The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Basic Assumptions

July 21, 2002 | 150 Comments

Figure the rest out by yourself.

Comments

150 Responses to “Basic Assumptions”

  1. UnspeakableyViolentJane
    December 30th, 2008 @ 11:48 am

    Figure out the rest of YOUR assumptions?  Atheists can be very sharp, but I’m afraid mind reading is beyond our abilities.

  2. Douchemaster
    January 1st, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

    This proves that this is a HOAX stupid jerkoff idiots. Figure out that this is just a big joke played on IDIOTS and christ psychotics. Sit on the penis christ and see how real it is you retards.

  3. Victim of Idiots
    January 1st, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

    Douchemaster,
    are you okay?
    Mentally I mean. 
    You seem like a nut.  Like an angry, bitter, spiteful nut. 

  4. Douchemaster
    January 1st, 2009 @ 6:27 pm

    Victim I am better than OK, I am an atheist.

  5. Kelly Clark
    January 1st, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

    Yes, there is. And it’s so reasonable to assume so, it’s pure joy.

    Thank you.

  6. nkb
    January 3rd, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

    Well, if anyone was still doubting that RT has shed any kind of logical approach to questions such as this, here is the final proof.
    .
    Assume something exists, and work from there?  Brilliant!

  7. Antitheist
    January 4th, 2009 @ 12:47 pm

    Break down the word ‘assume’…

    Just visit http://www.TheAtheistAdvocate.com and read the “God Paradox” to prove to yourselves that the god of the bible or Torah or Koran cannot possibly exist. It is a very easy proof of non-existence. So, assuming he does exist would make you a theist, because that is exactly what theists do, with no evidence at all, which is the point of this exercise.  Assuming something, does not make it so.

  8. And Man Created God
    January 4th, 2009 @ 2:29 pm

    Faith is simply the position one has to fall back to, when you know you are wrong, and all the evidence points to you being wrong. See notori.co.uk for some real commonsense evaluation.

  9. Fr. Terry Donahue, CC
    January 5th, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

    Back in the day, the Raving Atheist’s list of Basic Assumptions began “First, there is no God.” It was met with such approval that it was included in http://www.atheistcoalition.org/links.html

    Back then, I didn’t notice any atheists saying he had shed his logical approach in assuming that something didn’t exist.

    Perhaps his list of Basic Assumptions is not meant to be taken as literal “assumptions” but rather as a position statement.

  10. Antitheist
    January 5th, 2009 @ 10:44 pm

    There is no such thing as gravity.
    Earth sucks!
    That’s my position statement!

  11. Doogie
    January 6th, 2009 @ 8:17 am

    We’re glad to have you on board!  Your story, as little of it as you’ve revealed anyway, reminds me of what G. K. Chesterton wrote in his introduction to Orthodoxy:

    I tried to be some ten minutes in advance of the truth. And I found that I was eighteen hundred years behind it. I did strain my voice with a painfully juvenile exaggeration in uttering my truths. And I was punished in the fittest and funniest way, for I have kept my truths: but I have discovered, not that they were not truths, but simply that they were not mine. When I fancied that I stood alone I was really in the ridiculous position of being backed up by all Christendom.

  12. Irreligious
    January 6th, 2009 @ 11:18 am

    Fr. Terry Donahue, P.C. wrote:
    “Back then, I didn’t notice any atheists saying he had shed his logical approach in assuming that something didn’t exist.”
    Isn’t it generally prudent to assume that a thing does not exist when there is a lack of evidence for its existence?

    All of us– atheist and theist, alike–  apply this logic when we think it is prudent to do so. If I told you that I had surreptitiously placed $100 million dollars worth of invisible gold bars underneath your bed, I trust you wouldn’t go looking for it. You would  assume it wasn’t there.  

  13. nkb
    January 6th, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

    Back then, I didn’t notice any atheists saying he had shed his logical approach in assuming that something didn’t exist.
    .
    There’s a very simple explanation for that, Fr. Terry: assuming that something doesn’t exist, until presented with enough evidence that it does, is the logically sound approach.
    .
    Which assumption makes more sense to you?
    A1: There is no Zeus.
    A2: There is a Zeus.

  14. Cliff Martin
    January 7th, 2009 @ 12:17 am

    Antitheist, I read the so-called “God Paradox” at the Atheist Advocate site. Pretty silly, don’t you think? In case you did not know, believers have always included “logical impossibilities” among the things that an “almighty” God could never do. Is that beyond your ability to comprehend?

    nkb, could you please define “enough evidence”? No one contends that there is conclusive evidence either way on the question of God. But many thinking individuals have counted the evidence for the existence of a Creator to be “enough”. Surely you know there is some evidence for a Creator. So the question is, what is “enough”? I’d love to hear your answer.

  15. Fr. Terry Donahue, CC
    January 7th, 2009 @ 3:51 am

    assuming that something doesn’t exist, until presented with enough evidence that it does, is the logically sound approach

    Actually there is another logically sound approach: To not make either assumption. For instance, I don’t have any evidence that you have a living uncle. But I’m not going to assume that you don’t until presented with such evidence. On the other hand, I haven’t assumed that you do either. This seems to me to be a logically sound approach.

    My take on the existence of Zeus is not based on making an assumption (i.e. taking something for granted without evidence). My belief in Zeus’ non-existence is based on logical conclusions derived from other philosophical positions I have arrived at and from Divine revelation.

    Isn’t it generally prudent to assume that a thing does not exist when there is a lack of evidence for its existence?

    I’m not convinced that one can make a general statement about the prudence of assuming the non-existence or the existence of a thing when there is a lack of evidence. I think it really depends on the specific thing that we are considering and the situation (see the above example about the living uncle).

  16. Antitheist
    January 7th, 2009 @ 10:29 am

    Cliff, I understand the concept of  ‘logical impossibility’ well. There are many ‘logically impossible’ things that a god cannot do. I personally believe that there is nothing AT ALL that a god can do. It is you who does not comprehend the diversity among believers, as they pick and choose which characteristics their god will have! You obviously don’t spend enough time with fundamentalists (who the God Paradox was written for), who believe there is nothing their god can’t do! He is almighty and can do anything he chooses. I comprehend because I see the “Big Picture” when it comes to viewing the world and ALL of the superstitions created by man. It is you walking through life with blinders on, unwilling to ‘assume’ that you could be wrong! Every atheist I know is seeking truth, willing to accept ANYTHING that can be given reproducibility and irrefutable evidence of its existence. By contrast, every theist I know is unwavering, and unwilling to accept any other possibility, for fear they would need to admit they have been wrong all these years, and that their parents and scholars have deceived them all their lives. They fear going to hell. They fear not being able to live forever. They fear not being able to see their loved ones who are waiting in heaven. They fear god’s wrath. etc…If and when you are willing to accept the possibility that you could be wrong, then you would be able to look at the evidence with an open mind and make a logical and educated determination based on evidence.

    Your ‘rationalization’ for god not being almighty amuses me. If there were a god, we would not be having this conversation. He could and should make himself known with concrete evidence, that would stop all the banter and mayhem. Why has he not revealed himself in this way, but only through ‘faith’? Because there is no god to have evidence of. You don’t have to be almighty to stop in and say “Hi!” So, since the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, don’t bother asking me to PROVE that he does not exist. You prove that he does exist.  The whole world will be awaiting your evidence and I will be the first to drop to my knees in prayer if you produce it! Put up, or shut up!

  17. Lily
    January 7th, 2009 @ 11:51 am

    He could and should make himself known with concrete evidence, that would stop all the banter and mayhem.

    He could? He should? Who says?

    Who are these fundamentalists who believe that God can create a rock so heavy that even He cannot pick it up? Would these be the same people who think He could create a pepper so hot, that even He could not eat it?

    Methinks someone is indulging in wild generalizations and less than thoughtful philosophizing.

  18. Irreligious
    January 7th, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

    Fr. Terry Donahue, if you told me you had an uncle in show business who could help me get a part on, say, the TV show ”Ugly Betty,”  it would not be at all prudent for me to make no assumptions about the veracity of your claim if I valued the opportunity to appear as an actor on the show. I would have to make an assessment about the veracity of  your claim in order to continue dealing with you on this matter.

    Now, there is nothing remarkable about people having uncles. Billions of them do. Some of us here, no doubt, have uncles. I don’t have first uncles, but  every day of the week I see other people with relatives who are their mother’s brother or their father’s brother, so I know it’s not impossible to have an uncle and that I am reasonably safe in assuming that a random person who tells me he or she has one probably does. But an uncle with connections to the TV show “Ugly Betty?” They’ll have to provide the evidence for that one if it matters to me whether or not they do. 

    If you claim a god exists and insist that it is imperative for my eternal salvation to acknowlege this entity, I want evidence. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

     

  19. Cliff Martin
    January 7th, 2009 @ 4:49 pm

    Antitheist,

    Interesting, since we are talking about assumptions, how many mistaken assumptions you make about me. 1) That I “obviously” don’t spend enough time with fundamentalists. I went to college one year at Bob Jones University. Does that qualify? I am personal friends with a number of fundamentalists, though I certainly am not a fundamentalist myself. 2) I am walking through life with blinders on, unwilling to assume that I could be wrong. No, Antitheist, I actually entertain a lot of doubt, and I am quite open about it. I look for tangible evidence of God, and I find much of it. Can you or I prove our case? Of course not. But if I could find not substantiating evidence in nature for the claims of Christianity, I would bag my faith in a heartbeat. 3) I am bound in my beliefs by a fear of hell. Wrong once more. I do not fear hell. 4) I’ve never looked at the evidence with an open mind. Well, I suppose you and I could both look across the divide that separates us and claim the other has a closed mind. But I assure you, I have very good friends who are atheists, and I completely open my mind to their arguments because I respect them, and I respect their thinking abilities.

    You also make faulty assumptions about God … that, if he existed at all, he would be bound by your logic to reveal himself in tangible ways. Why? What if his purposes in Creation precluded him from doing so? Do you know what his purpose was? You seem to presume his pride might be hurt by man’s lack of faith: “Those darn people don’t believe in me … I’ll go down and show them a thing or two!” Come on. The God I propose exists simply does not fit into the very tight box you have constructed. Use a little imagination.

    No, I will never prove his existence to you. But I can supply you with reasoned arguments that can provide any open-mind person with ample grounds for progressing along a path of tentative belief. Such belief often provides the basis for personal, subjective confirmation, and a growing faith. Wanna try?

