother-in-law thinks this site is a joke.
    Fantastic,tell him I said to get used to his scroll button, or better yet to stay off of the site and keep his messengers on a short leash.
    Now if you are an anti-Christian Jew then we can let the boot war begin, and I’ll tell you how the jews have already missed the Messiah that they think is yet to come,and that only 144K will be saved during the tribulation.
    Maybe you should join Jews for Christ if you don’t want to be amongst them.

    http://jewsforjesus.org

  80. Christian Stooges Says:

    I’m happy for your brother-in-law, but I fly passenger jets.
    It requires a much greater skill and responsibility level.
    Boxes and people are two different things although he may fall under part 135.
    I am Part 121.
    Part 135 are the frieght dogs.
    Long since passed that.
    What are you, an insecure child? Do yourself a favor and see a mental health professional to address your feelings of inadequancy. And stop editorializing every god damn comment submitted. It’s a sign of fear and weakness. Oh, and I’m a “god-hater.” Feel better? Find a new catch phrase, lame-o. You’re a one-trick pony, and we’re not amused.

    I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell the word ‘premeiotic.
    Now who’s insecure?……:-)

  81. Jared Says:

    Oh, don’t be silly. That wasn’t a cheap shot. He said he thought it was a parody or a satirical site. He didn’t mean that you, personally, where a “joke.” Anyway, I’m not anti-Christian, I’m anti-hate (religion notwithstanding).

    What kind of a fool do you think that you’re dealing with here?
    How much do you want to wager that if you’ve had a son or daughter that wanted to marry a gentile you’d disown them on the spot?
    That is assuming that you’re actually a jew in the first place.

    But now I’m curious, did you really receive a perfect score on all those tests?

    As far as *he* went you have no idea what his intentions were,and since that is a fact the balance of your post remains ineffectual.
    Somehow you don’t come off as sincere to me.
    If you are indeed a *Jew* then why are you here?
    Jews do not belong in Christian, specifically anti-atheist forums.
    Now as far as my college scores go you read what I claimed.
    Unless you’re double sighted why would you even ask that without intending to baiting someone.
    Answer that.

  82. Jared Says:

    First, I already told you, I’m “here” because a friend asked me for my opinion about your site. Second, I’m sincere because I was *hoping* to get a sincere answer to sincere question. It seems pretty clear that several people here are confused about whether or not you’re yanking our chain. The SAT (et al) score thing seems to indicate that you are in fact toying with those who read your blog. And third, I *do* know what Bruce meant because that’s exactly what he articulated to me. He said that if you were indeed a parody site you “pulled it off to perfection.” [his words] NOW I tend to agree with him. Finally, I’m far too old and far too smart to get into a childish pissing contest with a stranger, no less with someone who might just be jerking us all around anyway. Baiting you? Nah, not my style. I’m a parent. Haven’t engaged in that kind of sophomoric behavior since before I had kids. At any rate, I’ll get off your case now as it seems that getting a simple answer to a simple question is, well, out of the question. I’ll assume for now that you’re got an equal number of people adequately confused. All the best, whether you believe it or not, Jared the Jew.

    Uh huh, and right in short order the truth comes out about you.
    You’re little more than a troll that got bagged when you were trying to do the bagging.
    The scores are real.
    Your turgid disguise as a sincere person is fake.
    So you love all huh Jared?
    Have your children if you indeed fathered any, married any gentiles lately?
    Do you disinfect the house everytime a gentile leaves?

  83. Desanitizer Says:

    Nice try, but no one’s buying it. HOAX!

    Thakns for the input says the pimp to the whore!

  84. Desanitizer Says:

    Obvious satire site. Way too over the top. Must be a delusional blowhard to think anyone will believe this tripe. Pilot? Not a chance. Perfect score of all those certs? Um, no. Someone peed in this wank’s Post Toasties.

    Obviosly not a satire site and that’s straight from the Owner.
    Pilot = Yes
    Perfect score on all those tests = yes

    You may be a fundy atheist if….
    1. You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven’t changed since.
    2. You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.
    3. You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn’t want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.
    4. Although you’ve memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn’t exist, you still think you’re God’s gift to the ignorant masses.
    5. You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.
    6. You think questions like, “Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?” and, “Can God will Himself out of existence?” are perfect examples of how to disprove God’s omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God’s omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.
    7. Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions.
    8. You declare on a public forum that you are “furious at God for not existing.”
    9. You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means “without a belief in God ” and not just ” belief that there is no god” as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.
    10. You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.

  85. Darsh Says:

    Wow, this is just full of lies. Hitler being atheist, atheists hating god? Anti-theist fundamentalist being equal to religious fundamentalists? None of the outspoken atheists have bombed or flew planes into anything,

    Naw,they just killed 100,000,000 million people in the last century alone.

  86. Darsh Says:

    Too bad that’s not true, and nice editing of my post.

    I was right about this blog, it’s dishonest, typically christian.

  87. Darsh Says:

    I’m impressed that my second comment was not edited in any way.

    You snip and I snip

    (Btw, noone has ever killed 100,000,000 million people because there is no such population number, that’s over 15 times the current population.)

    Here you go dummy….read it and eat your crap sandwich….

    http://bp1.blogger.com/_k85DLLhZWsw/RiBHJX62_vI/AAAAAAAAAA8/YlNeOPsR8oA/s1600-h/Atheism+Kills.gif

  88. Darsh Says:

    Oops, I meant 15k times.
    (Atheists make mistakes too)

    Right, and you’re not an atheist so stop pretending.

  89. Darsh Says:

    I give up.

    You never had an argument to begin with.

  90. Darsh Says:

    I do, it’s just that you keep editing my comments because you’re intimidated by my words, pretty much like what I said in my original comment.
    You do what?
    You’re nothing but another everyday run of the mill God-Hating Malignant Narrissist.
    You’re actually quite thick.

  91. Darsh Says:

    I can’t hate what I don’t believe exists.

    The fact that you’re here makes you a liar.

  92. Darsh Says:

    Nope.

    You mean “dope”.

  93. Lauren Says:

    Taking your correction, then Darsh would be *calling* you a dope, Mikey. And that would make him correct. Why? Because you’ve been talking to the same guy all this time. My 9 year old niece knows how to snoop an IP address, but apparently that’s far too technical for a moron like you. For had you had a clue you’d know that ALL of the postings came from the same person (except the few from this guy named Darsh).
    <em>

    You forgot to mention two things.
    1.I don’t give a rat’s ass who you are or hom many nics you have.
    2.The fact that you change your nic is boring, and makes you a dope and a troll….
    Enjoy your new title baby :-)

  94. John Says:

    I’d like to have a go with something here.
    I’ve been reading some of your comments and etc, and I noticed one really outstanding claim you make, this being about the definition of the word atheist.
    Which is, by the of the Oxford Popular English dictionary and many others.
    “The lack of a belief in the existence of God or gods”
    A=without Theism=theistic belief
    Thus meaning without a theistic belief, meaning a lack of belief, thus meaning a negative.
    I’m using this one because I’m English and I find it to be the trustworthiest dictionary.

    But your definition seems to be along the lines of,
    “The belief that there is no God or Gods”
    Now you would say that there isn’t a meaningful difference in the definitions, which most could probably agree on, but with the argument you are stating it makes a large difference.
    That being the argument you are purposing states that we are born without any knowledge of our surrounding environment, which is correct.
    Then using your definition of atheism, which states it as a belief there are no god’s, to justify your statement we are born without any knowledge of atheism.
    So using your definition you would be correct on that matter, but on my definition, which I found in a very reliable dictionary, you would be completely wrong.
    Because if atheism, is defined as I saw, it means that we are born as atheists, since we are born without the belief in a deity. No knowledge of him/her/it, therefore meaning we lack it, a negative, which would be associated the lack of knowledge we have when we are born..
    There ad hominem away, making your red herrings and straws.
    Oh and yeah I hate god, get a new line, it’s getting boring.

    No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians. And no matter how strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that God does not exist.
    Many intelligent and educated individuals don’t have enough faith to become atheists.

  95. Sarah Says:

    “Many intelligent and educated individuals don’t have enough faith to become atheists.” I’m an atheist and I agree with that statement 100%. But what you must acknowledge is that EVERYTHING is a belief system. Nothing is truly known. I tell my husband that I love him and he has faith that I really do. (People say I love you all the time, yet they don’t really mean it.) Granted it’s a silly example, but maybe my name really isn’t Sarah. Maybe my parents and the rest of the world are playing a cruel, life-long joke on me. Enough of the wild semantic wordplay. Forget the word atheist. Call it whatever you want. When a baby pops out of the womb it doesn’t believe in any god the same way it doesn’t believe in (or not believe in) Santa. Everything from that point on is a matter of life experience. Most people follow the religion of their parents at the outset and then decide which way to go with it. Babies aren’t atheists. Fine. Whatever. Pick the word of your choice. I’m okay with that. But no baby believes in any god. We’re all ignorant at the start, then we’re spoonfed the religious diet that our parents follow. Some of us say, “Mmmmm. Yummy. May I have some more?” Others just puke it up. But you are absolutely correct in your assertion that atheism takes faith. Everything does.

    No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians. And no matter how strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that God does not exist.
    Many intelligent and educated individuals don’t have enough faith to become atheists.

    Bravo on your candidness though.

  96. sarah Says:

    You keep harping on the word atheist. a-theist means without theism. A baby is born without theism.

    Wrong,a baby is taught atheism as much as it is theism.Even ancient man without knowledge in the jungles even proposed the idea of a God w/o exposure to religion.
    Your argument is very weak.

    Don’t confuse that with having faith that there is no god. Of course, atheism IS a belief system. Atheists don’t deny that. I mean, hell, I don’t believe in god. I don’t BELIEVE in god.

    The fact that you are here taking your time to answer this thread shows your belief and therefore denial in God.
    You fool no one but yourself.

  97. John Says:

    Excuse me, claims are not proof.

    Exactly,and claiming there is no God is not proof of absence as well.

    I have demonstated why my statement is correct, which it is competely, you have done nothing to rebute it except all you’ve done is say no it isn’t because it isn’t, no proof, just a claim.

    You’ve demonstrated absolutely nothing via your personal biases.

    Excuse me I don’t have faith that god doesn’t exist, I do not understand your concept of faith, because the reason I personally don’t believe in god (as in Yahweh) is the world around us shows that there is plently of evidence of his non existance. Therefore i have evidence and it is not faith.
    As for that claim many intelligent and educated individuals don’t have enough faith to become atheists.
    Have you never looked at the statistics?
    the correlation between education and the belief in a deity, such as Yahweh.
    Only 7% of scientist in your country express a belief in a personal god, whereas 72% express a personal disbelief, the other percentage being agnostic.
    Also your arguement that atheism is from the devil, is a bit fallacious;

    Citations?…Oh and don’t point me to some dumb atheist website either.
    Give me an unbiased study. Without that you have no credibility whatsoever.

    -It makes the huge assumtion there is a god, then it assumes it’s your god.

    It takes an even larger assuption to say there is no God,then assume it’s not your God.

  98. nm156 Says:

    I am a bit confused about the basic premise of the argument that atheism has no earthly origins. Having been raised a Catholic I was taught that since Christians are the children of god they inherently do not belong to or have origins in this world. I learned that Christ was rejected because this world did not know him i.e. he was not of this earth. As far as I know that is a fairly common belief among Christians. Yet you seem to insist that Christianity has earthly origins while atheism does not. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Or are you just a backwards Christian? Hoping you can clear up this apparent contradiction.

    Name Atheisms author.

    We already have the author for Christianity.

    I am a bit confused as to why you’re coming here under the guise of a sincere poster as well AND ASKING A QUESTION THAT YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO. Heres hoping you clear up this apparent contradiction.

  99. dillacini Says:

    I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting!

    Bene Gracia
    Tanti Aguri

  100. Woodneye2 Says:

    To Whomever,
    Searching for enlightenment, I stumbled onto this blogsite and dialogue somehow and found it both interesting and confusing. I admit to grave doubts about the presence of a transcendent and intervening God and I continually quest for reasons to believe and not believe. Here, rather than satisfying answers, I find the insolence, hubris and condescension of the blog’s author to be off-putting and insulting rather than informative and helpful. He has the venomous approach to Christian theology that I have come to recognize as more and more representative of the public face of the Faith. Commentary here is more in line with Rod Parsley, John Haggee and Fred Phelps than with Paul or Jesus. I don’t pretend to be a philosopher or intellectual, just an average Joe with a curious mind, but I do know that the acid tongue and sour tone of the predominant voice here will encourage me to move on and not visit this place again.

    You have mispelled words in here are you aware of that?
    Now head on over to infidel.org to quote mine more parrroting material for the next blog you raid.
    Oh, and you have no idea what a real atheist is because you and your ilk are too busy hating God.
    That’s what brings you to these blogs in the first place moron.
    Ciao!


  101. To be like militant atheists today, you need to:

    Promote yourself as the moral alternative to religion when history shows that the objectively baseless moral reasoning of atheism is potentially as dangerous or worse than formal religions that they portray as bloody and deceitful. Etc.

    Present yourself as the more reason-able, objective persons while vehemently denying any link between atheism and the brutality of such fellow atheists as Stalin., Mao, Pol Pot, and Communist brutalities, etc., or that any link to atheism was incidental, when in fact such men were acting out of the objectively baseless moral reasoning atheism affords, and purposely sought to eliminate religion unless it serves their means. And being formally god-less, it promoted the kind of political religion that was instrumental in their unjust suppression and murders.

    Ignore that as man is religious by nature, in the absence of worship of Christ or distortions of it, man will worship false gods, from Popes, to creation, self, or leaders, and as atheism fosters the latter 3, it ends up being like paganism,. All hail to the Scientist King.

    Ignore the direct link of Communism with atheism, while seeking to criminalize the religious instruction of religion, yet teaching godless evolution as a fact, and seeking to prohibit any objective discussion of the possibility of a Creator.

    Promote atheists as the more fair minded people, while insisting upon defining Christianity by it’s most distorted forms, rather than it’s original and definitive source (an accuracy of definition you must demand for atheism), in order to equate evangelical Christians with militant Islam, while no physical religious violence was ever perpetrated by any Christian acting consistent with the New Testament, in seeking to defend or expand the faith.

    And ludicrously insist that pagan Hitler was a real Christian, even when faced with the facts that disqualify him from being either a Biblical Christian or by any objective, reasonable definition, and who planned to eliminate Christianity in his third Reich.

    Promote atheists as the most intelligent people (call yourself “brites” ), yet constantly come up with (or repeat) ignorant, unwarranted interpretations from the Bible in order to make your argument.

    Decry God’s moral laws, but blame God for the evil in the world then result from men choosing sin, then call Him a murderer for the deaths that result when He justly judges evil.

    Promote atheism as The Answer to the world ills when atheism does best in societies which had a strong form of Christianity, which Biblically establishes separation of powers, and is religiously non-violent, whereas historically both false religion (including Rome) and atheism has been very deleterious when it became the State policy.

    Quickly dismiss any empirical evidences for the reality of Christ, and reasoned intellectual arguments, such a below.

    Honestly seek the cause behind most or all these effects, and you will find Christ.

    Watch

    http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/

    Read

    http://www.christian-faith.com/truestories.html

    http://www.truthsaves.org/testimony/

    http://www.miraclebook.org/reviews.html

    http://www.shelovesgod.com/library/testimonies.cfm

    http://breadsite.org/topics.htm

    Polemics

    http://irrationalatheist.com/freedl.html

    http://www.existence-of-god.com/

    http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/

    http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html

    http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/governments.htm

    http://www.christianaction.org.za/firearmnews/2004-04_thegreatestkiller.htm

    http://www.answers.org/atheism/zindler.html

    http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm

    http://freedomdefender.blogspot.com/2005/05/atrocities-of-atheism-episode-i.html

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html

    http://www.iangoddard.net/roger.htm

  102. average joe Says:

    dear editior
    you have failed to see the error of your arguments
    i am not a “god-hater” as a matter of fact i went to church to see if it was better than what i had been tought(wasn’t but that is neither here nor there)
    let us begin by clairifying some matters okay?? i am not here because i hate god or even belivein his excistence i am here to point out all of your contradictions
    to begin…

    Dear unaverage and lying Joe,
    Uh-huh right , you don’t hate God, and that’s why you’re expending so much energy writing a long drawn out assinine post.
    Head back over to Infidel.org for their latest upload you moron.

  103. average joe Says:

    i didnt post on this site because of god i posted on this site because of all of your hate
    if we where talking about flying pink elephants orbiting the sun and you where as vehement on that as you are here i would still feel obligated to inform you that for all of your passion you had many conflicting points.

    Your crap might work over at infidel.org or alt.atheism but you’re only going to get eaten alive in here with your lying tongue.
    I’ve proven to you that you hate your God, and you have thusly proven back that you do indeed support my pretense.
    You are a “God-Hater,” and to hate something you must believe in it first.
    The fact that you are arguing against something that you claim to have no belief in makes you a liar.
    It’s simple mathematics.
    You God Haters are so blinded by your father Satan that you can’t see the forest from the trees.
    It takes someone on the outside with an independent perspective to spot this.
    Now many God-Haters that I have spoken with have the sense, and integrity to admit that they hate God, and that’s what drives them to their rants and I respect them for their admittal.
    You on the other hand are a fake hiding behind the pretense of atheism to get your frustrations out.

    p.s.s. why do you feel the need to attack me when you cannot prove me wrong?

    Oh the irony….[sigh]

  104. average joe Says:

    agnostic really not athiest but you seem to be confused on somethings i have never been to another religion or belief site in my life(believe it or not). you have glossed over the fact that i am not arguing agianst god at all but your interpretation of the bible and christianty, you have yet to explain to me how democracy and comunism both spawn from athiesm? also you have yet to explain your shifting positions on the whole agnostic athiesm thing.

    (and i thank you for leaving the insults out the second time its not that it hurts my feelings anyone can be tough over a blog, but it demeans any intellgent conversation we have)

    Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of ‘kill everyone who doesn’t smell bad and doesn’t answer to the name Mohammed or the heathenistic philosophy of atheism’).

    You God-Haters cannot conceive of “hate speech” towards Christians because, in your eyes, Christians always deserve it.”

  105. average joe Says:

    ??? we cannot concieve of hate speech??
    are you claiming people like me or myself in particular in your last comment??
    because i belive everyone deserves justice no more or less
    and if christianty teachs kindness why have you spent countless blogs and many a day attacking people?? including ones who didnt startit(although in your defense some of them truly deserved it)

    I never said I that was perfect, nor do I represent Christianity anymore than you represent atheism.
    Nor must I accept or tolerate anything that I stand in direct opposition to.
    For every blog exposing God-Haters such as yourself the atheists (God-Haters) have 10 attacking Christianity so don’t preach to me about the numbers.

  106. average joe Says:

    hey man i am not preaching anything only expressing my opinion but you might be right about the number of athiest’s attacking christianity wouldn’t know have a very limited experience with other people of my beliefs. but i do know that the amount of hate flying back and forth on this site and others is directly opposite of what christianity is supposed to teach and what athiesm claims to believe.

    i have a few questions now that i was hoping you could answer for me

    1.) why do you belive in god?(please dont use the bible as the reason or anything DIRECTLY out of it)

    2.)what makes athiesm so hateful to you?

    3.) and do you believe the statment that everything worth having has to be worked for?

  107. Dave Says:

    You state that one cannot find the origins of atheism, you are of course completely wrong.

    Says who….you?…………BAHAHAAAAHA!!!!!!!

  108. Chris mankey Says:

    “I’m sure all of them are highly honored by that title since they are the ones who claim that apes are their noble ancestors.This explains why atheists have devised the animalistic and heathenistic philosophy of atheism.”

    Christians certainly have a lot of hatred for god’s creations. Why did god create the vile, immoral disgusting ape and rest of nature’s worthless depraved creatures? Ponder That!


  109. Christians certainly have a lot of hatred for god’s creations. Why did god create the vile, immoral disgusting ape and rest of nature’s worthless depraved creatures? Ponder That!

    Ponder exactly what?
    What you’ve given as weak watered down proof for no God amounts to little more than personal opinion.
    I happen to think that apes are beautiful, and intelligent creatures, and that nature is flawless in design.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.You seem to be a very depressed individual in dire need of spiritual help.
    I find atheists like you far more disgusting.
    Ponder that!

  110. Harry Says:

    It would be bad science to say that god does not exist as one could argue it’s something you could never prove in the traditional sense. Dealing in probabilities though, you could certainly argue that the existence of god or a soul is highly improbable to the point that it is mathematically insignificant.

    If there is a soul that retains some form of my personality or memories when I die, how do you explain many of the neurological disorders in the world? If an injury to the brain can suddenly change someone’s personality, or even split their behaviour into multiple personalities, what is going on with the spiritual duel? Does it’s personality change as well? Following any rational debate on this topic leads to the idea that the soul cannot contain something like personality, which though scientific observation and experimentation, is deemed to exist purely in the physical.

    Following this argument, what exactly lives on after death if not my memories and personality? Some form of energy with the same amount of human characteristics as the electrons that flow through the computer I’m typing on right now? I would rather live my life now as an atheist than wait for this form of pointless afterlife.

    I think that religion and/or spirituality can be greatly beneficial social constructs to keep people functional and happy. It is quite confronting to consider that there is no purpose in life, that if your genetics or ideology failed to replicate, both would cease to permeate and a competitive genetics or ideology that replicates better would carry on. Many of you might consider this a bleak or depressing outlook, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. To that end, I would rather spend my life searching for a way to be happy and satisfied without relying on a false practise.

    I think that the complexity of the world is utterly beautiful and complex, even more so because it came about through natural selection. Might I add that natural selection is mathematically very different to random. In computer science, for example, you use a random choice as your base measure for solving a problem. It is expected that any algorithm you create should perform better than the random one to be considered successful. There is a branch of algorithms called genetic algorithms which are based on natural selection and they greatly outperform the random ones. In fact, genetic algorithms are in some cases the best solution to the problem, better than any other solution created by the worlds leading scientists. Clearly natural selection is an amazing process capable of amazing things.

    Currently my search has lead me to a quietening of the mind, similar to meditation but without religious context. I have found enormous peace in this state, and I feel deeply satisfied that it is founded in science. Read into the way the left and right hemispheres of the mind work and how meditation relates to this if you are interested in this approach. The great thing about this approach is it doesn’t make me want to dumb down schools by banning the science of biology, it doesn’t lead me to cause suffering by denining people the benefits of stem cell research, it doesn’t blind me by religious hatred to overlook the true motivation of recent wars in the middle east. Many people have quoted Hitler for and against religion in these posts, the important thing is that he used religion to control the masses. Knowledge is Power!

    • sallya Says:

      Harry,
      You’re relating everything to science.. But who created science??? and who created brains??? natural selection?? but who created nature and all of the materials needed for these natural selection??


  111. Harry, even if I don’t agree with you on some of your comments such as natural selection being the definitive all, I must say that this was a very articulate,and well thought out post.
    Thank You.

  112. LOLOL Says:

    How unchristlike.

  113. ClockCat Says:

    Atheism is defined as the absence of belief in a god.
    Theism is defined as belief in a god.

    All religions are theist in nature, be it abrahamic religions (christianity, islam, jewish) or other world religions.

    If people are not born believing something, because of lack of knowledge (agnostic, literally meaning lack of knowledge with gnosis being the latin root for the word), then they have an absence of belief.

    So from birth people are tabula rasa, or a “blank slate”. Blank slates are absence of any religion, making them fall both under the category of atheism, and agnostic.

    While there are atheists who believe there is no god, and there are agnostics who believe humankind does not have the knowledge, or will not have the capability for knowledge to know convincing evidence, this does not define the word.

    Atheism is not a belief in any religion. Infants do not believe in any religion. Nor do any children without cognitive skills to understand being taught it, or developing it on their own.

    An infant cannot be a christian, muslim, jew, budhist, jain, scientologist, or any other religious follower until they can be capable of being trained in it.


  114. Atheists will sometimes argue that we are all born atheists and only end up believing in God because someone taught us to do so. This is a clever quip, yet it is faulty for various reasons.

    Firstly, let us consider the implications. The claim is that atheism is our natural state of being from birth and it is only by some sort of indoctrination, or “child abuse” as Prof. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others term it, that some people end up believing in God. Even this concept must be defined since there are various sects of atheism. The sect that is in view in this quip is the kind that is certain that God does not exist.

    Employing a tongue-in-cheek mode of discourse we may consider that the quip seems to admit that atheism is a mindset that is based upon an infant’s empty mind. Atheists will certainly state that this is not what is meant by the quip. However, we may further infer that atheism is not based on logic, intellect, rationale or lack of evidence but upon a thoughtless infantile mindset.

    If the quip was based upon another of atheism’s sects the quip would actually function against atheism. Another of atheism’s sects does not know whether or not God exists but may believe if they encounter convincing evidence. If the quip was based on this sect the outcome would be very different. It would then imply that we are all born without a concept of God, and also without a concept of God’s non-existence. Then as we grow up we acquire certain knowledge and end up applying our cognitive faculties to the issue.

    Thus, is may be better stated that we are all natural born agnostics. Although, even this may be a stretch since infants have not considered the issue to the extent of taking a position in favor or God’s existence, against God existence nor anywhere in between.

    Another inference to be drawn from the quip is that atheists are born as unbelievers and simply continue through their lives believing in infantile notions. Surely, atheists would discount this line of reasoning. They will certainly state that rather, they grew up and developed their cognitive skills. They became capable of logic, intellect, rationale and realized that there was no viable evidence for God’s existence (see my essay Proving God’s Existence). Of course, the theist can grant the quip and state that while they were born atheists they grew up and developed their cognitive skills as well. They became capable of logic, intellect, rationale and realized that there indeed was viable evidence.

    Moreover, consider just how many things are we born not knowing and must have someone tell us. In fact, we are all naturally born not knowing anything at all. We may also wonder how, if we are all natural born atheist, the concept of God ever occurred to us. Be aware that at this point atheists will commit the ad hominem logical fallacy and claim that God cannot exist because human beings invented the idea of God’s existence. Or else they may make assertions without evidence about belief in God being part of our evolution.

    There are theists who believe in God for various reasons. Likewise, there are also atheists who hold to their beliefs for various reasons and based on various life experiences.

    I recall listening to a Christian radio program that received a call from an atheist. The atheist was asked if she would like some literature sent to her and if so, whether she would like it to be based on logic. Fair enough, however, the reasons she gave for having become an atheist were far from logical. She claimed to have rejected religious beliefs due to one particular religion’s mistreatment of her family. We must empathize with the distress that some people who claim to be followers of God can bring about. In this case, her family was actually dealing with a religion known for its cultish characteristics at that. It is interesting to note that for her rejecting God only required subjective emotional reaction but belief in God would require objective logical demonstrations. Why the double standard? Perhaps some level of psychological trauma rather than logic.