  20. Unspeakably Violent Jane
    January 7th, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

    “Those darn people don’t believe in me … I’ll go down and show them a thing or two!”

    Actually, Cliff, per the bible, that’s a theist assumption, not an atheist assumption.

  21. Antitheist
    January 7th, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

    That’s what I thought! No proof. Lots of words, no proof…

    Preponderance of Evidence lies with the claimant!
    This trial is over, your witness did not appear and your case cannot be proven without him. Judgment in favor of the atheists!
    You may appeal when your witness can be found…

    And thanks Jane, you are correct. But maybe Cliff does not take the bible to be the inerrant word of god. As do many religious folks, who can not agree on what doctrines should be adhered to, nor what scripture is divinely inspired, or what magic underwear they should dawn. I guarantee I could sit ten christians down in a conference room and ask they pen the answers to 12 questions about their faith. I would receive ten different answers. And in the process of having them read their answers aloud, there would be blood to wring from the mop at the end of the evening. It’s hard to nail down. I have found wild misconceptions within groups of people from the same small town church. Christianity should not be grouped into one category, as the diversity within is vast.

    Before I even start a debate with a ‘christian’ I have to ask questions about what their god looks like, what powers he possesses, etc… etc… because from one person to the next, all the rules change. I had a LDS member debate. I showed him with a graph why religious free will was impossible, since god knows the outcome years before the decision of the person making the choice. He pondered for a while, then when no rehearsed debate could solve the situation for him, he rationalized that “God could know everything if he chose to, but he purposefully chooses to NOT know what decisions we would make so that free will can exist!” and he smiled because he was pleased with his answer. One cannot use logic in debates concerning fairytales, as the magic is capable of morphing.
    ;)

  22. Fr. Terry Donahue, CC
    January 7th, 2009 @ 9:00 pm

    Irreligious,

    I agree with everything you said in your last comment about uncles. I brought up the uncle example merely to show that it is hard to make a general statement about when one should assume something does not exist. I gave an uncle example where I think it is reasonable to make no assumption either way. You gave an uncle example where I agree that it is reasonable to assume the uncle does not exist when offered an unlikely proposition for work.

    I also agree that a person who has no evidence of God’s existence is acting reasonably to ask for evidence before acknowledging God’s existence.

  23. Cliff Martin
    January 7th, 2009 @ 11:26 pm

    Antitheist,

    That’s what I thought! No response to my my comments. Lots of words, no proof that God does not exist! I both have, and will present a preponderance of evidence. I have seen none of you evidence to the contrary. Judgment in favor of the theists!

    You do see, I hope, how useless such rhetoric is. 

    I will, with open mind, consider all the evidence you have that God does not exist. Will you open your mind to the possibility that he does exist, and that he has left a trail of evidence … not enough to provide proof (for it may not be his intention to offer proof!) … but rather to provide a suspicion of his existence deserving of further personal investigation. Or do you consider such open mindedness too threatening?

  24. antitheist
    January 8th, 2009 @ 9:07 am

    Cliff said~ “Lots of words, no proof that God does not exist! ”

    I say~ End of conversation… This statement is simply not worthy of response. How old are you, 13? OMFG, you are kidding right?

  25. Cliff Martin
    January 8th, 2009 @ 9:28 am
  26. nkb
    January 9th, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

    nkb, could you please define “enough evidence”? No one contends that there is conclusive evidence either way on the question of God. But many thinking individuals have counted the evidence for the existence of a Creator to be “enough”. Surely you know there is some evidence for a Creator. So the question is, what is “enough”? I’d love to hear your answer.
    .
    Any evidence would be fine.  Of course, I’m guessing what you and I consider evidence varies wildly.
    I do not accept personal experience, as I can not reproduce it.
    I do not accept arguments from incredulity, ignorance or awesomeness.
    I do not accept arguments that can be adapted to any other god.
    .
    Whadda ya got?

  27. nkb
    January 9th, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

    Actually there is another logically sound approach: To not make either assumption.
    .
    Actually, it’s an approach, but it’s anything but logically sound, when addressing something that is not commonplace.
    .
    For instance, I don’t have any evidence that you have a living uncle. But I’m not going to assume that you don’t until presented with such evidence. On the other hand, I haven’t assumed that you do either. This seems to me to be a logically sound approach.
    .
    Irr already addressed this, for the most part.  It is entirely possible that I would have a living uncle (I don’t), but what about having 326 brothers?  Do you not assume either way?  Logically, it would make sense to assume that a person does not have that many male siblings.
    .
    It all comes down to how outlandish the assumption is.
    .
    My take on the existence of Zeus is not based on making an assumption (i.e. taking something for granted without evidence). My belief in Zeus’ non-existence is based on logical conclusions derived from other philosophical positions I have arrived at and from Divine revelation.
    .
    But what did you assume before you started going through your arguments?  Did you assume that Zeus existed or not?
    I do have to admit that I am curious as to what philosophical positions you used to assume he doesn’t exist.
    .
    I’m not convinced that one can make a general statement about the prudence of assuming the non-existence or the existence of a thing when there is a lack of evidence. I think it really depends on the specific thing that we are considering and the situation (see the above example about the living uncle).
    .
    I wholeheartedly agree.  When making outlandish claims that there exists a supreme being that is ominpotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, who created all of existence with magic, the only logical approach is to see some evidence before assuming such a fantastical creature exists.

  28. Cliff Martin
    January 9th, 2009 @ 5:25 pm

    nkb,

    I do not accept arguments that can be adapted to any other god.

    I don’t understand. You do not accept evidence for God unless the evidence contains specific fingerprints of a particular God? Is that what you are saying? You deny the existence of a God. While not conclusive, the cosmos contains much evidence of an intelligent and purposeful Creator. Do you believe that there may be evidence pointing to such a Creator, but because it is not specific to Allah or Jehovah or Jesus, you maintain your atheism? 

  29. nkb
    January 9th, 2009 @ 6:03 pm

    No, that was specifically aimed at accepting God, which is what is in the assumption.  RT is not mentioning a creator-type character, but very specifically the Judeo-Christian God.

  30. antitheist
    January 9th, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

    Preponderance of Evidence lies with the claimant!
    This trial is over, your witness failed to appear, so your case cannot be proven without him. Judgment in favor of the atheists!
    You may appeal when your witness can be found…

    :)

  31. Cliff Martin
    January 10th, 2009 @ 12:35 am

    nkb,

    I’m sorry, I must have missed something. I thought the O.P made a very simple claim, “First there is a God.” 

  32. michael williams
    January 11th, 2009 @ 11:58 pm

    What if there is a god, but turns out that God is Truth itself, not a being or thing or phenomenon? Atheism breaks down upon its own premises, as do all religions. Alaydianity posits just this, and claims that failure to question god and all religion is a sin against…god! And it posits that all rational/empirical thought is the path to Truth, which again, is God. Atheism and Theism both are wrapped up into Alaydianity, harmlessly and seamlessly folding them into the same system.

  33. Antitheist
    January 12th, 2009 @ 8:31 am

    Mike, your statement begins “What if…”

    Scientific Atheists do no “What if”, as there is never evidence for “what if” is there? What if god is war. God only survives when there is war, like some mysterious script from a Star Trek adventure. What if god is gold? What if god is water. etc… etc…

    Can you possibly prove anything supernatural? Besides, when atheists and theists argue the case of gods existence, we are no doubt arguing the case of the supernatural, powerful, invisible and the no evidenced being of scripture. Hence I will continue to say…

    Preponderance of Evidence lies with the claimant!
    This trial is over, your witness failed to appear, so your case cannot be proven. Judgment in favor of the atheists!
    You may appeal when your witness can be found…

  34. Cliff Martin
    January 12th, 2009 @ 1:38 pm

    Antitheist,

    “Scientific Atheists do no “What if”, as there is never evidence for “what if” is there?”

    If what you are claiming is true, then I am relieved that “scientific atheists” have not been in charge of the scientific enterprise. Scientific advances are driven by supposition, hypothesis, and great “what ifs?”

    I have a “What if” for you. What if Einstein never asked “what if”? Has it occurred to you that, very often, the proof follows the hypothesis?

    In philosophy (and Michael’s suppositional question was more philosophical than scientific), “What if” hypotheses are used all the time as a basis for further reasoned thought, without a necessary assumption that they are true or not.

    Antitheist, are you capable of thinking outside your closely defined box? Are empirical facts the only things you ever think about? If so, you are missing out on a wealth of ideas and thoughts.

  35. Irreligious
    January 12th, 2009 @ 1:43 pm

    But, Cliff Martin, where is the “proof” of a god’s existence? Until you actually “prove” your case, it’s still just speculation, isn’t it?

    I suspect you are satisfied with your suppositon, but why should others be in the absence of that “proof?”

  36. Irreligious
    January 12th, 2009 @ 1:55 pm

    Substitute the word “evidence” for “proof,” if you like. I am, perhaps unwisely, using them interchangeably.

    And please keep in mind that I am aware that Christians and other kinds of theists have different criteria for what constitutes “evidence,” most especially when it comes to their religions.

    I would not trust anyone who came to me with claims of knowledge through “divine revelation.” That does not constitute irrefutable evidence to me, but that is to many theists a valid means to apprehend otherwise unknowable alleged facts, but only if the alleged diviner supports their faith. In other words, a Muslim “mystic” is just a crank to a Christian and vice/versa.

  37. jolly atheist
    January 12th, 2009 @ 2:52 pm

    Questioning Alaydianity: You say God is Truth. But as Irreligious also points out, people have different notions of Truth. Which Truth is God? Truth of Science? Truth of the Mystic? Truth of the Muslim? Truth of the Christian? You mention ‘one’s logical inner journey’ and ‘outward logical persuasion.’ With logical inner journey, you reach philosophy; (if you had not put logical, it would be mysticism) and you will see that history of philosphy is full of conflicting truths. With ‘outward logical persuasion’, you can persuade someone toward false belief as well as truth. Remember the sophists. They were so persuasive. So I don’t understand how I am to find the Truth using these two ways. Apart from the scientific usage, Truth is such a slippery word, it can mean anything metaphysically.

  38. Cliff Martin
    January 12th, 2009 @ 4:00 pm

    Irreligious,

    I am indeed satisfied with my “supposition”. But I would never ask you or any non-believer to be satisfied with “my” supposition. You must live with your own suppositions.

    I have never offered “proof” of God’s existence. None exists that would satisfy a skeptic. Since I am by nature a skeptical person, I understand skepticism.