    Here are some other insights into the mind of certain atheists:

    Helmut Ditsch retells part of his upbringing:

    “Until my twenties, I was an atheist. Although I felt the spiritual world, I used atheism as a reaction to a very difficult childhood. My mother died when I was 8 years old. Although my father was concerned with giving us a comfortable childhood, it was…sad.”[1]
    Ira Glass offers further insights:
    “‘I find that I don’t seem to have a choice over whether or not I believe in God,’ Glass said. ‘I simply find that I do not.’ ‘Either you have faith or you don’t. Either you believe or you don’t.’ ‘I was once talking with a Chinese friend. She asked whether I believed in God. I told her I did. I returned the question. She said ‘no,’ and I asked her why not. Her father, she explained, had told her there was no God when she was a child. She hadn’t really thought about it much since then.’”[2]
    Note carefully the words of Thomas Nagel; (B.Phil., Oxford; Ph.D., Harvard), Professor of Philosophy and Law, University Professor, and Fiorello La Guardia Professor of Law. He specializes in Political Philosophy, Ethics, Epistemology, and Philosophy of Mind. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a Fellow of the British Academy, and has held fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities:

    “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”[3]
    Consider the following words of Isaac Asimov, one of the most prolific scientific writers of the last century:

    “I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”[4]
    Gary Wolf includes himself in the following description, “we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth” He wrote:

    “At dinner parties or over drinks, I ask people to declare themselves. ‘Who here is an atheist?’ I ask.
    Usually, the first response is silence, accompanied by glances all around in the hope that somebody else will speak first. Then, after a moment, somebody does, almost always a man, almost always with a defiant smile and a tone of enthusiasm. He says happily, ‘I am!’
    But it is the next comment that is telling. Somebody turns to him and says: ‘You would be.’
    ‘Why?’
    ‘Because you enjoy pissing people off.’
    ‘Well, that’s true.’
    This type of conversation takes place not in central Ohio, where I was born, or in Utah, where I was a teenager, but on the West Coast, among technical and scientific people, possibly the social group that is least likely among all Americans to be religious.”[5]
    We find atheism as a reaction to a very difficult childhood and not premised upon logic. We find a simple faith based lack of belief. We find thoughtless adherence to a father’s lack of belief. We find that some simply do not want God to exist. We find atheism based on hope and emotions.

    Atheists may rightly claim that the same could be said about theists yet, the same can be said about atheists. Merely claiming that the same can be said about theists does not alleviate atheism from admitting its own adherent’s belief by upbringing, by lack of concern for the issue, by mere thoughtlessness, based on emotional reactions, due to bias, due to prejudice, due to ad hominems, etc., etc. My Pastor’s wife’s parents are atheists, her father would tell her that there is no God while tucking her in to bed at night when she was a child.

    Sigmund Freud claimed that belief in God was merely humanity’s search for a father figure, although he admitted:

    “Let us be quite clear on the point that the views expressed in my book [The Future of an Illusion] form no part of analytic theory. They are my personal views, which coincide with those of many non-analysts and pre-analysts, but there are certainly many excellent analysts who do not share them.”[6]
    Most of the people who are most influential to atheism rejected God on the basis of highly emotional childhood experiences and then sought ways to discredit the very idea of God in order to reinforce their psychological trauma. Paul Vitz has made a fascinating study of the lives of some of the people who have been most influential to atheism. In his lecture The Psychology of Atheism he has concluded that these persons rejected God because they rejected their own fathers. This was due to their poor relationships with their fathers, or due to their father’s absence, or due to their rebellion against their fathers.

    Some atheists claim that belief in God is a social convention. This is a view that they base upon materialistic speculations about the origins of theism. For example, they argue that if American Christians had been born in India they would be Hindus. This argument clearly assume that Christians in America are Christian because it is the majority religion and it is mere statistical probability that an American is raised Christian.
    Yet, arguing according to this premise we should ask American atheists why they are not Christian and tell them that if they had been born in India they would be Hindus. Certainly, many American atheists were “raised Christian” (whatever that means) but would say that they grew out of that childish and ignorant superstition. Christians may likewise argue that were they to have been born in India and raised as Hindus they would have grown out of that particular theology and accepted Christianity.

    I may not be able to say for sure but having witnessed the birth of my three children I am fairly confident that infants are not born atheists: they do not believe that God does not exist or that God does exist. They do not appear to believe anything at all being born with a clean slate, a tabula rasa. They hold no theological of materialistic world views.

  115. Christian-Eater Says:

    You’re a complete moron, you know that? No one takes you seriously. Yeah, yeah, go on. Call me a god hater, you one trick pony. Find a new name to hurl at anyone who’s not deluded like you. And pilot my ass. No commercial airline pilot would be so fucking stupid to spew such venom. After all, your personal info is now public, Now excuse me while I go fuck your whore mother. Edit my email to your heart’s content — as we both know you will, you little pussy. Rest assured that I won’t return to read your inane reply. Get a clue, you deluded bible-punching jackass,


  116. Dear Christian-Eater,
    LOL!
    Speaking of venom me thinks it’s time for your mother to pull you out of that cavernous computer crypt you mistake for a basement and wash your filthy mouth out with soap because, after all….that’s what mothers are for.
    That’s assuming of course your mother wasn’t some Darwinian hopeful.So let me leave you with this thought before I allow you to leave,You sound confused and abandoned. I do think your’e confused, you know what may have to be done, but you just don’t have the strength :-)

  117. nick lewis Says:

    Darkness was first, not bad, why would dark be anything?, to an unchanging, outside of time and space, never been proven exist, used to be doing nothing, decided to impossibly change to doing something, that darkness was perfect, God’s theistic existence collapses out of his own creation. Like the weak Jesus parable of a house built on rock, God slides right off the rock, it would have been better to build down deep in the sand, Jesus was wrong about the rock. Please stop talking about origins of evil, we all know your mythical God created evil, he had a choice just like Eve, sadly though God knows the result of choice, before he blinked up a universe there was no evil, hence, God had a choice to not create a universe, he decided to blink, oh well, sorry God you created evil then.

    I saw you reply to a person that has said we are born atheists, well hate to agree but we are born implicit atheists, you included , you can’t escape the fact that you were told explicitly about some invisible, timeless, lawless creator.


  118. Dera Mr. (God Hating) Lewis,
    THE AWFUL DISEASE OF ATHEISM
    >>>>>GREETINGS CLASS>>>>Today we shall spend time in ward “man is manmade.” You will correctly guess by the name of this ward that there is something seriously spiritually awry with the patients in it. You will note that all of the patients appear to be educated, but they have the fatal disease of atheism. They were raised with that awful disease.
    Now before we enter this ward, make sure you wear you rubber gloves, aprons, masks and glasses. Now notice the pitiful condition of the eyes of every one of the patients. Notice the awful stench of the green and yellow pus running from their eyes. The awful disease of atheism has done that to them. Do you see the awful condition of that patient over there? His name is PapaSam. Look at that patient besides him, his name is Peter. Oh Look there! Her name is Joette.
    Now what I want each of you to do for the rest of the period is adopt a patient, and I want you to work one-on-one with them to observe their awful conditions.
    Student #10, why are you crying? “I don’t understand TEACHER. What terrible effects atheism has had on the patient I adopted! Should a blind man ask for evidence of the existence of that which he cannot see. What if that which he cannot see cannot be monitored by any faculty except sight and proof cannot be given to him otherwise? Should he conclude that those things do not exist simply because he cannot himself see them? When those things are described to him by people who can see, should he regard their descriptions as fairy tales? Atheism has totally deceived him. Doesn’t he understand that a blind man must accept a lot of things by faith simply because he cannot see them and he may not be able to monitor them otherwise?”
    Student #10, he will never understand that unless he is cured of atheism. What you have described is one of the awful effects of the disease of atheism. You will not be able to effect a cure yourself. Not even education can effect a cure. Education only compounds the problem as you can see. Only God, the One atheism causes them to reject can effect a cure if He is pleased to do so.
    CLASS DISMISSED.
    ________________________________________

  119. XRumerTest Says:

    Hello. And Bye.

  120. ArrogantHateSite Says:

  121. Gary Says:

    All these atheist responses go to show what I’ve always thought – atheists don’t have a clue. Even Voltaire said of them, “”The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability.” . “Some geometers who are not philosophers have rejected final causes, but real philosophers admit them; a catechist proclaims God to the children, and Newton demonstrates Him to the learned.”

    Atheism is the most foolish nonsense of all time. They pretend there is no God but have no evidence of such. Indeed, they can never have evidence, as they claim, “You can’t prove a negative”, then go all over the Web forums trying to prove their negative!! Mathematician Kurt Godel gave a proof of the existence of God and Stephen Unwin just wrote a book on the subject of the Probability of God – see : http://www.stephenunwin.com/ he has a doctorate in theoretical physics.

    Always a minority, never reasoning logically, no wonder they seek so hard to deny the God they claim doesn’t exist and never succeed!

    The truth is that “Atheism is a disease of the soul, before it becomes an error of the understanding” – Plato

  122. Zelix Says:

    truely, you are the worst kind of person, as a christian i will ask you… would god want you promoting hate? this isnt religion this is bigotry and hate propaganda. this really makes me sad to see…

    Madalyn Murray O’Hair is dead btw, she has been for many years now. she was brutally murdered, burned, then burried. they found her body i think in 1994.


  123. Truly (sic) you are the worst kind of person. A liar that is no more a Christian than I a Hindu.When will you Synchophants ever learn that baiting, and lying is not the way to win arguments?
    Silly question….withdrawn

  124. Efrain Says:

    Thou shalt not bear false witness. Atheism doesn’t have a king or queen.

  125. goatse Says:

    Good sir, I do believe your avatar may be copyright infringement.

  126. Blargh Says:

    This doesn’t make sense to me. So God “won” just by virtue of the fact that these people died? Everyone dies. If God wanted to “beat” Vonnegut, he could have killed him with lung cancer before he published all those books. If he wanted to “beat” Michael Moore, he could kill him with cholesterol.

    If anything, this is a list of people who stuck it to God. They were all enormously successful without him.

  127. Alex Novak Says:

    I would suggest that you start hanging out at Ray Comfort’s website. You and he are perfectly matched — speech that is largely comprised of sounds rather than words.
    Thank you for the entertainment. I always get a chuckle from people like yourself, although, in fairness, sometimes I feel bad because it feels like I’m laughing at the intellectually challenged.
    Cheers!


    • Thank you for the latest Talk.origins upload.
      Too bad you could’nt be here tonight.
      As you might know atheists tend to calm down when they hit their 30’s (usually) due to biological and sociological life changes. Although they do “calm down” it can be argued that they are in a way a non-practicing sociopath, if that makes sense. Personally I think although change is possible, “complete change” is very hard. Most atheists and therefore sociopaths develop this behavioural trait over many years of development which shapes them to be sociopathic. It is very hard to change such a long term behaviour, since being atheist/sociopathic is not like a mental flu/virus which you catch and then become sociopathic until treated.
      Indeed atheism much like stupidity can be cured but is generally treatment resistant.

  128. Lithp Says:

    So, is Hinduism Satanic, as well?

    By the by, in the highly unlikely event that you are correct about “the courts deciding that atheism is a religion,” it doesn’t matter. No “court” has the authority to decide that. It’d be as absurd as saying that the President has declared that the moon is made of cheese, and therefore, the moon is made of cheese.


    • Hinduism is not Satanism, and even a reprobate like yourself knows that.
      The courts decided that atheism is a religion several years ago so allow me to peruse a little snippet here: “Atheism is a religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said. ~August 20, 2005~
      By taking your argument to its logical conclusion that,”no court has the authority to decide that,” then it can also be stated that “No court has the authority to decide that intelligent design is religion based.”
      After all you God-Haters alsways look to your court as some kind of sacrificial lamb to lead you.
      Your argument is full of holes much like your contention that the moon is made of swiss cheese.

  129. Lithp Says:

    You should know about hole-filled arguments. Intelligent Design is a bad re-write of Creationism, which makes it–survey says–a religion!

    The reason that courts don’t have the authority to decide that atheism is a religion, or that ID isn’t, is simple: courts cannot re-define the English language. Atheism. Without theism. It’s a no-brainer.

    As for sociopathy, if you actually believe that, you are suicidal, as well as blind stupid. Mocking people who would kill you for a Klondike Bar? Sheesh, and the Fundies call US fools!


    • Dear mis-guided reprobate,
      Atheism is a religion.
      You hate God, and I don’t detect a molecule of atheism in your hard blackened heart.
      Many atheists that claim to be atheists are actually anti-theists with you being one of them.
      All your slander demonstrates is that you are filled with hatred for God and self-doubt.
      You are a fool according to Biblical principles, and quite blind to the truth.
      Now dissapear before I launch a verbal attack on you that leaves you donning your bed-pan over your head underneath your hospital bed tonight.

  130. Lithp Says:

    Oh, I almost forgot, what kind of idiot claims they’re being slandered when NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT THEM YET?

    Unlike you, I don’t need to resort to slander to prove my point. Heck, I don’t even need complete sentences! Watch this:

    Inquisition.

    Gott mitt uns.

    Salem, Mass.

    Mark of Cain.

    “Pro-life” bombers.

    Crusades.

    Jack T. Chick.

    Hosea, and God’s lovely little order to rip pregnant women open, then dash the fetuses on the rocks.

    The Judas Chair.

    The St. Catherine Wheel.

    The Iron Maiden, allegedly made in the likeness of the virgin Mary.

    The head crusher & the brest ripper, not named or modelled after anybody, but still invented by the church, so it counts.

    That Bible I use to hit people with.