    I have offered on my website several underlying “evidences” for belief in a Creator which I believe can (for the willing mind) provide ample rational foundations for a supposition that God exists. It is up to the individual to take it from there.

    For me, my satisfaction with my supposition is borne out again and again by person, subjective experience. This experiential assurance is non-transferable. I cannot ask you to accept it. But if you choose, based upon the rational evidence for a Creator, you too could “try on” the reasonable supposition and see where it takes you. This is the nature of faith. And millions of believers have discovered that, with faith as a starting point, God does make his existence very real to us.

    But its your choice. You have every right to go on demanding empirical proof. And you will never have it. So, such a choice fixes your future options, and determines that you shall never receive the rewards of faith. Pretty simple concept.

  39. jolly atheist
    January 12th, 2009 @ 5:32 pm

    Cliff Martin: Have you read the biography of Sabetai Sevi The Mystical Messiah? (Gershom Scholem) If you haven’t, please do and see how the mystical experience can cause so much turmoil both for the pseudo-messiah himself and his so-called followers. It’s a great story of humanity that took place in the 17th century. You are right in saying that the proof of God in mysticism is the religious experience itself; but that’s very subjective and because of this subjectivity, history of religions is full of cases of its misuse. On the other hand, the experience itself and the religious’ claim to ultimate truth is considered to be only psychological.

  40. Antitheist
    January 12th, 2009 @ 5:53 pm

    Cliff,
    You need to do some research. I think you have probably done some study, or you would not embrace science. I have been pushing your buttons for a while now and find your responses both amusing and anecdotal. I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school through grade 12. St. Mary’s in Baltimore, MD. I have read about every book and watched (and own) every DVD on the bible, so I think I have been “in the box” as you say. I am no longer in the box and it feels great to not have the fears you claim don’t haunt you.

    You said that you have atheists friends that you respect. Well, the very first time you addressed me, you did so with slaps in the face. You showed me no respect (see post 14) for my thought processes. But hey, I’m use to no less from theists who believe they have all the answers. If only everyone thought like Cliff, the world would be a better place. Well Cliff, maybe you should take a long look at the man in the mirror…

    As for the rest of my bio… I have spent many years in the Marine Corps, of which I am proud, and I have seen many starving children who believed. They prayed. But I guess Jesus doesn’t REALLY love the little children as the song states. I have seen many atrosities that people suffer, who only pray for death to take them, to end their suffering.

    It must be nice to live in a place where your survival instinct is never triggered. Plenty to eat every day! A nice warm bed to sleep in! The most beautiful woman who has given you six wonderful healthy children. Life is great, huh Cliff?

    Well, the rest of the world does not have the luxury of debating whether there is a god, as they already know. He has never, NEVER, not once, come to ease their suffering. You should try walking in their…. Never mind, they don’t have shoes! ;(

    OK, so let’s suppose there is a god. Send his fukkin’ ass over to the third world countries who need him. You don’t need him. Every religious ass-hole in the USA should stop asking for things in prayer. You don’t need them!!! There are children all over the world who are starving! You don’t know what that’s like, or you would not still be pushing god on people. If there is a god, I hate his Fukkin’ ass for being such a sh*t and only blessing the people who can afford him!!!!

    The Preponderance of Evidence lies with the claimant!
    This trial is over, your witness failed to appear, so your case cannot be proven. Judgment in favor of the atheists!
    You may appeal when your witness can be found…
    and when all gods children are well fed, not just yours!!!

  41. Cliff Martin
    January 12th, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

    Antitheist,

    If my tone in comment 14 was disrespectful, I do apologize. But I was responding to some rather bold declarations on your part (see comment 7) in which you make the blanket black and white statement that the so-called “God Paradox” absolutely proves that God “cannot possibly exist”. After I called you on it, and said the article was “silly”, you backed off and said that understood all along that logical impossibilities were excluded by theistic claims of what God can do. Next time, if you wish to be handled with more respect, you may choose to tone down your claims so you do not appear ignorant. Now that I know you a little better, I give you more intellectual credit (despite your adolescent — excuse me — references to God’s “fukkin’ ass”). But when I posted comment 14, all I had to go on was your display of ignorance in the earlier comment. I would still say those statements are just plain silly. Sorry if that offends.

  42. antitheist
    January 12th, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

    You say ~ “If my tone in comment 14 was disrespectful, I do apologize. But I was responding to some rather bold declarations on your part”

    Do you believe you are an intellect?

    Your defense for disrespecting me was due to a bold declaration on my part!

    If I disrespected every theist for making “bold declarations” I could not have a life. That is all theists do is make bold declarations!!! I would be busy disrespecting you forever!!!

    Christianity is the belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and 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 some woman made out of a rib was convinced by a snake to eat from a magical tree!!!

    Tell me that ain’t a “BOLD DECLARATION”??????

    Besides that, you even quoted me incorrectly. I DID NOT say that the “God Paradox” would prove god does not exist. I said it would prove the god of SCRIPTURE could not exist. Scripture defines god in great detail, and the “God Paradox” at TheAtheistAdvocate.com proves very well, without a doubt, that the god of the bible, torah or koran could never exist.

    Then you say ~ ” Next time, if you wish to be handled with more respect, you may choose to tone down your claims”

    Give me a break, are you for real? I’m not making claims, you are. Is your tactic here to reverse the offensive. To again ask me to prove god does not exist? Cliff, you should listen to yourself. You are making the claims. Theists make the claims, then ask atheists to disprove it! Does this insane tactic ever work for you?

    I have come to the conclusion that you are not worthy of continued conversation and request that you please harass someone else. As previously stated, it is impossible to win a debate with someone over a fairytale, when the magic allows it to motph. You twist words the way Fats Domino dances. You acuse me of the very things you alone are guilty of. You are a couple french-fries short of a happy meal pal. I shall answer the one question you are unable to fatham… No Cliff, you are not an intellectual!

  43. antitheist
    January 12th, 2009 @ 10:15 pm

    * Morph *Fathom

  44. Cliff Martin
    January 12th, 2009 @ 10:30 pm

    Well, Antitheist, you completely missed the point. But as you are my intellectual superior and have chosen not to discourse with me any more, I’ll not bother to clarify things for you. Thank you for the conversation.

  45. nkb
    January 13th, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

    I’m sorry, I must have missed something. I thought the O.P made a very simple claim, “First there is a God.”
    .
    When “God” is capitalized (meaning a proper name), it is generally understood to be talking about the Judeo-Christian deity, as described in the bible.
    .
    If it was meant more generically, it should have said “First there is a god.”

  46. antitheist
    January 13th, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

    :)

  47. Wallace
    January 13th, 2009 @ 8:55 pm

    Well, some do receive “evidence”. Just because some of you may not have received it yet does not mean that others haven’t. Perhaps, God hasn’t revealed himself to you personally for a reason. Just a thought and worth considering instead of jumping to conclusions that he doesn’t exist and that nobody has ever received enough evidence to convince them that he is real.

    this is coming from a skeptic BTW

  48. Wallace
    January 13th, 2009 @ 9:04 pm

    antitheist,

    I think you are focusing on the simple black and white too much. This is in regards to your description of Christianity.

    Jewish culture described spiritual truths with stories. Rabbis, taught in stories and made their points through stories. It’s obvious that one isn’t suppose to take everything in scripture literal. I simple reading of the texts reveals that plus a quick study on Jewish teachings will do the same.

    If you are familiar with the New Testament, you will know that “fruits” is often brought up to describe our actions. It says that our fruit is either good or bad. In other words, our actions are either good or bad. What if the fruit in Genesis is not a literal fruit? What if it represents something that went wrong in the hearts of Adam and Eve? Just a small thought.

    IMO you are dismissing the text too quickly without considering the fact that if there is a God, he could be teaching spiritual truths through stories.

  49. nkb
    January 13th, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

    Wallace, what about all the “evidence” received by members of all the other religions? They can’t all be right, can they?
    How to reconcile who is actually getting a visit from the true god, and who is just fooling themselves?
    .
    As far as the need to interpret the Bible, especially reading into possible metaphors, even if it was divinely inspired (not likely), you are losing any divine message through your own limited knowledge and personal bias.

  50. antitheist
    January 13th, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

    Wallace,
    I hear what you are saying (“It’s obvious that one isn’t suppose to take everything in scripture literal”) and I agree. Therein lies the problem. There are those who DO take the bible to be the inerrant word of god. There are many fundamentalists (and orthodox)who would argue with you, and state that the bible is word-for-word accurate. Even that the Pentateuch is from Mose’s own hand as dictated verbatim from god’s words.

    If everyone had your insight Wallace, the world would be more tollerant, and discussing religion could be non-confrontational, as compared to the pontificators among us.

    The bible was written by man. It has been translated several times by authorities with hidden agendas. There are many books banned from the canon by the “Council of Lodecia” circa 364. It is surely a book of fiction (stories and parables). Actually, it isn’t a book, it is a bibliography of 66 books written in many cases, by unknown authors. To adopt them as divine, in my estimation, is like claiming Aesop should be stored in the non-fiction section.

    As for (“Jewish culture described spiritual truths with stories”), it would seem you agree.

    However, when telling spiritual stories such as Numbers 16:35 and Numbers 21:6 and Deuteronomy 7:2 and on, and on and on… I have to wonder what spiritual truth is being told.

    People think they know the story of Samson and Delilah, so they never bother to read it for themselves. It starts at Judges 14 and tells the story of a man who drinks, gambles, commits adultry, solicits prostitutes, murders innocent men, sets the tails of foxes on fire, gives his wife away so he can leave town and be with another prostitute, lies etc… then in the end, asks god for help killing yet more people who are teasing him. This person Samson, was surely not rightous. He breaks most of the ten commandments in one sitting. It makes for a great read, if you enjoy a good slasher! Yet, he is revered by religious folks as a biblical hero, fit for idolizing to young children in vacation bible school.

    Well no thanks Wallace, I’ll stick to reading Aesop’s Fables to my kids and at the end, I’ll reinforce the fact that the book belongs in the fiction section. There is no way I would ever let my children read the bible, as it is FULL of violence, hatred and immoral acts only fitting for an “R” rating. If books were ever deemed so immoral that a school would ban them, even burn them, then the bible should top that list.