    …Okay, I guess the last one is technically being perpetrated by an atheist, but you people gave me the Bible, so there!


    • Don’t you even realize just how insecure in your own faith that you sound?
      I see no atheism in your comment.
      Only the insecurity of an agnostic.

      • Lithp Says:

        Do YOU realize how little sense you’re making?


      • Do you realize how little you understand?

      • Lithp Says:

        I understand that agnosticism has nothing to do with insecurity, that it’s not mutually exclusive with atheism, that I at no point hinted at doubt, & that your response just generally has nothing to do with what I was saying.

        Although I suppose it can’t be helped, when all you can do is bizarre word redefinition.

  131. Michael Tim Says:

    I love your site! :)

    _____________________
    Experiencing a slow PC recently? Fix it now!

  132. Lithp Says:

    You said I was an anti-theist, last time. I know you don’t know what the Hell you’re talking about, but could you at least be consistent with your idiocy?

  133. Raiford Says:

    Thanks for this article, seems like you have found a solution to humanism and its self-detructive nature :) Needless to say that I will subscribe to your RSS feeds now. Keep it up and thanks for sharing.

    Manuela

  134. Regnier Says:

    This is a lot better than what I’ve been seeing elsewhere lately. If we had more like it around, we could be better off.

  135. Honan Says:

    I think it has a very positive message, and brings up a number of good questions.

  136. Hendricks Says:

    I actually found this really interesting. All very good points. Kate.

  137. Bad credit Loans Says:

    I found lots of interesting information on atheiststooges.wordpress.com. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. atheiststooges.wordpress.com keep it that way.

  138. Conner Says:

    A good informative blog is hard to find most are fun of crap and spam this one seems ok nice post.

  139. Gaffney Says:

    Nice blog and thanks for the info!

  140. Monterio Says:

    Good info, thanks for the post!

  141. Collum Says:

    Hey this was what i was searching for. Cool

    Bookmarked! :))

  142. Tremper Says:

    Good post. Thanks for the information!

  143. Darakjy Says:

    That really was a fantastic post, it reall makes you think when you talk about these kinds of things. I was wondering about this myself just the other day.

  144. epos Says:

    Great stuff!

  145. Annas Says:

    Great article! I love being able to read this stuff while on the job.

  146. Pieretti Says:

    I could of sworn I read about this before. I forgot what website I’ve seen this on but nevertheless nice post.

  147. God save me Says:

    I’m a Christian and this site almost makes me want to become atheist. I could point out the claims that are so incredibly stupid, but then i might as well reprint the whole site, because everything on here is stupid. Two things especially struck me though.
    1. Your “God’s hit list” is disgusting. Last time i checked, God doesn’t take pleasure in killing people who don’t believe in him. You might want to think about what kind of God you’re worshipping, because it doesn’t seem like the Christian God. And btw, Christians die too. A
    2. Atheism doesn’t have a founder so it must be from the devil? That’s just about the dumbest thing i’ve ever heard. So if a specific person doesn’t found something, then it must have been founded by some non-human source? So i guess the Renaissance, democracy, the computer age etc. all come from the devil too. lso just because there was no one person who declared their belief “atheism” doesn’t mean that many individuals did not contribute to a growing idea of atheism.

    At this point i stopped reading the stuff on this website because its so incredibly idiotic. All i can say is thank God you don’t represent all Christians. Otherwise the Atheists would be absolutely right in thinking Christianity is a brainless faith…

    Lord let us pray-
    To every anti-theist who posts to my forum, please reveal the truth.
    Lord let them know that if I had 10 cents for every impotent schmuck of an anti-theist that came on this forum posing as a Christian then I’d own the internet.
    Thank you father.

  148. The Man in the Shed Says:

    You are insane, and need treatment.
    You are full of hate, and need peace.
    You are grossly ignorant, and need education.

    But most of all you’re just really funny! More crazy please.

    {{Sigh}}
    Most Atheists come from a family where the father was missing, dead, weak or abusive. Paul C. Vitz has written a very interesting book entitled Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism (Spence, 1999).
    For starters,you are exactly what a recovering fundamentalist should not become: an anti-fundamentalist fundamentalist. Anti-theists (and I do not necessarily mean atheists here) are often what I call “dry fundamentalists“—folks who refuse to do the hard work of leaving the pain of fundamentalism behind, opting instead to get stuck railing against their past.
    These people here give every indication of being anti-theists, specifically anti-Christian/Hebrew God. They’re obsessed with theology. And they hate being called the God-haters they exemplify because that label indicates that God does exist. I notice they exhibit no hatred of any ‘gods’ or adherants of religions other than the Hebrew God either. You *never* hear them cursing out the Wiccans, Hindus, Buddhists, Voudouins, Satanists, etc. NEVER.
    They try to use the Hebrew Scriptures (a bizarre and self-contradictory technique ! ) to assert the Christian Scriptures are false. That really doesn’t make sense until you realize that the Hebrew scripture’s prophecies of God incarnating as the Saviour (which they work diligently and ineffectively to deny) is what really freaks them out. And the name that they try to convey themselves as – Intellectual Honesty – is so hypocritical.The vast majority admit that in common usage, the
    definition of atheist fits the usual dictionary definition, but they stubbornly insist they can redefine themselves. If that’s what they want, they should contact the dictionaries’ publishers and ask them to
    have the editors amend their work. And they will probably eventually do so; the meaning of words change over time; as of now, though, the standard definition of atheist, is not what they want it to be.
    Their hatred of God in Heaven who incarnated as Yeshuwa` The Messiah simply strengthens my faith, and has the same effect on many others, I
    suspect. When they start railing against belief in Allah, Shiva, Brahma, Satan,
    Buddha, the Goddess, etc., and calling that evil and insane, I might reconsider my opinion of their intent to simply wipe out belief in the God of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.
    Oh, and I found out, don’t call them children of the Devil – that really ticks them off, when they should just find that laughable – yet another bizarre and contradictory aspect of their atheism.
    Atheism deceives all its subjects. All atheists think in this deceptive manner. They think since they deny the existence of God, they cannot hate Him. But its really the other way around: they know He exists, that’s why they hate Him. It is true that you cannot truly hate someone who does not exist. However atheists rationalize that the only existence of God is the “false god” professing Christians have devised and that’s what they deny exists. It is true that false or nominal professing christians can devise false gods of their magination. However, the one and only true God nevertheless exists apart from any God of the imagination. It is this true God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth – the God that is not a god of the imagination – whose existence atheists also deny, and it is this true God that they as well as all unregenerate mankind HATE.
    Oh yea before I go take note, they always spell God with a lower case g even though to be gramatically correct always requires a capitalized G when spelling God.
    Of course they don’t hate……..of course……

  149. Morgan Says:

    You’re celebrating the deaths of George Carlin and Aaron Russo. Death is so damn funny, huh? You’re sick.

    I am celebrating the death of two less lower spiritual life forms that were a danger to humanities morals.
    That makes me a saint.

  150. Morgan Says:

    “I am celebrating the death of two less lower spiritual life forms that were a danger to humanities morals.”

    You’re much more of a danger to society and humanity.

    “That makes me a saint.”

    No, that makes you a bigot.

    Pot-Kettle-Black?
    You God-Haters are the largest group of bigots on the planet.

  151. Jonathan Says:

    I have to say, this is quite a site. No one has ever been able to make creationists look as stupid as you have.
    I applaud you, I really do.
    The creator of this website is by far the biggest and best troll on the internet, and I thank you for everything you have done to make so many people ‘see the light’ and understand what exactly is wrong with the fallacy of creationism.

    You have turned so many people over to the side of science and reason, I would hug you if I could.

  152. Youwish Yapunk Says:

    Please, please keep posting this stuff. It’s exactly what turns people away from religion.

    Seriously, don’t stop. You’re doing atheists’ work for us.

    By all means, keep it up.


    Like the good little God Hater that you are you blame others for your deficiencies.
    This is exactly what turns 90% of the population away from atheism.
    By all means keep it up.

  153. Peter B Says:

    Atheism is a religion in the same way that health is a disease.

  154. Professor X Says:

    It is time for people to learn

  155. Professor X Says:

    It is time for people to learn

    EVOLUTION FACTS

  156. Lithp Says:

    Professor X, that blog has no bias in the same way I have no fingers.

    Must be hard to type then.

  157. Lithp Says:

    “Must be hard to type then.”

    That went right over your head, didn’t it?

    I have hundreds of hreads on here. Which one are you referring to then I can rebuttal.

    • Lithp Says:

      It’s right above this post, genius.

      As for the guy below me, you said “easily invalidated,” then DIDN’T. Bad form. While I think he’s being a bit myopic, he does have at least 1 good point: You were using bad logic.

      “If Christianity is not true, then it is a massive fraud and hoax perpetrated by evil men.”

      This is a false premise. Christianity can be false for a variety of reasons. It could be a fraud, with the people perpetrating it having good intentions. It could be that people genuinely believe it, but it is still false. It could be that it’s mostly false, with a grain of truth, but build upon misinterpretations. It could even be a fraud perpetrated by Satan–which then raises the question of whether he’s “evil” or a “man,” but I digress. Point is, the possibilities are almost endless.

      Judging from your paragraph, I believe you were attempting satire, in which case, logic does not matter as much. But it still does not follow that if something is false, it is evil. First of all, what is evil? And, since we’re going under the hypothetical assumption that Christianity is wrong, the answer to that question cannot be “going against God.”

      And do make sure to read that in context before you go “WHARBLEGARBLE!” “If Christianity is false, then it is a fraud perpetrated by evil men.”/”If Christianity is false, then, how do you know it’s perpetrated by evil men? What is evil?”

      You can clearly see how the definition would not fit in this hypothetical.

  158. Stuart Says:

    In your word “If Christianity is not true then it is a massive fraud and hoax perpetrated by evil men”
    Bad logic, most are probably just deluded and not actually evil. From that the rest of your argument about the incompatability with logic falls apart as your own logic has already failed.
    For the leaders of the various Christian sects they have a great deal to lose in income, prestige and influence. For the ordinary members of christian sects they risk the displeasure of all those within the congregation if they “stray from the path”. Far easier just to close eyes and ears to all the evidence that christianity and religion in general is an archaic fairy tale.

    Nice term paper.
    Easily invalidated.

    • Stuart Says:

      Easily invalidated, and yet you don’t…

      Oh don’t get me wrong here, I fully expect you to spout some rant basing your “logic” around your own fixed beliefs in the bible and it’s divine author.
      You have no proof for that basis for your logic but as a believer in this stuff you need no proof.
      As a scientific rationalist I do require proof before I believe in things. Where proof is not conclusive but the theory postulated fits with the observed and no proof is provided to disprove the theory I am willing to accept the theory as a valid theory but not a confirmed fact.
      Where no DIRECT evidence is provided for or against a theory, as in your theory of a divine creator I am willing to review what indirect evidence I see.
      For religion we have written testaments bibles/quorans etc… I will consider the question of the completeness of these books due to transaltions, editing and the general contradictory nature of the contents.
      Against I will consider the indirect evidence that is available due to scientific research which proves to a reasonable level that some aspects of the religion are self contradictory and that certainly in the case of the bible the books upon which the religion is based are also substantially adulterated over time and through the addition and removal of material.

      Given the evidence of the changes to and adulteration of these books and the theory that they were initially written not by the word of god, but simply by the act of primitive peoples desperately trying to understand the world around them without the benefit of scientific knowledge, I personnally judge that these written accounts are of low reliability. In the same way I would personnally put little weight behind a sworn witness statement, should that witness be proven to have repeatedly changed the details and context of their story.
      When a religious person makes the argument that they “believe that god created logic and therefore I can only make an

  159. Stuart Says:

    And yet you do not invalidate the argument…

    As a scientific rationalist I require proof of a theory. Your theory of religion is not backed by any proof.
    You dismiss any evidence supporting counter claims by circular reasoning or claims that the evidence is either not conclusive or not complete.
    You provide no evidence to support your theory of god. The bible is not evidence it is a book which has been edited, changed, and badly translated many times throughout history and is self contradictory in many places and plain immoral in others. Your faith and the faith of others is not evidence.
    Therefore as the tenants of your religion are based on a wholely unreliable self contradictory book with no supporting evidence logic dictates that the theory of all religions based upon that book is disproved by the very nature of the contradictions of the tenants of the religion(s).
    From this I can dismiss all the J/X religions inclusive of Islam.
    So I am left with all the other religions and Scientific rationalism through which science attempts to understand and explain how and why everything exists and how everything works. While science does not yet have the answers to everything, there is a progressive tendency to deliver answers to all the questions. Therefore I accept scientific rationalism as the best way in which to analyse and understand existance. With no proof in favour of any god(s) or other supernatural entities and some proof in favour of science I choose science in doing so I choose to not accept any theory of religion as such theories have no evidencial support. The decision to not accept any theory of religion due to absence of proof makes me an athiest. An athiest isn’t one who believes in the absence of all gods. An athiest is one who does not believe in the existence of any gods (your particular one included). It is a subtle difference I know but think about it and you may grasp it.

    As far as your own belief system goes, you go ahead and choose any particular sky fairy you like if it makes you happy. (And I sincerely hope it does make you happy.)

  160. Stuart Says:

    Oh I seem to have double posted. My error I thought the first post had been lost due to glitch.

  161. Night Jaguar Says:

    Atheist-fools.com….

    “But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” – Matthew 5:22

  162. Cathal Says:

    I hope Christ forgives you for the hatred you carry in your heart. You think you are fighting for him by hurting and harming others. But you must stand before him one day, and he will be saddened that you have used your precious life to spread hatred. Is there somehing posiive you can do for others with your life?