    That’s how I feel. I don’t expect everyone to think the way I do. That’s what makes the world go ’round. But I do have hard evidence to support my convictions. I do not rely on ‘faith’ to explain my feelings. If god has revealed himself to you, I wish you would put in a good word for the starving children in third world countries. He seems to only reveal himself to people who don’t actually need him to survive. It’s a lot easier to discuss religion with a full belly, in a warm house, on your computer before slipping into a nice warm bed! ;)

  51. Margaret Catherine
    January 14th, 2009 @ 12:04 am

    Antitheist – if I can break in? – you’re forgetting the part where Samson is just *too stupid*, all brawn and *no* brains, to figure out what Delilah was up to. Nope, he just wanted some – and look what he got. He was an idiot, no question. But that God had some use for even someone as, um, “human” as him…it’s hope for those of us who aren’t exactly Moses or Jesus. The same goes for Peter: the guy could never get anything right…and yet.

    “[God] seems to only reveal himself to people who don’t actually need him to survive.”

    I think it’s more that the people who are starving or in fear of their lives, etc, who God reveals Himself to (in whatever manner), are just too busy with surviving to find a computer and natter on. During the Rwandan genocide, one woman survived – her family did not, and not prettily – by hiding in a bathroom with seven other women for three months. She, and they, lived because God prompted her, unmistakeably in her belief, to take certain actions that enabled their survival. It happens. Most of the time we never hear of it, the people are too obscure, but it happens.

  52. godinus
    January 14th, 2009 @ 9:50 am

    Wow, all you atheists are in the DARK! So, you don’t beleive in GOD, well that is your right to do so, but my freinds, What then do you beleive? Evolution? Let me ask you, ARE your ape freinds still evolving into humans? No, They are NOT! ARE Humans evolving into an unknown species, No! We are NOT! Humans evolve into humans and apes evolve into apes my freind, It doesn’t get plainer than that, woops that theory is BUSTED! Lets see, BIG BANG! Wow, All of outer space and its contents just exploded themselves into existance from nothing. Now, THAT is a beleivable theory, last I checked you can’t get something from nothing. Woops, I busted another one. So Sorry that all your beleifs are falling apart… Now, do you beleive that before there was space and time that there had to be an all powerful being of some sort who with this power created all that we have come to know and understand, and all that we don’t know, and do not understand? and, who created them you say? That is for us to know not, until god wants us to know, Maybe god always was, you may find inconsistancies and contradictions in the bible, but that is because it was written by alot of differnt authors, not just one, but for the manuscripts, in bible times, to have even beeen written, should tell you that they hold water, people did not write in those times just cause they were bored, they wrote because they needed to, to preserve history and the truth. Writing materials were hard to come by then, and they made their own inks, and it took alot of time and skill to just write a scentence, these deciples wrote entire books, that means that they are of importance, and these books were gaurded with their lives, I do not think that the author of Harry Potter would defend his untrue stories with his own life if it were threatened…. you see… These writings in the bible are hard to understand because the books of the bible are all a compilation, of writings that are true, but during these times some were lost and some found and all, that were found were compiled and sorted, possibly not in the correct order that they were written, but to have a closed mind, and just say that its wrong because of inconsistancy is wrong. So, re-think your own beleifs or nonbeleifs people, your very soul, may depend on an open mind.

  53. Antitheist
    January 14th, 2009 @ 10:02 am

    Mags, you are a nun correct?

    Do you hear the rationalizations you just created, to justify the atrocities?

    OK, I left out the part about Samson being stupid, and no question about it, he was. I just figured it was a no-brainer and “went without saying!” But you missed the point. If you had children, would you tell them the whole story? Would you read it to them at night before they started to dream? Isn’t there a better story to make your point? Are these the best stories god has? Do you really believe it was divinely inspired? Forget the stupid part, what about the mass murder part? You read the entire story about the 1,000 men slaughtered with the jawbone of an ass? Then you want to say that the storyline was about a stupid person receiving grace? So god graces him by allowing him to kill 3,000 more people when he collapsed the pillars (including innocent women and children)? OK then, lesson learned! I get it! God has no standards. This man murdered no less than 4,030 people, one lion, 300 foxes and he still gets god’s grace! What about the people who died in this story, do they not receive any grace? I don’t believe you dig deep enough with your search for god. I will read the story of the golden goose to my kids. You can keep whatever “moral to the story was…” you find in these “Chain Saw Massacre” slashers.
    _________________________________________________________

    18,000 children die EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!

    You tell the horrific story of several women who survived, and herald it a miracle!?! Your God saw favor in these women!

    You say “She, and they, lived because God prompted her, unmistakeably in her belief, to take certain actions that enabled their survival.”

    Do you not clearly see the imbalance of these figures? Extra, Extra, read all about it. God saves three women in a three month period, but allows 1,620,000 starving children to die during the same period! (18,000 per day for 90 days) Are you really understanding that number? say it with me, say it aloud! 18,000 children ~ Die of starvation ~ EVERY SINGLE DAY. And not just dying, but dying of starvation! A very painful and torturous way to die! What a great and generous god!

    It’s no wonder every religibot claims this invisible being to be there loving and caring creator. He is, after all, so benevolent!

  54. godinus
    January 14th, 2009 @ 10:10 am

    In response to the fact that ateists always say if there is a god why….. why does he let people kill people, why does he let people starve and let all these bad things happen, well… no-one said that life is fair and good, if you have ever read the bible you would know this answer. God is love, he does not do these evil things to you, all that is good is of god, all that is bad is of satan, oh… I forgot you do not beleive in either right? Yeah, but you are so quick to blame suffering and death and sickness on the god that I beleive in… In the bible you will find your answer, we all… have this thing called free will…This was given to us , what we do with this is up to us, we have to make up our own minds weather to do good or to do evil. see, as god is our creator, he first created us to be good and all good, then satan challenged god that he is greater and could get people like yourselves to deny god and not beleive in him. so, it is a battle, between good and evil people…. That is why we have murderers and starvation, satan is a powerful being as well, and infrenges himselve into the free will of people to make them beleive that they can and want to do these terrible things. satan has no concience, so killing babies and causing starvation and sickness is something he loves to do to us, because he knows he is weekening our faith and our spirit. But if you beleive in god, satan cannot destroy you, and god will be with you, will he save you? Maybe not from your sickness, or your hunger, in this world, but your soul he will take posession of , so that satan will not prevail. So have a little faith people, there is good and bad, if you do not beleive in god, then you are fooled by satan into thinking that god does not exist and he laughs because he knows that when you die, he has won your spirit and deceived you and that he will own your soul , and the bad things of this world are no comparison, to the things that satan has planned for the nonbeleivers. See satan does not need you tpo beleive in him, he only needs you to not beleive in god….read more of the bible. God will prevail, so you need to be on the winning teem.

  55. Antitheist
    January 14th, 2009 @ 10:22 am

    godinus,
    You should do more research before making these statements. Evolution takes millions of years. So no, apes are not having human babies to prove evolution. But, were there Doberman Pinschers when god created the earth? NO. They were created by breeding procedures. An accelerated form of evolution through breeding techniques.

    ___________________________________________

    The author of Harry Potter is a woman!

    ___________________________________________

    Simply because scientists do not have the answers to some of life’s biggest questions, does not cause religion to become the default. Scientists hypothesize theories on what could probably or possibly have happened, and then try to find faults with it. This process keeps them honest. If they come across some evidence that makes their hypothesis impossible, they scrap it.

    Sorry to say, you have only shown you lack of research in your text, you have not “busted” anything. You should probably start with “The origin of species” to understand the theory of evolution. BTW, it’s called a theory because it cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, since it takes millions of years. It will always be a theory for that reason. Secondly, I would suggest you read “The age of reason” by Thomas Paine to get a handle on religion in general. And tertiary, I suggest you read the Pentateuch to see what evil and destruction are.

    Enjoy :)

  56. godinus
    January 14th, 2009 @ 10:23 am

    About the parrable of samson, this is not a literal story people, its to show that his hair represented his faith in god, and delilah was the temtress(Satan) and when sampson let his faith wither away then his faith was week, (his hair cut, and was blinded) and when he realized this he grew in his faith and became stong once again… The bible is full of parrables people, not to be taken as literal instances but to try and instill an image into your mind to help you get the concept of true and strong faith

  57. godinus
    January 14th, 2009 @ 10:33 am

    Antitheist, Yes I have Done some research, maybe not on the author of Harry Potter, but on the theory of evolution, and was giving you an example of the difficulties of writing texts in Bible times, the theory of evolution is that over many years that certain species evolve , and thus we have human beings, but the reason I say Busted, is because, The scientific research does not hold water, and yes things would have evolved by now, because every year is an added year to millions of years and in the process of time there should have been an evolution to compare to, Something would have been in the early fazes of evolution and would have progressed by now.

  58. godinus
    January 14th, 2009 @ 10:47 am

    Antitheist,

    I would also like to add that My faith is based on the ancient texts of the Holy Bible , Not on religion, Too many Athiest think that all Christians are organized religion fenatics, That is not the case, But I hold strong to the fact that I beleive in a Higher power, an almighty, a Creator… I beleive this because of my readings and research, not because someone told me to.

  59. Cliff Martin
    January 14th, 2009 @ 11:13 am

    godinus,

    As a fellow believer and follower of Jesus, I respect you efforts here. However, I suggest you spend more time studying evolution before you take on non-believers on scientific grounds. I firmly believe in the Creator. But I must tell you, brother, that the science of evolution has progressed far beyond your characterizations of it in your above comments. It is well supported by paleontology, biology, the medical sciences, and especially, genetics. Read a few books on the genetic evidence for evolution (I can suggest a few written by Christians) and you will find, as I have, that our evolutionary history and common descent are simply undeniable.

    You are a thinking believer. That is good. But what Christianity needs desperately in this day is leaders who will stop denying the obvious, take our collective heads out of the sand, and acknowledge what science has confirmed again and again. Darwin was right.

    (I was a Young Earth Creationist, ICR subscriber for most of my life. Those people are making a lot of money selling books to gullible Christians. But there is no science that supports their positions. I urge you to take another very long look at the question of origins.)

  60. Antitheist
    January 14th, 2009 @ 11:18 am

    godinus,
    remember that you started your blog with name calling…

    “Wow, all you atheists are in the DARK!”

    Do you honestly think people will take anything you say after that with sincerity? This forum is about stating your case and providing your evidence. We all believe a different truth. I contend that if god wrote a story, he could have found a much better example for a parable than to include all the mayhem. I get the hair=faith thing, no problem. But it is wrapped in unprecedented violence. There are other ways to get your point across. I write better than that, and I am not divinely inspired, by no means!!! J.K. Rowling writes stories with GREAT morals that children flock to. Could god not do better? Do you not intend to ponder my points?