    Another Anti-theist posing as a Christian– Gotta love it!

    • Cathal Says:

      You can dismiss me if you wish. But whether I’m a Baptist, Mormon, Atheist or Buddhist, it doesn’t change the fact that you spew hatred on others. I could quote Scripture at you, but you KNOW this isn’t the way Christ wants you to spend your life on Earth.

      Now you can add some pithy line pretending I’m some immoral monster, but is the Lord you have to answer to, not me. I hope you find Peace in Him.

      Thank you anti-theist.
      And may the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob lead you out of your tunnel of confusion and darkness.

  163. Michael Says:

    POE, POE, POE. And bad POE at that. Way too over the top to be taken seriously. Again, POE.

    Gee, I’ve never seen man to amoeba. Has anyone else? Of course not,
    Yet they claim it happened. Evolution is a lie? so keep it off of my tax dollars. It sucks as a theory and is no more of a science than astrology is.

    • Lithp Says:

      I’m still receiving comments from here? Holy shit!

      Michael, the point of Poe’s law is that there IS no such thing as “too over the top to be real.”

      However, considering you said absolutely nothing about evolution, you might be onto something….

  164. godisreal. you devel lovers. Says:

    listen up athiest, you devel worshipers will all see at judgment day. sure right now you say ” yeah what ever, no such thing” and you say ” there is no god etc” but you know, you will change your mind when you see all the believers being rose up to heaven, while your branded with the 3 numbers of satan and stuck here on earth to be tortured by satan for all eternity. good luck with that. everyone else can only pray that you will change your minds before its to late and accept the lord into your hearts before judgment day.

    • Stuart Says:

      Now that is just plain silly. Why don’t you threaten me with the fairies at the bottom of my garden or some other such like? They are equally as fictitious as any and all, gods, demons, etc…
      Granted I do know my garden exists so the non-existant fairies do at least have somewhere to call home, which the non-existant gods, demons etc… don’t. But the point is you are threatening people with stuff they do not believe in, so your threats carry no weight.
      When I’m dead I will be dead, I will cease to exist, there will be no me to go to hell or heaven or anywhere else. All that will be left is the impact that I have had on the world and those around me. I pity those of you who are so afraid of your own mortality that you must grasp at the fantasy of theism to allay your fears.

      • Lithp Says:

        Woah there. Calm down. Don’t run the mouth off, or he’s gonna sic his Pikachu on you.

        Also, I’m pretty sure he’s Poe.

  165. DobInvone Says:

    The response to local and national disasters is noble but it’s a real shame that so many citizens take advantage of the sad situations.

    I mean everytime there is an earthquake, a flood, an oil spill – there’s always a group of heartless people who rip off tax payers.

    This is in response to reading that 4 of Oprah Winfreys “angels” got busted ripping off the system. Shame on them!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/19/crimesider/entry5251471.shtml

  166. Tracy Says:

    I have read this site extensively and have come to one simple conclusion: it is hate speech covered up by an all-too-familiar christian cloak. Atheists have the right to believe (and for that matter, not believe) whatever it is they like. In fact, atheists can actually think for themselves without having to rely on a book, a preacher, or some half-witted promise of an after life. The most disturbing part of this site is the “hit list”. Surely this list does not collaborate with christian values of loving thy neighbour? If this is the state of christianity then I am more glad than ever to have disassociated myself with any religion!

  167. Donovan Says:

    You christians are really getting on my nerves. You judge us for what we (dont) believe in. You say that if we dont believe in the “loving, all powerful” god, that we will be cast into the pits of hell. thats very loving of god to do this…
    I know that I am so much smarter than any of you christians, and i am more successful than most of you. Do us atheists a favor and leave us alone.


    • I don’t bother atheists. I bother the God-Haters.
      Welcome aboard.

      • sallya Says:

        you are boasting that you are successful and smarter than most of us, but you know what? you are boasting of something from our God..

      • sallya Says:

        i’m sorry, the reply is for donovan..

    • Lithp Says:

      Rather easy to claim everything comes from God when you don’t have to back it up.

      “Your success came from God!”
      “PRETTY sure it has more to do with the 10 years of college & smart carreer choices.”
      “Nope. God.”


      • Lithp, You are now off moderation. You may contribute if you wish to do so.

      • Sallya Says:

        I’m not saying that success has nothing to do with your decisions and choice in life… what i’m pointing is God helps those who help themselves…

      • Lithp Says:

        If we can attribute success in life to a person’s choices, then at what point do we need God in the equation?

        Also, what about the less savory examples of success? Such as Adolf Hitler, Vlaad the Impaler, Josef Stalin, Atilla the Hun, etc.?

      • sallya Says:

        we cannot attribute success by ourselves alone.. If God give you handicaps would you be successful, if God take your life so early would you be successful..and many more, i just can’t enumerate it coz i have a difficulty using english languange…and God won’t tolerate laziness, and in order to be God’s children we must adopt the godlike characteristics.

        and about adolf hitler and the other evil doers, God gave everyone a free will. They chose to be that way, and their succees is not from God but from demons who actually influenced them to do those things..

      • Lithp Says:

        Allow me to rephrase as well: Success comes from circumstance & choice. Neither of which God is necessary for. You cannot provide evidence for the involvement of either God or demons, only assertions. And I don’t see the point in arguing that demons help the unsavory, because it still means that God either can’t stop them or chooses not to.

      • Lithp Says:

        Also? People DO get disabilities & get killed early in life. What on Earth are you trying to prove?

      • sallya Says:

        i don’t want to argue anymore in a person whose no more than an ash.

      • sallya Says:

        and do not expect me to answer any of your replies coz i’ve done enough.. what important is i am on the side of TRUTH.. I wish you’ll be enlightened before it’s too late.

  168. Jacob Says:

    Alright… I hate god. If he exists, and your bible is accurate (not an expression of disbelief), then I see his actions as despicable. So, out of curiosity, why the website? I quite shamelessly despise god. how is being called god-hater over and over going to change anything?

    If you want to “convert” us, give up. If you’re right, than no matter what happens we’ll all go to hell.

    If you derive satisfaction from insulting us aimlessly, in what position are you to call us sadistic?

    Also, a bit of tact- we’re more likely to agree with you if you hold off on insulting us.


    • Why the website?
      Because I can.
      Nobody is trying to convert you Willy, you pick and choose your own battles, and personally if you hate your God that is your perogative. I insult the atheist, not the backslidden. You have your own demons to battle,,,,good luck.

      • Jacob Says:

        I apologize, but I’d like some clarification. You say you insult the atheist, not the backslidden. You also say that you insult the god-hater, not the atheist. Would you mind disclosing your definitions?

      • Lithp Says:

        Do you have some kind of phobia of answering questions posed to you?


      • LithP,
        What problem (s) do you harbor with your creator? What happened to you at some point in your life to make you hate God? Please don’t spread the “intelligent free-thinker ” bullshit around like peanut butter either.I’ve heard it too many times, and frankly it’s boring and unsustainable. Too much drippy ice-cream when you were a kid? What caused it; I would like to know. God never gives up on anyone. He still loves you, but it you continue down this road you may wind up in a place of eternal darkness and seperation forver and that’s not a good place to be.I worship God not out of fear but out of love. He walks with me daily, and speaks to me thru the holy spirit, something you can have as well.

      • Lithp Says:

        Predictably, this does not answer the question that I asked. I can’t tell whether that’s stupid or clever.

        Hey, if you refuse to believe the answers you get, then don’t ask the questions.


      • Did you ask a question? I’m sorry but I must have missed it. I get outside during the day.

      • Lithp Says:

        This affects your ability to read? Questions you’ve “missed” include, but are not limited to:

        Jacob: What are the definitions you’re using for atheist, god-hater, & agnostic?

        Me: What does my post have anything to do about agnosticism?

        Me: Do you have some kind of phobia of answering direct questions?

        Cathal: Is there something positive you can do with your life?

        To be honest, it seems like wording something as a statement or exclaimation makes you at least 10x as likely to answer it. Well, okay, you don’t really “answer” anything…it’s more of a reaction.



      • Jacob: What are the definitions you’re using for atheist, god-hater, & agnostic?
        -New Standard Definition-

        Me: What does my post have anything to do about agnosticism?
        -My point was, if the 2 were mutually inclusive (suffering and joy) then something intelligent placed them so. but as I’ve stated your mind cannot grasp that concept or your mind is unwilling to do so. God strengthens us through suffering. Suffering brings us closer to God. [1 Peter 4] Suffering is a consequence of our own sin. It’s called Karma, and is not a by-product of man-made naturalism. Naturalism is an untenable position when broken down and examined under a microscope.

        Me: Do you have some kind of phobia of answering direct questions?
        -No

        Cathal: Is there something positive you can do with your life?
        -Be more specific

        To be honest, it seems like wording something as a statement or exclaimation makes you at least 10x as likely to answer it. Well, okay, you don’t really “answer” anything…it’s more of a reaction.
        -LithP, for you I’ll answer anything, and if I cannot I will always admit so.

      • Lithp Says:

        1. If that’s some edition of dictionary, I can’t find it in a Google search, so the questions remain unanswered.
        You’re not interested in the truth.

        2. Well, the problem with your conclusion is that suffering & joy are not mutually exclusive. Most people are capable of feeling more than one emotion at once. I’ve heard the notion that suffering is the “consequence of sin,” but this explaination just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s like saying the leaves falling off of trees are the consequence of sin. There is no logical connection between them, it does not explain why some trees don’t do this, why some more “harmful” trees don’t exhibit it as much as harmless ones*, & overall, it’s simply inferior to the explaination of chloryphyl & surviving the winter.

        Suffering and joy are mutually exclusive, and the spectrum of emotions fall within that range as nothing exists outside of the two. As well your contention ofthe explanation not holding up to scrutiny… whose scrutiny… yours ? Bah! Make me laugh why don’t you.

        *=My analogy gets a bit strained here. I am referring to the fact that innocence does not seem to protect people. Like the story that was on Yahoo Answers not long ago about the 11-year-old girl who was raped & buried alive. Logically, if it was “karma,” she’d have to have done something to deserve that, but I’m drawing a blank in finding something.

        God allows these things to happen as is evidenced in the book of Job. The devil is ruler of this world, and walks about it as a hungry lion seeking to devour anything in its path, Man has a free will and God interferes only when he deems needed. An eleven year old girl raped and buried alive is the work of man and not God.Death has always been a part of this workd and always will and there are thousands of ways to die everyday. It seems you think God is required to protect everyone when in fact he is not.We grow thru suffering and pain.People look to God when tragedy strikes myself included and in no way do I expect him to guarantee me anything. I pray for wisdom and strength when trials come and once I get through them I am stronger. I have survived with Gods help. God never gives anyone more than they can handle and never will.

        And this really cuts to the heart of my point, which is that “bad” or “good” things seem to happen with no deep moral reasoning, which you would expect to be the natural state. You can’t “disprove” naturalism with suffering or joy, because there’s nothing about nature that’s explicitly against either concept. It doesn’t seek to eliminate or exacerbate problems. I fail to see how this is “untenable,” since it’s very much in line with the evidence.

        It’s only what you expect to be a natural state, not I, and millions of others like me. My life has purpose, and I know that iI will continue to exist after my death. My life has direction and happiness in knowing that God is my strength, and my father who looks out after me. Can something tragic happen to me? You bet it could. Will it dilute my love for God and damage my faith. Not a chance. I derive my strength from the creator of the universe. I sleep well at night knowing that he watches over me.

    • sallya Says:

      Please don’t hate God.. You are doing what is the opposite of what you ought to do. Love Him and you will be loved even more.

  169. Tim Says:

    Okay. I get it. You’re going to heaven and I’m going to hell. So why can’t you just shut the f*** up?

  170. Tim Says:

    I did a bit of research. This is what I came up with

    1. (premise) Atheists have killed one world trade center per day for ten years (approximately 3,000 people/day)

    2. (premise) These killings are murders.

    3. (premise) There are approximately 270 murders per day over the world.
    __________________________________________

    4. (conclusion)Atheists murder 3,000 people per day (Modus Ponens, 1,2)

    However, to accept both 3 and 4 as true is cognitive dissonance. Therefore, it must be concluded that either, if not both of 3 and 4 is incorrect.

    If you find fault in my reasoning, please give proof, such as a valid alternative to my conclusion. or proof that my premises are wrong.

    And finally, if you want my source I’ll give it to you. I hope that you’ll extend me the same courtesy.


  171. After reading some of your articles and then your replies to the comments that follow them, I am becoming increasinly convinced that you suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect.

  172. Demetrius Says:

    Congratulations- you’ve learned the golden rule of life.

    If you make up the rules as you go along, you’re bound to win.

  173. Pachomius Says:

    Everytime I come across a website dedicated to the advancement of God and to the rebuttal of atheists’ lies, I feel glad that there are believers in God who are taking time and labor to bring mankind to God, while atheists do nothing but teach mankind to hate each other and to do anything however wicked as long as they can get away with it from the comeuppance of civilized society.

    Is it true that atheists want mankind to do anything however wicked as long as they can get away with it from the comeuppance that they will get from civilized society?

    That is the implication of their doctrine of survival of the fittest, meaning if you can step on anyone and everyone then you deserve to survive and to subjugate everyone to your pleasure and convenience.

    Atheists would have no pangs of conscience in doing any kind of wickedness and perversities.

    Is that true?

    That is the logical conclusion of their dogma that there is no God Who will call everyone to account for his evil deeds, and also everyone must strive to survive and rule everyone else by subjugating everyone else, namely, their dogma that you have all the rights provided that you can do violence on fellowmen who are weaker and therefore not capable of doing as much as as worse violence on you.