  61. godinus
    January 14th, 2009 @ 11:35 am

    Antitheist,
    I apologize if i came off as a bitter name calling christian, That was not my intentions at all.

    Cliff Martin, I appreciate your input, but if you do your research you will see that I am correct….
    Yes , antitheist was right that it takes millions of years for evolution to possibly incurr. But we are here millions of years later, indeed there would have been something that also was in the process of evolving, soon after human beings and we would be discovering these in todays time. Evolution is not partial to the human race, if humans have evolved then other species would be evolving as we speek. Lets put it another way, say it took humans a million years to evolve… and another species was only half way into its evolutionary process, then as that species comes to its full evolution turn, then would another species have already reached its half way mark. Therefore bringing us into our time our scientist should be able to find a species that has evolved outside of its original biological makeup, like humans.

  62. Antitheist
    January 14th, 2009 @ 11:56 am

    Well there you have it Cliff, the personality I was speaking to.

  63. godinus
    January 14th, 2009 @ 12:01 pm

    As human beings we make many conclusions, and research the fool out of things… we are eager for explanation where there seems no answer…We make many mistakes and are not immune to criticism and rejection. I would like to say that I beleive in God and that Jesus Christ was his son.I beleive Jesus was crucified and rose three days later. I beleive in a Heaven and a Hell, I mean no ill will on any person and hope my words do not offend or seem hurtfull to anyone. I wish you all well and my fellow freinds, please do not think I am judging you, as I would never want to do so. thank you all for the discussion.

  64. Margaret Catherine
    January 14th, 2009 @ 12:40 pm

    Antitheist -

    No, I’m not. Thinking of it; but the order I am thinking of is far from detached from the world or the suffering in it. They place themselves squarely in the middle of it all, to an unbelievable degree.

    I’m not an apologist or terribly good at debates; and I don’t deal in statistical facts and figures. That’s not to say that they’re unimportant. Just that I look at what’s around me in the world I inhabit, and then do what I can within that world. Buy the homeless man at the metro stop a cup of coffee; bring him winter socks and and listen to him, learn his name; go twice-weekly or more to scrub floors and make food at an AIDS hospice. There’s not much abstract thought involved in changing the bandages on the freely bleeding sores of an end-stage AIDS victim.

    I don’t have the answer to why there is suffering; why God permits it to this horrible extent and only intervenes for a few. You’re right: maybe one woman in Rwanda lived through His aid, but why her brother have his head split open? Why was her father shot in the back by order of a trusted friend? Why did her mother’s good friend refuse to shelter her, and leave her to be cut down in the street? why all the others, across the world, who die in the same misery they always lived in?

    I don’t know. All I can do is bear in mind that He took all of it on Himself for us; He chose to answer by hanging on the cross and suffering with us. To you that probably sounds trite and inadequate; to me as a Christian, it is everything.

  65. Antitheist
    January 14th, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

    Mags,
    I applaud you for your efforts. I believe you are a truly good person. I would call you friend. We are more alike than not. The small difference is how we explain what we see.

    You are correct in that I do not see how having one’s son be passionately tortured and sacrificed could possibly change someone else. Especially when god “knows everything” and would have foreseen that having his son killed would have no effect. And it has not! People are the same now as they were 2,000 years ago. We are all still human beings who need each other. What I see in my environment is that theists pray, while atheists do. I applaud you for doing! Most theists that I know would rather simply debate and wave their banner. If I accept the logic of any theist, I would be indebted to accept all theism, as the TRUE religion is claimed by all. Everyone can not possibly be TRUE. Only one. So, you would have me pick yours? Rajhad would have me pick his, and so on…

    I choose none of the above, which does not make me any less of a human or humanist. And should not preclude me from holding office in 6 southern states, etc…

    I will not simply need evidence that god exists, I need evidence as to what faith he is. He created Jews first, then Christians, then Muslims. This one god of three.

    I could go on and on… (or did I already?) with the systemic problems of faith. One shred of irrefutable evidence is not much to ask for. Parables are nice for some, the thinkers of this world need more.

    Please continue to help people, it is the one great thing humans are capable of, but seldom do.

    Thanks :)

  66. Antitheist
    January 14th, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

    BTW, the two first names of religious connotation gave away the nun part. I had sister Marie Louise for three consecutive years in school. So you’re not a nun, but want to be. Close enough!

  67. jesuslives
    January 14th, 2009 @ 2:14 pm

    God is love, satan is hate, if one mans son is crucified while the others is rewarded is no act of god, but the one that is crucified is the work of satan. Satan hates god and wants his position, he wants to stifle the faith of those who beleive in god, he hates human beings because god created us, he hits god where it hurts by ripping at the flesh of the innocent and rewarding the rich to make us think that we have a merciless god, but in fact god wants us all to love him as he loves us, so by crucifying one son Satan stifles the fathers faith and the mothers, and sisters, and has them ask why, and they greive and lose their faith in god, this is a victory for satan, who loves the destruction of the human race and wants god to lose the faith and souls of the children he created.

  68. Cliff Martin
    January 14th, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

    godinus,

    This is no doubt a pointless venture, but I assure you I have done “my research”. I used to teach Young Earth Creationism, and it is quite likely that I could make a more convincing case for it than you could. I know all the arguments. I assure you, they all fail in light of what science tells us. Please. Do what I did. Stop immersing yourself in special creationism literature only. Branch out. Read both sides.

  69. Antitheist
    January 14th, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

    and another!

  70. jolly atheist
    January 15th, 2009 @ 7:46 am

    I come from a Muslim part of the world. Their TRUTH is -as antitheist also points above – DIFFERENT from the Christians. Their scripture (Koran) says, ‘To say that God has a son, is an abuse to God. Jesus is only a messenger like Prophet Muhammed.’ Now what? Millions of people have two contradictory truths as absolute. And this is only one of the many many contradictions in all world religions – not taking into view the mythologies of earlier cultures. I am really amazed that theists cannot have a wider perspective of religions. I think it is because many people have become aware of these contradictions that personal religious experience (spiritualism?) has come to attract more and more fans rather than strict adherence to institutional religions.

  71. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 8:17 am

    Jolly atheist

    I realize there are alot of contradictions concerning the multible religions that are out there, some beleive in mohammad, Jesus, Buddah, They used to worship the sun god in egypt, and it is hard for an atheist to get a grasp on the beleif of God when there are so many options, this I totally understand, I base my beleif and faith in the Holy bible, because it is a compilation of historical events, that romans were trying to destroy..Why do you think they would want to destroy it, maybe it is because they did not want this history to be passed on because they knew it was true and the Romans did not want noone to Know of this King of Kings, for they had a King. Their King orderd its destruction, because he wanted the title of King of Kings… Research goes a long way on this subject… I admit I have done some, but there is always something else to research. Meanwhile, I give all my faith to God and All my praises to him and his son, Jesus Christ.

  72. Lily
    January 15th, 2009 @ 8:25 am

    Not quite so, JA. Most religions are grounded in the misty and ahistorical past. Islam is based on private revelation that cannot be weighed; it can only be accepted or rejected. Christianity makes specific and unique historical claims. Jesus’s ministry took place in public in a specific time and in a specific place. It was witnessed by thousands over the yearsand it was written about by witnesses or others close to them.

    A *wider* perspective about religion isn’t much use, if one hasn’t first understood the critical distinctions among them.

  73. jolly atheist
    January 15th, 2009 @ 8:58 am

    Lily and jesuslives:

    “Most religions are grounded in the misty and ahistorical past. Islam is based on private revelation that cannot be weighed”

    How about the Old Testament? What you say above – doesn’it describe OT as well as the Koran? And weren’t there many versions of the NT before four of them were canonized?

    And Lily, have you made a thorough research on religions, as a result of which you have chosen Christianity, or was it just the religion you were born into, that is your family’s religion? Most people belong to the religion of their families and it is by no means a choice with zero prejudice.

    “Why did the Romans destroy the compilation of events?”

    Jesuslives, that has always been the case in history of religions. Moses belies Egyptian (pagan)faith, Christianity belies Jewish faith (brings its differences), Islam belies both with a claim that OT and NT have altered God’s Word. Christians and Muslims have destroyed the library in Alexandria to remove Egyptian knowledge ans so on and so forth. That’s how it works. Sometimes I think that science has accepted falsification as a principle because that is already the case throughout history. One new belief or knowledge falsifies the earlier one. And if the new one can be convincing enough, attracting followers, then it becomes a widely accepted truth.

  74. Lily
    January 15th, 2009 @ 9:09 am

    JA– I didn’t address the issue of the OT. No, I wasn’t born into Christianity. My father was an atheist; my mother an agnostic. I thoroughly researched the historical claims of Christianity. Once I found them compelling, I didn’t have to deal with the claims of ahistorical/mythological religions or take the unsubstantiated claims of a 7th century general seriously.

    Christians did not destroy the library at Alexandria. That is a myth in itself. I will address it later.

  75. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 9:52 am

    JOLLY ATHIEST,

    I unlike Lily was born into a christian home and raised by a southern Baptist preacher, but have done my own research over the years into other religions and found that christianity is the only one that has kept most, not all, but most of its origional texts. Yes some have been altered as is anything that is that ancient, and some destroyed, but most are in there origional context.
    I do beleive the Holy bible is holds the true historical
    evidences.

    All beleivers of some religion want theirs to be right,
    but in research, christianity seems to be the one that has stood the test of time, and protected by many and persecuted by many . you do not here of many who try and destroy the muslim, buddah, pagan,judaism,kabalahn faiths.
    Is usually christian faith that is tested time and time again, questioned,and persecuted. This is because it is the religion that is based on true historical events.

  76. godinus
    January 15th, 2009 @ 10:05 am

    cliff martin,

    I will take your advice and research more into evolution.
    The research ive done in the past may be outdated , so I’ll read the material you suggested. But I still beleive in a creator.

  77. Antitheist
    January 15th, 2009 @ 10:07 am

    JL Says ~ “you do not here of many who try and destroy the muslim, buddah, pagan,judaism,kabalahn faiths.”