    See? atheists, how wicked and perverse and absolutely heinous you want to turn your heart and mind into with your rebellion against God, and your self-exaltation as the master of yourself and everyone else you can step on and enslave to your pleasure and convenience.

    See what will happen to each of you when you all put to practice your most self-destructive urge among yourselves of your wicked philosophy and mindset of the survival of the fittest, and the rule of the most capable of violence.

    Okay, atheists, if you feel that I am judging you guys too harshly, then turn to God, unless you feel that God’s directives on how you are to live as a human bieng is too impossible for you, and that is a lie, because God does not command anything impossible or terribly hard to realize.

    You don’t accept that? Then tell me what things God wants you to do or to not do, that is so terribly impossible to comply with?

    Is it so hard and terribly impossible to lead a decent life of self-discipline and obedience to the commandments of God, which are summed up in the following one great directive from God:

    Love God with your whole heart, and mind, and spirit, and your neighbor as yourself.

    That is hard?

    Hard if your are a coward and want to just sink yourself into all kinds of wickedness and perversities.

    That is why.

    Pancake Croissant


    • Thank you for a great post. Atheists want a world in which only they can live. It is a dangerous doctrine that has claimed over 200 million lives in the last 100 years alone. Most of the individuals that post here are not atheists at all but God-Hating anti-theists under the guise of atheists. I have yet to meet a really true “practical atheist” on this forum yet. They are the ones I truly worry about. The ones that don’t give God a second thought.

    • Lithp Says:

      Time to re-enter the fray, against my better judgment! Whee!

      [quote]Is it true that atheists want mankind to do anything however wicked as long as they can get away with it from the comeuppance that they will get from civilized society?[/quote]

      That’s like asking if black people are criminals. Some people are criminals, some are not. That’s something that remains true no matter what segment of the population you are examining.

      [quote]That is the implication of their doctrine of survival of the fittest, meaning if you can step on anyone and everyone then you deserve to survive and to subjugate everyone to your pleasure and convenience.[/quote]

      Survival of the fittest is a law of nature. The dodo bird went extinct because it could not hide from human hunters & maintain its numbers. Giant insects went extinct when there was no longer enough oxygen in the atmosphere to sustain them.

      Survival of the fittest isn’t about beating down anyone or anything weaker than you, it’s about how some species cannot effectively survive in their environment once it changes. And it doesn’t go away just because you don’t like it. You may not like the fact that if you fall off of a tall building, you’ll probably die, but that doesn’t mean gravity is going to stop working.

      [quote]Atheists would have no pangs of conscience in doing any kind of wickedness and perversities.

      Is that true?[/quote]

      Again, some are undoubtedly psychopaths, but it’s coincidental to the fact that they’re atheists.

      [quote]That is the logical conclusion of their dogma that there is no God Who will call everyone to account for his evil deeds,[/quote]

      Again, if this is true, which I do believe it is, it doesn’t become untrue just because you don’t like it. If you want to see judgment, it’s far more practical to get it in this lifetime, rather than hope for it to come in an afterlife, which may or may not exist.

      [quote]and also everyone must strive to survive and rule everyone else by subjugating everyone else,[/quote]

      To clarify, survival of the fittest isn’t about you personally surviving because you’re physically stronger, it’s about your species surviving because it can make use of its environment. If a solar flare knocked out all of our technology & we were eaten by wild animals until we went extinct, THAT would be an example of dying out because we’re not fit.

      [quote]namely, their dogma that you have all the rights provided that you can do violence on fellowmen who are weaker and therefore not capable of doing as much as as worse violence on you.[/quote]

      Another fundamental mistake you make: Atheist “dogma” varies from 0 to 1, depending on whether or not you want to consider “there is no God” to be a dogma. Survival of the fittest pertains to evolution & what you mentioned just now is the utilitarian philosophy.

      However, the simple fact is that if you can get enough power, it’s very difficult for the oppressed to overthrow you. This is something we see throughout history & disliking it does not change that. The best you can hope for is to recognize oppression when it’s starting & know how to stop it before it gets in full swing.

      [quote]See? atheists, how wicked and perverse and absolutely heinous you want to turn your heart and mind into with your rebellion against God, and your self-exaltation as the master of yourself and everyone else you can step on and enslave to your pleasure and convenience.[/quote]

      I see that you made a lot of assumptions about atheists & then decided that they were all true.

      [quote]Okay, atheists, if you feel that I am judging you guys too harshly, then turn to God,[/quote]

      Oh, my, no.

      [quote]unless you feel that God’s directives on how you are to live as a human bieng is too impossible for you, and that is a lie, because God does not command anything impossible or terribly hard to realize.[/quote]

      There are a number of reasons not to follow Christianity. Lack of evidence. The fact that the God of the Old Testament seems very fond of bloodshed. So on & so forth.

      [quote]Love God with your whole heart, and mind, and spirit, and your neighbor as yourself.[/quote]

      Well, there you go. It’s kind of silly to give so much devotion to something that probably doesn’t exist.

      [quote]Hard if your are a coward and want to just sink yourself into all kinds of wickedness and perversities.[/quote]

      If we’re going to turn this into a urination contest, I’d say that it’s more cowardly to encounter an idea differing from your own & insist that it must not only not exist, but defer to your own, rather than try to understand it. And I mean actually try, not claim things that aren’t true.

      • Mike Says:

        Indeed, even without death in the background, it’s politically-incorrect for Christians to share their faith, but acceptable for militant atheists to evangelize 24/7.I’ve never understood why some atheists use suffering to disprove God, but never see joy as proof of Him. It’s a circular ideology that makes little sense, especially with Christ’s promise of eternal life.Are we surprised that so many atheists pray though?

      • sallya Says:

        most of the atheist would say if there is God why He let sufferings in earth?… Demons made sufferings not God, but yes He let that happen because earth is not heaven.. You see we are not here to be comfortable, we are here bec. we are being tested..

      • Lithp Says:

        So the bubonic plague was a test? What did medieval Europe learn, then?

        I think they learned that, Christian country or no, 2/3 of their population was just erased.
        Answer: Who said it was a test? Citations please.

      • sallya Says:

        @ lithp- well, i’m not sure if the term “test” is right to use (but i’m not saying that world is only about trials or test) .. there are many verses in bible about being tested by God. Here are some:

        James 1:3 because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.

        Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.

        Metal is refined and purified in a furnace; the Lord purifies and tests the heart. (Read Proverbs 17:3)

      • Lithp Says:

        Or, the simpler explanation, “shit happens.”

  174. Lithp Says:

    Because arguing that joy & good proves God while ignoring suffering & evil makes no sense, but from a naturalistic viewpoint, you would expect both of these things to exist.


    • Congrats! You are now an agnostic.

      • Lithp Says:

        That word…I don’t think it means what you think it means.


      • You don’t understand the depth, nor context of my usage of it. I am way beyond you Lithp. You need to catch-up.

      • Lithp Says:

        Instead of calling a spade a spade & a retard a retard, I’m gonna go ahead & ask you how that comment in any way demonstrates agnosticism.

      • Demetrius Says:

        You know, language usually works better if you use the widely accepted definition of a word.

        If you’re using agnostic in such a sense that nobody here knows where you’re coming from, it just means that you’re misusing the word. It does not mean that you’re a genius.

        And how could one not understand the context of your word? You’re replying to a comment. Therefore it is assumed that your reply pertains to the comment.

        Oh, before you just call me stupid, I’m going to point out that I have a higher IQ than you (144).


      • Hello again LithP aka MidsummerND,
        Do You Need a High IQ to Be Successful?
        Although the IQ test is very widely used, and the results are almost synonymous with our idea of intelligence, there has also been a lot of criticism of the test, and of the way the results are used.
        Does having a high IQ score guarantee success in later life? No, it doesn’t! It doesn’t even guarantee success in school.
        A Canadian television program recently tracked down some of the people with the highest IQ scores in North America. One man who has an extremely high genius IQ works as a motorcycle mechanic, hangs out with biker gangs, and is frequently in and out of jail.
        Another man interviewed on the program has the highest IQ recorded in North America. He has worked as a bouncer in a bar for ten years, earns minimum wage, and lives in a tiny garage. Clearly, a high IQ is not enough to guarantee success in life.
        What IQ tests measure is a certain type of potential. That potential still needs to be developed and nurtured by the person who has it. That person may not have the inclination or desire to do so. Not everyone who has a potential talent also possesses the desire to do something with it.
        One person may have a wonderful God-given singing voice, but may have no interest in music, and no desire to perform. Another person may have the perfect physique to be a high jumper, but may hate sports. You can probably think of other examples. Having potential is just a beginning.
        The IQ tests we have now may predict which people have a certain type of intellectual potential, but they don’t necessarily predict who will become a good teacher, a good manager, a good president, or a good parent. Some critics say that the only thing IQ tests can really predict is who will do well on IQ tests.
        Qualities such as determination and vision can be more important to your ultimate success in life than the IQ number you started out with. Being creative, optimistic, and flexible are important hallmarks of many successful people. Common sense, the ability to get along with other people, and knowing a good idea when you see one, may be more useful qualities than having a genius IQ.
        Although IQ tests measure a certain aspect of intelligence potential, there isn’t complete agreement that what is being measured is actually intelligence. Standard intelligence tests focus a lot on exploring and measuring linguistic / logical / mathematical ability. But is that really the same quality as intelligence? Or is intelligence something broader than that?
        We have all met people who have a lot of “book smarts” but seem to have no “life smarts.” Should we really be saying that they are intelligent? Some people who did poorly in school often turn out to be very successful in later life. Why do our current IQ tests seem unable to predict or explain these outcomes?
        A person may have failed dismally in school, and yet turn out to be a genius in marketing. Is this person stupid, or brilliant? If a man is a great scientist, but can’t ever pick a suitable mate, is he really very smart? Was Picasso inept because he wasn’t also a brilliant mathematician? Was Einstein inadequate because he wasn’t also a great artist?
        Which of these two men had more intelligence? Is there more than one kind of intelligence? How should we define intelligence? Can we really measure it? What is intelligence, really?
        Several experts in the field of intelligence have proposed that we need to broaden our understanding of what intelligence really is, and the role it plays in successful living.
        Psychologist Howard Gardner of Harvard University has suggested that we should consider a wide range of talents and abilities as valid forms of intelligence. In his intriguing book, “Frames of Mind: Theories of Multiple Intelligences”, Gardner has proposed the existence of at least seven types of intelligence: verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, social-interpersonal and intra-personal.
        Another psychologist, Robert Sternberg, has suggested we consider three distinct forms of intelligence. One type is the ability to think logically and rationally, doing well in an academic type of environment.
        A second kind of intelligence identified by Sternberg is the ability to come up with creative solutions to real life situations. And the third type, according to Sternberg, is the ability to psychologically understand people and interact effectively with them.
        A very different perspective on the IQ issue is presented by Daniel Goldman in his best-selling book, “Emotional Intelligence”. Goldman offers an explanation for why a high IQ does not always lead to success in career or in life. He says that EQ, or emotional intelligence, has been an overlooked factor that is an extremely important ingredient for success in life.
        An ability to get along with others, to be optimistic, to be determined, are among the many factors that contribute to success, perhaps even more than intellectual ability.
        Are you starting to realize that intelligence is not just a question of one test score number that forever limits your possibilities? If we define intelligence primarily as an aptitude for mathematical and linguistic/logical thinking, we may be missing other forms of intelligence that are also important.
        If you happen to know your own IQ score, don’t think of it as something that limits or defines your potential. If your IQ is in the average range it does not in any way mean you are limited to a life of average success and average accomplishment.
        If your IQ is in the above average range, it does not guarantee you a life of ease. You can’t use either a high IQ score or a low one as an excuse not to try very hard.
        Your IQ score is only a number. It does not define you. It does not really limit you. It’s just a starting point. Remember that many other qualities you already possess or can develop are also important for success in life.

        From: “Use Your Brain to Learn Faster, Remember Better and Be More Creative.” by Royane Real

      • Lithp Says:

        You know, I don’t really give 2 shits what either of your IQs are.

      • Demetrius Says:

        A valid point. Nevertheless, I am well-educated, well-paid, intelligent, and otherwise “comfortably well-off.” I’ve also never broken the law or been engaged in “shady” business. I’ve gone through college, and graduated third in my class.

        Anyhow, you seem to call most everybody who disagrees with you an idiot, bozo, or something to that effect. I thought it prudent to get that out of the way.

  175. Lithp Says:

    I wonder how many of these “good blog!” posts are actually just alternate accounts?

  176. sallya Says:

    Atheist wants a proof for them to believe in God.. Can’t they see that proofs are everywhere, even themselves are already a proof. The whole universe is a proof.. Whatelse do they want?? They are blinder than the blind, and deafer than the deaf.. i’m wondering what are they thinking about our origin. Are they thinking that we are a product of accident?? are they saying that sun,stars,planets are accidentally placed properly in the space and we are accidentally well formed and accidentally have mind and emotions…even einstein said that the more he sees the universe the more he believes that there is a God.. We should be grateful. God loves us all, including the atheists. He still providing those non-believers all they need because of love.

    • Lithp Says:

      You’re just claiming everything is proof of God without backing it up. No, everything in the universe is easily explained by natural processes. It is only an “accident” in the sense that there isn’t some magic man planning it all. Hydrogen clumps because of gravity, becomes stars, stars fuse elements, they explode, these elements serve as the basis of planets, because they combine a certain way, they result in certain things. You are provided with food because the animals & plants you eat breed, clothing because people manufacture it, housing is again manufactured, & now that I think about it, most food has been manipulated with evolutionary principles. I suppose it’s “grateful” to attribute all of this to God? So when you receive antibiotics, do you praise God & forget about all of the doctors who went through years of training to be able to invent & administer these?