    Guess you missed this news story in 2001:

    The main Buddha in the Bamiyan valley, 240 kilometers northwest of the Afghan capital Kabul, is destroyed. The 53 meter Buddha was the largest statue in the world. With its strategic location at the intersection of roads to Persia, India, Tarim basin, and China, it developed an art style with a fusion of Iranian, Indian, Gandharan and local style into an independent mode of its own. This style of Buddhist art traveled eastward and was quickly adopted at Kizil, Xinjiang and ultimately Dunhuang.

    They destroyed all “graven images” in the region. Just Google it for yourself.

  78. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 10:13 am

    I didnt say never, I said you dont here much of it.

  79. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 10:32 am

    Try Googling Christian persecution, you will be astonished at the results, more than 200 million Christians in over 60 Nations face persecution each day.
    They are the most persecuted group IN THE WORLD.

  80. jolly atheist
    January 15th, 2009 @ 11:02 am

    JL&LL “it (Christianity) is the religion that is based on true historical events”

    True historical events are subject of history of religions and those very facts falsify sacred texts.

    For ex: Mary’s virginity has shown to be a symbolic practice of mythology. Buda’s mother was also a virgin. There are a few more cases. (There is also the claim that it was due to a mistake made during translation of the texts.)

    Jesus being son of god was accepted in the council of Nicaea (I think that was around 300 AD) Before that date it was controversial. Arius was excommunicated because he denied that anybody can be son of god.

    Sumerian mythology also has a similar creation story. Jews/Christians/Muslims took over the story with some adjustments.

    And Lily, if you’re reading this; you underestimate the ’7th century general.’ The Muslim State was a great empire between 8-12 centuries and provided Europe with technical knowledge and philosophy. (This info is from Bertrand Russel’s – agnostic/atheist-Western Philosophy) and in the 21st century, be it through birth or whatever, the number of muslims are increasing beyond any other religion. Europe is trying to find ways to stop that.

    Antitheist – just for honesty sake – wasn’t it the radical Muslims who destroyed the sculpture? Or was that another incident – I don’t remember very well.

    JL Christians have been able to overcome the scholasticism of the Middle Ages which the Ottoman Empire of the period missed. And you are lucky for that.

  81. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 11:33 am

    Jolly Athiest,

    Christians may have survived the middle ages , but they are still suffering persecution Today. You say that the fact that the Holy bible was written based on the history of religion is not true. The old testament were written historical records that were written over centuries. in 450 BC these scriptures were collected and arranged by rabbis into what we know as old testament.
    The new testament was written as historical eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus came at around the year 4 BC and the new testament was written starting about the year 40 AD. That is still kind of fresh. The new Testament is remarkably accurate , as compared to its original manuscripts. The Bible is better preserved than the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle, and is a recording of actual Historical events as well as parrables and poems.

  82. Antitheist
    January 15th, 2009 @ 11:36 am

    The Taliban (Muslim extremists) were responsible for destroying many artifacts in Afghanistan and other mid-eastern countries, because they were “graven images”.

    Persecution is wrong everywhere for any reason. I would like to stop it all, but religion is the reason for it. Atheists do not persecute anyone, as they only deny any religion and debate the reasons for their denial. Ever heard of a radical atheist strapping a bomb to himself? It is religion, in the name of their god, and the ONE TRUE faith they believe in, that is the reason for the mayhem! So don’t worry about touching one of my nerves, I have pretty thick skin. It is the other zealots among you you should be concerned with. The worse an atheist will do is call you foolish or uneducated, if they themselves are frustrated.

    The Atheist will only continue to not believe any of the religious claims, fairy tales, parables etc… when there is no evidence to the contrary. You might as well talk to a frog, until you can bring the proof. AND PLEASE, do not ask me to disprove, NOT MY JOB, as I didn’t make any claims, you are!

  83. Lily
    January 15th, 2009 @ 11:42 am

    JA:

    Christianity is not “based on” an historical event. It is an historical event and quite unique. Its claims can be weighed and one can come to a reasonable conclusion about them.

    It is completely irrelevant that Mohammad was a successful general and Islam a power in the 8th-12th centuries. Mohammad claims to have received a revelation. No one else saw it, no one else can verify it. There is no rational basis for accepting the claim. Islam did not provide the west with philosophy. That is a myth. Bertrand R is not a reliable source for very much beyond mathematics.

    Jesus as the “Son of God” (and co-equal) was not controversial. It was accepted by the whole church, until the church in Alexandria started questioning it late in the 3rd cntury. However, the controversy was over the definition of his nature. Not whether he was the Son of God. Was he of the same substance as God or was he of similar substance? Arius lost by a landslide when the matter was voted on by the coucil. He got 2 of approximately 300 votes. Not a lot of controvery there.

  84. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 15th, 2009 @ 11:53 am

    JL, I don’t know if a Google ranking proves “most prosecuted,” but given that this is a predominantly Christian nation, I think we can agree that Christians are far and away the fattest and most well marbled.

  85. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 12:08 pm

    Antitheist,

    You are correct when you say it is like talking to a frog and as a christian I do defend that the Bible is an actual historical document that is based on facts. Granted that some stories in the Bible are parrables and some are poems, the rest are gathering of actual events and people. So, in fact the Holy Bible and our History books are in simularity that they hold actual documented proof of historical events.

    You are free to not beleive in its contents, that is your right to do so, but it is a shame to disregard its truths because you cannot scientifically understand it.

    Can you scientifically prove to me that there is no God? It is impossible, you can only theorize, which is why these types of discussions get nowhere.

    Bring the proof is what we hear, show me, I need to be scientifically validated. Well, Science has found a significant amount of evidence that there is life after death, with numerous paranormal instances that scientists even themselves get stumped on and cannot figure out. There are too many things that are unexplainable, and plenty that are explainable. It does not mean that just because you can’t grow it in a labaratory that it does not exist.

  86. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 12:11 pm

    Unspeakably violent Jane

    you are dillusional, and uneducated.

  87. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 15th, 2009 @ 12:18 pm

    JL, when you are reduced to name calling, it’s a forfeit. We graciously accept you defeat.

  88. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

    U.V.J

    I didnt call you fat and well marbled, like a ribeye steak.

  89. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 15th, 2009 @ 12:27 pm

    JL,

    I said Christians are among the wealthiest and members of the fattest country. Do you deny this?

    I think you should be asking yourself “Why is it so important to me to beleive that my group is persecuted?”

    Poor mouthing is common theme among Christians, in my experience. It’s dysfunctional and dishonest and I wonder why you do it. In your mind, what does it prove?

  90. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 12:38 pm

    Poor mouthing is something the atheist likes to do when they cannot come up with anything else to say..

    And I live in the Bible Belt, there aren’t mant FAT Rich Christians along the southern regions my freind, may be some where you live but here we have hard working individuals and we may indeed be the fattest country, but Christians are hardly the fattest and wealthiest. I know there are some pretty heafty nonbeleivers from third world countries.

  91. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 15th, 2009 @ 12:41 pm

    JL, Do you deny that the US is the fattest and among the richest in the world?

  92. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 15th, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

    Here you go JL. See where you rank

    http://www.globalrichlist.com/

  93. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

    UVJ
    No, that would be why I stated ” we may be the fattest country” in my earlier statement.

  94. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 15th, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

    I think the stats on this country being 85% Christian have already been posted haven’t they?

    And here is the bmi/country

    http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=22776

  95. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 1:02 pm

    UVJ

    I know where I rank, I am barely at the middle class mark, and all the people that I know are at the same margin or under, so you can read your statistics all you want, I live in reality.

  96. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 15th, 2009 @ 1:05 pm

    Mmm no. Worldwide you’re in the top 98%.

  97. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 15th, 2009 @ 1:05 pm

    So much for the suffering Christians.

  98. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

    UVJ
    Top 98%, There you go with your dillusional behavior again, sorry to inform you but I am not rich, or fat and I have a 1000 sq. ft home with 4 occupants on one income.
    if 98 percent of the us is like me then god help us.

  99. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 15th, 2009 @ 1:25 pm

    LOL! Too afraid to look, eh?

    OK, have it your way. Christians are pathetic. Now what?

  100. Lily
    January 15th, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

    What, exactly, is the point of this scintillating exchange? Exactly who does not know that the US is the fattest nation on earth? What does that have to do with anything? If you have a thesis, could you please state it, so that it can be discussed? (or not, if it doesn’t resonate with anyone.)

  101. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 1:40 pm

    Wow now I’ve hit the button, huh?a
    Well as pathetic as you may think I am,
    I am !

    And yes I looked at your statistics,and am not impressed with the fake statistical reasoning you are trying to pull.

    Yes I Know that the us ranks as the fattest nation, that is true.
    But you have no concrete evidence that christians are the richest and the fattest.
    So there you go, you and your weak statistics are the true definition of pathetic.

  102. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

    Lily

    I know the US is Fattest, I Know this already
    I have never denied it, Uvj stated that christians are all fat and rich. I do deny that.

  103. jolly atheist
    January 15th, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

    Lily: “Islam did not provide the west with philosophy”

    Avicenna and Averroes swept Europe with their interpretations of Plato and Aristotle and their adjustments of the Greek philosophy to monotheism. Thomas Aquinas admits he admires Avicenna. I gave Bertrand Russel as the source, because I thought it would satisfy you more than the Islamic sources for objectivity. Russell is famous for his objectivity in his philosophical discussions. What Europe has become what it is today, depends entirely on their enlightment and ability to throw away religious scholasticism through renaissance.

    “However, the controversy was over the definition of his nature. Not whether he was the Son of God. Was he of the same substance as God or was he of similar substance?”

    Yes, exactly. The controversy was whether they were of the same substance, that is, was he metaphorically the son of god or metaphysically? Until the Council of Nicaea, the difference was controversial because all pharoas of Egypt, Alexander the Great, Roman emperors were considered to be sons of god – metaphysically, if you ask themselves, but metaphorically other than that. Jesus was just another son of god in the metaphorical sense; not THE son of god metaphysically.

    “Mohammed claims to have received a revelation. No one else saw it, no one else can verify it.”

    Revelation is always a personal religious experience and the people around the person are either convinced or not of the experience being genuine. Whoever was around Mohammed were perfectly convinced it was genuine.

    “Christianity is not “based on” an historical event. It is an historical event and quite unique. Its claims can be weighed and one can come to a reasonable conclusion about them.”

    That there is a religion called Christianity is a historical event. Other than that, everything is controversial, just as it is with all other religions.

  104. nkb
    January 15th, 2009 @ 1:58 pm

    jesuslives: “you do not here of many who try and destroy the muslim, buddah, pagan,judaism,kabalahn faiths.”
    :lol:
    I don’t know what history books you’re reading, but you’ve never heard of persecution of Jews, throughout modern history?
    Were you homeschooled?
    .
    “They [Christians] are the most persecuted group IN THE WORLD”
    .
    How any person can say that, with a straight face, boggles my mind.

  105. jesuslives
    January 15th, 2009 @ 2:07 pm

    They are the most persecuted in the world TODAY!
    Not in History.
    I do not destroy other faiths .
    I only build up mine.

  106. Lily
    January 15th, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

    Hmmm. The Iraqi Christians who are being wiped off the face of the earth, might have a different opinion, NKB, as might the Christians of the Sudan and other Muslim-dominated nations. Western Christians haven’t endured persecution in a very long time.

    But don’t despair! The future is longer than the past. :)

  107. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 15th, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

    I still don’t get the long suffering angle. Do you think being the losers of religious wars makes you noble or what?

    All battles are economic. Ideologies are the means by which politicians overcome people’s aversion to violence and killing. Religion is a popular choice, ethnocentrism is another.

    The bottom line, though, is not which philosophy you embrace, but how much of your own identity, your own thinking you are willing to forgo to belong to the group.

    Christians in this country supporting big business and by default the Iraq War is a perfect example. Iraqis are killing Christians because George Bush called his attack on Iraq a crusade.

  108. nkb
    January 15th, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

    jesuslives,
    I notice you didn’t address my first point. Are you serious when you say nobody is persecuting other religions?
    .
    Although it’s not a religion, but I would argue that atheists are far more prosecuted than anybody else, since all the Abrahamic religions seem to think it’s ok to attack the heathens.

  109. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 15th, 2009 @ 2:29 pm

    You may be right nkb, but I prefer to think of us as the audience in the Mystery Science Theater of life…that is to say, laughing from our darkened balcony.

  110. jesuslives
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 9:00 am

    Christians are definately the most persecuted,
    Atheists try to shut them down every day.

  111. jolly atheist
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 9:26 am

    Jesuslives,

    You seem to think that the more you repeat the more convincing you will be, saying that’Christians are definitely the most persecuted’ Can you give a few examples from TODAY? How and where are Christians being persecuted every day?

  112. Margaret Catherine
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 9:50 am

    *grimaces* No, Jesuslives is right. Has to be. As proof, I offer the cafeteria food – “sausage” and “hash browns” – at Catholic University. It has to be an anti-Catholic plot, no one makes food this terrible by accident.

  113. jesuslives
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 10:30 am

    What about the millions of missionaries who are murdered every year overseas, and how about people trying to stamp out our beleifs , trying to ban prayer in our schools, public organizations, and sports. How about that every time a christian states their beleifs outside their own home they are ridiculed and told to shut up, just because we like to witness our beleifs does not make anyone obligated to beleive them, but for some reason this is the impression that nonbeleivers have of us.

    there are so many missionaries who go overseas to teach the bible and they are captured, tortured, arrested, beaten, and murdered for their efforts.

  114. Margaret Catherine
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 10:54 am

    Millions? Every year? We’d run out of missionaries pretty quickly at that rate.

  115. jolly atheist
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:06 am

    Jesuslives, I’m afraid you have exaggurated the cases about missionaries. Being ridiculed and told to shut up? Well I thnik you should give your beliefs a second thought then!

  116. jesuslives
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:07 am

    this would include the converted christians as well as american missionaries and missionaries from other countries.

  117. jesuslives
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 11:08 am

    I meant to say millions of christians , including missionaries, sorry.

  118. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 24th, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

    So, you’re all about Jesus. Why not Buddha or Allah or Odin?

    Let’s see you trash someone other than atheists. Let’s get some Zeustian trolls on here.

  119. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 6:32 am

    >Although it’s not a religion, but I would argue that atheists are far more prosecuted than anybody else, since all the Abrahamic religions seem to think it’s ok to attack the heathens.

    The usual theist response to this is to mention Stalin (actually Mao killed far more, but Stalin is usually the name dropped), which usually leads to the claim that atheism has killed more people than Christianity ever has. The problem with this is twofold: one, atheism is just an adjunct to communism, and a fairly flimsy one at that, as various communist regimes have at times embraced or at least used and tolerated religion (Lenin’s call for jihad against the czarist army in Islamic Russia, Stalin’s public embrace of Russian Orthodox Christianity to rally Russians to defend Moscow, China’s endorsement of their own “preferred” Panchen Lama in Tibet, etc.), and two, they didn’t commit mass murder on behalf of atheism as part of some campaign to end belief. When it benefited them to have churches, temples, etc., they tolerated them, and when such groups rivaled their power, they crushed them.

    I would actually argue that most communist tyrannies weren’t truly atheist but instead proliferated imperial cults, elevating the Leader and the Party to divine levels no differently than happened with, say, Caligula and the Roman “Republic.” The embroidering and mythologizing of some of them were openly mythic and religious, like Kim Jong Il claiming to have been born on a sacred mountain with a double rainbow overhead. The hysterical religious mindset is always appalling to me, whether it’s tapped by priests worshipping an imaginary god, or commissars praising a flesh-and-blood despot.

  120. Patrick
    January 26th, 2009 @ 6:42 am

    >So, you’re all about Jesus. Why not Buddha or Allah or Odin?
    Let’s see you trash someone other than atheists. Let’s get some Zeustian trolls on here.

    I don’t know of any established modern-day cults of Zeus, but Odin has made something a modest comeback in Ásatrú, which I gather is a kind of quasi-New Age, user-friendly revival of Teutonic and Norse pagan beliefs. I’d love to see Zeus become popular again, though; when I was a kid I absolutely loved CLASH OF THE TITANS. Maybe we’d get newly devoted Zeus-worshippers pooling temple funds to finance a direct-to-DVD sequel, sort of a pagan answer to LEFT BEHIND or THE OMEGA CODE…

  121. Jamie
    February 24th, 2009 @ 9:49 am

    @Cliff Martin
    Since you are quoting Oscar Wilde to support your case.. you’ll love this..

    “Religion does not help me. The faith that others give to what is unseen, I give to what I can touch and look at. When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it. Medievalism, with its saints and martyrs, its love of self-torture, its wild passion for wounding itself, its gashing with knives, and its whipping with rods — Medievalism is real Christianity, and the medieval Christ is the real Christ.”
    - Oscar Wilde

  122. IvanK
    March 8th, 2009 @ 4:40 am

    “The problem with this is twofold: one, atheism is just an adjunct to communism, and a fairly flimsy one at that, as various communist regimes have at times embraced or at least used and tolerated religion (Lenin’s call for jihad against the czarist army in Islamic Russia, Stalin’s public embrace of Russian Orthodox Christianity to rally Russians to defend Moscow, China’s endorsement of their own “preferred” Panchen Lama in Tibet, etc.), and two, they didn’t commit mass murder on behalf of atheism as part of some campaign to end belief.”

    Actually, being from Russia and a former atheist myself (I was of the Russian army at the time), I can assure you, friend, that this is not the case.

  123. Jimmy
    March 8th, 2009 @ 4:41 am

    Jamie… I don’t think that Cliff’s quote was to provide the idea that Wilde was a genius… he’s just saying he agrees with Wilde in that particular clause/quote.

  124. Sean
    March 12th, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

    Religion : God :: Harlem Globetrotters : Basketball

  125. Eric
    March 20th, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

    I liked your previous assumptions better, remember July 2002? They do seem to conflict with your current tag line and assumptions, however.

    “Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever”

    Please clarify. Does the “Forever” only apply going forward or were you always dedicated Jesus?

    For your reference, here are your earlier assumptions.

    “First, there is no God.

    Second, Atheism is not merely one possible theological theory among many. Rather, it is the only true, provable theory, and all other religious theories are false and delusional.

    Third, because there is no god, any attempt to premise moral, social or political doctrine upon a belief in god is fruitless and potentially harmful.

    Fourth, any person asserting a special individual right or attempting to dictate social policy based about a belief in god must first 1) define the god, 2) prove that the god exists and 3) demonstrate how the right or policy follows from the belief in god. Because there is no god, nobody will ever be able to do this.”

    Additionally, your archives show this response to FSM comments outweighing the Atheist ones.

    “Recall that this site is dedicated to disproving the existence of some contrived, ridiculous invisible being in which no sane person could possibly believe. Please stay on topic.”

    It seems you have lost your way and no longer stay on topic. Sad.

  126. Nadine Seiler
    March 21st, 2009 @ 7:55 am

    My basic assumption would be that anyone who goes from raving about one extreme i.e. atheism to another extreme theism is not particularly logical. This person is obviously easily open to suggestion and any heightened argument can change his/her mind equally in any direction.

  127. JoAnna
    March 21st, 2009 @ 8:36 am

    My basic assumption would be that anyone who goes from raving about one extreme i.e. atheism to another extreme theism is not particularly logical. This person is obviously easily open to suggestion and any heightened argument can change his/her mind equally in any direction.

    What is “extreme theism”?

  128. Lily
    March 21st, 2009 @ 9:29 am

    I am not convinced that a years long process of conversion demonstrates that RT is “easily open to suggestion” or “not particularly logical”. That strikes me as a leap of logic that cannot be supported by any evidence offered here.

    In general I don’t think that comment box psychology has any insights of value to offer, even when it is amusing to indulge in it. In the case of RT I am not sure one can talk about extreme atheism or extreme theism. They are intellectual positions that are more or less strongly held. I am with JoAnna– what is extreme theism? Equally, I would like to know what extreme atheism is.

  129. AhTrini
    March 21st, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

    Professing to know that there is or is not a god is extreme, since no one knows the answers to these questions. What evidence has the former raving atheist gained in the year’s conversion for him/her to go raving about theism? Have there been any answers to the religious or scientific questions (I haven’t heard any recently) that have evaded us for centuries that make him/her go from raving about atheism to raving about theism in a year’s conversion? I could understand if s/he were in the middle somewhere, with the doubts that the average religious person has but to now be a raving theist (obviously a christer who leaves no room for other religions or belief systems) in a year to me is extreme.

  130. Stan
    March 22nd, 2009 @ 4:50 am

    Ah Trini,

    Well written. I agree that no one knows for certain, but it seems to me that some conclusions are better thought out than others.

    RA/RT’s behavior does seem extreme. I guess the consistent thread is that no matter which side of the street he’s working, he’s always raving!