      • And God created the science that we all use.

      • Lithp Says:

        Much like atheism, you can’t pin down a general date & culture that “founded” science. It also is frequently at odds with the Bible. So, according your earlier logic, it must be the work of Satan.

      • sallya Says:

        about the antibiotics,of course i’m grateful with the scientist who became instruments to have these earthly healings, but i’m more grateful to God for helping those scientists succeed and for giving them brains… Maybe the big bang theory is true and maybe that’s the time when God created light… other people do not believe in God bec. they are more impressed with science, but they don’t realize that science is also from God.. may be He created it so we can use it to improve ourlives, and maybe He wants us to discover earth mysteries..

      • sallya Says:

        @lithp- i forgot to ask you this.. who created hydrogen and gravity which you are saying began the accident???

      • Lithp Says:

        Gravity is curvature of space. The hydrogen seems to come from a few quantum phenomenon I don’t know the name for. Let’s call it “spontaneous generation.”

        The problem is, you are trying to take a lack of information & turn it into a solution. Perhaps the particles came from another universe? Perhaps they always existed in some form or another? Perhaps they travelled back in time? I don’t know. Not my problem.


      • You miss the point. If the Big Bang produced Hydrogen then where did we get all of these other elements? You want me to believe that Uranium evolved from Hydrogen thru fusion? First place you cannot fuse past iron and second if you want the stars to produce the elements you have a chicken and an egg problem.

      • sallya Says:

        so you’re saying that “gravity is the curvature of space etc.” but i’m not telling you to define what gravity is. I’m asking you howcome there is an existence of gravity and other matter if there’s noone created them. And also you’re saying that maybe particles came in another universe,did’nt you recall this is what we are really arguing about the origin of the universe

      • Lithp Says:

        No, I was not missing the point. Curvature of space is the cause of gravity. The definition of gravity is “the force that attracts between masses.”

        Now for the hydrogen. Firstly, no, it does not set up a “chicken & egg” scenario. Hydrogen was the first element.

        It appears you are correct that stars can only fuse as far as iron, but were you to do a bit more reading, you’d find that heavier elements form as a result of supernovae.

        I really ought to have made you look this up, seeing how you made me cite those Bible verses, then never responded to them.

        Lastly, the point in naming those hypotheticals was to demonstrate how ignorant it would be to stop me at some point where I can no longer answer the question & go, “A-HA! See! God did it!” First of all, I don’t major in cosmology. Second of all, you can’t take an unknown & insist that it’s a known. That we don’t know what happened just before the Big Bang means that we don’t know what happened just before the Big Bang.

  177. Stuartp Says:

    Sallya, proof and your opinion are not the same thing.
    Proof would be what exists to show that the Yaweh cult and the Christian cult and it’s various sects and schisms are merely the badly distorted remnants of the original Palestinian polytheistic cult pantheon and the offshoot messiah and mystery cult.
    Neither was either particularly original nor were they consistent in what they claimed over time, and that would seem to have continued to be the case with the advancement of history.
    The Yaweh cult evolved from the Pantheon of gods in the area of Palestine, in the earliest archaeoly the recent finds show Yaweh linked to the other gods of the area and they show Yaweh with his wife. That evolved over time to show the other gods as different facets of Yaweh.
    Following the roman conquest and the changes in the roman empire from Republic to Empire where the system changed from leadership by a senate controlled by a number of people, to leadership by a single person the idea of a single all controlling figure became popular. The figure of the emperor with his minions controlling everything, and in the personification of Octavian who was named Augustus and who’s titles included “father of the nation” and “son of the gods”. Octavian/Augustus was regarded as being a gift from the gods to the Roman people. A gift from the gods sent down to earth to rule over them – a Messiah.
    These changes led to a proliferation of messiah cults, Isis from Egypt, Jesus from Palestine, and Mithras from Turkey. Jesus came from a background in Palestine where there was a history of belief in a single god, an emperor of heaven. The Jesus cult came from a background which appealed to the poor, of which there were a lot in the Roman empire. The Roman empire being built on slave labour, and the christian cult and the various sects that branched off over the years have always been happy to take ideas and beliefs from other religions/cults/sects and to quietly abandon and sweep away any parts that no longer fit. The fact that the catholic church had to get together and work out which of the meriad of books they would accept and which they would throw away.
    So your belief is based on the rantings of illiterate shaman priests from the middle east from around 3000 years ago, taken written down, translated and re-written multiple times, edited and changed, or “re-interpretted” whenever it becomes too obvious that it is plainly silly.
    It would be amazing that it had survived and prospered, been passed down through the years etc… at all if it wasn’t for the ruthless, vicious and bloodthirsty way any person who questioned it was persecuted, and in some places is still persecuted.
    I hear every so often the religious zealots complaining about “agressive athiests” but I have never had an athiest come knocking on my door uninvited to preach lack of belief to me, I’ve never been berated by some athiest in the middle of the street claiming they want to spread the news of athiesm. I’ve never come across any athiest organisation training athiests to go out to 3rd world countries to try and convert the religious to the way of athiesm. I’ve never seen any athiest acadamies, or come across any equivelent of the christian groups that link charity to religion (or lack of it).
    Frankly I think most athiest are happy to ignore most religious ranting, but we are less happy to see the religious zealots pushing for special treatment and special protection.

    • sallya Says:

      Jesus didn’t command His people to persecute the non-believers..In the contrary it is included in 10 commandments, “Thou shalt not kill”. So if there are christians whose doing that bloodthirst killing you are saying, they are not a true christian.. but yes in the old testaments Moses killed other israelites who didn’t choose to be on God’s side, but it is very reasonable ( but maybe you’ll never understand the reason). And also many christians was killed by the non-believers, and many of them are now saints….
      Evils have many tactics to distort the fact about God. And as I see they succeeded doing that to you.


      • Sallya, You are now off moderation.

      • Lithp Says:

        You are using the No True Scotsman fallacy, & there’s a very good reason why we don’t buy it. Christianity would not have survived to this day without people like Charlemagne. He easily did more to advance it than you’ll ever do. As a matter of fact, he canonized the Bible.

        Yet, because you don’t want your religion’s reputation tarnished, you’re trying to sell me that the most influential figure in the rise of Christianity short of Jesus himself was “not a real Christian”? Get out. In that case, Stalin wasn’t a real atheist, either.

        And no, the Israelites were not somehow more reasonable or enlightened. They wanted the territory, so they comitted genocide. Any unbiased observer can see that. Apparently the 10 commandments don’t mean jack if your neighbor drinks beer on Sunday & has a bigger lawn than you.

        These ARE the facts. You can’t get around them. Try, & you will only fool yourself.

      • sallya Says:

        you know i can’t blame you for being a lost lamb. Many people do not recognise God bec. no one introduce Him to them… maybe that’s your case, maybe your parents are atheist too.. But even once, try to ask yourself if you’re really JUST a matter(body) or you’re more than that… try to feel your deepest self coz that’s the way you’ll feel the divinity of your soul.. I know some part of you is doubting about the non-existence of God,that’s natural bec. you have a soul that connected with Him but it is buried deep inside you…
        I know in myself that i am more than a body which decomposes over years… i wish you are too

      • Lithp Says:

        My parents are Lutheran. It is natural to doubt anything, although I have virtually no doubt that Christianity is wrong. What you “feel” is only convincing because you want it to be true, it’s not proof.

      • sallya Says:

        lithp the message was supposedly for stuart, but i’m glad you read it coz i want to tell the same to you ..At least, when the time comes you won’t say that no one told you that there is a God. And also I want to inform you that every person needs to accept Jesus Christ as his/her savior bec.that’s the truth without His mercy we will never be able enter the kingdom of God…But wether you believe or not you’ll find the truth when you die.

      • Lithp Says:

        Yes, yes, all unbelievers go to Hell, we’ve heard it a million times.

        As FSTDT likes to say: “More blood for the Blood God! More skulls for the skull throne!”

      • stuartp Says:

        sallya – If you look into the history of it instead of just the current “interpretation” you will find it a very different commandment.
        The “Thou shalt not kill” commandment was written to cover only the chosen people, and it comes from the pre-jesus part of the Yaweh cult. The same god who passed down the commandments to not kill instructed the isrealites to effectively wipe out the existing population of Palestine in what we would today call a genocide.
        Except of course that assumes you believe the bit in the bible about the exodus, wandering in the desert and conquest of Palestine. Frankly all the Archaeological evidence suggests that whole creation myth for the Jewish people is pure fantasy as well, so they can probably have a clear conscience on the whole point of their ancestors genociding the population of Palestine.
        As to the “not a real christian” LOL, any atheist who acts unethically apparently proves the premise that atheism is immoral, but any “christian” who is immoral proves nothing because they “are not real christians”. Look at that argument and just try and see how ridiculous the argument is.

      • Lithp Says:

        I’d hate to break it to you, but Sallya seems to think that knowing anything about history at all is “twisting facts & being influenced by demons.”

        I’m actually retracting my earlier claim. Charlemange was WAY more important to Christianity than Jesus. He turned it from a tiny desert cult to the religion of western civilization, one of the few pieces of the Empire to survive the Dark Ages.

        And, again, he canonized the Bible. So, basically, the Bible’s author wasn’t God or Jesus or Noah or Moses or even the Apostles, it was freaking Charlemange.

      • Lithp Says:

        Speaking of knowing things about history, I have to correct myself here: Charlemange did indeed do most of the things I credited him for, but it was Constantine who canonized the Bible.

  178. Sallya Says:

    @Lthp- I DID’NT say Jesus is not a christian… don’t make up things… He is the founder of christianity so why would i say that???

    • Lithp Says:

      I said you said Charlemagne wasn’t a real Christian. Maybe you should talk less & read more.

      • sallya Says:

        i read it again and yes you’re right its not Jesus your talking about.. but the word “himself” is after the name of Jesus so it confused me.(it can confuse people whose native language is not english like me)

        Many people do not understand who God’s really are.. They equate their life with God, but our life is negligible compared to God’s glory. And I think that’s what Charlemagne thought, and so as Moses when he killed some of the Israelites(so we cannot call them bloodthirsty killers or whatever, coz they did that for God’s glory)..And we also dont know wether Charlemagne had consent of God..i really cannot judge him coz we don’t know the whole truth..

      • Lithp Says:

        Oh, this is hilarious. Now the tune has suddenly changed. Regardless, it doesn’t matter if it’s “for god” or not. Christianity spread by the sword. It was written in blood. It’s not some high paragon of morality.

        If Charlemange didn’t have the consent of God, then the Christianity you believe in is false. As I said, he canonized the Bible. He had the final say as to what stories entered into it & which ones were “false prophecy.”

        He isn’t called the “Holy Barbarian” for no reason.

      • sallya Says:

        i’m tired of arguing with you..you don’t get my point and you’re hopeless..all you do is twisting everything.. go on and believe what you want, but you never gonna shake my faith

  179. Sandman Says:

    Does anybody else fins it ironic that the proprietor of a one-man hate group is calling atheists militant?

  180. sallya Says:

    and do not expect me to answer any of your replies, coz you’re only giving me lame and twisted reasons…just always remember that you are no more than an ash coz that’s what you’re implying, right?? but when you die and you get to know the truth remember me

    • Lithp Says:

      I’m not going to remember you. Not just because I’ll be dead & therefore unthinking. You are not the first person to have ever said any of this. You are not the rudest, you are not the most polite…you certainly aren’t the most intelligent, but you’re not even the dumbest. You are dull. Immemorial.

      You’re just the latest in a long line of people so presumptuous that you expect your every word to be treated as solid gold, despite how utterly ignorant they are. I bet you don’t even realize that every argument you’ve used has been around for hundreds of years, & it’s not difficult to find their origin & about a dozen logical proofs against them.

      You, like everyone before you, are so deep in denial that you see people run circles around you with your own contradictions, & the only defense you can mount is to assert that it is the other person who’s using twisted rhetoric. You quickly come to the realization that you’re in a conversation whose depth you cannot handle & back out, insisting that you’re still right.

      Your feelings of specialness are misplaced. You’re not even a particularly respectable person, the way you expect me to bend to your beliefs while insisting that you’ll never question your own. That’s not admirable, it’s ignorant & closed minded.

      Frankly, I only entertained anything you said at all because I enjoy making fun of people like you & poking holes in your pathetically flimsy world view.

      I assure you, religion is the least important thing in life. I’d say I hate to break it to you, but I don’t like to lie.

  181. milo Says:

    ATHEISM
    The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinausors.
    Make perfect sense

    source: http://www.myspace.com/docmanjay/blog/390168852

    • Lithp Says:

      CHRISTIANITY
      The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh & telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree…yeah, makes perfect sense.

  182. Ashley Says:

    Awesome Lithp!!! Atheists kick christians ass in logic!!! Us atheists are minding our own business as these jesus followers are starting their own hate group… I think atheists have it right!

    This is what you call logic? “Speaking of knowing things about history, I have to correct myself here: Charlemange did indeed do most of the things I credited him for, but it was Constantine who canonized the Bible.”

    If you were any more vacuous your head would implode.

  183. Ashley Says:

    You “better morals, loving, accepting” christians are starting your own hate website. A bit contradicting don’t you think??


    • Yes, and while we are at it lets tell every loving, and moral person how you God-Hating, anti-theists want a world in which only you can live. A bit contradicting don’t you think?