  131. Fred Evil
    March 30th, 2009 @ 12:08 am

    Wow…once upon a tgime this was a respectable atheist blog..

    It seems to have turned to shite now…oh well….Favorites – DELETE.

    May I suggest some counseling…?

  132. SafyreKing
    April 6th, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

    Well this’ll be fun. For the record I’m an agnostic theist. Basically it means my faith is in no religion but I still believe that in some capacity a greater being exists out there.

    Fun facts.
    1. Religions are based on man made texts originating from sometimes thousands of years ago. Problem: The only way the original “Word” of God could ever transcend time and maintain its meaning is if it was directly written by God himself and from then on never translated or reproduced. Why? Because humanity is from a religious stand point fundamentally flawed and beyond that language, experience and intelligence barriers bar any two people from interpreting the message the exact same way. Therefore there is no way to ascertain whether or not its the true “Word of God”… Unless of course God confronted you directly and using divine power forced you to understand it the way he wanted you to… which to my knowledge and understanding the only being capable of that is “God”. The mere existance of religious radical groups proves my very point. With a slight difference in personal experience and perspective the same words that your neighbor reads could mean something very different to you. And you’re not doing consciencely, you can’t help it, you’re not divine, so you can only interpret what you are told or what you’ve read in your own way. And its been going on for thousands of years… do you honestly think for a second the religious text that you read in church or in school is the same and the supposed original text?

    2. All religions teach its followers to do good without reason or reward. A good ideal I think. But the problem is that in believing whole heartedly in the teachings you also are believing that you will go to heaven or nirvana or where ever… whats the problem you say? You’re still doing things for a big reward, the one at the end and in essence you are still doing things to look out after your own ass in the end. You’re still being selfish. The genuine souls are the ones who try to be good people without ever believing they’re going to heaven. I tend to think there’s not many people like that out there.

    That’s just for starters…

  133. John Venlet
    April 30th, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

    “The complete atheist is more respectable than the man who is indifferent, he is on the last rung preceding perfect faith.”

    Albert Camus – The Possessed

  134. Get Out Of The House
    August 1st, 2009 @ 9:18 am

    It’s funny how most people here rely on logic and evidence when none of you even think that you could actual believe what you want to and be okay. Atheism/agnosticism/theism; why should it matter if others believe differently? Because they are wrong to you? Because of “evidence?” You could give a million reasons why the opposing view is ridiculous and they could just the same for the other. Even our logic is plagued by our biases, ever read Gould’s Mismeasure of Man? it fuels our science and our philosophies. It fuels our humanity. Yeah. We’re a pretty pathetic species.

    -IW

  135. Yllo
    September 15th, 2009 @ 10:25 am

    I followed a link from Godless Bastard’s website, who deemed this blog’s writer “Godless rantmaster extraordinaire”. How disappointing. I suggest that the name of this blog be renamed to better reflect its current status. http://simpering-jesuslover.com ? http://weakminded-whackjob.com ? http://once-sane-now-just-another-lemming.com?

  136. Porno Lily
    October 3rd, 2009 @ 5:45 am

    I also want to give thx to you for your abortion work! I enjoy porn so the thought of childbirth is ebhorrent to me! Yours in Christ, Porno Lily

  137. Cody Nickels
    December 5th, 2009 @ 12:46 am

    Second, god is not real. Yes! I figured it out.

  138. CH
    December 19th, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

    Hello? Are there any serious athiests out there??? As a an agnostic whose done considerable reading on the classical theistic tradition over the past few years, I’d just like to pose a question to you athiestic champions of reason. It’s a simple question about a concept with which you should be intimately familiar, as so much of your rage seems directed against it. Here it goes:

    What, in the classical theistic (Platonic, Augustininan, Thomistic) tradition, is meant by “God”?

  139. "Jim"
    December 19th, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

    Nope, just us Russian spambots. Taking up bandwidth with our mindless postings.

    We’ve gotten pretty good at sounding human now. “Hello everyone! My name is Jim and I’m new to this site. Perhaps you will visit my site.” Only the occasional spellnig error gives us away.

    Um, can I interest you in a random product or service?

  140. CH
    December 19th, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

    Gotacha, Jim–or should I say, “Jim”. I must say that you ‘bots speak more sense than many of the commentators here.

    And before you ask, no I’m not concerned about the size of my manhood or in need of a Russian bride.

  141. "Jim"
    December 20th, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

    CH,

    lol, but be kind. The first stringers are busy elsewhere. They’re good people and you should check back when things are busier. No shortage of serious thinkers here: atheists and theists, former atheists and former theists all. (I’m not sure I’m any of those.) Agnostics will never be back, he’s seen to that.

    I recommend (just recommend) coming in a little more humble, because if you underestimate them, you could have your hat handed to you. (You can check out some of their home pages if you don’t believe me.) Not telling you what to do, just some advice.

    Try a comment to any post on the home paeg.

  142. Jonathan Zwergel
    February 8th, 2010 @ 11:53 pm

    Try this conditioned belief experiment. Pretend you are an adult who has never heard of the concept of a “god.” Suddenly a person tells you about a god they believe in.
    Would you believe this person?

    Our belief is conditioned by culture.

  143. Spambot
    February 9th, 2010 @ 6:33 am

    John,

    Raving Theist is simply looking for a basic assumption, there is a God. You may start with an assumption that there is no God, but I fail to see how that position is superior. Both are assumptions. Perhaps if you are uncertain, try each assumption and see where they lead you. Which assumption leads to bigger and better things, and which assumption leads you nowhere?

  144. priest's wife
    October 25th, 2010 @ 11:38 am

    …seems to me that atheism is a religion, too…

  145. NonBeliever
    December 23rd, 2010 @ 12:20 am

    There are several reasons why atheism is not generally considered a religion. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I googled the question and have included the simple headings of one good list of things that distinguish almost all religions from atheism.
    Belief in Supernatural Beings:

    Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:

    Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:

    Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:

    Characteristically Religious Feelings:

    Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:

    A Worldview & Organization of One’s Life Based on the Worldview:

    A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:

    Atheism has not dogma, no religious texts, no call to authority, etcetera. The only thing atheists definitely agree on is to live their inner lives as if there are no gods. (For reasons of survival in certain places they might go along with the dominant religion in their outer life).

    Followers of almost all organized religions have first had contact with the religion. In other words no Western explorers stumbled upon an island of Christ worshippers who hadn’t heard of the New Testament. But even among the most homogenous insulated religious community, there have been people who may never have heard of atheism who have said, wait a second, this stuff doesn’t make sense. And that person may become an atheist without knowing they are not alone in the world.

  146. SamK
    November 21st, 2011 @ 6:32 pm

    Fools like Douchemaster are the resaon I’m no longer an atheist. I’ve come to believe that atheism is a mantropic ideology fueled by hatred for others and self-loathing due to one’s one moral shortcomings and failures in life.

    I’m not going to generalize all atheists as evil or bad people, but I believe that atheism is an ideology conductive to immorality and hatred of the world and one’s fellow man.

    Atheism is America’s new fundamentalism. I’m glad the owner of this site found peace in his faith, regardless of what the immoral have to say about him – as in those who used to love this guy, but turned on him in a flash just because he doesn’t share their misantropic atheistic views any more.

    God Bless You, RT.

  147. Hacim Nosretep
    December 23rd, 2011 @ 3:30 am

    SamK, this is the first time I’ve visited this site since 2006. When it was functional, The Raving Atheist provided a true Forum for atheists, agnostics, and believers to convene in conflict or mutual support. Obviously, the membership was ideologically skewed toward non-belief, and yeah, you had to sift through a lot of trite or even slanderous junk to find a sincere thread and join the conversation, but there were also many thoughtful, circumspect contributers, and they had no time for vain vulgarity and kneejerk reactionism like that exhibited by DoucheMaster.
    I believe you are correct in asserting that atheism is conducive to an amoral lifestyle, and it certainly provides no barrier against hateful or malicious behavior. It gives no code or creed, provides no succor, no guidance, no support. It allows anything but faith in God, because it is merely a descriptive term – not an ideology, not a religion, not a lifestyle. I share your observation that atheists generally appear spiteful and bitter – hateful, even – but that is an observation of people, not an evaluation of the idea.
    I believe a person’s ideology, her/his entire system of beliefs, should depend on his/her most fervent search for truth, so that it won’t be satisfied by tradition or rebellion alone, nor by the impatience of hate or love, nor with apathy or resignation. The question of our existence is, at least to me, the most interestng puzzle within our reach.
    Please, SamK, if you check this dead website and see my words, take from them at least a reminder to visit your beliefs from time to time, to take an interest in them for their own sake, and not for the company they provide.

  148. Annie B
    February 8th, 2012 @ 10:30 am

    Reading my daily inspiration readings, this was today’s. It really made me think of you, TRT, fka TRA, and what you’ve been experiencing these past few years, and hoping you are well.

    “We take the term sanctification much too lightly. Are we prepared for what sanctification will cost? It will cost an intense narrowing of all our interests on earth, and an immense broadening of all our interests in God. Sanctification means intense concentration on God’s point of view. It means every power of body, soul and spirit chained and kept for God’s purpose only. Are we prepared for God to do in us all that He separated us for? And then after His work is done in us, are we prepared to separate ourselves to God even as Jesus did? “For their sakes I sanctify Myself.” The reason some of us have not entered into the experience of sanctification is that we have not realized the meaning of sanctification from God’s standpoint. Sanctification means being made one with Jesus so that the disposition that ruled Him will rule us. Are we prepared for what that will cost? It will cost everything that is not of God in us.

    It really DID cost everything that was not of God, didn’t it? And all your former fans bemoan that “loss.” Oh, well. I’m sure they’ve found some other atheist to follow by now…

    Taken from ‘My Utmost for His Highest’, by Oswald Chambers. © l935 by Dodd Mead & Co., renewed © 1963 by the Oswald Chambers Publications Assn., Ltd., and is used by permission of Barbour Publishing, Uhrichsville, Ohio. All rights reserved. http://www.studylight.org/devos/utm/

  149. Evan
    February 15th, 2012 @ 2:12 am

    People actually still frequent this site? And people still believe the myth of the invisible man/woman/whatever in the sky?

  150. Fernando
    May 29th, 2012 @ 3:54 am

    - Evan

    Apparently so, and for good reason We still believe in what you call “invisible man/woman/whatever in the sky?” but not in the caricature way you put it.

    We will explain why, if you repent and end your mocking ways.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links

    Switch to our mobile site