      • Stuart Preen Says:

        Simple correction for you – Athiest do not as a group claim to be better people, more loving, accepting etc… We are just people, ordinary people, there are good athiests and bad athiests, therefore an athiest is not contradicting athiesm by pointing out the weakness of the zealots view of christianity. Christians claim to be better, more loving, accepting etc… but unfortunately so few are. The ones who are, are truely good people and I would (as would most athiests) be happy to call them friends (and there are some that I do already). Same in principal with those who believe in flying saucers, lay lines, homeopathy or a particular sports team. I don’t need to share the belief to regard them as friends. I can take a view of the person as a whole and accept that “it take all sorts to make up a world”.
        Those who like many of the religious zealots on this board take a view that only the religious (and only those from a small sub-group of those that share the same views) are good people on the other hand by definition do contradict themselves. They hate all those from outside their closed group, and are therefore by definition not better, more loving, accepting, forgiving etc…

      • Ashley Says:

        right back at you my friend. You want the non-believers out. But I am sure it wasn’t the atheists that started this hate war over beliefs. Atheists are the ones persecuted. I think this world would be a lot better off if we tried humanity instead of following an insecure God who would damn, choke, burn, and torture his kids for eternity. I’d rather preach my dog. He wouldn’t think to do that to me.

      • Lithp Says:

        Cats will, though.

  184. Ashley Says:

    I’m not an atheist for ANY of the reasons stated in this crazy article!I used to be mormon, then they started protesting against gays while still claiming they love all God’s children, which any somewhat logical person can see is wrong. And now you guys are protesting against atheists!I found religion generally creates people who are contrary to what they preach.I found atheists to be much more accepting and respectful of people’s beliefs as this website CLEARLY proves. So if you want to threaten me with hell, then your God is going to send me to hell for not protesting against his children…. so he can go to hell himself!!!


    • Typical God-Hater. You are not atheist my friend. You are an anti-theist-theist, and typical of a non-recovering theist. You have the Don Quioxte syndrome fighting against windmills.Hating homosexuality is right both morally and scientifically. You are the weakest link.

      • Stuart Preen Says:

        Athiest = God-Hater = LOL
        Athiest = don’t believe any god(s) exist, therefore as no god(s) exists athiests do not hate god.
        Athiests do not hate fairies, Santa claus, the loch ness monster or invisible rhubarb elephants either. None of them exist therefore there is no target to hate.

        You could potentially refer to a particular athiest as a theist-hater, as in someone who hates the religious, you could call them a christian-hater if they have a particular dislike of christians.
        In practise even then you are more likely to encounter athiests who are simply zealot-haters. That is people who hate the particular type of fundamentalist religious nut who is the type to set up a website like this one.

      • Ashley Says:

        There is no god, so I am an atheist,but I know that helping human suffering is better for society than obsessing over whether a chick wants to date a chick… The world has a TON of much bigger problems than your concern about homosexuality. Religion is good for nothing but promoting hate and violence. I choose humanity.

  185. love not hate. Says:

    your imput is super insightful :) im an atheist as well and dont believe in god heaven or hell. but I dont love nor hate them even if they arent real. I dont care if your straight bi gay black white if your nice to me Ill be nice to you… (or sumthin like that) Im sure anyone would agree with what you said, extremists aside… now that even america is canceling the space program for humans, it can only get worse without help… especialy the environment..

  186. Lithp Says:

    This site is so much more entertaining if you pretend it’s really odd pornography.

    “Typical God-hater! You really do care!”
    “Keep it up!”

  187. Richard Says:

    Very good description of Satan psychology and atheism origin, thanks and God bless you.

  188. ConcernedForYourMentalWellBeing Says:

    OMG stupid ‘professional’ writers.

    ‘Atheism’ is a belief *just* like ‘bald’ is a hair color.

    The internet sux a little bit more now that this article was posted. Unless that is, my sarcasm detector went awry.

    Atheism is indeed a bald-faced lie.
    Where is your evidence that your religion is accurate and correct?

  189. Jone Smith Says:

    Life time atheist here, why are you so offended by people like me not believing in god?

    Not offended at all. I could care less what they believe, but when the evangelical atheists start ruining my country I need to take a stand.

  190. Dickshits Virginia Says:

    Seems like classical christians need to write an awful lots of words to reassure themselves, while athiests only need one sentence:

    There is no God.

    Spoken like a true believer … I’ll bite. Where is your evidence that atheism is accurate and correct?

  191. Legion Says:

    I pray for you, sir. Your hatred and bigotry and anger towards Atheists and others who disagree with you is ungodly. You corrupt the word of the Lord into your own hateful message, and you slander his name with your ignorance. I hope you may one day truly become a Representative of God, and spread kindness and hope, and that one day those you insult and hurt will know not all Christians are ignorant bigots.

    Another confused atheist…snickers…


  192. Um… not to pull the proverbial plug on your leftist hating, intellectual bashing, but you DO realize that Voltaire believed in God… right?

    I thought his letter to the almighty would be a sufficient proof of that much, as well as his various writings on God, and was curious as to why you chose to list him on your list of people whom God has “won against”.

    Then I scrolled down the page and saw the word demon. I proceeded to read the sentence, and come to the conclusion of why Voltaire is on the list; that being that you’re batshit crazy, and call anyone who promotes free thinking an enemy of your god, regardless of whether or not they actually follow him.

    Of course, you wouldn’t know that Voltaire used “I think, therefore I exist.” to argue for the existence of God, because you’ve never read anything Voltaire’s ever written, evidently, and I doubt you’ve read anything from any of the authors in your list, due to the blind beligerence you so casually exhibit here.

    And yet I find it funny how you have the gall to say we’re influenced by figments of the combined imagination of people so mentally challenged that they can’t even make sense of the world around them without inventing things to explain them. It’s quite a laugh, really, the man with the plank in his eye, trying to pick at a speck in ours. I believe your bible says something about that. Perhaps you should pay more attention when you read it.

    “and call anyone who promotes free thinking an enemy of your god,”

    You mean like the free thinking atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and the murderers in the Khmer Rouge that spilled the innocent blood of 200 million people in the last 100 years alone?
    Were you aware that atheism is a mental disease, and that atheists have the highest rates of suicide, and substance abuse than any group in the entire world according to a study done by the American Psychiatric institute? Probably not, because you God-Haters are too busy listening to yourselves pontificate to take notice of all of the things going against you and your religious zeal.


    • Pardon, I’ve made a grave misnomer on the part of Voltaire.

      It was actually Descartes who said “I think, therefore I exist.”, and used it to try to prove god’s existence, not Voltaire.

      However, Voltaire DID write a letter to God; granted it was more of a satirical jab at the people around him, but he did always express himself as a believer.

      My apologies for my misrepresentation, however errant it might make my last post appear, it still speaks volumes that you did not know that Voltaire believed in God.

      Perhaps you’ve confused Philosophers as I had, and meant Nietzsche, who I’m surprised to find ISN’T on your list.


      • My apologies for my misrepresentation, however errant it might make my last post appear, it still speaks volumes that you did not know that Voltaire believed in God.

        The very printing press that Voltiare claimed was going to be used to destroy Christianity is being used today to print millions of Bibles for shipment around the world. My apology for your mis-information.

      • Lithp Says:

        I’m finding this rather dubious. For one thing, it’s my understanding that Descartes’ philosophy had nothing to do with God.


    • Where is your evidence that atheism is accurate and correct?
      We can start there and work forward.

    • Lithp Says:

      Are you aware that Christianity was found to be caused by a brain tumor many years ago, & that this same brain tumor presses on the brain, causing feelings of pedophelic lust and violence?

      Yeah, you’re not the only one who can make stuff up.

  193. Lithp Says:

    Mayhap Shane is referring to Kant. Kant was a Christian.

  194. Ashley Says:

    well if there is a god, he obviously doesn’t give a rats ass about the crippling american economy, the starving ,abused, poor, raped, orphans, blacks, women, gays, disease, slaves, corruption, crime, death, drugs, torture, handicapped, africa, politicians, greed, and most of this “beautiful” world he created. This somehow “loving” god tortures innocent children as he sits back and demands they preach him and threatens them with ETERNAL torture for not giving him the praise our high and mighty “god” deserves.That three year old down the street better put preaching “god” on her schedule right before her 5:00 beating to death “god” has scheduled for her so “god” doesn’t eternally burn her in fire. Perhaps “god” was written by cave man version of Hitler! Hitler did have a lot of followers…..


    • Friend, Friends, Athiests, Believers, and what have you. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop.

      Believers, I am with you. However, this suggestion may startle you, please do not waist your time trying to convert athiests. Believe me when I say that I have tried many, many times. I think that 99.99% of athiests refuse to be converted. You are merely trying in vain to win them over. But I am with you.

      Athiests, i have not come here to start a blunt and pointless arguement. You may believe that you are persecuted for your beleifs, or rather non-beleifs. On the contrary, I believe that you are the ones who are presecuting Creatonists for thier beliefs. If you really and truly beleive that you should be open-minded, I want to let you know that no one is against you. I beleive that 99.99% of CHristians and other believers would have no problems with athiests if they would respect and not hound after creatonists beleifs and traditions.

      That being said, Amen.


      • Thank you for your response.
        I desire to convert no one to Christianity. The God-Haters are doing everything in their power to tear down this country and the morality that it was built off of. They now want the crosses off of churches. I for one will not stand idle while these reprobates do Satans footwork. I support Christianity with both my precious time and money.

      • Lithp Says:

        You’re about a derp, ya know that?

        Yeah, the 15% if that of the population that is atheist is totally persecuting everyone else. That isn’t retarded at all.

        No one is against you? Did you really just say that on a site called “Atheist-Fools.com”? I have to question your own reasoning skills & open mindedness if you don’t see how obviously self-refuting that is.

        Oh, but I see, your claim is “but you started it!” Yeah, I can see why it would be pesky to be asked for actual evidence if your inane beliefs, or to be told you can’t force everyone else to accomodate them. And it’s certainly “hounding” to purchase adspace for a message such as “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone.”

        Respect creationists, yeah, that’ll happen.

  195. Ben Says:

    It`s funny that atheist refutes the only religion he knows.I have been grown as the atheist so any religion for me is the museum of the fossils.

  196. Ben Says:

    why all the western atheists i contacted with are such idiots?


    • Ben,
      They hate God, and they hate you and everything moral that you stand for. Ask any atheist if it is wrong to have sex with a goat, then sit back in amazement at their answers.

  197. Stuartp Says:

    Actually Ben, whatever athiestooges says…

    We don’t hate you, we believe that sex with a goat, like sex with a child is abhorrent, sick and plain wrong. Perhaps the catholic church believes the same, it seems difficult to tell from the outside.
    We as athiests don’t believe ANY god exists, take your pick of all them, past and present, we don’t believe they exist, so by definition we don’t hate god.
    You won’t ever see an athiest going door to door trying to push his views on people in their own homes, we don’t burn people at the stake for not being able to face the world without their imaginary friend, and we don’t think you should execute people who change their minds about which imaginary friend they follow.


    • You God-Haters are a dime a dozen. Only one God to choose from so if want to mention Zues then give us an argument for Zeus or shut up.You won’t only not see any atheist going door to door for anything but you won’t see them doing any good deeds at all. Atheists are the true worlds terrorists and should be on every countries watchlist in the modern world.

      • Metoga Says:

        You’re pretty narrow-minded. Other people are not like you, accept it. If “Yahweh” or “Iehovah” or whichever god your talking about really exists, good for you! If I go to hell, too bad! I’d rather be an atheist than live a lie (as in acting like I believe something I don’t). I accept others have beleifs, and am open to the fact that God might be real. Besides, of course I do good deeds! Atheists have some morality too. We’re just raised that way. We won’t leave a religion just to “rebel”. That, I personally think, is ridiculous. And though some do do it, we’re all unique individuals. I mean, just because a joke book is about religion doesn’t mean I won’t laugh. Just because a politician is religious, doesn’t mean I won’t vote if he’s really good. Grow up and be a little more mature. (no meanness intended)

  198. Stuartp Says:

    Wrong again athieststooges, Only ZERO gods to choose from, none of the candidates exist, they are all as real as fairies, santa claus, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy.
    As to not seeing athiest doing good deeds, of course you will see athiests doing good deeds. A true athiest believes that all that is left of them after he (or she) dies, is the memories and influence they have left behind on the people around them. We don’t have immortal souls, we are not “going to a better place”, we exist only in the people who remember us and ways we have influenced the world.
    As athiests we have a strong reason to do good deeds and to make a difference to the world, the only immortality that we can have is to leave the world a better place.
    I as an athiest am not going to condem you for being too weak emotionally to face the world without the support of your imaginary friend. I will though condem you for being so full of hate that you assume that everyone who does not believe as you do is evil.


  199. No knew post since 05 Nov 2011… just as well… dead religion… blog from a follower and worshiper of a dead man.


  200. Atheism is a doctrine of demons? That’s hilarious.

  201. Jay Walton Says:

    Well, after about 60 seconds perusing your site, one thing has become abundantly clear: this is VERY poorly executed satire. Like all idiots who attempt it, you’re just too over the top. Yawn.

  202. Isaiah Crowdr Says:

    Bravo bravo! Ignorant atheist fools!

  203. fullmoon Says:

    There is definately a lot to learn about this subject.
    I like all of the points you have made.

  204. Jayna Says:

    Found you through Godless Bastard. This is THE most poorly executed Christian satire I’ve read. You’re a shame upon those who know how to Poe. Take it down and rebuild please.

  205. Lithp Says:

    You ever notice how Christians only respond to this site shortly after atheists?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: