How did god faking its own death for three days achieve anything?

Ohh and also Bill, Max, any believer - how does your faith differ from hers if at all?

Max - could you watch the video I posted - interested in if you laugh as hard as I did at GF's post - or if it made you angry?

Wow, indeed. That's max when he goes tranny at Conway's.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/8...
wow.

Happy International Blasphemy Day!

Matt:

31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Ghosts are not real - there is no Holy Ghost, nor is there a hell. The eternal torture god some of you worship is imaginary.

Speaking of the Big Sleep, I'm sure jstwndg and maxdetail have gone through some agonizing reappraisals in the matter of the Dirt Nap -among a lot of other things.

Nonetheless, I wonder if jstwndy is passing the plate for maxdetail as he terrorizes his flock with threats of eternal hellfire if they don't abide by the Orwellian double-think and double-speak of the bible.

Nonetheless, they sure are ducking the debacle started by their fellow believer Eyster.

You can tell athiests are wicked by the way they don't believe someone else's death absolves them of their actions.

Announcement From NOGOD (NO God Or Devil)*

Next month's human sacrifice has been cancelled due to a lack of virgins in the tri-township area.



*NOGOD is a non-prophet organization dedicated to clear thinking and beer drinking.

foolonthehill, Eyster is probably tenured. He has the academic freedom to spread hatred. He's getting a taste of the real world on his statehood for Palestine blogs.

Gazettefan: Student of Eyster just might be worst possible insult to direct at a fellow human being. Wash that mouth out with soap, sir!

Well, ICY, I didn't see your deleted post, but it must have been another of your moronic masterpieces.

And what happened to the stats-fest? Did you run into too many true stats that do fatal damage to your bullcrap stats?

Are you a former student of Eyster?

What color is your Aingottnun, Pro? Does it get good gas mileage? What a brilliant cover story for a teen driver returning home with a mysterious dent in his parents' car. "Seriously, Dad... I got sideswiped by a '97 Aingottnun!" Best of all, the list of possible suspects is infinite since no one can prove they've never owned one. ;-)

Max - better advise your flock not to read this - especially they should not discuss it if they do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris...

Read this somewhere - maybe the NOGOD website?

If atheism is a religion "I haven't got one" is a make of a car.

An Announcement from NOGOD (NO God Or Devil)*

Visiting Jesuits are asked to kindly refrain from skateboarding in NOGOD's parking lot.


*NOGOD is a non-prophet organization dedicated to clear thinking and the proper preparation of deep-fried food.

Right, and did we cause

maxdetail to steal the "soul" of jst......?

did we cause maxdetail and jst...... to reveal that subjecting faith to rational inquiry exposes faith as stultifying to the intellect? (OK, we might be guilty of that one.)

But

did we cause maxdetail and jst..... to ban themselves from speaking out on this thread, thus confining themselves to only reading the posts of others?

did we suggest to maxdetail that he should have his flock, including jst....., read this thread in order to see the work of the devil? (Well, we did now.)

and am I announcing that it's time to post announcements from NOGOD here? (Yes)

GF now that its just us again - I saw this list on Pharyngula. In light of all the hurt feelings and horrible behavior that we have been accused of I thought it might be fun to post here.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield is very concerned: atheism has turned ugly, he says. Oh, no, I says, what atrocity have we perpetrated now? Have we been…

•raping children in our care?
•hunting for witches in Africa and setting them on fire?
•rioting over poorly-drawn caricatures of Madalyn Murray O’Hair?
•stoning women to death for adultery?
•telling air force cadets to prepare for a righteous armageddon?
•hypocritical?
•chopping the hands off thieves?
•displacing and oppressing people because they live on land Dawkins said was ours?
•pouring money into California to suppress the rights of gay couples?
•building compounds and filling them with automatic rifles?
•lying to children in our educational system?
•telling women they aren’t allowed to speak at our meetings?
•flying planes into buildings?
•chopping bits off baby penises?
•inculcating shame and guilt in generations of children?
•ignoring the stewardship of our planet because nature couldn’t possibly allow us to mess it up?
•denying children medical care because disease is Hitchen’s will?
•strapping bombs to our bodies and boarding church buses before detonating them?
•telling poor people they aren’t allowed to use family planning?
•butchering albinos for body parts we use in our secret ceremonies?
•legislating death and imprisonment for sexual practices we disapprove of?
•making women dress up in bag-like tents before allowing them to go outside?
•dynamiting ancient works of religious art?
•crusading?
•chopping off clitorises?
•demanding special privileges?
•dismantling the social support network?
•using our tax-free income to lobby for conservative politicians in our tax-exempt buildings?
•calling for pogroms and ethnic cleansing?
•setting our critics on fire?

JST - Bye.

I wasn't hostile - seemed like we were exchanging ideas.

Ever notice that athiests sometimes call themselves Freethinkers? Its because we can talk about any subject without being afraid of what we might realize from the discussion.

Christians/believers on the other hand - well the more devout they are the fewer follow up questions they can answer without some sort of avoidance tactic.

By the way, jst......, the real goal was to get you and maxdetail and the rest of your ilk to shut your pie holes as a way of demonstrating the stultifying of effect of belief.

jst...., the long goodbye continues, and nice ploy: Waiting for a period of time after reasonable comments and questions were posed and coming up with a bogus excuse to avoid them.

You, like maxdetail, have demonstrated that you hold thoughts in the matter of the human experience that can't stand up to scrutiny. For your effort you win this:

An evening of pounding back cans of Blatz with maxdetail at Weirdo's on Screw Ball Night. Enjoy the pigskins.

pro & gfan: If only you two would actually apply the directives to the resolute and uncompromising statements that you both frequently hand out to others.
~
The mean-spirited negativity you both so freely and enthusiastically dole out is sad and dismal and, worse, neither one of you seems to have an inkling of realization about it.
~
I’ve tried to encourage you to open your minds and at least consider other alternatives to what you both are so condescendingly assertive and self-confident of, but I’ve gotten nowhere with it. While I’m afraid I’ve sown seeds on some very rocky and barren soil, at least I can say I’ve tried to do something positive and edifying.
~
I have to agree with max and I thank him for throwing me a lifeline and bringing me back from the wasteland I have been wandering in.
~
Adios, mi amigos.

gfan said: "jst....., I thought your post of the other day was an actual cry of "uncle."
~
Aw, c'mon! Don't tell me that after all the flak you gave me about my uncle that you didn't get my little attempt at humor, gfan?!
~
Then gfan said: "Glad you and pro are hanging in there. now if I may interject:"
(TAG SLAP!)
~
Then pro said: "Excellent post GF..."
(TAG SLAP!)
~
Do you two have really goofy wrestling costumes, too?
LOL!!
:-)

maxdetail, why no real assistance for jst...... That's not nice, or christian of you. Put down the can of Blatz and jump in.

jst......, do you really want to drink with maxdetail now?!!!!

Max - you are interupting without contributing. I will leave you with this bit of wisdom:

Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing. - Thales 600BC.

Don't let them lure you in jst, they are very proud of their long running 'circle lurk' here. Leave them to enjoy one another.

JST - what are your thoughts on Max? He not only does not want to participate, he is also concerned that you are. Why do you think that is?

Try this pro tip Max - to truly be sure of something - to really believe/know - first try to disprove it.

maxdetail, wow, you preach to the choir. Big deal.

Take the challenge. Let's have the proof of god here. Spread the good news.

maxdetail, the poverty of your post, including its lowbrow content, in response to well thought-out, reasonable comments and questions is a perfect example of what belief does to the intellect. Thanks for the demonstration.

jst has done a much better and civil job of hanging in there. You have nothing to teach him or her; in fact, you could learn from him or her.

I do, and I did. Last weekend I addressed and discussed the Gospel with a large group. I regularly discuss the rationality of faith and Christianity with groups of people. I discuss the cumulative evidence and proof of God with many folks, people who really want to learn. Every week, thousands of pastors, evangelists and missionaries proclaim the Gospel to millions of people.
.
This forum is just you and gfan and whatever believer you can exploit and insult and ridicule for your own entertainment and self-validation. It's all been said. You're not interested in God, this is all about you and so, I leave you to each other. Have a nice sleep.

Max - why don't you want these issues to be explored and discussed rationally?

jstwndrn, you do realize that now it's YOU who keeps throwing water on the sea-monkeys? Your the one keeping these trolls active. Leave them alone and they'll dry up until the next article on religion appears. We've all been there so I don't fault you but really, let them go back into their dormant state. They need to be here, you don't.

Excellent post GF -

JST - Do you really believe that the Adam and Eve story, Noah's Ark, god's slaughter of the firstborn of all of Egypt, ect actually happened - is that history or myth?

Please if I have not answered any other topics you wanted me to address please let me know.

In the meantime - your comment on the blanket statement about a group of someones:

There are extreme christians and muslims and extremes in several other variants of faith - and they all come from the fact that there is a moderate base that all encourage and propagate their delusions, usually onto their children. Without the magical thinking of the moderate the horrors of religious extremism can't grow.

In addition that non-critical thinking leads to a general drag in progress. Looks historicaly at slavery, women's rights, civil rights, ect. Look at modern day how they proagate homophobia at every turn, try to teach nonsense creationism to our children, forced child birth, blocking stem cell research funds because a bundle of cells no larger than a fly's brain has a soul.

Of course there are colors in between black and white, if there is a specific exampel fo a color I am missing in between those two I would love to discuss it with you.

jst....., I thought your post of the other day was an actual cry of "uncle." Glad you and pro are hanging in there. now if I may interject:

When pro or any non believer slams god. What he or she is actually doing is pointing out that a god who is supposed to be all-powerful and all-good can't possibly exist. Can't be those things and still be bad. They cancel each other out.

The bible as history: Why isn't the bible taught as mainstream history in every high school and university? Is it a conspiracy? There are accepted histories of Jesus' era that barely mention Jesus. And there is speculation that those mentions were placed in earlier histories at later times. Considering what Jesus was supposed to have done (miracles, etc.), you'd expect that he'd be mentioned as much as the other historical characters of his time. There is very little in mainstream history that jibes with the Jesus story. And there is absolutely nothing in mainstream history that supports anything supernatural about the Jesus story.

The baby with the bath water: You can get good people to do bad things if you insert religion and an all powerful being into their heads.

Prayer: You can't remove the placebo effect from any apparent benefit to a prayed for person. On the other hand, sometimes prayer is harmful to the person prayed for because the prayed for person experiences horror from the "necessity of prayer."

Further, there is no scientific proof that prayer is beneficial absent the placebo effect. And, sometimes the occasional remission of a serious disease is wrongly attributed to prayer. If prayer was the cause for the remission, then, why no regenerations of lost limbs?

And you must consider the harm of prayer when people wrongly rely on prayer in lieu of appropriate medical care. The reliance on prayer has been a fatal mistake for some people. You can blame clergy for this.

For prayer to be truly effective, a paranormal occurrence would have to take place -the laws of physics would have to stop. For years there's been a million dollar reward for anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal occurrence. No one has ever collected that money.

The only benefit from prayer is to the one who prays. But it's a selfish benefit. The one who prays is giving himself credit for having done something for someone who needs help when he, the one who prayed, has done nothing.

You're right, very little is black and white. But there's one thing that's certainly only one way: There's no paranormal phenomena, no supernatural occurrences, and no god. These fictions are all the same thing.

Open mindedness: How can anyone claim to be open minded if they reject reality?

pro: Have you ever heard of the saying "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water"? Do you know what it means? Basically, don't throw out the good with the bad. You call the Bible a book of myth, when in fact, secular as well as religious scholars understand it to be one of the most accurate accounts of ancient history we have. Events and people in the Bible are real and backed up by other sources of historical record. Sorry, but I have to call you on speaking with false authority again.
~
Re: The prayer studies. Some of the studies also state that people who pray, as well as people who know they are being prayed for by others, can have a quicker and more successful recovery from illness and trouble in their lives
~
I keep going back to this point: very little in life is black and white, there is a plethora of colors in between. When you throw a blanket condemnation out on something or someone or a group of someones, you are not being fair, open-minded or sensible.

JST - bible quoting - you took as stand on what the bible said, other than that you are correct - any stance you feel like taking can be supported by that book of myth that drips with blood.

Power of prayer - the bottom of the link you provided do in fact address the power of prayer, however we were speaking about my statement which I reposted for you - did you want to talk about the efficacy of intercessory prayer? My point was that outside of the human mind prayer has no tangible effect - notice the studies you posted in regards to royalty who are pleaded for daily by millions. Or look at the largest study to date put on by christians wishing to prove their god was listening - actually made patients have more complications when they knew others were praying for them. Now that you have deviated from my statement not sure exactly which aspect of the power of prayer you want to talk about - I am game though.

Yes Iasiah old testment, jesus new - your point that the bible went from horrors to civilized is not true - it went from horrors to horrors.

As to my use of the word Evil - there is no supernatural evil - people do bad things to each other. The myths of Jesus and the afterlife and a god that rewards and punishes diminishes the natural tendancy in humans to cooperate and devalues human life. The christian god is a character written my man at a time when the species was more brutal and uncivilized than it is today.

The christian god as depicted in the bible drips in the blood of the innocent - but its just a myth, like the thousands of other gods - we agree any of the horrors actually committed in the bible were done by men.

However - some on this site believe that murderous character is real - and worthy of worship - they should read their bible and realize when they can't say that spearing an infant in the eye is wrong they also can't claim to be be more moral than those of us that can.

pro: For starts, here's a post most recently you didn't respond to: The scientifically proven power of prayer.
~
Also, we could both quote scripture all day every day for days on end that would support both our stances. It's a book of contradictions and inconsistency that needs knowledgeable interpretation and to be taken in context.

pro: Re: Posts without responses...too many to go back over and repeat them all.
~
Right, Isaiah = Old Testament. Jesus/New Covenant = New Testament.
~
Can you please clear something up for me? How can you seemingly and repeatedly be blaming and labeling as evil a god you say doesn't exist?
~
Shouldn't you either be blaming the evil men who acted on their own, with no directive from a god who doesn't exist, or admitting god exists, evil or not?

pro: Again you speak with false authority: "You as an agnostic must understand there is now (sic) reason to believe that a billion billion prayers will have any more of an effect on reality than any actual action taken by a soldier."

Was this the section I failed to comment on? Your link provided no information in regards to actual reality outside of a person's mind being effected. Actualy if you scroll down you will see the studies that contradict most of the mental benefits that the first group os studies found.

I stand by my statement - if we could hypothetically have a billion billion people pray for the well being of a specific ant on the ground, that would make no difference to the person intent on stepping on it. Prayers are thoughts, thats all.

Easy now JST - lets not be mean to each other.

Yeah I learned something - the Isaiah passage I posted could be interpreted to mean that god did indeed always want to torure us forever. Allthought I thought that your point was that the tone had changed from violence to love/peace in the New Testament?

Sorry - didn't remember your specific response to the killing a toddler is evil question. Not as clear cut as you and I would like to believe unfrotunatly - folks like Max and Bill are unable to agree with the following statement - It is always wrong to spear a toddler in the brain until it dies.

Anyways on to your point that the evil in the bible not being ordered or sanctioned by god. Indeed it was - if toddler slaughter is evil - then the christian god is evil because he indeed orders/condones/causes this to happen - on grand scales. Need biblical citations? If so can we hit Numbers 31 1st then move on to the many other times god shows his love for humanity by acting like bronze age man?

Max and I played a game last year - he questioned it when I said there were "Many" examples of this, I think I got into the high teens/twenties before he was satisfied that my statement was true.

As far as me not responding to your posts - could you provide an example - I would be glad to catch up on anything I have missed.

Another pro quote: "Before we move on to evil being god ordered or sanctioned - I just need to define evil with you: is it evil to kill an innocent toddler?"

~

Of course it is, pro. Why do you keep asking that over and over? I've already shown you the courtesy of answering it several times. What's the problem here? Comprehension or memory?

"At least in the old testament once god was done with whatever genocide he was on that week he was done with you..."

~

Isaiah 33:14 (one of the few hints in the old testament that the pre-jesus god also intends to keep you in existence to torture you forever?)

~

pro: By the looks of the two recent quotes by you, you don't even need anyone else to debate, as you contradict yourself quite nicely. You never directly respond to anything I say anyway. Quote away. Maybe you'll learn something in the process.

Before we move on to evil being god ordered or sanctioned - I just need to define evil with you: is it evil to kill an innocent toddler?

Matt 7:
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

John 3:
36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Excelent JST- thanks for the response - lets talk about the loving Jesus's Hell from a biblical perspective:

Before we start - Bill/Max/Talk/ICY - isn't the bible clear about your torture god's intent is with hell?

Be Nice to People - avoid Hell.
Matt 25:
31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Jesus clearly the only way to heaven/with biblical support - also fyi - any other opinion was placed in your head by none other than Satan.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-only-w...

Isaiah 33:14 (one of the few hints in the old testament that the pre-jesus god also intends to keep you in existence to torture you forever?)
14The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?

Matt 13:
49So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

50And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

51Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.

pro: Again you speak with false authority: "You as an agnostic must understand there is now (sic) reason to believe that a billion billion prayers will have any more of an effect on reality than any actual action taken by a soldier."
I imagine it's safe to assume you meant "no" when you typed "now".

Scientific evidence that proves that prayer helps in more ways than one:

http://onlinesurgicaltechniciancourses.c...

The Old Testament scripture below from Isaiah strongly suggests that the evil that was being done was not divinely ordered or sanctioned.

15 You might spread out your hands toward me when you pray.
But I will not look at you.
You might even offer many prayers.
But I will not listen to them.
Your hands are covered with the blood of the people you have murdered.
16 So wash your hands. Make yourselves clean.
Get your evil actions out of my sight!
Stop doing what is wrong!
17 Learn to do what is right!
Treat people fairly.
Give hope to those who are beaten down.
Isaiah 1:15-17

pro & gfan: When I try to seriously respond to your posts, I get personally attacked and criticized for not having a sense of humor. When I try to lighten up, I again get criticized. Are you two tag-teaming me or what?

~

You both have a tendency to speak with authority and as if your statements are absolute and unconditional truths. No offense, but they aren't and that in itself makes a give and take conversation difficult. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

~

The previous quotes from the New Testament dispute what you claimed, pro. There is also much Old Testament scripture that talks about eternal judgment. What is your response then in view of your previous statements?

As for the person who hears my words, but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come into the world to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.
—John 12:47-48, NIV (Jesus speaking)

~

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
—Luke 6:38, NIV (Jesus speaking)

~

You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
—John 8:15, NIV (Jesus speaking)

Anyways - while we wait for the believers to recharge their faith, and for ICY to find his facts, I thought this was an interesting example of how faith in the supernatural warps a person's humanity:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2...

JST your last few posts have been about the same as a ban.

As far as Jesus being a great guy and the newtestament being a book of peace and love - don't forget that if you don't love/believe in god - the new covenant has you burning in hell, for eternity. Jesus is a torture god.

At least in the old testament once god was done with whatever genocide he was on that week he was done with you, jesus added in eternal torture, because he is loving?

Gee, g. Mellow out, will you? You seem so agitated. What's the problem? Am I high? Was Jesus high?
I'd have to be high to even attempt to respond to all your "points", my even snippier snappy little friend.

~

"Be nice..." I'm trying...but you're so busy being not nice, you aren't paying attention.

~

Isn't disagreement nicer than argument? C'mon Gfan, what do you want me to do...holler "uncle"?

:-)

jst...., are you high?

Here's what I said in quotes:

"The sword is metaphor for "argument?" Ha. Why would the prince of peace use a weapon for a metaphor? Why would he, being omniscient, not know that his "metaphor" would be used as an excuse for killing millions of people? Really, c'mon. At a minimum, you would have to concede that he wasn't very smart. Is that what you're saying?"
***
OK, if there's a significant difference between the words "disagreement" and "argument" to a degree that allows you to be "AVOIDANT" again, please explain what that difference is.

OK, now that you've thought it over and can't come up with anything, let's not avoid what I said.

Back in Jesus' time a sword was a very high-tech weapon. It was much used to stab and kill people. His use of the word "sword" was used as an excuse to kill millions of people with not only swords but with other weapons. Now, if Jesus is god and god is omniscient (he knows everything about everything all the time, including the future), why couldn't he determine that the "sword" metaphor was kind of a stupid idea. Was he high?

C'mon. Don't bicker respond to this point and some of the other points, like the pope's bejeweled house dress and how he has a lot of influence over what a lot of people think. Be nice and I'll allow the unbanning of yourself to continue.

Dang it. I knew I shouldn’t have banned myself! If I ask the Gazette to pull that one, can we all pretend I didn’t say that?

~

It’s just that I was so touched by pro turning to me with questions and concerns about death that I felt I really should respond and share the abundance and depth of my knowledge of the afterlife.

~

Gfan: I said “The sword referred to in that passage is metaphorical. It refers to the sort of thing that is going on here. Disagreement, not violence.”
If you are going to keep at it, at least quote me accurately, would ya? Gee, you wouldn’t think I would have to point out such a basic to one as skilled in the art of commentary and debate as you claim to be. Tsk, tsk, my snappy little friend!
:-)

jst....., it's more a matter of brain activity dying when belief begins.

Ah, yes, it's so much easier to slam than it is for you to respond to such brain-rattling questions as:

Is the pope and the vatican under yet another delusion?: That they believe they have immense influence on people but they really don't? Well, then, where's all the money come from that allows the pope to wander around his castle in a bejewel house dress?
****

The sword is metaphor for "argument?" Ha. Why would the prince of peace use a weapon for a metaphor? Why would he, being omniscient, not know that his "metaphor" would be used as an excuse for killing millions of people? Really, c'mon. At a minimum, you would have to concede that he wasn't very smart. Is that what you're saying?

Oh, I forgot you're done. You've banned yourself. You are self-confined to only read my posts here without the ability to respond. Like right now. ;~)

JST - actually I was hoping to speak with a spiritualist. Its the same sort of non-critical magical thinking that leads to religion/Jesus/Allah devotion. We have not had one of those speak on here before.

I hope ICY comes back - he ran off to get some facts - thats the last we have heard from him.

pro: "What happens to us when we die?" Well, first brain activity ceases...

~

:-)

Maybe before you go you could explain the calling/spirituality. Is there some sort of energy? What happens to us when we die?

Gfan: I'm disappointed...but not surprised. More of the same old, same old, I see...highly opinionated declarations, name-calling, self-administered pats on the back, etc. And you telling me that I have nothing to say in the area of civil discourse is really funny. You WERE joking again, weren't you?!
;-)

~

And why are you so adamant that I comment on ICY's posts? I don't see what is to be gained by it and not only did ICY never address me, I frankly don't find them worth responding to at this point.

~

Perhaps you should take some of your own cynically delivered advice about "reading", "civil discourse" and "rude, avoidant mentality". Then maybe you will someday understand more about people and life and hopefully be less judgmental...and be in a better frame of mind to discuss a topic without resorting to the tactics you now display.
~
Your manner of comment is far more scathing, sarcastic, acerbic and down-right mean than mine, yet you accuse me of it? Wow. I'm sorry, but what are you on?!!!!

~

So, for all the reasons above, I'm going to have to refrain from further participation here. I have no desire to trade insults, jabs and barbs with you, I regret allowing myself to be drawn into doing so to the degree I previously did and apologize for it.

I'll leave you with your last question to me and ask you to ask yourself the same thing:

"How good can your (dis)belief be if it leaves you with nothing civil to say?"

jst......, the only redeeming thing about your presentation on this thread is that it took you longer to slip into the same rude, avoidant mentality that the other believers slip into much quicker. But, nonetheless, you resort to the above because you are stumped. You have been out reasoned. The clarity that you've had to confront here has left you with nothing to say in the area of civil discourse.

That's why you didn't criticize ICY. Look what he did. He never participated. He only wrote idiotic stuff. Where's your criticism of that. That sort of thing is OK if a believer says it, that's your world.

How good can your belief be if it leaves you with nothing civil to say?

Gfan: It's responses like your last one that basically make it impossible to conduct a civil and reasonable conversation with you. No offense, but who made you the dictator and/or definer of what this so-called debate is?

~

You make blanket statements, you disregard any consideration of individuality, you make claims you can't prove and you can be ridiculously offensive in the process. You don't clarify that anything is simply your opinion, which, for the most part that is the case, but instead you act as if you are speaking with accuracy and authority, which, for the most part, you certainly are not.

~

The over-all tone of your last reply is unpleasant, provoking, attacking, aggressive, rude and unworthy of consideration or considerate reply.

~

The fact that not all your comments are ugly to this degree almost makes it seem as if there is more than one person making comments under your user name. Hmmm, now there's food for thought.

~

And, just FYI, any reading of the Bible should also include discernment, unbiased and intelligent interpretation and understanding. Text without context often becomes a pretext. The sword referred to in that passage is metaphorical. It refers to the sort of thing that is going on here. Disagreement, not violence. Of course, you probably knew that, but it was too easy to resist throwing it out there for smoke screen.

Touchy? What's the big idea, you're supposed to respond to my well-written post.

Deleted post: Everything in it was true and appropriate, but I thought that even though non-believers are constantly being berated here that my post was a little harsh, so I requested that it be deleted. I have higher standards than the believers here.

OK, read ICY's posts. Where's your criticism for that. And I don't mean the baloney stats stuff.

Gee, a little touchy today, aren't we? BTW, I noticed you had a comment yanked, what's up with that? I don't remember anything unusually offensive that you said.

jst......, you're responding to a debate between believers who associate themselves with said horror in the bible and non believers here who reject any endorsement of any kind for biblical horror. Therefore, you should know what we've been talking about. Don'tchya think? I'm attempting to omit references to the hateful remarks of believers toward non believers in this regard.

But I do have to ask: Why no recent criticism (especially of ICY) of the believers, all of them here, who can only respond with rudeness and avoidance of what they're supposed to be defending?

Jesus? How many times do I have to inform you that he was a jewish rabbi who taught the Old Testament? you know, that part of the bible with some really crazy stuff in it.

As for Jesus himself (by the way, haven't you read your bible?) he said, according to Matthew 10:34:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Please spare me the metaphor baloney. And I supposed you'll say to all the violence done in the name of New Testament "harmony" -you know, like the Holocaust and stuff like that-, that christanity is off-the-hook even though christians committed that horror in the name of christianity. I already explained how christianity started as an anti-jewish religion while adopting the Old Testament for a claim of legitimacy for the purpose of marketing the new religion -or else why didn't the "original christians" merely exclude the OT from the bible?

Give me an example of a true christian or spiritual person and explain how that person may have moral superiority. Also explain "calling."

And I have no problem with criticizing atheists here because I know everyone (except for psychiatric cases) is an atheist, it's just that not everyone is astute enough to know he or she is an atheist. Which brings me to atheists who pretend to be believers e.g. Gandhi. Gandhi and just about every other clergy were and are atheists, and they knew and know it.

The explanation is: A person with any intelligence if he or she truly studies religious scripture can't help but come to the conclusion that it's all baloney -the word or inspired word of god. They preach it, though, because they believe that other people need it, plus it's monetarily profitable. Not really good reasons to compel people to believe lies, is it?

Accordingly, I'm sure you're an atheist who is among those who believe that other people need religion but, as for you, you're just too smart for it yourself (unless you're among those who just aren't astute enough to know you're an atheist).

Anyway, anyone who claims to be a believer, whether they believe or not, will be referred to as a believer.

All the good in the bible is a phenomenon of biological and cultural evolution. All the bad in the bible comes from humans too; but the last thing we need is for a supernatural being to endorse the bad.

Gosh, Gfan, no, I guess I wasn't aware of the limitations and perimeters of the debate. I must have been absent the day the guidelines were handed out. :~)
Why do you feel a need to restrict and control the discussion here in this manner? What exactly did I say that violated these restrictions? Was it the beer commentary or something else?

~

Who exactly are these people who associate themselves with the "nonsense and horror of the bible"? Is there some new religion or cult that has sprung up and is advocating perpetuation of Old Testament-type atrocities...I mean one other than any government, military or guerrilla group now doing so somewhere in the world? If so, can you name them?
~
You have advised others to "read your bible" or "read your Koran" (and why do you capitalize Koran, but not Bible?), but if one reads the Bible, they will discover a very different theme and foundation in the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament. While Jesus did refer to certain Old Testament teachings, New Testament text repeatedly follows a much more "user-friendly" theme and it is taught that he tried to establish a "New Covenant" of peace and love. Jesus absolutely did not advocate violence, as far as I know. I do not claim to be a huge scholar of the Bible, but I believe it is safe to say that living in harmony and concord while in this world is a standard throughout the New Testament.

~

No, I think I have stated previously, absolutely not, I don't think you have to claim any sort of religious affiliation or inspiration to be a morally upright person and it is not my claim that anyone is superior to anyone else. In fact, I am sure there are examples of atheists who were and are far more morally-upright than some who have and do claim religious affiliation...which, of course, isn't always the same as true Christianity or any honest effort that follows teachings of aspiration and elevation of ones self to a higher standard of moral principals for any reason.

~

While I don't suppose you can label something that millions of people strive for as "unique", I would say a quality that spiritually-minded people share is striving to live up to a standard that they find true and worthy of trying to attain and they feel "called", if you will, to do this throughout their lives.
~
What is your opinion of Gandhi? Would you consider him "spiritually-minded"?

maxdetail, St. Pauli girly doesn't wear a kilt, she wears a dress. Consult your clergyman immediately. Wait, never mind, consult somebody else.

jst....., are you fully aware that the debate here is in regard to people who associate themselves with the nonsense and horror of the bible?

And can you define or describe what is unique in a positive way about the spiritually minded people to which your refer?

And is it your claim that those "spiritually" minded people are morally superior to non-believers?

Also, gfan, to respond to one of the questions you raised earlier to me: Yes, I am saying that believers don't always fall in line with the decrees, edicts and politics of the church. There is a big difference between organized "religion" and personal belief and faith. But, people remain within the structure of a church for many different reasons, such as tradition, organization, common faith community, even something as simple as a building to gather in with others, etc. Participating together with others in an uplifting, edifying and thankful spirit and manner, and the joyful elation that comes from that, is better than any chemically-induced high you could experience.

Just checking back in on the fray and see it is proceeding as usual.
Ho-hum.
~

pro & gfan: All the points you and others make about the atrocities of man in connection with religion are valid. Who can argue with it, it is history. Of course, you seem to ignore and never cite any of the good that has been done, as well.
But it takes me back to a point I made earlier in my discussion with gfan. If you continue to focus only on the workings of mankind, you will never see beyond that. People do all sorts of terrible things and they frequently do it in the name of a higher authority in order to sanction the evil they do and give themselves power. Doesn't make it right, just makes it more evil, really, a point you have repeatedly converged on.

~

But, at some point in your arguing and philosophizing of all this, wouldn't it be an interesting and refreshing breath of air to move the focus beyond all the evil that people do and see what might come of that? Can you see or imagine any separation to be made of evil that has been done over the centuries on this earth, by MANKIND, in the name of gods, and not believing or believing there is a god or gods, what good might come from exploring one's spirituality from the resources available to us, or even what else there might be in the universe that is beyond what we know for certain?

Dang, I didn't think you would recognize me if I dressed as the St. Pauli girl. It was a wee chilly for my kilt last night.

Ha, maxdetail, I was there. You were chug-a-lugging Blatz out of a can and yelling "praise Jesus."

Don't know why you're playing so hard to get, Pro. O'Riley & Conway's is right in the center of town. I was there last night for Bangers and Mashed and they had just tapped a fresh keg of Bedlam. Ian Gould was singing classic tunes. (If you go, you must try the Ruben Soup as well.) I probably wouldn't want to ruin the Epicurean perfection with a bunch of religious jibber jabber now that I think of it. But hey, maybe we could get a friendship started. Have a great one.

In other news - anyone going ot the Reason Rally in Washington, DC next March?

http://reasonrally.org/about/

OK Max - we can have a beer - March 24th, 10 AM, Washington DC, I'll meet you on the mall.

ICY what do you say to the idea that those athiest rulers did not murder int he name of athiesm - in other words - as Dawkins put it - they all may have had mustaches too - whats your point?

The murders done in the name of religion were because of that delusion/religion/god idea specifically. When those women were burned alive or really whatever horror you wish to speak about, it was because god told those folks to do it, it was moral in their eyes.

Whats your point about athiests having shorter life spans?

ICY, there are true atheists, you're the one who's claiming they're all partaking in a religion. You are so mixed-up with anger and small-mindedness that you don't understand that your ability to think clearly has broken down. What you're doing here is self-defeating. You are buried in your own faulty reasoning.

By the way, in principle our country is atheistic. Morals and laws come from a consensus of the people. That's why the Founding Fathers didn't set-up a theocracy.

Maybe you should take another tack. State on this site how religion makes you happy.

Keeps the stats coming, though. I have some my own.

gazettefan
Sep 15, 2011 at 7:24 a.m.
..
You really are a one trick pony.
..
Still trying to force a square peg, in a round hole, with the “No true Atheist” Argument.
..
That’s alright, tonight we’ll review the facts of why Atheists display the sociometry they do.

ICY, you and your list unwittingly reveal that communism is a religion.

And, if you agree with the statement that atheism is a religion, then, you are attributing everything you claim atheism and communism does wrong to a religion. This is another self-condemning idea by you.

You are just too angry to think-out what you're doing.

ICY, none of that stuff is true.

In particular, the current atheist rate in this debate on this site ranges from 50% to 67%.

Here's some truth:

The CANONICAL HISTORY OF CLERICAL SEXUAL ABUSE (375 pages, year 2004) shows that sexual abuse (rape) of children by priests dates back at least 1700 years. And even though the Church has been fully aware of it, the Church has only recently taken steps to fight the sexual abuse (rape) of children by priests. The report also stated that solicitations for sex by priests also occurred in the confessional.

By the way, the recent change came only after tremendous outside pressure -complaints to the police and civil suits. Until recent years, the Church's "remedy" for child rape was to transfer the rapist priests to new parishes without warning their future victims and the future victims' parents.

The CANONICAL HISTORY OF CLERICAL SEXUAL ABUSE was written by a Catholic priest and two former monks as a result of the above stated outside pressure and was based on the Roman Catholic Church's own documents.

Also, the terrorists who killed all those people on 9/11 believed in the same bible-god that you believe in. You know, Jesus' father.

And you're happy? LOL

Let’s review the facts;

1. Atheists represent less than one percent (actually closer to .5%) of the population of the US.
a. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...

2. Atheism is defined as a Religion in the US - (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.) - United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
a. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circui...

3. Atheist rulers murdered more people than all the wars in the 20th century - ….For perspective on Mao’s most bloody rule, all wars 1900-1987 cost in combat dead 34,021,000 — including WWI and II, Vietnam, Korea, and the Mexican and Russian Revolutions. Mao alone murdered over twice as many as were killed in combat in all these wars.
a. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome...
b. http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/200...

4. Atheists have life expectancies seven years shorter than the average churchgoer, are more likely to smoke, abuse alcohol, and be depressed or obese, and they are much less likely to marry or have children.
a. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10332...

I will continue with more fun facts tomorrow.

ICY, that's some real bodacious bible scholarship.

By the way, your kill sheet states that Nazi Germany was "pagan theism." What?!!! That entire mass criminal offense against humanity was a christian operation all the way. Their military belt buckles said: "God With Us." What the Third Reich did required the cooperation of millions of christians. The Vatican and the pope never excommunicated Hitler. German churches celebrated Hitler's birthday yearly.

The attempt to annihilate the Jews goes all the way back to christianity's greatest publicist: Paul. Paul designed christianity as an anti-jewish religion even though Jesus was a jewish rabbi who taught the Hebrew Bible, including the Torah. Paul marketed christianity as a religion in which you didn't have to do anything other than accept a murdered rabbi as your savior. Good thinking on Paul's part. A lot easier than a religion that requires that you worship god by the way you actually lived your life.

That's why christianity has so many weird people. A lot of them angry. Just as long as you've accepted your savior, it doesn't matter what else you are. Am I getting through to you?

prounion
Sep 14, 2011 at 1:16 p.m.
gazettefan
Sep 14, 2011 at 9:11 a.m.
..
Relax my pets, I will feed you soon!

ICY I thought this article was pretty good - want to refut the ideas contained in it? Perhaps we can have a logical, insult free conversation?

http://snyder-thomas.newsvine.com/_news/...

maxdetail, to whit:

The reason maxdetail's reasoning came from nowhere, was there was nowhere for it to come from. And coming from nowhere, he stood on nothing for there was nowhere for him to stand. And standing on nothing, he reached out where there was nowhere to reach and caught something where there was nothing to catch, and hung something on nothing, and told it to stay there. And that's why he has nothing substantial to say. Except inadvertently.

Max and ICY - you must stop being insulting and actually address logical questions with reason: The power of Christ Compels You!

I will now experiment with prayer and see if my prayers will cause god to make you two civil, or at least as civil as athiests on this board.

...and he's back. Sorry folks, breaks over.

Max - where do you think he pulled that nonsense out of? And you can't be satisfied that the load of nonsese you posted is an actual support for the reality of your beliefs right? You were kidding?

maxdetail, the magnitude of exposition of the baselessness of your own nonsense is only matched by the degree with which you are apparently oblivious to it. Nothing and nowhere indeed.

Go bless yourself.

ICY in the past you posted a link to the entire text of the book - not just the link to purchase it. Remember? Then you dissapeared - I read that book and begged you to speak to some of its points - unfortunatly you were unable/unwilling to discuss. Could you post that link again - lets really dive into it.

Or at least answer GF's follow up points - dang if you have the guts to post from christian historical revisionists at least stand by and defend them.

If for no other reason than to offer a short break from gazettefan's endless 'hate parade of nonsense and arrogance', here is a delightful excerpt of preaching from the marvelous and inimitable Dr. Shadrach Lockridge. Here, he offers the best explanation of creation I've heard yet:
.
“The reason God came from nowhere, was there was nowhere for Him to come from. And coming from nowhere, He stood on nothing for there was nowhere for Him to stand. And standing on nothing, He reached out where there was nowhere to reach and caught something where there was nothing to catch, and hung something on nothing, and told it to stay there.”
.
Blessings

ICY, not much to say about your belief and its basis. Is there any reason for that? Aren't you supposed to spread the good news?

And when you posted your kill sheet, you forgot to include how many the bible-god killed. How come?

By the way, why isn't the bible taught as mainstream history in every high school and university? Is it a conspiracy?

gazettefan
Sep 13, 2011 at 9:06 p.m.
..
And yet, you have a mental disconnect with avowed Atheists Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Timothy McVeigh?
..
No, you are not the least bit irrational! (that would be sarcasim)

Again, ICY, with the personal assault, more evidence that you can't deal with the basis of your belief. Here's some info about what the basis of your belief has spawned:

The CANONICAL HISTORY OF CLERICAL SEXUAL ABUSE (375 pages, year 2004) shows that sexual abuse (rape) of children by priests dates back at least 1700 years. And even though the Church has been fully aware of it, the Church has only recently taken steps to fight the sexual abuse (rape) of children by priests. The report also stated that solicitations for sex by priests also occurred in the confessional.

By the way, the recent change came only after tremendous outside pressure -complaints to the police and civil suits. Until recent years, the Church's "remedy" for child rape was to transfer the rapist priests to new parishes without warning their future victims and the future victims' parents.

The CANONICAL HISTORY OF CLERICAL SEXUAL ABUSE was written by a Catholic priest and two former monks as a result of the above stated outside pressure and was based on the Roman Catholic Church's own documents.

gazettefan
Sep 13, 2011 at 7:09 p.m.
..
As I thought…You have nothing…
..
You have non-supported conjecture and emotion.
..
All flash, and no substance.
..
I OVER estimated your level of intellect.
..
Your continuous banter on the same lay Atheist diatribes you always have, demonstrate why you are part of the less than one percenters.
..
You are a one trick pony.
..
If you really wish to pursue, we can go into the behavioral base lines that you exhibit. And categorize your anomalies.

ICY, your copy and pasted account is from bogus christian publications and web sites. The death toll of the Spanish Inquisition was from 3000 to 5000 (in today's population and with today's means for killing, the murder rate of the SI would have been in the millions). Mining the internet with confirmation bias and selective perception does not make you a scholar. It makes you an ideologue. In order to actually know a subject, you have to read and study.

Again, atheism has no written or official doctrine for murdering. Your religious belief does. Read your bible.

Communism is an economic system that runs contrary to human nature. As I already pointed out, communism is merely another form of your religion, only with a slightly different face. Communism, like your religion, has no respect for the individual. That's why the murdering comes so easy. The reason this country isn't fundamentally christian is a result of its atheistic democracy. Democracy respects the individual.

And you can't defend your false belief by dodging what's false about it. Talk about the trinity and the immaculate conception of Mary Christ.

gazettefan
Sep 13, 2011 at 8:30 a.m.
..
Since you were unable to delineate, I will assist you. There were actually four inquisitions. ….the Medieval,
the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Roman …
..
Specific to the Spanish,…. In light of its nightmarish reputation, it will surely surprise those who believe that millions of people died in the Spanish Inquisition to learn that throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, less than three people per year were sentenced to death by the Inquisition throughout the Spanish Empire, which ranged from Spain to Sicily and Peru.23 Secular historians given access to the Vatican’s archives in 1998 discovered that of the 44,674 individuals tried between 1540 and 1700, only 804 were recorded as being relictus culiae saeculari.24 The 763-page report indicates that only 1 percent of the 125,000 trials recorded over the entire inquisition ultimately resulted in execution by the secular authority, which means that throughout its infamous 345-year history,25 the dread Spanish Inquisition was less than one-fourteenth as deadly on an annual basis as children’s
bicycles.26
..
Historical Event - Responsible - Dates - Total Deaths - Deaths per Year

Great Leap Forward - atheists - 1958–1963 - 43,000,000 - 8,600,000
Holodomor - atheists - 1932–1933 - 3,500,000 - 1,750,000
Holocaust - pagan theists - 1941–1945 - 6,000,000 - 1,500,000
Spanish Red Terror* - atheists - 1936–1939 - 72,344 - 24,114

Children’s Bicycles - Schwinn - 1920–2007 - 11,310 - 130

Spanish Inquisition**- Christian theists- 1481–1834 - 3,230 - 9
Medieval
Inquisitions*** - Christian theists- 1184–1500 - 2,000 - 6
Portuguese
Inquisition**** - Christian theists- 1540–1794 - 1,175 - 5
..
If the Spanish Inquisition was, as historian Henry Charles Lea once described it, theocratic absolutism at its worst, one can only conclude that this is an astonishingly positive testimony on behalf of theocratic absolutism. It is testimony to the strange vagaries of history that it should be the Spanish Inquisition that remains notorious today, even though the 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy murdered in the Spanish Republican Red Terror of 193627 is more than twice the number of the victims of 345 years of inquisition
..
If you choose to, you can read about the other supposed Christian atrocities you erroneously cite here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0041D8... )
and unless you can provide corroborating documentation to support otherwise. I suggest you cease making a complete fool of yourself.
..
As to your second comment. It is a perfect example of your lack of moral fortitude.

ICY, the christian ones.

And, atheism has no written or otherwise official doctrine for crazily murdering people. But the basis of your belief does. Read your bible.

(By the way, I'm anti-communist. I've even killed some of them. What about you?)

Nothing on the trinity or heaven? What about the immaculate conception of Mary Christ? Your Church has something to say about it.

gazettefan
Sep 12, 2011 at 10:50
..
Epic fail!....The “no true Atheist argument”. You have tried that one before.
..
As for the inquisitions, first you must be more specific as to which one you are referring to? If you need hints, I can assist you?

ICY, wrong trinity. Nice dodge of explaining the trinity that is your burden.

As for the psychopaths you mentioned, they were quasi-religious figures who assumed the christ role. Notice they demanded to be worshiped as unelected, all-knowing, and all powerful leaders with their unrealistic promise of a communal paradise. Sound familiar?

And, those nuts couldn't do what they did without the cooperation of millions of people who were indoctrinated for that crazy dream by hundreds of years of religiosity.

Would you like to comment on the crusades, the inquisitions, the pogroms, and the Holocaust?

OK, let's have your trinity, what is it? And, how 'bout some info on what heaven is like.

gazettefan
Sep 12, 2011 at 8:20 p.m.
..
Trinity…
..
You must be referring to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Those are the first three Atheist mass murders I can think of!

And, ICY, in the matter of "mental gymnastics", would you kindly run that trinity explanation by us?

ICY, your claim that we are rationalizing a belief system is a product of the inherent xenophobia of your religion. What we non-believers are merely doing is pointing-out that what you believe is just plain not true. There's no proof of what you believe. That's why you won't discuss it. That's why you can only express yourself here in a xenophobic way. By only attacking, you are expressing that the main dynamic of your religion is a desperate need for an enemy.

You can prove me wrong by offering some ideas as to what heaven would be like.

Wow, this has worked out just like “Pavlovs Dog”. I ring the bell and you respond. How fascinating!
..
Let me see if I can get you to work on a new trick!

Also ICY - just as a side note - in response to this statement you posted:

"I am fascinated by the mental gymnastics you utilize to rationalize the existence of your belief in non-belief."

Do you require mental gymnastics to do this for entities like Thor and Jupiter or any of the thousands of other god's that you have non-belief in?

I wasn't aware that I was doing any mental gymnastics - what would be an example? Thing is there is no evidence for any of those entities, thus no reason to believe they exist, its easy and requires no mental gymnastics, none that I know of any way.

You are doing your best ICY, its ok.

gazettefan
Sep 12, 2011 at 1:15 p.m.
prounion
Sep 12, 2011 at 1:04 p.m.
..
I prefer to allow the two of you to demonstrate the irrationality of the less than one percenters.
..
As a statistical anomaly, I am fascinated by the mental gymnastics you utilize to rationalize the existence of your belief in non-belief.

ICY, at least make the attempt to understand that your blather is just another way of saying that the Devil is lurking about. Then continue pondering the entire matter to the point when you finally understand that your own crap is backing-up on you.

Can you offer any comments as to what heaven is like?

ICY - is insulting people a sin? If so does jesus hurt a little bit more on your behalf each time your post?

gazettefan
Sep 12, 2011 at 12:08
..
Perhaps I need to re-evaluate my ascertainment of your mental acuity?
..
As stated previously, this is your realm, your personal Facebook venue. You have exhibited well the sociological traits of the less than one percenters. Is there a need for me to assist you in exhibiting your true-self, beyond what you already have?

jst....., if you're going to complain about my last post, don't do it in a vacuum. Really read ICY's posts.

prounion
Sep 12, 2011 at 10:18
..
At denoted previously, I wouldn’t expect you to understand. (no demonstration of irrationality there)
..
As I noted in the case of gazettefan, he falls into the grouping of less than one percenters that are a deviation point, or two above the average. You, on the other hand, appear to fall into the latter group of slightly below the average.

ICY - Are all positions that less than one percent of the population believes to be dicounted as not being true then?

Congrats no one has called us one percenters before and attempted to use that as a point of arguement.

Could you site specific examples of irrationality/lack of moral fortitude?

prounion
Sep 12, 2011 at 9:03 a.m.
..
I have no interest in the discussion of belief in non-belief with less than one percenters, any more than I would endeavor to explain the physics of rocket propulsion to a four year old.
..
Since less than one percenters have demonstrated on this site and myriads of other sites that they are irrational and without moral fortitude, what would be the logic in trying?

JST - as the AIDS crisis ravaged Africa there have been many attempts at intervention to stop the spread of the disease. Many studies have show that the prevalance of church doctrine has been a major sticking point in attempting to get people to use condoms. In fact some church officials have gone so far as to say not only is it a mortal sin (official church standing) but there are holes in the condoms that let the HIV though anyways. I think it was just recently decided by the officers of morality that if a man had AIDS he could in fact wear a condom to prevent his wife from contracting it, nice of them huh?

The impact of the church on the weakest, poorest and most ignorant/magical thinkers on the planet cannot be underestimated. The misery they have sown is horrific.

ICY a high number of people that claim that a delusion is real does not make that delusion any more or less real. The existence of something outside of your minds is not dependent on your collective imaginations.

I was curious to see if you would respond to GF's observation that if the entire country is christian why do you folks tend to say the morals of the country are eroding and blame all the bad events on the lack of christian beliefs?

It seems like you main point it that lots and lots of people believe like we do so it must be true?

gazettefan
Sep 11, 2011 at 9:31 p.m.
..
You really are a one trick pony! Your circular arguments go round ‘n round like a carousel, and you never get off.
..
Your tired old proselytizing has beaten the horse beyond recognition.
..
So what have you achieved? More converts to the Religion of belief, in non-belief? So now maybe you have .9987 percent of the population! Woo hoo!
..
At this point, you serve well as an example of why 99 percent of the population, choose not to join your social misfit club.

jst....., like NoLeftist and ICY recently and the likes of billnewbie and maxdetail forever, you write as though you haven't thoroughly read my posts.

Is it your claim that the Catholic Church has no substantial influence over its laity? Do you mean to say that the Church is laboring under yet another delusion? -that it has influence that it really doesn't have? C'mon. Your dismissal of the Catholic Church's influence is merely an oblique defense of it. Think about it.

And it seems that the so-called christians that you're defending are only defensible to the degree that they're not really christians. That is, they're not fundamentalists. But the very existence of the so-called christians you're defending gives aid and comfort and money to those fundamentalists and the pope and the Vatican.

Your not so cleverly hidden agenda is keeping you from thoroughly reading and comprehending my posts. You keep spinning the wheels of your "hidden agenda."

Let's get back to why you came onto this thread. You seem to be having a crisis of faith, and billnewbie made pretenses of helping you with that crisis. Where are you with that right now? What does the fact that thousands of of kids starve to death each hour do to your faith, or your defense of other peoples' faith?

Gfan: Been reading more of your comments. Do you honestly think all those people over in Africa or anywhere, for that matter, are having unprotected sex because of church doctrine or their devotion? Now, that is funny. If you believe that, I've got a bridge for sale... Millions of Catholics worldwide use birth control methods. If you don't think so, you are out of touch with reality. I stayed on topic and gave you historical facts on why there is population explosion and famine in Africa. Yet, you still want to play the blame game and pick on Catholics. What's up with that?
And besides, there are many other denominational influences there beside Catholicism, ones that don't have a problem with practicing birth control.

~

You ask "What are you defending?" I don't know, mostly I'm just trying to respond to your comments. What exactly is the issue here? You mention "faith". How does one defend their faith. It's intangible and personal. Or am I supposed to be defending the evil god of the bible who doesn't exist but somehow orders children stoned and babies stabbed in the eye?

~

Per your request, I would love to stay on topic. And if you claim my responses are off-topic, yet I am responding to your comments, uh, wouldn't that make you guilty of your own charges?

Oh, and before you reply yet again about how I’m “whining” and “slamming” you (try looking in the mirror on both of those accusations), here are a just a few of your comments, hence my previous words to you:

.

“You and maxdetail and billnewbie are of the same ilk.”

.

“So, maybe, jst......., quit your whining and face your own reality. You and your ilk...”

.

“The best thing your ilk can do...”

.

“foolonthehill, you got maxdetail pegged perfectly. His and his ilk's...”

.

“Between the two of us, only you would know if he was among the ilk of...”

.

“jst......, I suppose you think you're the first one to use the tactic of whining...”

.

“And because your last post was more of an unsound reaction, instead of a genuine response to my complex and well-thought-out comments...”

.

“And you're certainly not suited to reasonably discuss...”

.

"jst......, you're not fooling anyone. It's obvious that you deviated from responding to reasonable posts due to a paucity of reasoning skills..."

I didn’t realize our exchange had taken “a bad turn”. Why do you say that, because I’m now responding more in line with how you respond? Dish it out, but can’t take it? Who’s whining now, bud?

~

I never claimed my uncle was “remarkable”, in fact I said he wasn’t perfect, just a good guy. So, again, you are in error. Under your radar or troll humor and baiting?

~

And while I never specifically named him, if you would take the time to digest a person’s posts before snapping off a reply, you would see that I previously talked about knowing many good and decent Christian people. And as he’s the only one of those people that has died since this thread began, that’s why I mentioned him. (Also see this previous post: “I honestly thought of it as a timely and touchingly poignant example that might reach you and open your mind in regard to the bias you continue to embrace.”
Are you saying all that slipped past you or did you just choose to ignore it?

~

You need to do a little more research regarding “ilk”. It absolutely can and frequently does carry a connotation of the typed group being of bad or questionable character, which is obviously how you intend it when you fling it out there ad infinitum/ad nauseum, so why back-peddle now? Oh, I see, you’re only joking again. Quite the kidder, aren’t you? When you discover you’ve stuck your foot in your mouth, you claim you were only joking, is that it? Regardless, you still need to find a new word, preferably of a different ilk.

~

Yes, I’ve had beers since those posts; it was a holiday weekend, after all. But, I have no idea if Max has yet. Max?

~

Lastly, exactly whose posts were you referring to when you said “it’s obvious that you deviated from responding to reasonable posts ...”?

~

Over.

Gfan: I need to develop my sense of humor? Okay, help me out here. Which parts of your posts are meant to be humorous and which parts are serious? Are you just kidding around now when you basically call me a liar in regard to my uncle’s death? Oh, gosh, you are a hoot!

~

If I had made up his death, would that make me as unscrupulous as you for insinuating that I did? You give yourself too much credit when you infer I would need to resort to a low-life tactic like that. You then tell ME to stick to the issue and the particulars of the issue? Oh, stop, I’m getting a side-ache from laughing!
You claim humor? No, Gfan. You seem to have made a common mistake and confused mean-spirited gibes for a sense of humor.

~

I’ll take your bait and answer a few of your remarkably copious questions and comments, although it makes me feel as if I’m being pulled into a vortex of absurdity. So, is this how you keep these discussions going on for months at a time?! I’m beginning to get a picture of you in a dimly lit room, a eerie glow on your face from the reflection of the monitor, giggling maniacally as yet another comment sure to goad comes into your head...hey, that wasn’t you living in my garden hose this summer, was it?! :~)

frogger
Sep 9, 2011 at 1:17 p.m.
..
Do you realize most wars are over religion?...
..
Although the above comment is repeated ad nauseam by Atheists. It has no basis in fact. Perhaps you should do a modicum of research before repeating unsupported statements.

gazettefan
Sep 9, 2011 at 12:22 p.m.
..
Wow, the irony!, “kettle / black”
..
I would never want to diminish your personal Facebook form here at the Gazette!
..
Just keep proselytizing about the wonderful merits of Atheism (makes sure no one mentions Stalin, or Mao, or Pol pot)

Right. And the pope tells people not to use birth control and the Catholic Church claims that what the pope says is what god wants. They claim that god is talking to us through the pope's head. Really, that's what they claim. Could that really be true?

gfan- not sure what your point is. I see the commercials of people starving in other contries and it is sad. Not sure what we can do about it since people here are starving as well. If there was some form of birth control used so many wouldn't be starving. I know maybe this is against their religion but how can you keep having children that you cannot feed??

frogger, what would you think if you found out that thousands of babies die of starvation each hour?

maxdetail, if jst..... had some of your sense of humor (and I mean just some) in combination with his or her early pretense at being reasonable, he or she would be a more well rounded person in the matter of dealing with the issue at hand. And visa versa re: you and him or her.

By the way, it's duly noted that you didn't deny patronizing Weirdo's and jumping up on a table at Conway's to spread the good news. But your drink was probably a Smithwick's that you snatched when someone went to the rest room.

Do you realize most wars are over religion? WHY can't people just get along let each believe what they want to and respect that and stop fighting and trying to prove the others choice and beliefs are wrong. It is just stupid. I do disagree with Muslims the terriorist kind who think they should be killing anbody who believes in God. Like I said this is just stupid. Quit fighing about others beliefs already. To bad it will never happen and the war will never stop.
I agree this women has followed her beliefs and wants to help people. Applod(sp) here and shut up about what YOU think is right or wrong. You are not God and don't need to decide for her what is right or wrong according to your beliefs.
I am not sure what happened to you Gfan but it seems if I recall you used to believe - what happened????

Gazettefan, I've done a lot of things in this life that I'm not proud of but I have NEVER drank a BLATZ beer or even a beer from a CAN, (ok, except an Old Chub Scottish strong ale, mmmmmm.) You go too far sir, in your abusive words. Now I want to punch YOU in the nose; then again, who DOESN'T?

ICY, kindly go into detail about the things you mentioned in your last post. The only thing that's expansive about your posts is the stupid and hostile nature of them. Is it really possible that you have no awareness of this?

C'mon, actually participate.

Be specific about what you are defending or what you are representing.

gazettefan, it’s all about you, it always has been, it always will be. Please do tell us how wonderful everything in your world is? Although a deviation point, maybe two above the average IQ, I am astounded at your lack of knowledge of history, human nature, various Religions and the global environment around you? Once again, please do tell us, how wonderful your existence has blessed mankind?

jst...., scroll down and see how our exchange has taken a bad turn. The alleged death of your uncle was used as an excuse for you to take that bad turn. You have not responded to specific comments about faith since then. (If he was so remarkable, why no mention of him prior to his "death"?) It is you who has taken the typical believer-path of negative, personal argumentation. It's what billnewbie and maxdetail and other believers have done here. Stick to the issue and the particulars of the issue.

What are you defending?

By the way, I know what "ilk" means. Contrary to its sound, it's not a negative word. (Though, maxdetail seems a bit put-off by it. Did you two have beers yet? I heard he was tossed out of Conway's for repeatedly jumping up on a table with a can of Blatz he got at Weirdo's so that he can preach the good news. Did he say anything about that?)

Gfan: What exactly are your objectives with the taunting and inflammatory accusations? Is that really your idea of constructive conversation or debate?
.

I have responded to your questions and you simply ignore what I’ve said and go back to the same old rhetoric, which then degrades into insulting remarks. Label me, judge me, and make suppositions and conclusions about who you think I am. In the end, it really matters not to me, because, as I’ve said, it’s simply your opinion and it’s based on your preconceived notions that really have nothing to do with what kind of person I actually am.
.

I’m not going to play your game, Gfan. So, if you are looking for someone to trade insults with, I’m afraid you are going to have to keep looking. Feel free to crown yourself the victor and title holder of most superfluous and redundantly clever poster in the land, if that’s what it takes to make your day. Best wishes, good luck and no hard feelings.
.

And please check your thesaurus for a synonym for “ilk”.

Well, ICY, your high numbers for believers leaves you with a problem. Isn't all the crazy trouble going on these days supposed to be a result of people getting away from god. See the problem? You can't have it both ways.

As for spreading atheism, you are an atheist every time you are puzzled by the apparent non existence of god. Then you make the self-serving, selfish shift and you are back to believing because you stop wondering about all those thousands of babies who die each hour from starvation.

gazettefan, I see you are still trying to preach the Gospel of Atheism. How many converts to the High Church of Atheism have you had? Oh that’s right, Atheists represent less than 1 percent of the population. If only you could include the Agnostics (who don’t wish to have anything to do with you) then you might represent 16 percent of the population! Perhaps if you weren’t such a social misfit ( Asperger’s comes to mind) then you could actually have a conversation with NORMAL human beings. But I will still say a prayer for you, with the hope one day, you may be exorcised.

And, jst......, the reason the First Amendment encompasses criticism of religion is because religiosity is a way of thinking. In one way or another, people choose to be Christian or whatever. It's not the same as being born into an ethnic group. Understand that.

And also understand that if muslims want to come on this site and want to discuss and defend their faith, they'll be subject to the same scrutiny. They will have to face the fact that no matter how peaceful they claim to be, the basis of their belief is crazy too, just plain crazy. The tenth aniversary of 9/11 is near. The mentality for that attack came straight from the muslim holy books.

Read your Koran.

jst......, I suppose you think you're the first one to use the tactic of whining about hurt feelings for the purpose of dodging reasonable comments and questions. Well, you're not. You and maxdetail and billnewbie are of the same ilk.

Any blanket statement I made about Christians is based on how much any of them abide by the bizarre horror of the bible god(s). Let's take you for instance: I'll bet if you were confronted with specific examples of the small-mindedness and horror in the bible, you'd probably make statements to the effect that .....well..... that stuff doesn't really apply, or it's outdated etc. (Of course, that's only if you actually responded, and didn't dodge those issues with the hurt feelings ruse.)

So, to be fair, I wouldn't regard you as being as crazy as your bible. But, on the other hand, you'd be setting yourself up for the description of not being bible-adherent. Meaning, you're a judeo-christian only to a much watered-down degree, which is the case for most Christians.

The reason things get serious here comes from the fact that the only believers who make an issue of their faith on this site don't understand that the basis of that faith is indefensible. The best thing your ilk can do is to just say that you're mainly nominal Christians. It's only the good loving part of it all that matters. And, hey, by the way, gazettefan, foolonthehill, prounion et. al. you people are kind of right. It's some crazy bizarre thing and it doesn't hold up to rational scrutiny. But mainly we're all pretty much mainstream except for the fundamentalists and the Vatican and the pope and the horror those people are always spreading.

So, maybe, jst......., quit your whining and face your own reality. You and your ilk are not monsters, but you're not really judeo-Christians, either. And you're certainly not suited to reasonably discuss the basis for your alleged Christianity.

Gfan: You make many statements as if they are definite, indisputable and unquestionable, when in reality they are simply your opinion. I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate you on everything you state in this manner. At the same time, you have ignored valid points that I have made, repeatedly returning to your customary theme instead.

I find it of interest that after all the negative, condemning and all-encompassing language you have used to describe Christians, you didn’t hesitate to cry foul at a very simple statement I made in regard to my uncle’s character in comparison to these strong and derogatory statements, statements you, along with others, have made about people you don’t even know and have grouped together without distinction.

If the disparaging, malicious and downright hateful statements that are commonly being made on these threads in regard to Christians as a group were INSTEAD being made about ALL people of a particular ethnic group or ALL people of a certain sexual preference or ALL people of a certain skin tone, there would be an uproar of disapproval, censure and reproach, and rightly so. But, for some odd reason, bashing Christians in toto seems to be considered, by some, fair game, non-discriminatory and just.

There is an enlightening and eye-opening article in yesterday's Gazette that should be of interest and benefit to all of us, in regard to the nature of the ceremony for peace and healing that will be held Sunday in Janesville, particularly the statements that are made about the mistrust of all Muslims and how they have been vilified unfairly because of the extremist and terrible behavior by some within that community.
If you agree with the nature of the article, then substitute the word “Christians” for “Muslims” and then see if that sounds logical or has any meaning for you, also. If, for some reason, it doesn't, then I sincerely doubt anything further I could say on the subject would have any significance for you either and further discussion or "debate" would only be futile on both our parts.

NoLefist, relativism is condemned by current-day Christians, but their bible is wrought with relativism:

"An eye for eye"

"Turn the other cheek"

And:

"Stone a disobedient child to death"

"Don't stone a disobedient child to death"

And what do you think the human species was doing prior to the appearance of the bible god about 3500 to 4000 years ago?

Our species would not have survived its first 96,000 years were it not for this fact:

"The golden rule is a phenomenon of biological and cultural evolution."

Is it your assertion that you would be an animal without your belief?

Without God, there is no evil and no good, as all choices can be evaluated solely in reference to the individual and no external morality.

That's the dilemma atheists face. The previous poster inadvertently alludes to it and then aviods the issue by saying "as for the evil that comes from us, we still possess the primal brain of our pre-human ancestors."

Pre-human ancestors, presumably whether monkeys or larvae, are not capable of "evil": they are animals. Only humans are capable of "evil," and only if there's a God.

Atheists are quite adept and pointing to hypocrises and dead ends in religions (usually Christianity), but they never highlight the faith and hypocrises that are baked into their own worldview, making them some of the most closed minded people on the planet.

jst...., for your convenience, here's a post that you dodged:

*******

Jst……, there isn’t any reason to believe that the evil humans do comes from anywhere other than humans themselves. Even a consideration of supernatural evil is a dead end. And whenever we are victims of natural disasters is the result of bad luck and/or bad planning by us. The best use of any of the “reasoning” that comes from the bible and theology is as an explanation for why the bible-god can’t possibly exist. The bible and its ancillary theology are the greatest arguments for atheism.

As for the evil that comes from us, we still possess the primal brain of our pre-human ancestors. The value that our primal brain originally had was suited for our pre-human ancestors and still has some value for us, but much of the time we are negatively affected by the primal brain: Impulse control, selfishness, etc. There’s nothing supernatural or mysterious about it. However, each individual is responsible for controlling his actions regardless of what thoughts or impulses take place in his mind or brain.

Re: higher existence beyond and our normal way of thinking:

Our normal way of thinking is not a dead end. Because we only live a short time, each individual has the ability to accept life as an adventure, an adventure allowed by the fact that we evolved from lower forms and have developed ways to think about the world and organize ourselves into groups. This is non supernatural transcendence. Consider the life of one person. He is born, then as he grows up and ages he has to make sense of the human experience as it is for himself. This is the adventure. Believers are so distraught over our pre-human underpinnings and the weight of the responsibility required to understand what we are, that they, instead, choose to take the easy way out by imagining a supernatural transcendence that frees them of that responsibility.

The only value of C.S. Lewis is that he’s a screaming example of the folly of attempting to rationalize the bible and the bible-god.

Those kinks in your garden hose can serve as a concrete metaphor for the fact that belief in “god” can no more guide your life than wishful thinking can unkink your hose.

Your description of heaven reminds me of what I’ve read about the drugs ecstasy and crack. Really? eternity spent being spellbound by the trinity?!!! No thanks.

jst......, you're not fooling anyone. It's obvious that you deviated from responding to reasonable posts due to a paucity of reasoning skills that stem from the baselessness of belief.

You, maxdetail, and bn have turned this thread into a Facebook from heck.

maxdetail, your dream has come true: you finally found a drinking partner from trolling this site.

Looks like bn is off attempting to earn his credits for his Associate in Arts Degree in Flummery at the Belsaw Institute.

"What is that horrible buzzing sound, Mommy?"

"That's your Daddy's head, Dear. He's contemplating FOTH's questions and the cognitive dissonance is causing his brain to rattle against his skull."

"OK... but didn't FOTH already answer all of his own questions on Wednesday, before he'd even asked them?"

"Yes, Dear, he most certainly did."

"Well, then what is Daddy's problem? Is he just plain dumb?"

"No! Your Daddy is very smart but, whenever the topic is religion or politics or philosophy, he insists on reasoning backward... from a conclusion. Reasoning backward causes cognitive dissonance, no matter how intelligent someone happens to be."

"So, why does Daddy insist on doing that?"

"You can thank your Grandma & Grandpa for that one, my Dear...."

Who am I kidding? Not you, Prounion. You see, I addressed my post to Fool_on_the_Hill. If I'm kidding anyone, it's him.

max: Thanks for the info, I'll check it out. I was actually thinking about it while I was out mowing today...and guzzling water big time.

pro: I can relate to that tradition. My dad was fond of a "cold one" and on occasion I have shared a bit of beer with him when visiting his grave. My brother calls it baptism, oddly enough.

Bill - who are you kidding?

I don't have any incentive to answer your question, Fool_on_the_Hill, since you don't seem very willing to reconsider.

Prounion, I cry every time I hear "The Parting Glass" sung, for the same reason. Your practice sounds like a good tradition though my fallen friends would not want me to waste the beer. Never the less, it's a good one.

When drinking outside I often pour a bit of my beer on the ground before drinking for my fallen friends.

No, I haven't tried Shiner Bock, I was just going by the reviews. Yes, Ambergeddon is at Woodmans, in fact they carry all 3 as well as Ale Asylum's Contorter Porter. Ambergeddon is the least hoppy of the 3 and is very close to a perfect balance of malt and hops. You can usually find them on tap at Conway & O'Rileys if you're in the mood for great food and great beers.

Pro: I waz just joshin' you. I'm knot beyond mispelling a word myself now and then.

Max: Liked the praise to the Lord of the Harvest. I often lift a glass heavenward in thanks before the first swallow.
As for Shiner, I didn't realize there was that much hype to live up to...have you tried it yourself or are you strictly going by the review when you describe it? I think it's fairly decent and is from German descent, which speaks for itself. And I enjoy a few of the New Glarus brews, recently tried and enjoyed Warsteiner Dunkel and will be getting into the Hacker-Pschorr Oktoberfest soon. The Ambergeddon you mention piques my interest, do they carry it at Woodman's, do you know?

You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer.
Frank Zappa

JSTW - spelling is overrated, and if I did believe that FOTH had an invisIble elephant in his hand, and as a result of that I attempted to chnage government policy that effected you, I think we agree that you would want me to provide proof and that the burden of proof would be on me, not on you to disprove the figment of my imagination.

jstwndrn, I haven't had any Shiner Bock. It rates only a C on beeradvocate.com and does worse on ratebeer.com. The consensus is that it just doesn't live up to the hype. It's fizzy, thin and not much flavor.
.
Ever since Dogfish Head pulled out of WI I've decided to stick exclusively with Wisconsin craft brews and I haven't been sorry. I'm especially taken with Ale Asylum's amazing offerings, especially Ambergeddon, Hopalicious and my favorite, Bedlam. Think I'll lift a glass to Sister Gabby.
.
Here is a praise to beer and the Lord of the Harvest:
I have never taken a swallow of a fine beer where I was not fully appreciative of the sun and soil that yielded the hops and the grains and I praise the Father of the Harvest. I marvel at the miraculous design of yeast which can transform sugar into a substance that makes my heart glad. I thank God for inspiring men to seek purity and devotion in choosing only the finest ingredients to produce not only a drink to accompany a meal, but to increase the warmth of fellowship when sharing this 'liquid loaf'. I glory in my Maker and Sustainer for all His good gifts and I make sure my friends do as well. To the pure, all things are pure and I will not diminish any good gift sent down from the Father. (Neither will I abuse any good gift, except to my peril.)
.
Quaff wisely.

west: I get your point, but if Jesus did come back today, it would hopefully mean he was fulfilling prophecy and he would return as a conquering redeemer, not to give himself up for sacrifice again. The first time he made a statement by riding into Jerusalem on a humble donkey, this time he would be riding a war horse, at least metaphorically.

Doggone it, Pro. I copied and pasted your comment and now it looks like neither one of us knows how to spell invisible. ;~)

All this arguing starts with a story about a woman who made a decision to live in piety. Is the whole story true? Obviously not. I do know one thing, if Jesus came back today, we'd end up killing him all over again.

Thanks, Bill. I appreciate the sentiment. He wasn't perfect, but he was a pretty darn good guy and the last of an era in our family.

Hey, a little off-topic, but then not, if you consider a famous quote. We haven't exactly risen to breaking bread together, but as sharing beverages has been mentioned, does anyone else out there like Shiner Bock?

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. ~ Author unknown, commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin

So many taunts... so little time. The apple and elephant conundrum is a lot more than just a simple and useful reductio ad absurdum.

What attributes does an atheist belief system, a not-apple, a not-elephant and a supernatural being all share in common?

(Bonus questions for Billnewbie: Is it more more difficult to type without an apple in your hand or more difficult to type without an elephant in your hand? Explain you reasoning.)

Yo Pro: What part of "How can you who are doing so constantly demand proof from your rival in a discussion, knowing full well you can't offer it yourself?" did you not understand? Gee, I guess it was a bit too wordy and confused you?

But, if YOU believe FOTH actually does have an an invisable/undetectable elephant in his hand, you should find the next leap of faith a piece of cake compared to that...and no more adult beverages for you today!

jst - can you prove FOTH doesn't have an elephant in his hand? Maybe one balanced on a toothpic? Perhaps a more apt comparision - an invisable/undetectable elephant?

FOTH - I would like to debate Max - but it always ends the same way. He follows his logic for a couple fo steps then realizes reality and his idea of god conflict. Then he gets mad, insults us, then invites us to hang out so we can hear in person the answer that he claims will make everything very very clear.

Bill any word yet on if you have joined us in our moral proclimation that spearing thousands of toddlers to death is always wrong? Max - maybe you could - we might feel more comfortable sharing a beverage with you if you could make that moral stance.

The last comment by FOTH at 9:56 a.m. speaks for itself. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, ya gotta have something. Just ask Billy Preston.

How can you who are doing so constantly demand proof from your rival in a discussion, knowing full well you can't offer it yourself? It's like an endless schoolyard taunt...prove it, prove it, prove it...

Fool_on_the_hill, on Sep. 1, 2011 at 11:15 a.m. your hands held neither an apple nor an elephant since you were typing and sending your last post and as such they were engaged with your keyboard, unless you used some other appendage to operate it, an unlikely yet remote possibility I suppose. Will you reconsider now?

(Hope you don't mind my Maynard moment too much.)

Jstwndrn, your uncle sounds as though he was a fine man. It would be an honor to be associated with one such as he. I wish I could have met him. I'm sorry for your loss.

Believe me, I'm not out of my head with grief. I honestly thought of it as a timely and touchingly poignant example that might reach you and open your mind in regard to the bias you continue to embrace. Not only am I unhappy that you chose to read into it what you did, but that you additionally bandied about more comments which are nothing more than very thinly veiled insults directed toward my character. While I didn't presume to think we were becoming friends, I at least thought we had established a modicum of mutual respect and consideration over the last week or two. But now I see you don't hesitate to not only think of me, but also imply in a public forum, that you suspect I may be a shirker of responsibility and exploiter of dead uncles.

Well, perhaps the inflexible determination of yourself, and others of your persuasion, helps you rationalize your irrational opinions, but other than that, it only seems like a few more bricks being added to a wall of unfounded and unfair prejudice, which only compounds the inability to see this issue from a more open and impartial viewpoint.
I'm not out to convert you or anyone else, Gfan, I'm only trying to get you to see that just because someone chooses to worship the "invisible god" of their choice, it shouldn't automatically make them the subject of embittered and extremely cynical contempt and ridicule.

And, frankly, it is very hard to understand not only the dogged refusal to even try to acknowledge others rights to believe how they want, but more so, the acute and even fanatical animosity toward and flawed judgment of people you've never even met and have no honest idea of their character.

Gfan: Thank-you for the condolences, very decent of you.
However, in reply to the rest of what you wrote, I'm afraid I'm going to have to get a bit stern in return. Contrary to the theme of your response, the reason I posted what I did about my uncle is because you, along with others, have repeatedly made disparaging remarks about ALL Christians, whether you know them or not. Which is a point I've been trying to nicely make and it has been going in one ear and out the other of everyone, apparently. I had already been considering how I could once again attempt to make you realize how discriminatory you are being toward millions of people worldwide, a seemingly strong and even bitter discrimination that you claim to have allegedly based strictly on the posts of one person on a Janesville, WI, website, along with "his ilk".

Furthermore, I'm disappointed that you would then accuse me of being unreasonable and unsound, presumably because I'm befuddled by grief, even going so far as to suggest I frivolously exploited my relative's death simply in order to insult you, as you simultaneously congratulated yourself for the complexity and thoughtfulness of your own comments. Has that been my modus operandi in our discussion previously? I think not and I'm a bit dismayed that you chose to interpret it that way.

And I hope the Gazette print edition gives your revelation the coverage it deserves.

maxdetail, the number of my posts and the words I use are great reasons for you to not respond intelligently to my well-thought-out posts, right?

C'mon, let's have the proof of the lord almighty.

Gazettefan, I invented a drinking game in which every time you use your word "ilk" I drink a shot of beer. Slow it down buddy, I gotta drive.

foolonthehill, you got maxdetail pegged perfectly. His and his ilk's classic pretense at an "intellectual explanation of the proof of god" is nothing more than a nebulous exercise within the murky depths of blustery, incoherent abstraction.

Though the quality of that thinking is inspired by the bible, the specifics of the alleged "proof" are nowhere to found in that book.

I hope maxdetail is kind to his co-workers as he anguishes over the style of his impending folderol.

jst......, condolences on the death of your uncle. And if part of your grief process necessitates the belief that I would somehow have disparaging thoughts about him, kindly scroll down and re-read my August 30th 10:40am post.

Between the two of us, only you would know if he was among the ilk of maxdetail and billnewbie.

And because your last post was more of an unsound reaction, instead of a genuine response to my complex and well-thought-out comments, maybe you'll need a little time before you're able to respond more reasonably to the matter in question.

I would hate to think that you clear-headedly chose to exploit the death of a loved-one in order to slam me and to shirk your responsibilities in this ongoing debate.

Hey Gfan: Sorry for the delay in replying to your last post. I attended my uncle's funeral yesterday, he was my mother's brother and at 88 years of age, the last of their family to pass. He lived a long and good life and throughout the greater part of that life, he tried to follow the teachings of Christ, which would make him what is known as a Christian. He was strong, honest, smart, hard-working, loyal to his family and an asset to the community he spent his life in. He was none of the things you repeatedly portray Christians as. That's all for now, just wanted to share that with you.

Sorry, Max. I could elaborate but, if the concept is not now obvious, whatever else I write will not change a thing. I will reconsider if you can tell me which one of my hands doesn't hold an apple, which one doesn't hold an elephant and precisely how you rationally came to that conclusion.

In the mean time, I'll bet Gazettefan or Prounion would be happy to engage you in debate. ;-)

maxdetail, take all the time you need to focus in on what exactly you are talking about:

Is it the bible-god for which you claim there is proof?

Or, is it a non bible-god for which you claim there is proof?

FOTH, I really like where you are taking the conversation. Good stuff. I'm not sure how much attention I can give it today, I'm swamped at work.
You should look into the theory of the 'tabula rasa' some more. You say the absence of belief in nothing but that is not backed up by research. We are belief systems, we are directed by our worldviews, we all have made assumptions about the nature of the universe, the purpose and meaning of life and assumptions about our destiny. Non-belief is a belief. Every axiom and principle you assume you assume by faith. "There is no God" is an assumption, a religious belief. I cannot prove God, you cannot disprove God by the narrow band of facts that science can discover.
.
Again, if I may refer to a previous posting on evidence for God I said:
There are numerous valid arguments for a valid proof of God. There are even sound inductive arguments for proof. There are cumulative deductive arguments for proof. The proof you seem to need is an absolutely certain proof. That doesn't exist in the world but that is not a unique short coming to arguing for God. There are many, many truths that you assume that defy certain proof arguments. Scientific argument cannot validate all truth. Some proof, as in the kind established in a courtroom, depends on cumulative deductive and valid induction arguments to demonstrate that things are probably true.
.
Hence, it's not correct for you to say that there is no proof. What needs to be determined is what kind of proof you will accept. If you have built up enough bias against the existence of God then NO amount of evidence, argument or proof will be enough to persuade you.
.
I apologize that I won't have much time today for continuing this. Good thoughts though.

You misunderstand, Maxdetail. Those phenomena in infants you point out are not beliefs. As an atheist parent, I assure you that there is no innate belief in a Creator. Historical evidence supports this observation. Some cultures tend to believe in multiple deities while other cultures tend to believe in no creator whatsoever. Note how newborns adopted from those two cultures by American Christians will NOT default to Hindu or Buddhist beliefs, respectively? Likewise, the offspring of Christians adopted by Hindus or Buddhists will not need to have any innate belief in Jesus beaten out of them either. Innate belief in deities is something that YOU believe, Max, but that belief is not supported by evidence.

Atheism is NOT a belief. It is simply the absence of theistic beliefs. The absence of something does not manifest as some "other" something. Notice how the absence of any one something is identical to the absence or any other something? You could not, for example, describe any distinction between the absence of an apple in my left hand with the absence of an elephant in my right. Since all absences are identical, no absence exhibits any identifiable characteristic. Therefore, the mere absence of any something will always be the exact same nothing. The absence of belief is not belief; it is nothing.

maxdetail only posted here because he was sure foolonthehill wouldn't respond.

maxdetail's idea of a dialogue is his howling at the moon.

maxdetail, I found your most recent post, despite the mention of my name, to be wholly non-responsive to my own post.

If my post is too difficult for you to understand, take it to your priest the next time you go to confession. And be sure to bring your birth certificate.

Why so angry Max? He brings up some valid points - address them.

Max - as an example of GF's point if we continue the chapter you quoted we see that nonbelievers like GF and I deserve death 1:32.

That chapter is also used to condemn homosexuality, and breeds violence and death for homosexuals at the hands of the faithful.

gazettefat, is it possible for two people to have a chat here without you inserting yourself into it?
You've written the equivalent of a train car full of stupid, now let some others talk will ya? Stop assuming the Gazette needs a junk yard dog and that you're the best yappy hound for the job. Now go lie down.

maxdetail, your failed slight-of-hand is duly noted. You falsely build-up your claim with real world phenomena (sound of hands clapping, external world, and the obviousness that other humans have agency), then you make the leap that all this reveals an inborn belief in the supernatural. You made that up. Nothing supports your claim.

As for who are the fools: You and billnewbie rely on a book that is so contradictory and chock full of the entire gamut of human thoughts and emotions, that you can, with confirmation bias and selective perception, find anything in it that'll support any emotion or any thought while someone else with contradictory thoughts and emotions to your own can also find equal support in that same book. And the bible is supposed to a coherent whole. No way. It's a Rorschach test for recruitment purposes.

Fool_on_the_hill, I respectfully disagree that atheism is the default belief. I'm not saying that belief in the God of the Bible is default either. Anthropology and psychology will back up that there seems to be a genetic predisposition for believing in God.
.
I pointed this out in another mind numbing thread that there seems to be certain belief mechanisms in place (default) that allow us to reason. For example, you don't have to teach a baby about cause. You can clap your hands and a baby will recognize that your hands caused the sound. We have a few other belief mechanisms in place from birth - the understanding that there is a real world external to our minds; a belief in other minds, and a tendency to believe in a Creator (Cause).
.
General (or natural) revelation does not answer questions about the details of the Creator but the belief mechanism is there regardless.
.
The Bible (special revelation) explains what happened from a theistic point of view:
.
Romans 1:21 "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen"
.
The rest is history.

Jst……, there isn’t any reason to believe that the evil humans do comes from anywhere other than humans themselves. Even a consideration of supernatural evil is a dead end. And whenever we are victims of natural disasters is the result of bad luck and/or bad planning by us. The best use of any of the “reasoning” that comes from the bible and theology is as an explanation for why the bible-god can’t possibly exist. The bible and its ancillary theology are the greatest arguments for atheism.

As for the evil that comes from us, we still possess the primal brain of our pre-human ancestors. The value that our primal brain originally had was suited for our pre-human ancestors and still has some value for us, but much of the time we are negatively affected by the primal brain: Impulse control, selfishness, etc. There’s nothing supernatural or mysterious about it. However, each individual is responsible for controlling his actions regardless of what thoughts or impulses take place in his mind or brain.

Re: higher existence beyond and our normal way of thinking:

Our normal way of thinking is not a dead end. Because we only live a short time, each individual has the ability to accept life as an adventure, an adventure allowed by the fact that we evolved from lower forms and have developed ways to think about the world and organize ourselves into groups. This is non supernatural transcendence. Consider the life of one person. He is born, then as he grows up and ages he has to make sense of the human experience as it is for himself. This is the adventure. Believers are so distraught over our pre-human underpinnings and the weight of the responsibility required to understand what we are, that they, instead, choose to take the easy way out by imagining a supernatural transcendence that frees them of that responsibility.

The only value of C.S. Lewis is that he’s a screaming example of the folly of attempting to rationalize the bible and the bible-god.

Those kinks in your garden hose can serve as a concrete metaphor for the fact that belief in “god” can no more guide your life than wishful thinking can unkink your hose.

Your description of heaven reminds me of what I’ve read about the drugs ecstasy and crack. Really? eternity spent being spellbound by the trinity?!!! No thanks.

I have no interest in causing a digression of the discussion here, only to clarify a possible misconception.

Atheism is not a belief system. All children are born atheist and will remain atheist unless and until they perceive some manifestation of theism. Likewise, darkness is not an illumination system and silence is not an acoustical system. Conditions of darkness or silence or atheism would all exist in some hypothetical universe where light or sound or theism, respectively, had never existed.

gfan: Yes, I have said that all the suffering is extremely hard to understand and accept. But, Christian teaching is that this is a flawed world and that the evil one has been given reign over it because of Adam and Eve's original sin. Don't ask me why we all have to pay for their screw up, I don't know why. Probably something to do with the line of thinking back then about a man's offspring for generations to come would have to pay for his wrong-doings.

Anyway, as the story goes, Satan was a creation of God, his highest and most beautiful angel, one of the good guys to begin with. Until, and because there was free will for the angels as well, he got to be too big for his britches, to use an old timey phrase, and wanted to be a god himself. He wouldn't straighten up and fly right, so to speak, so he was cast down from heaven and there has been hell to pay ever since. I actually think some of his imps are living in my garden hose this summer, as I have never seen a hose with so many kinks, I gotta wrestle with the thing every time I use it. ;~)

Heaven: Actually, there are many descriptions of heaven, not only in scripture, but in all kinds of poems and literature over the ages. I'm sure that is at least partly due to my perception of what it could be like, if it exists. As for marriage, there is scripture in the New Testament that says there will be none of that in heaven. Of course, ask the Mormons about that one and they have quite a different perspective and expectation.
A big part of the concept and reason for heaven, is that it will be a place for eternal praising and worship of the trinity. Things of earth will be left behind and the focal point will be on a euphoric state of constant praising, singing and glorifying of god the father, god the son and the holy spirit.

Gfan: Good and evil, not necessarily or only supernatural. Good and evil occur in this world every day in a myriad of very real ways. I only theorized that they may come from a supernatural source. Why do some people do the horribly evil things they do? Where does that inclination come from? What is "temptation" and why do we feel it? Haven't we all experienced it, to some degree or another? I don't believe that everything we think or feel comes from within us or is simply a result of the way we are wired or have evolved.

By one's focus extending beyond...I meant that if you, or anyone, are searching for a higher existence and if you are truly interested in exploring what may exist beyond our normal level of understanding and consciousness, than you have to look beyond what people may or may not do or say, as that will be a distraction and stumbling block to your goal and will only drag you down.

C.S. Lewis' comments, I haven't read them myself, so I can only comment on what you wrote. But, as you describe them, no, it doesn't sound like he used a very good analogy with the house and the architect.

jst....., heaven:

Doesn't the absence of an explanation as to what heaven would be like at least suggest an absence of heaven?

Where did you get the idea that heaven exists?

And if god can do anything, why all the suffering as a prerequisite for heaven? Seems cruel and pointless for god to cause and allow that, don't you think so?

OK, here's a reasonable explanation as to how the idea of heaven doesn't make any sense -especially in the matter of us spending eternity with our loved ones:

A man and woman in their 40s are happily married. The woman dies of a disease. After a fair amount of time, the man remarrys, the two people have another happy marriage till one of them dies, then, later, the other one dies.

How does this all sort it self-out in heaven? How does spending eternity with your loved ones play itself out under these circumstances.

***

Here's another one:

How are parents supposed to spend eternal bliss in heaven if they know that one of their children is burning in hell forever because he or she didn't accept Jesus as his or her lord and savior?

jst......, re: the dress. I've had thoughts of really analyzing the story above. That is, explore the chain of events and the thinking involved in the big decision that was made. But I'm not sure if such analysis would be impolite or, instead, reasonable.

jst......, if by "pompous and self-righteous" you mean billnewbie and his ilk, you are correct. As for good Christians, yes, there are some. But have you ever discussed your doubts with them? And if you broached the subject of starving children, what did they say? Was it the explanation that billnewbie or C.S. Lewis would give? Did their responses satisfy you? And if you ever suggested to them that you might be an theist, did they suggest back that if you're an atheist, then, you have no morals? And is it your view that without their "faith" they would be horrible people?

Please explain "extend beyond people and their ways." As for my getting "tripped up," cite an example. What tends to happen is that believers dig a hole for themselves (that is they get tripped up) with the non believers here, then they, the believers, fade away permanently or at least awhile as they need time to recover from the fact that they couldn't civilly and coherently maintain their stance.

Again, I never said free will is a justifiable excuse. Believers claim that free will is an explanation for the bad that humans do. Believers are giving the "free will" explanation in defense of god's causing and allowing such things as children starving to death.

Your take on good and evil: You are describing these two things by way of the supernatural, aren't you?

As for god and Job and satan: According to belief and scripture, god created everything, including satan. Recall your reference to the game-playing re: Job. What is the explanation? God created the game, or god is not the only supernatural player in the universe, there's also the devil? Which means god didn't create everything?

billnebie and others might explain the Book of Job by saying that it was a test of Job's faith. What kind of living thing would do something like that!!! Example, god replaces the 10 children he murdered or allowed to be murdered as though it undoes the horror of those 10 murders. The real explanation of the Job story is at the end of it: God tells Job he has no right to question him because he is a mere pathetic mortal. And god is god and Job isn't. Keep this in mind when billnewbie puts his weird twist on the story. Metaphor, context, C.S. Lewis, whatever.

Your reliance on supernatural elements to explain good and bad requires an explanation of its own.

Also, in the matter of C.S. Lewis, would you comment on my comments about his "outside the universe god"? Does his ignorance of god's face-to-face with Moses, and his 'god as architect' notion leave you with any doubts as to his ability to explain the existence of god?

Heaven: the next post.

Hey, just wondering, but did anyone else think anything of a kid spending $500 on a dress?! Wow. That must have been some dress.

Gfan: When I re-read your posts, I get the impression you must have been exposed to some very pompous and self-righteous Christians at some point in your life. While I too have experienced people like that, I have also been fortunate, blessed, if you will, to have been exposed to some very humble, loving, kind and wise people in my life, some of which gave credit to a Christian influence in their life. Plus, I learned a long time ago that your focus has to extend beyond people and their ways or you will get tripped up every time, as to be human is to err.

Again, the free will thing, not an excuse for the bad stuff. Here's my take, for what it's worth. There seems to be a definite duality or balance of things in the world. There is the "yin yang" of things, light and dark, high and low, cold and hot, etc. As there are both good and evil individuals, it stands to reason to me that there is likely a source for each of these. To give them a name, let's say good comes from God and evil comes from Satan and that each of these entities have their influence in the world. We have the free will to deal with that influence in our lives. And, as you say, it is our choice and we are certainly responsible for our actions. Also, how we are designed and how we have evolved is also a major factor, which perhaps accounts for all the differences in people and how they deal with the choices life deals them. I see evolution as a tool that goes hand in hand with design (creation) and it all has an affect and influence on our genetic structure and traits, both physical and psychological, that get passed down through the generations.

Finally, as for heaven, or whatever the afterlife may actually be. As none of us REALLY knows ANYTHING for certain in regard to this mystery, from the most brilliant scientists and braniacs out there down to the average Joe, I can only speculate and imagine for myself. But my theory would be something like this: Once you've made it that far, you ideally would no longer be exposed to the evil influence, as it would have no place in a supremely ideal and idyllic setting. Evil would have been conquered and only good would exist. It would, in a sense, be a place where you could finally and ultimately relax in the best and greatest meaning of that sensation and awareness and only enjoy your existence along with everyone else. Does that make any sense at all? Man, that sure sounds like heaven to me! Oh, and if we could eat all we want of our favorite foods and never get sick or gain weight, as portrayed in the movie "Defending Your Life", that would be okay too. ;~)

Bill: Thanks for the tips, I have read some C. S. Lewis, along with other writings on the subject of pain and suffering, and know some of his writings came about after the illness and death of his wife, Joy.
I've also wondered how the story of Job can be such a popular one for sermons on the subject of suffering and an intended example for Christian faith. To me, it portrays God and Satan as game players and people as merely game pieces to be used indiscriminately and casually as they quarrel and challenge each other. If we are to take the bible literally, than these people, an entire family, and entire herds of animals, become disposal objects to be wiped off the board in an instant.

billnewbie, what would you do without the bogus excuses for not actually participating in a real debate? Would you try running the C.S. Lewis baloney on me? You wouldn't dare. Show some backbone, show up for the event instead of calling-it-in like your and Lewis' god does.

As for my ability to discern how you think: no supernatural abilities are necessary. When you actually attempt to present your case, you regard the reasonable comments and questions that follow as insults and you are once again rude with your whining about the imagined rudeness of others. This is a typical response when believers can't effectively present their case. It said so in the GazetteXtra quotes in the printed edition of the Gazette last week.

C'mon, how would you respond to one of your kids asking the question that Imjustsayin did?

jst....., maybe I can save you some time and grief by offering a representative sampling of the "genius" of C.S. Lewis.

Lewis says that [an all-powerful] god doesn't have the power to show himself to humans because he (god) is a controlling power beyond the universe. What?!!! When did that happen?!!! Is Lewis' expertise so great that he acquired that expertise before he actually read the bible? Apparently not, because in Exodus the bible has god talking face to face with Moses!!!!

Lewis attempts to explain god's inability to enter the universe with an analogy:

He likens god to an architect who can build a house but is unable to be part of the house, for example: a wall or a ceiling. What? That analogy is so poor and Lewis' reasoning powers so thoughtless that it never occurred to him that the architect of the house CAN WALK INTO THE HOUSE!!!

The way Lewis "reasons" and "explains" is the same way billnewbie does the same. Recall his nonsense in the matter of pain and starving children.

So, now I'm a soothsayer? Now that’s funny! And that from a guy who says he knows all about my hidden agenda. I guess he thinks he’s a long distance mind reader! But he’s not a very good one. In fact, when it comes to reading my mind, he’s an abject failure. So, I'll just chalk all those dark aspersions haphazardly cast about concerning my intentions as nothing more than his usual overused rhetorical device of throwing some garbage against the wall hoping that something sticks. That’s a well established facet of Gazettefan's M.O. Still, his mischaracterizations of what I posted are so spectacular, it's obviously intentional. Yet again, that's just part of his M.O. too. It’s also another facet of his M.O. to try to shame people. Hence all his moaning about the insults he says he gets and the apologies he outrageously demands while he tosses about insults and apologizes to no one. As an example, note the fact that he’s still using that same derogatory acronym directed towards BelieveMe, pretending it’s nothing of the sort. Now that’s shameful. But as most of us now realize, Gazettefan has no shame. That too is part of his well established M.O.

I thought about rebutting his boilerplate point by point, but as Third_Eye pointed out, nothing will be accomplished. It’s not like he and I haven’t been over this ground time and time again.

Jstwndrn, pain and suffering is a troubling fact of life. I suggest you do some reading on the subject. C.S Lewis wrote an outstanding book called “The Problem of Pain”. It’s not very large and it’s easy to read. You can probably find it in the library or even on Amazon.com. in paperback form.

jst......, free will is the explanation given for the bad stuff by Christians when they are confronted with the tragedies that an all-powerful all-loving god could prevent. Their "reasoning" is that god gave us free will and so he's therefore off the hook for our bad decisions. But if he is an all-knowing god, then, he knew what we would do with free will but he allowed it all to happen anyway. This makes no sense if he is all-loving. I'm sure we have free will as a result of natural processes. Our justice system depends on this truth. We are responsible for our bad decisions.

All the good qualities that can be attributed to Christians are phenomena of biological and cultural evolution. If this were not the case, then, the human species would not have survived for the 43,000 years prior to the appearance of the bible's Jesus-god about 2,000 years ago.

The fact that I recognize that all the positive human qualities, that Christianity wants to take credit for, are, instead, natural characteristics of our species makes me an optimist in the matter of the human experience. No bible god(s) needed.

By the way, in the context of the Good Samaritan story in the bible, the Good Samaritan is not a Christian.

Aah, gfan, you sound so pessimistic. Do you really not see any good from all those who live under the moniker of "Christian", in all its varied forms? If you define "Christian" as some of the qualities that are advocated in New Testament scripture, (or even other religious or secular texts, for that matter) such as in the parable of the good Samaritan, lending a helping hand to those in distress, coming to the rescue of a person or animal in need, being charitable, I see that in life all the time and stories of it actually make it into the news on occasion. But, of course, you don't have to profess Christianity to be a good person and do these things. But, millions of people in this country DO go to church, so if most don't, as you say, that would seem to make for a lot of Christians.

Also, I would not at all define "free will" as the cause of all the bad stuff. I see it as our right, if you will, to make decisions throughout our lives to act either one way or the other in regard to every circumstance and choice that we encounter every day. It's probably millions of decision over the course of our lives, depending on how long we live and it involves a variety of moral standards, ranging the entire scope of the scale. Without it we would be no more than programmed zombies or robots, as you accurately point out.

I like the last questions you raise. You've got me thinking in regard to your statements about free will in heaven and that opening it to all the bad stuff happening there as well as in the world and asking what heaven would be like, otherwise. Have to run for now, but I'll be pondering that one.

billnewbie, your comments on the value of pain are very close to describing pain’s purpose as an evolutionary adaptive mechanism –which, by the way, is not mentioned in the bible.

Just as important, I see that like a certain kind of clergy you perceive someone’s sensitivities as weaknesses as you attempt to deal away the tragedy of starving children by making excuses for the all-loving and all-powerful god that not only creates that tragedy but then allows it to continue and continue. You are attempting to make someone feel bad about being in disfavor with god by way of your rationale. This kind of emotional blackmail is the stuff of low cunning and is in no way a result of the higher education you boast about. Nice ruse. It’s a recapitulation of sorts of the “technique” of that certain clergy. Don’tya think?

So, let’s see, you claim to know what Imjustsayin really meant. Well soothsayer, the burden you’ll have to endure with that bogus claim is: The original question in-and-of-itself is valid –no matter the intent- and, indeed, does come with a question mark at the end. And while you now live in fear of my response to your earlier non response, you’ve opened the door to speculating as to how you would react to your own children asking the same question:

Is your thinking: They will be met with “righteous indignation” that is not restrained by the anonymity and rules provided by GazetteXtra? Or is the thinking: That your inculcation of your beliefs onto them will be so thorough that they will be incapable of even pondering Imjustsayin’s question? Or if the question is pondered, there is no way it will ever be vocalized? I mean, you know, “righteous indignation” can be hell sometimes. Ask Job.

Again, how come when you thought to cite the bible, you went for the rough stuff. Why no “love your enemy”?

And your reference to these debates as “little squabbles” is laughable. They’re not so little that if you were in charge at the Gazette you’d shut them down asap. We both know that. It’s obvious you have a problem with the Gazette for letting them play out. That darn First Amendment!!!! As for your end of the squabbles, it almost entirely involves avoidance of the issue itself as you splatter your “righteous indignation” all over the place.

And your attempt to rile up someone who’s had many problems with this issue –BM- has not gone unnoticed. It’s also classical of your ilk to exploit such elements. Shame on you.

By the way, jst….., was gracious enough to apologize even though it appears that no apologize was necessary; but what about you? Where’s the apology you owe?

Bill, your explanation is reasonable and you made some good points. But it's really not death that actually bothers me so much. It's all the suffering, the needless, terrible, cruel suffering that goes on all over the world in countless ways. Disease, famine, torture, abuse, etc. And when it happens to children and animals, those that I think of as particularly innocent, it all just seems so cruel and unnecessary...and never-ending.

jst….., you raise the point of what is a Christian. Well, most of the people who are counted as Christians in this country don’t go to church. As a matter of fact, if you start looking for what actually qualifies a person as a Christian, you’d be hard pressed to find any at all.

As for Africa, the poorer and less educated people are the more likely they will be influenced by the commanding presence of Christian bureaucracy and doctrine. It is with the poor and less educated that Christianity has its greatest influence. It is the Christian influence over people at that station in life that makes them more likely to abstain from the kind of birth control that more well-off and more educated people use. We are talking about the exploitation of people in a weaken position by people in a much stronger position. But somehow, if god exists, god is off the hook for all this? Recall that god is supposed to be all-powerful and all-loving.

The pope said AIDS is bad but not as bad as having sex only for pleasure!!! Sex must only be for procreation.

The irony of the Church helping those people is that, the Church is first contributing greatly to the problem in the first place. It’s as though the Church is creating a problem in which it can glory in the solution. And whatever the Church is doing didn’t stop that baby in the Gazette story from dying of starvation, whose parents, as you’ll recall, mitigated that tragedy by creating another pregnancy.

Clergy and billnewbie and his ilk just love to play off people’s fear of death. They are so afraid of death that they’ll drape themselves in all manner of rationalization to sooth that fear. As for his recent and incredibly insensitive comments in the matter of children starving to death, his notion is that his all-loving and all-powerful god just didn’t or couldn’t make humanity any other way. That notion clarified includes the crazy claim that: If without all the suffering in question –especially that of children- life wouldn’t be worth living. Honing in more on that notion brings this conclusion: That when things are going well: when people are getting along and there is no pain or death, those good stretches of time for an entire lifetime would make life unenjoyable and not worth living. billnewbie’s retort to all this is that ….well…… an all-powerful all-loving god just didn’t make things better for humans.

And this business about free will letting god off the hook, it is ridiculous on its face. It’s just a rationale for god’s non presence. The claim is that if people didn’t have free will (free will being the cause of the bad stuff), then, we’d all be robots. If this explanation makes any sense at all, then, believers like billnewbie are required to explain what heaven is like:

If there’s free will in heaven, then, there’s bad stuff up there too. If there’s no free will up there, then, everyone is a robot.

Part 3

You’ll notice that I said that God made our bodies mortal. That was not a typo. If all we amount to are natural beings, then why do we all desire permanent life? It is natural to die. Yet here is humanity, obsessed with our lives' longevity and dreading its end. Not just some of us, but all of us. Why? Because we are more than just physical bodies. I saw a quote from C.S. Lewis that really hit the nail on the head. Many people ridicule the existence of the soul (our supernatural selves), saying whatever it is, science can’t find it. What Lewis said is “I don’t have a soul, I have a body. I am a soul.” In short, there is much more to life than this physical existence. When our bodies die, that is not the end of our life. The bible makes it clear, God did in fact make us immortal. (About now, the atheists among us are suffering collective apoplexy.) That may offer no consolation to those who suffer the loss of a loved one. But it does dispel the assertion that God is cruel to allow death. If our bodies die, but we are souls that are separate from our bodies, then in fact, we have not died. If heaven is a better place than here, as the bible says, then dead children have not died but left for a better existence elsewhere. You can say there is no God. You can deny there is a heaven. But you cannot honestly say that the God of the bible is cruel to allow death. The bible states unequivocally that death is but a portal to a new existence. (I hope Gazettefan doesn’t have a heart attack when he reads that!)

I could go on and on but the Gazette may not appreciate a few dozen more excerpts. Unfortunately, I have no way to be brief about such a complex subject. Yet I know I haven't said enough.

Part 2

Do children suffer more that others when they die? I see no reason to think so. Not being able to understand why you are suffering doesn’t seem to me to be a multiplier of that pain and suffering. In fact, it could have the opposite effect. However, it probably is true that the loved ones of dying children suffer more than the loved ones of a dying great grandfather do. Yet the final result is the same for both.

(I’ve noticed a bit of a paradox concerning those who hold that God is cruel to allow children to suffer and die. They seem so often to support abortion. I suppose they find justification in the idea that the children aborted will suffer less pain, or none at all if you accept the idea that the unborn feel no pain. But most certainly they have no answer for the cruelty that abortion snuffs out a life that tasted none of its joys as they have. They call God cruel for that very reason. Yet they see no problem when it’s their idea. Isn’t it funny how the concept of God’s sovereignty is mocked but personal sovereignty, as in the case of abortion and women’s rights, is held to be sacrosanct by those same people? )

Yet through all that pain and suffering, God did not abandon us to suffer and die in agony alone. He gave us each other. That is especially true of children. God gave us mothers and fathers. For most of us, our mothers and fathers would have laid down their lives for us. That is how God intended it. Unfortunately, not all mothers and fathers would do likewise. Some people have overcome their God given desire to love their children that deeply. It’s true that in some parts of the world, children starve in spite of the best efforts of their parents. But usually, when children suffer that way, it’s because their parents shirked their responsibilities. We also have what’s known as the dispensation of government. But alas, in most circumstances of widespread starvation, some dysfunctional or corrupt government is at the root of the cause. In short, God gave us parents, other relatives, friends and neighbors to look out for us. (Sort of how you reminded me that I tend to “draw my sword” too quickly) We are not abandoned by God, but sometimes we abandon each other.

Jstwndrn,
It’s difficult to discuss dying children unemotionally without sounding like a heartless jerk. The detractors who search for things they can crow about will have a field day, but I’ll try it just the same.

Pain and suffering, particularly human but animal also, are difficult concepts to understand when one considers the believability of a loving, caring God. It is especially hard to accept among children. In the bible it says “it is appointed unto men once to die”. The meaning of that is clear, that our bodies are made mortal. Could God have made our bodies so as not to die? Assumably, He could have, but He didn’t. He could also have made them free from pain and suffering, I suppose. However, that also is not how He made us. I suppose again that if He wanted to, He could have made our bodies so that they are yet mortal but free from pain and suffering. That seems like a good bargain, until you examine it more closely. On the most basic of levels, pain is a teacher. When we first learned to walk, we fell. We fell a lot. Pain, the pain we get from falling, inspired us to perfect our walking skills. Without perfected walking skills, a great many of us would have died rather young due to injuries from frequent falls. If we had no pain or suffering from illness and injury we would not care for ourselves accordingly which would also lead a number of us to early graves. So, like it or not, pain and suffering do serve a purpose, even in children. It helps prevent early death.

I suppose too that God could have exempted children from pain, suffering and death. Yet that would create a whole new set of problems. At what age would it be acceptable for people to die? Suppose God set the date at 25 years of age. Consider the anxiety, the mental anguish, the suffering that coming of that age would bring. Then those who attain that age and are found to be dying would no doubt condemn God for His cruelty just the same, I suspect. And so may the dying’s loved ones too. So exempting children really doesn’t resolve the problem of pain, suffering and dying. Whether you are dying at 1 or 100, you are still dying. No, exempting children wouldn’t do. The only viable alternative is immorality. God decided not to make our bodies that way.

bill: Yes, you are right, it is all too easy to jump to conclusions and make assumptions, maybe more so in a forum like this, so I apologize for any incorrect intimations I made. But, I connected what I perceived as the unnecessary harshness and wording you used in your initial response to the scene you described of a parent disciplining their child in public and not being understood and I still would not be very comfortable hearing a parent speak to their child like that.
You mention being quick to draw the sword, like Peter. But then Jesus criticizes Peter for the violence and heals that wound, saying all who live by the sword shall die by the sword.

Yes, I have professed Christianity in the past. And, yes, I am struggling with my faith right now, for various reasons. You have done your homework!
:~)

My statement does make me sound like a deist, but that is pretty much how I feel these days, I guess...abandoned, along with the rest of the world. However, while I don't blame god for the evil that is done in this world by humans, I do have to wonder why a loving god who cares about us and creation wouldn't have stepped in before now. Plus, illness and disease, or starvation, especially in children, is pretty difficult to understand. Scripture tells us that Christ said he would come back for us. Alright already, come!

Jstwndrn, I quite disagree, the two do compare. Surely not to the same degree, but the comparison is valid just the same. Like you have done, ImJustSayin asked a question but he was really making a statement. I correctly discerned what he meant and responded to it accordingly in righteous indignation though certainly not to the same degree of righteous indignation that Christ used when he attacked the moneychangers. Was I wrong to respond the way did? I don’t think I was. Yet it’s probably true that I’ve become somewhat jaded over the years in these squabbles. Perhaps like Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane, I’ve become too quick to draw my sword. Yet I can’t help but remember how little patience Christ and John the Baptist had for cynics such as these.

I didn’t realize that you were such a fan of these little squabbles. It’s like Third_Eye says, they’ve been going on for quite some time and have indeed become largely useless. I did some research in your archive. I noticed that a couple of years ago, you identified yourself as Christian. You also have stated that you have had times when your faith has waxed and waned. You must be in one of your low periods considering some of your posts of the last few days. Particularly where you wrote “The older I get, the less I feel or believe that there is an entity, a "god", that cares very much about us on a personal level.” That sounds more like deism than Christianity. Yet I’ve noticed in the past you too have seen fit to “draw your sword’ as well in defense of what you said you believe. You say you’ve seen many of my posts? I suggest you haven’t seen enough of them to make an accurate judgment. I also am not familiar enough with you to make an accurate judgment, either. Yet I am quite familiar with some folks that post here.

As a matter of fact, I do have children in my life. I do not advocate or condone berating, demeaning and otherwise verbally abusing them. Nor did I imply same. What I said was “You know, sort of like a loving parent disciplining a child. An outside observer might think the parent is rude, unkind and impatient. He has no idea that the parent has dealt with this misbehaving child at length for his misbehavior in the past. He sees only that one incident and makes an incorrect judgment.” Not all discipline can be classified as abuse. I think you’ve jumped to a rather hasty conclusion. In fact, a number of them.

Still, you make some valid points. You’ve given me some things to think about.

gfan: The term "Christian factions" can mean a lot of things. Just exactly how "Christian" are they, what denominations, etc. It's hard to imagine that these armies who are fighting and making things worse are made up of people attending church on Sunday with their families after a normal work week.

In addition to the mind-boggling fact that Somalia hasn't had a national government since 1991, it seems there is a mix of age-old basic ingredients to the problem in many African countries. Extreme poverty, made worse by the AIDS epidemic, drought and a mindset among the people, especially in rural areas, that child production proves virility in men and increases a woman's worth, giving them the some of the highest stats for child birth in the world. So, not enough food in the first place and then an exploding population have continued to be a deadly mix. And in recent years, a militant Islamic group, Al-Shabaab, has added to the problem, this info coming from BBC News and UNICEF. Seems they deny any problems of famine, shun outside help, like to recruit children to do their fighting and have sabotaged aid efforts by destroying facilities housing vaccinations and other meds, commandeering emergency food supplies, etc.
While the Catholic stance on birth control is ridiculous under those circumstances, they have also done a lot over the years to help in these countries. Much of which is now geared toward the theory of teaching self-help, (give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for life). And, of course, it isn't just Catholic influence, it is all denominations and secular organizations, as well.

jst....., I think a lot of the fighting going on there is between Christian factions.

And sure, it's possible that everyone there isn't abiding by the Church's prohibition against condoms. But the Church's stance probably goes a long way toward aggravating the problem. And the mentality behind the prohibition is frightening all by itself. How can they think that way? And how can they abuse their influence by imposing the idea that those who use condoms are in violation of god's will?

Wouldn't it be helpful if the Church not only dropped its prohibition but also endorsed and facilitated the use of condoms. Certainly that would make a difference.

gfan: I can't agree that the evil in this world proves that there is no god, in some form or another. I think there is something to be said for not only the freewill of mankind wreaking havoc, but also the presence of evil and its influence in this world being to blame, especially when it is embraced by evil-doers for their personal gain with no care for the earth or anyone else on it.

In regard to the starvation article, what struck me the oddest was the journalist's focus on one family who had just lost a child and then said that they still had hope because the woman was pregnant. That is something I have struggled with for many years, trying to understand the creation of new life under conditions like this. And while I realize there are differences in culture and education, for the journalist to seemingly advocate that stance was really strange, I thought.
You focus on and blame the church, but condoms are available, as well as other methods, not only to prevent pregnancy, but AIDS, as well. It's hard to imagine that the majority of these folks are so caught up in following Church doctrine, that they refuse to practice birth control. I really have trouble believing that.

And I have read that this starvation issue isn't just due to drought conditions or even the church banning condom use, but that it is now and has been caused in the past to a great extent by fighting within these countries, power struggles, guerrilla warfare factions, abuse of existing food supply and donations, etc. Have you heard of this, as well?

billnewbie, and it hasn't gone unnoticed that you shirk from responding to my post that highlights how someone who commits to the clergy can change his or her mine.

You attempted to obscure that issue by taking advantage of jst....'s peaceful presence on this thread.

I just read jst.....'s recent post directed at you, you have been chastised perfectly.

You and maxdetail are overdue on some very important apologies.

billnewbie, BM never made one complaint about the initialism. Now you probably got him ticked off for no reason. And I didn’t put your meaning on it till you foisted that meaning on this thread. Appropriately, your meaning shows where your head is.

Furthermore, you continue to be in error with calling “BM” an acronym. I was slightly off the mark by calling it an initialization, the proper word is “initialism.” Acronyms are words. Initialisms are only letters. Maybe you can blame your ignorance of this fact on the dirty meaning you attribute to the initialism in question.

As for tag-team wrestling, where is your faithful Eskimo companion, maxdetail, right now? Stalking the audience for an empty metal chair to hit me with?

And quit gloating over pro’s typo. You still haven’t come clean on “initialism” and the fact that the listener infers and the speaker implies.

billnewbie, your rudeness toward jst……… is uncalled for, but par for the course for you.

The greatest value of your “scriptural background” post is that it perfectly points out what a dangerous and useless thing your bible is. You clearly show that any hostile behavior can be justified by scripture at the same time the one guilty of that hostile behavior can claim to walk with the Prince of Peace. Wow. Nice going. More precisely, your book and the beliefs that come from it in no way transcend the human condition. Humans don’t need the bible to rationalize hostile behavior, but when they go to the bible with selective perception they can recruit the aid of god to justify their hostility.

A person who is naturally tolerant but nonetheless resorted to the bible for support would have chosen “turn the other cheek” or “love thy neighbor.” But not you, you had to go for the rough stuff. That’s why you’re a believer. An apology for jst…… should be forthcoming from you.!!!

Yes, jst……, when we point out that “god” does many things that run contrary to his being all-powerful and all-loving, we are only showing that with those contradictions he therefore can’t possibly exist. It is all on mankind. And the main source of the trouble comes from people who attach the “almighty creator of the universe” to their points of view. This is not good, especially when those points of view are horrible.

When you go beyond personal wonderment at being alive, then, you are talking about the pleasure of like-minded people functioning as a group. This feels good because it harkens to the kind of cooperation that enhances survival, even when it’s not directly related to survival e.g. sports and other congenial activates.

Mob action is a perverse form of group cooperation. It gives anguished pleasure to some people when they are united for a common hateful cause e.g. Inquisition, Crusades, Pogroms, and the Holocaust.

Any use of the word “spiritual” for the purpose of expressing the supernatural is invalid when it comes to any human activity.

Yes, I did read that article. What wasn’t mentioned in it is that many of the babies who starve to death in Africa are the victims of the leader of billnewbie's religion -the pope's- condemnation of condom use. The lack of condom use creates more babies who are born into severe poverty. Interestingly, many of the ones who starve to death and many of the ones who survive are designated as Christians by the Church.

prounion. Question: I understand the purpose in your repeated references to the abysmal behavior that is cited in the Bible. But, I'm guessing you have probably thought about the fact that it was human behavior and that there is absolutely no proof that god, if god exists, ordered or condoned that behavior. Yes? If you can accept that theory, what is the next step? What other aspects of this subject can we explore. Or is that as far as it goes for you? Cause, dude, you're like a stuck record. Somebody jiggle the jukebox, man. Groundhog Day, Groundhog Day, Groundhog Day...LOL!!!

bill: The two questions are one in the same, just worded differently by each of us. Good job making the connection, tho.

I get the examples you cite, but a person posting a comment on a website like the one by ImJust hardly compares...really.

And, no, it wasn't a mistaken, one-time observance of your comments, bill. I've seen many of them.

Righteous indignation? Over that comment? Come on.

And lastly, if you have children in your life and you berate, demean and otherwise verbally abuse them for minor infractions, similar to the fashion you exhibited in that comment, and then rationalize and excuse it the way you did here, you seriously need to examine your ways.
I don't care how much scripture you quote to back up your behavior. When you speak to people that way, children included, they may fear you, dread you or even hate you. But I guarantee you, bill, it won't cause them to respect or love you. And it won't lead anyone to Christ, either, if that falls anywhere into your Christian priorities.

Third - the minds being changed may not be Bill and Max's but I have learned from them a great deal over the last two years, and from GF and others as well.

I think some of the readers of these exchanges also learn as well. Not to mention its a great deal of fun. Why not join in?

This circular firing squad, GF, Bill N, Pro U and and MaxD, etc. have had this same argument over and over on every religious article for over two years.
Pity the poster that gets pulled into their vortex. No minds will be changed. No positions will be altered.

I figured this string would bring out the toleration and appreciation of diversity that is really out there amongst our leftist bretheren. It didn't disappoint.

Got me Bill - I did typo the heck out of it, I meant to point out that you worship a genocidal god that orders toddlers to be speared in the eye by the thousands as their mothers scream while they await their turn and their young virgin sisters await rape and slavery.

But of course you addressed the important point (and the only one you could without reactivating your ability for rational though on this issue)- I messed up the spelling on genocidal.

After further review, nope, it's not a Prounion original after all. The spelling is a Prounion original, but I'm sure that too was just a mistake as was his premise, no doubt.

"genicidal rape"???? Haste makes waste, Prounion. Or maybe you need to call that faulty derogation to the attention of the folks over at Godisimaginary.com or wherever so you won't look so foolish when you copy and paste their mistakes as if they were your own. Of course, in this case, "genicidal rape" may well be a Prounion original. That, at least, would be a refreshing change, even if the underlying substance is not.

So Gazettefan, with all your unrighteous indignation over demands for apologies, I don't see any recognition of that derogatory acronym you like to use towards BelieveMe let alone an apology. Boy, am I surprised! I guess that all we'll ever really get from you is just another load of horsefeathers.

I see you rejected my observation about atheistic boilerplate by using your tried but untrue and disingenuous turn-about technique. You really are something like a professional wrestler, with a tag team partner, aren't you. Anytime one has any kind of discussion with you on these subjects, invariable your partner makes it a threesome, and vise verse. But your partner must have missed your non-denial denial since he posted the boilerplate almost exactly the way I described it. You better have a word with him, he's under cutting you.

I see you're still "dogging" me on other discussions. BULLSEYE!

Jstwndrn, So you want to know what I make of those verses from 1 Corinthians 13? Really? No, I think that what you really want to know is how can an avowed Christian be rude, unkind or impatient in light of those verses, isn't it? Well, here's your answer to the question I assume you really were asking. But first, a little scriptural background.

In Matthew 3, John the Baptist was baptizing and preaching when some Pharisees and Sadducees came along. They were very much like some of the folks who comment on the Gazette. They asked questions not to glean information but to try to find something they could condemn him for , to trip him up. John was, you could say, a firebrand. He called them a generation of vipers which one could say was rather rude of him. He had little patience, or kindness for them. Yet Christ praised him as we can see in Matt. 11. Later, Christ himself said much the same about the Pharisees in Matt. 12 and even more so in Matt. 23. And don't forget the impatient unkind way that Christ treated the moneychangers in Matt. 21. Ecclesiastes 3 might help explain it. "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven".

Ecclesiastes 3 verse 8 adds "A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace." If you hold 1 Corinthians 13 as an absolute standard, then Ecclesiastes 3 is quite a contradiction, isn't it. That's the problem with absolutes. Yet the times for hate and war had best be few and far between. What you saw in my posts isn't rudeness, it's righteous indignation. You know, sort of like a loving parent disciplining a child. An outside observer might think the parent is rude, unkind and impatient. He has no idea that the parent has dealt with this misbehaving child at length for his misbehavior in the past. He sees only that one incident and makes an incorrect judgement. I assert that like that mistaken observer, you too have misjudged what you've seen, and for much the same reasons.

Ah, yes, so you did.
Okay, so if god doesn't exist, then obviously god cannot be blamed for all the starving children and all the other misery that occurs on earth. And we really can't put in on animals. If left as designed, or as evolved, their existence maintains a good balance through the natural chain of predators. So, that leaves us, mankind. We alone have the level of intelligence it takes to cause major changes on earth, good and bad. Which sounds a lot like that free will thing. Unfortunately, most of us have to live with the consequences of the free will of those with the most power.

I really feel there is a lot more to the sense of spirituality than just something generated within myself. And maybe spirituality isn't the most accurate word, if you strictly define it as being related to a particular "spirit" being. But, you can see it in people, places, situations, words, art, etc. Things exude spirit, uplifting, depressing, joyous, ugly, beautiful, good and evil. It's all around us. And sometimes, it's almost like a living thing, for example, a mob scene can grow like a living entity. That's a spirit, in a sense.

Speaking of starving children, did you happen to read the article on the subject in the Gaz, Sunday before last, I think it was?

I left you a post at 9:30am.

LOL! That it is, Gfan, that it is!

jts......, isn't it amazing how people manage to die in alphabetical order?!!!

Just got in from work, showered and had a bite and after checking the obits, didn't see my name, so thought I'd check in on the fray. Yup, still frayin'!!! Woohoo, we be havin' some fun now!

RUSerious, your comments are so off the mark that I am now demanding that you apologize to me and everyone else!!!

SOCIAL SKILLS!!!??? Demanding Aplogies!!?? Who in H*** (and I mean that literally but don't want to be deleted!) do you think you are? This isn't YOUR story! You and those you were arguing with owe Sister Gabriella the apology. You are commandeering the personal congratulatory story of this wonderful woman to push your own agenda; you did notice it was not just an informational story on religion didn't you? It would almost be the same as leaving a trail of vile remarks under someone's obituary if they were to have a funeral service in a church. And you would if you could, wouldn't you?
Do you really think Sister Gabriella spent these years of dedication so that she can spend the rest of her years spearing the eyes of babies and raping virgins? If so-keep on talking, if not, why not shut the h*** up (take it however you want it) and ask for your own blog so you can blather on forever for those who want to discuss it with you?
If Sister Gabriella reads these comments under her story, I ask her to accept my own apology for adding to it, but begs her to be prepared for the likes of these who cannot find anything good in anything no matter what their beliefs, and to consider my rant a text version of a hair-pulling scream of exasperation when I saw that it was still going on under yet another religion based story being taken over by these textual terrorists.

Max your term pick on the faith is interesting. I think you mean it as an insult - I accept that insult as a true statement. I must however point out that while you demean this person with the idea that she cannot defend her faith, I believe she can probably do a better job that you can, even though as you put it she is a "little nun".

Anyways yes I say her belief is in an imaginary god and to the extent that her mind is consumed by the faith in that god, her mind has been wasted, that is sad. You call it picking on her faith, I say it is pointing out that what she has faith in is an entity that does not exist independent of the mind of the faithful, and cripples that mind.

maxdetail, it would take a wizard to give you some social skills. Your cowardice is duly noted with your fear of even attempting to articulate your stance in writing. Your stance comes from the writing in a book yet you can't write it down yourself for the benefit of others.

Your in-person presentation is of such a self-serving obnoxious nature that it allows you to delude yourself into believing that you're making coherent points. I know this for a fact, I've seen and heard you in action.

C'mon, spread the good news here.

Fair enough, I guess we'll have to wait til you see the wizard and see if he can give you some courage. Until then we'll just have to watch you brave men pick on the faith of a little nun. Such big brave men.

Max - its not a lack of creativity - you have3 just been unable to address it - and each time you try you get more and more angry/insulting - than ask us to meet in person. No thanks from this GBOT.

billnewbie, in the matter of someone making up their mind, once and for all:

It is glaringly true that if certain priests prior to their priesthood regarded children as precious, they certainly changed their minds about children at some point after being ordained. Supposedly, at the time of ordination the "Holy Ghost" enters the body of the priest, including the bodies of the priests in question.

So, you'll have to concede that after having the wherewithal to decide properly once-and-for-all in the matter of being devoted to Christ and the preciousness of children, they changed their minds in a monumental way, not only about children but about Christ as well (by necessity, right?). And if you resort to the horse-feathers that their behavior was merely a reflection of society at-large, then, what happened during the ordination?

Does the Holy Ghost enter the bodies of the priests in question despite having the knowledge of those priests' predilections? If that's the case, then, we need an explanation as to why the HG didn't alert anyone. And if it's not the case, then, we need an explanation as to the HG's lack of omniscience.

As for "boilerplate": The boilerplate of your ilk is that your ilk has moral superiority to atheists. Well intellectual morality is important when it comes to thinking and speaking about the human experience, and you, billnewbie, are very lax in that department. You are intellectually dishonest.

By the way, the listener infers, the speaker implies. And abbreviating designations by way of using letters only makes an acronym if the abbreviation makes a word. If the abbreviation is only letters, it's called an initialization.

And leaving a post where you've already posted is what you've been doing to me. So, does that make you a sick puppy or does it make you a sort of conversational Al Qaida?

Now see if you can stop the slug fest by responding to pro's important comments and questions.

Again, the Sister's proper honorific is "Sister." What's your problem with that?

maxdetail, we want those apologies!!!

"gut bag of trash", I was just trying to create a mix of pejoratives to get your attention and stay fresh. I hate using the same words over and over. You guys don't seem to mind repeating yourselves, for example "ilk, ilk, ilk", and "spear eyeball", alright already, we get it, you lack creativity.
.
"gut bag of trash" kind of captures that accidental lump of biology, purposeless matter, uncaring universe idea that you promote. I like GBOT. Golly, we could have some fun chatting about these things in person at Time Out Pub, Conway & O'Riley's, Italian House, Speak Easy... come on, just do it.

max, this time when they put you in the ice-bath, don't resist the ice, instead, be the ice.

Max - since your god is a topic that can only be communicated about in person for some reason, can you at least explain what a gut bag of trash is? This GBOT would like to know.

maxdetail, you owe me and everyone else on this thread a sincere apology.

gfan, are you still sore because I pronounced a fatwa against you? It's not like anyone has tried to carry it out yet. Get over it. Oh, and pro wrestling is fake!

maxdetail, are you a pro wrestler?

jst......, yes, the only caring humans get is from other human beings. And that lack of caring you speak of also comes from human beings. It's all on us.

Good point about Burns and Freeman: They never get around to discussing the problem of their godly neglect in the matter of the thousands of babies and children who die each hour from starvation. Those two gods only served as ersatz uncles for sappily constructed characters in movies that lack real substance.

That "glowing nebula Star Trek type thing" is the wonderment all reasonable people feel from the mere fact of being alive (JuSTWoNDeRiNg). The glow and sense of "spirituality" is from brain activity that accompanies the pondering of all the good and bad in humans and in the human experience. The glow leans toward the positive in the healthy personality who hasn't attached him or herself to a hateful rationale for dealing with the human experience.

The problem with the idea of "first cause" is that it's an unsubstantiated premise. That premise claims that there once was nothing and something came out of that nothing. If you look around and even look out into the cosmos with or without a telescope, you'll always see something. This is reason to believe that the state of nothing never existed. Matter and energy in one form or another have existed forever.

The state of nothing is unstable. So is the state of disorder. Given infinite matter and energy and eternal time, organization has to take place sooner or later. Disorder, by definition, is unstable. The whole enchilada just is. This should be enough to satisfy so-called spiritual hunger. "Spirituality" is merely the wonderment that comes from recognizing that even though your existence has a material basis you are actually alive, and lucky to be so.

Note how much maxdetail's need for love isn't satisfied by his belief, he even has to caterwaul about not being loved by a granule of sand. He's missing the vibrant ride of being alive.

Behold how maxdetail exhibits how his god inspires his thinking.

maxdetail, as I told you before: Apply your writing skills and describe what that in-person conversation would be like. Would it have you responding only with insults -as you chronically doe here- to reasonable comments and questions about faith? If it wouldn't, then, pretend we are in the same room and type-out your reasonable responses to the reasonable comments and questions addressed to you and your ilk on this site.

Lose your cowardice, reveal in detail how you received and live with the good news.

jst...., back in awhile.

maxdetail, again, this is not E Harmony Dot Com.

LOL - Max - you may have made a more convincing post regarding GF's valid post about worshipers of the infant slaughter god being more negative if you hadn't filled it with so many insults.

And of course - when backed into an intellectual corner here you offer to meet to share the wonderful logic of the loving god and how spearing an infant in the Eye is sometimes moral behavior. You can't even be happy with your own thoughts on this can you?

Sure, I would be happy to, delighted, ecstatic! Where would you like to meet?

maxdetail, as usual you exhibit a tremendous lack of insight as to your own mentality within the folderol of your last post. The negativity in question is in the form of the lowbrow insults you (per your ilk) manifested so perfectly in that post. And it's not shocking that you had lie in order to even entertain yourself with the idea that you said something intelligent and relevant.

Let's leave the low road and take the high road. In accordance with the discussion going on with jst.... and joeflint, give us your account of how god became real to you. Spread the good news.

Ok class, so Gfan the Great (Gas Bag) says "I will add, though, the frequency of negative posts by believers and the degree of that negativity far outweighs that of the non believers. (also for frusion)"
.
Gfan has 10285 comments but to be fair, let's subtract the 5 that were not negative about God or people of faith.
.
The ratio for Gfan out ranting BillNewbie's observations is 335%.
The ratio of Gfan's crabbing to Frusions comments, 963%.
The ratio of gfan's mindless idlings to my contributions, a whopping 1270%.
.
Gfan's grasp of theology is only matched but his stellar comprehension of math.
.
Gfan, though you don't believe in 'good', never the less, think of the good you could do if you used your time and mental efforts to build up instead of tearing down each day. The military could use you to talk terrorists to death... cruel and unusual.. but effective.

The older I get, the less I feel or believe that there is an entity, a "god", that cares very much about us on a personal level. So, this is just feeling more than anything else, but if I were to try to imagine god, it isn't anything like the popular concept, not George Burns or Morgan Freeman. Not an old man with a white beard in a flowing robe. It's hard to put into words, but if I had to, I suppose I could say that it's more a glowing nebula Star Trek type of thing. I believe there is something spiritual around us also, both good and bad, but not sure how it all fits together. But, one thing that makes me think there could be a supreme being or intelligence of some sort out there, is the design I see in so many things. I'm okay with evolution, it's a tool, a means to the end. But I don't think that it's all there is. I just can't see the complexity coming from nothing and making its way to the final product. It seems that there has to be a beginning of some sort, a spec, a plan, a blueprint for life in all its amazing forms.

jst...., thanks.

I will add, though, the frequency of negative posts by believers and the degree of that negativity far outweighs that of the non believers. (also for frusion)

As for "can't prove god doesn't exist": That issue's been dealt with before on this site. During that discussion when adre..... was asked to list the characteristics of the un-disprovable god, the only characteristic he could provide was that god is not disprovable -no other characteristics.

If you consider the possibility that god exists, can you describe him or her? Can you speculate on what he or she does?

Part Two

And I will add now: It is glaringly true that if certain priests prior to their priesthood regarded children as precious, they certainly changed their minds about children at some point after being ordained. Supposedly, at the time of ordination the "Holy Ghost" enters the body of the priest, including the bodies of the certain priests in question.

So, you'll have to concede that after having the wherewithal to decide properly once-and-for-all in the matter of being devoted to Christ and the preciousness of children, they changed their minds in a monumental way, not only about children but about Christ as well (by necessity, right?). And if you resort to the horse-feathers that their behavior was merely a reflection of society at large, then, what happened during the ordination?

Does the Holy Ghost enter the bodies of the priests in question despite having the knowledge of those priests' predilections? If that's the case, then, we need an explanation as to why the HG didn't alert anyone. And if it's not the case, then, we need an explanation as to the HG's lack of omniscience.

As for "boilerplate": The boilerplate of your ilk is that your ilk has moral superiority to atheists. Well intellectual morality is important when it comes to thinking and speaking about the human experience, and you, billnewbie, are very lax in that department. You are intellectually dishonest.

By the way, the listener infers, the speaker implies. And abbreviating designations by way of using letters is only an acronym if the abbreviation makes a word. If the abbreviation is only letters, it's called an initialization.

And leaving a post where you've already posted is what you've been doing to me. So, does that make you a sick puppy or does it make you a sort of conversational Al Qaida?

Now see if you can stop the slug fest by responding to pro's important comments and questions.

Again, the Sister's proper honorific is "Sister." What's your problem with that?

Part One

billnewbie, since you're adept at distorting what others say, allow me to paste what I said earlier:

"billnewbie, are you familiar with the fact that some clergy members have changed their minds about their belief? And are you and BelieveMe aware of the fact that Muslims and Jews and Christians worship the same god? And that Muslims acknowledge the existence of Jesus (but only as a prophet and not as the son of God)? And so it is therefore conceivable that a clergy member might adjust his or her belief to not include Jesus as the son of god while not excluding Jesus altogether?

billnewbie, in addition to your self-comforting act of psychological projection which is aided by the soothing effect of self-serving and unusual beliefs, I’ve also noticed that in your disparagement-wrought posts a certain condescension toward Sister Gabriela.

First, you said that you “WOULDN’T” do what Sister Gabriela did, suggesting disapproval on your part. It seems that true respect for what she’s did would have you say that you COULDN’T do what she did.

Second, and most important, you continue to refer to her in a way that suggests misogyny and/or disapproval for her particular brand of faith. That is, your inappropriate use of the honorific “Miss” and her last name (Moldonado) when her proper honorific is Sister with her first name (Gabriela)."
-----

gf: I can't prove there is a god anymore than someone can prove there isn't. Before microscopes, there was no proof of germs. Simplistic, I know, but the point I mean to make is that there are certainly still many things beyond our knowledge and detection that actually exist, whether we can prove it...or not.
I wasn't letting bill off the hook, I was just being subtle about his needlessly rude response, which is what I meant when I said he bit and then some. It is an age-old problem that sometimes people who claim Christianity are more of a stumbling block than a stepping stone.
And I still think frusion made a good assessment. Those joining the fray seem to be doing a fairly good job of matching blow for blow. There have been many of these ongoing verbal wars on this site, with insults hurled back and forth, as frusion referred to, and in the end, are the results ever different?

Wolverine! His adamantium enhanced skeleton, razor sharp claws, healing ability, and battle savy would allow him to not only claim victory over one Predetor opponent, but I would suggest he could destroy many Predetors in one encounter.

He also created the universe - a claim that cannot be proven not to be true.

Bill, I'm not only just wonderin', I'm also curious...what do you make of these verses from I Corinthians?
"Suppose I speak in the languages of human beings and of angels. If I don't have love, I am only a loud gong or a noisy cymbal.
Love is patient. Love is kind. It is not rude."

In a fight, who would win Predator or Wolverine?

Bill I think several points have been made - such as your god does not exist. Also if your god existed as the bible describes him, that means you worship a genicidal rape endorsing sadistic monster. Another was that the evidence for the existence of this entity as compared to other relisions figments of the imagination, like Allah is equal.

Yet you focus on the subtleties of GF's posts, with the only sort of head on rebuttle to the Allah thing as horsefeathers? Also just FYI I think we have both refered to BM as BM as well as GG for GoGreen when he used that name.

Way down at the bottom of this list of ad hominems... er ...comments, ImJustSayin wrote "I wonder if her ever considered what would happen if she was wrong, and Allah turned out to be the one true God?" That seems an outragoue statement to me, and nothing posted since has changed my mind. As a self-appointed defender of religious people who are defamed, I responded to it accordingly, and appropriately. I called it a snide, flippant remark, which it is.

Before long, the Gazette's self-appointed defender of the atheistic faith wrote "the comment in question was reasonable." Horsefeathers, Gazettefan. That post was a disingenuous statement meant to infer that Miss Moldonado couldn't have considered whether she was wrong or she would have found that she was wrong. You know, the typical atheistic boilerplate of some that religious people are ignorant or too indoctrinated to think for themselves. I also pointed out the conceit that one must have to assume others are so mentally debilitated for holding opinions and having faith that they do not while asserting themselves as "clear thinkers" either directly or by implication.

I correctly identified not just what ImJustSayin and Gazettefan wrote but what they meant by it. Calling those statements "insults" is just plain baloney. It does make you wonder why Gazettefan is so defensive as to see insult where there is none though, doesn't it? That's particularly puzzling since tossing insults in these discussions is Gazettefan's forté. (Notice his use of the derogatory acronym "BM" when he addresses BelieveMe.) Someone so prone to using insults should be less sensitive to them, I would think. Certainly he shouldn't be so sensitive as to see them where they don't exist.

By the way Gazettefan, you flatter me. You've been keeping an eye on my archive again. Following me from post to post like a love-sick puppydog. (OK, not really like a lovesick puppydog, more like a blood-thirsty pit bull). I'm touched. Whenever you do that, I know I've made some points you're having a hard time dealing with. Thanks for the backhanded compliment. It's much appreciated!

gfan, it'll be a few days before I can address your question, I'm on travel.

jts......, I'mjustsaying made a comment that was within the realm of reasonable. And though I can see how it could be unwelcome by some, don't overlook the extreme overreaction by billnewbie and BelieveMe. Not only does what they did mirror what they do on other religious threads but it also mirrors what I just said in my previous post, i.e. how the vehemence in the bible far outweighs the good stuff when it comes to palatability.

All this means that frusion's assessment is not spot on. He or she took the easy way out by spreading the blame equally; many posters drop-in on an ongoing debate and without comprehension of what's really going on take a superior stance to everyone else.

And your use of the description of persecution is in a similar vein. And you seemed so reasonable up til then. ;~)

jts....., would you be seeing a gray area if your neighbor spoke nicely 75% of the time but spoke violently the other 25% of the time? I suspect that your focus would mainly or entirely be on his violent speech. The nice speech wouldn't outweigh the violent speech. It's not merely a matter of the word count. It the enormity of the violent speech.

Would you have any respect for a religious movement that moved into your neighborhood with a book similar to the bible but had different names for its principal characters? I doubt it.

As for your mention of other religions having the same problems, no argument. It's just that on this thread it's been Christians who've been so vehement in "defense" of a mentality that's based in the bible.

There are some things in the bible that are historically correct. Jesus probably did exist etc. However, many of the so-called historical events in the bible just didn't happen e.g. a census that would compel Mary and Joseph to travel to Bethlehem; that claim being contrived for the purpose of having Jesus born there instead of Nazareth. And a worldwide flood for which there is no archeological evidence.

I was referencing the claims by the bible of supernatural events when I said none of it true.

And if you're going to offer the opinion that a non-biblical god exists, can you state some or all of his characteristics? And consider that any ideas you have of a description of that god probably came directly or indirectly from the bible.

Yes, if there were a non-biblical god, I would like to think that he'd be ticked off. Ticked off enough to make an appearance here and sort the whole thing out.

Frusion's assessment of the thread seems spot on and his/her comment plainly addresses both believer and non-believer. No need to feel persecuted, gf.

While billnewbie took the bait and then some, it was ImJustSayin who baited that hook and cast the first line...if not the first little stone.

frusion, what's going on here isn't specifically about the Sister.

This thread really has its basis in some Christians, without provocation, railing out at people in the name of Christianity.

People on the wrong end of libel have a right to respond to that libel. You should refine your criticism and aim it at the deserving.

frusion: I totally hear you. Kind of sad, isn't it?

gf: You make some good points. But, I have a hard time seeing only black or white. There is always gray area for me. While it could be harmful when readers aren't discerning, I can't disqualify the work as a whole. Because men wrote it doesn't work for me, either. Mankind writes much that is good and inspiring, as well as inspired. Who am I to say who or what inspires them? I can't know that. And I don't think it's just Christianity that relegates people to hell and damnation and is the cause of much violence in the world. Not even. And, actually, much in the bible has been proven historically correct. But even if nothing in the bible was true, as you say, it still wouldn't prove there isn't a supreme being, would it? Picture, if you will, more head shaking going on as the great-unknown-supreme-being-master-of-the-universe says, "Hmmph! I never told them to write that stuff!"

jst....., it is exactly our point that the bible was written by men. Consistent with that point is that it's harmful for anyone to believe it's the word of god or the inspired word of god. There are people who believe it's all true. As for the New Testament, Jesus relegates people who don't believe in him to eternal damnation. Jews and Muslims and lots of other people have a big problem with this -much violence in the world has come from the claim that god will have them burn in hell forever. And what of the children who just can't abide by Jesus' admonition? what about their feelings? And the fact that none of it is true fatally undermines the idea that god exists.

If you do a tally of the posts here, you'll see that some believers viciously responded to reasonable comments and questions by non believers. Then those believers ran away because they are incapable of participating in a civil discussion about this issue.

By the way, Sister Gabriela's proper honorific is "Sister."

I agree with and join those who congratulate Miss Moldonado on her inspiration and commitment to help others. Best wishes, young lady! No matter what the future brings, it is highly doubtful that you will ever regret your choice to "take the high road".

For you folks who cite old testament bible passages to support your argument of anti-religion, anti-god, etc., I totally agree with you that if any god called for and sanctioned those sort of atrocities, it is not worthy of worship and adoration. But, it's confusing when you blame an imaginary god. How does that work? So, I'm just wondering if it has never occurred to you that it was simply the people of those times, particularly those who found it convenient to skew it all to fit their agenda of pillaging and war? And, of course, then made it "holy scripture" to justify their actions, both past and future. And does it not continue in present day cultures, atrocities in the name of god? I just think it's only fair that if you are going to claim that god doesn't exist that you then put the blame on the men who did the atrocities and tried to justify it by claiming holy inspiration and direction.
But, even so, that is only a fraction of what is contained in those biblical pages. It's not all bad, contrary to what you repeatedly represent in your posts. And if there is a god and that god cares to ever check in on discussions like these that go on for weeks and months, yadda, yadda, yadda, he/she probably has a sore neck from shaking their head for the wonder of all our silly little ways.

Max - what exactly is a gut bag of trash? Futhermore why would pointing out that your loving god wrote a book that describes himself as being horrible mean that I was a GBOT? Any chance you could answer my morality question, or are you too angry?

I don't understand the anger level every Gazette article that has anything to do with religion generates. If you are atheist or a believer in any faith, why does it get to such an antagonistic level?
.
My gosh, this story is about a young lady that is devoting her life to help others. What flippen' difference is it to anyone else what she is doing with her life? Congratulate her but don't turn this in to a pee'n match about who has the snappier retort to science vs. religion.

Wrong, maxdetail, my posts were only in response to those who attacked me. Go back and read them. And take note that you, billnewbie, and BM are the unprovoked provocateurs.

And note the civil discourse between joeflint and me. I'm entitled to an apology from you.

"And it also hasn’t gone unnoticed that, like BM, you have nothing positive to say about Sister Gabriela. What’s the matter? Wrong denomination?"
.
Thank you g-fan for reminding me. Here again, a beautiful human interest story about an extraordinary young lady filled with selfless devotion and a gentle spirit. Then...
.
you and Prounion storm in and pee on everything, marking your new territory. You rant, whine and berate those who offered encouragement. You bully, you trample, you spout the same unsolicited ignorance you've been spouting for years and THEN, you have the audacity to ask why I didn't comment on the article? You pompous, gut bag of trash. You spew your garbage all over the article and the comments and then judge others for not showing appropriate respect? This is just one more forum you've crashed and trashed.
.
Everyone else, you know the drill, prounion and gazettefan have been here... watch where you step.

Max our drive to cooperate as a species evolved, which is why we cooperate and can build a society, your point that a star does not care about us is correct but not pertinant.

Really you can ask me if my moral code allows rape or murder - I will copy and paste my question to you for the third time:

This is the book where morals come from Max - how can there be a moral inconsistency? Spearing infants, raping/enslaving young virgin girls = always wrong, do you agree?

No, maxdetail, I meant slobbery. It would take a hitch in charm school to get you up to snobbery.

Tell us what heaven and hell would be like.

So you'll live a moral life and die and it's over Pro. So what? The universe doesn't care. What is moral? You can kill or not kill? Rape or not rape? You have no basis in your accidental biological phenomena. Let us figure out the details in our Book. You go figure out your purpose as an insignificant parasite amongst a billion billion stars that don't care.

Max - I said the universe doesn't care, I did not say that other humans don't care.

No I may not have some sort of trancendant moral code, but again I ask you about yours:

This is the book where morals come from Max - how can there be a moral inconsistency? Spearing infants, raping/enslaving young virgin girls = always wrong, do you agree?

I do have a plan to live a good life, which is what I do, and clearly my moral code following the golden rule is superior to yours when it comes to the morality of toddler slaughter and teen/preteen girl rape/slavery.

Beautiful story and a beautiful girl. Stronger than most of us for making such a comittment. Impressive in this day and age.

Gfan, I think you meant "snobbery" instead of "slobbery". Not that the universe or the biological phenomenon cares. It is significant that someday folks may pay a lot of money when the FBI auctions off your little cabin and publishes your 50,000 page manifesto.
.
Being a graphic artist I appreciate what you write because I can block copy any part of it and use it as 'dummy' copy for layouts. As long as it remains nonsensical, then it will continue to have value. Your writings matter to me friend but to the universe... it doesn't care. Jabber away gooniebomber. ("Snobbery", "Slobbery", "Globbery"... it doesn't matter.)

OK, joeflint, it is wheel spinning (re: the bible), but I submit that wheel spinning is inherent to the bible itself and to any discussion of it.

And if I defer to your appeal to authority (you being the authority) in the matter of physics, then, if you detect a suggestion of what physics reveals -in the matter of a higher purpose, an explanation, or something transcendent- then, you must have speculated on those possibilities. Can you discuss your speculation(s)?

“Why are we here?” is a good question. And if it seems that I indicated that the question is pointless, I’ll clarify. It’s just that the question is intrinsic the other question: What are we? The entire idea of transcendence has wrongly been draped in some mystical supernatural possibility. The only transcendence we really have in the matter of the human experience comes from the arts, specifically literature. The act of exploring is transcendent. It’s like the journey is the thing, the thing isn’t the destination itself. (Note how believers attempt to explain their “reality” by focusing on the destination at the expense of sidestepping reality.) It’s no accident that the real truth of the bible is that it was a literary effort, a natural effort. If you strip away the supernatural, and you must (at least that brand of supernaturallity), that’s all the bible really is: a literary effort. A quite spooky one.

Yes, maxdetail, your chronic lowbrow slobbery on this subject is a fine example of how you’ve transcended being a hunk of sentient meat.

As I’ve told you before: right/wrong, justice, and morality are phenomena of biological and cultural evolution. It’s your miserable, inarticulate personal character that can’t deal with that reality without be draped in folderal. It’s as though you handle your misery by adopting the misery in the bible for purpose of somehow sanctioning your own misery. And that explains your inability to deal with pro’s expertise on the bible.

It hasn’t gone unnoticed that you and your buddies, billnewbie, and his faithful Eskimo companion BM, have only dropped in on this thread to soil it up much like infants raging against toilet training.

And it also hasn’t gone unnoticed that, like BM, you have nothing positive to say about Sister Gabriela. What’s the matter? Wrong denomination?

e-wife, are you aware that you came into this discussion solely for the purpose of saying that the discussion shouldn’t exist? As for your puke-problem, feel free to post here but kindly have the decency to only do so after your hangover clears-up.

Pro, the universe doesn't care about wrong. How can it be wrong? The universe doesn't care. You care about my 'imaginary god'. In fact you seem to be obsessed with what you believe is imaginary. It doesn't matter though does it, the universe doesn't care. There's no cosmic scale of justice, there's no transcendent moral code, no purpose, no plan in your worldview. You live, you die.
.
One day you will be laying in a bed making about as much sense as you are now, muttering and repeating "Numbers 31", (as you are now) some friends will feel bad you're dying and... yup, you got it, the universe doesn't care.

Unlikely that I am the author, I have not published any physics or popularization of physics that would be widely read. In fact I'm not certain which author I may sound like. I've never plagiarized; I find intentional academic dishonesty galling: credit where credit is due and all that. If there is a similarity with another author I can assure you it's coincidental.

joeflint,

Such a well-educated person as yourself knows about the issues of plagiarism; two of your last three paragraphs are not verbatim from a strong theory article I am familiar with, but close enough that it tripped my trigger. Are you the author?

LOL - ok Max - easy now bro. Not my fault your god is genocidal.

You are right though the universe doesn't care. Your imaginary god however was very interested in making sure that other tribe was wiped out, all of them of course, except for the young female virgins.

This is the book where morals come from Max - how can there be a moral inconsistency? Spearing infants, raping/enslaving young virgin girls = always wrong, do you agree?

Here's the thing Pro, this is a problem for Christians and Jews. If there is a moral inconsistency then that is our problem. You are an atheist, a load mouthed, whiny atheist, you don't believe in God. Babies were killed whiny atheist and guess what? The universe doesn't care. The universe and your accidentally arranged slime nuggets have no purpose for right, wrong, justice, morality. Why don't you be consistent and go evolve somewhere in your don't care accidental universe? Do something productive before you die. The universe doesn't care.

Ah Max - same skirting of the issue with what you think are witty remarks - I forgot were you one of the folks that thought the spearing of the brains of thousands of toddlers was a moral thing because the all loving god ordered it?

I have not forgotten the middle - notice I did not say all christians attempt to justify the actions of their genocidal bronze age god.

"Spearing a kid an innocent toddler in the eye is always wrong - there are many christians on this board that can't agree with that - the source of their moral code says its sometimes ok to spear a baby while the mother screams, waiting her turn."
.
Prounion, For the first year or so you were stuck using the 'strawman', now you're stuck in the 'fallacy of the excluded middle'. You're either uneducable handicapped or you're... no, it's pretty clear you're uneducable handicapped.
.
I think it's a miracle that every few weeks that even the TOPIC of God breathes new life into you and gazettefan. In the main you're a couple hunks of barely sentient meat but bring on a bit of God talk and you jabber like a whole room full of monkeys. Glad to see you're alive... again... for awhile.

e, You're no Theodore Geisel; nonetheless, I chuckled. No one, of course, demanded you read our "inane" exchange. As Mark Twain once noted, "I would have written a shorter letter but didn't have time."

gfan, You asked for internal statements within the Bible which aver interpretation is allowed; you did not ask for a complete religio-historic justification for exegesis, nor could I hope to provide one. It may be that you yourself are falling into the same logical trap that you, rightfully, accuse others, namely, stating the Bible is "all supposed to be true." To those people, as I have already stated, there is little hope of debate or even exchange of ideas as their logic is circular. Again, I plainly stated that the doctrine of Biblical infallibility is intellectually dishonest. You & I agree on this point and only thereafter diverge: if one actually reads any amount of exegesis, from the MIshnah, through the 'early Church Fathers', or on to more modern work, you would be struck at how often the logical internal inconsistency is addressed; recall, that the Levant at the time of Jesus was greatly Hellenized and that many early adherents of Christianity were in fact Gentiles, all heirs to the Greek philosophical tradition.

Yes, "densely" was a self-criticism; I do not intend to be inscrutable even when dense but with these largely extemporaneous posts there is little time, let alone the requisite days between writing, to properly proofread.

I hold an advanced degree in theoretical physics and enjoy a broad and deep background in astronomy, chemistry, and mathematics; my career tends to lead me to remote corners of astrophysics as well as quantum mechanics so hopefully you merely mistyped when you stated that "no quantum physicist has ever said...".

The application of qm is requisite to understanding a great many /macro/scopic phenonema. The entire breakdown of classical physics around the turn of the last century was in no small part due to the ultraviolet catastrophe wherein classical physics stood incapable of explaining something as simple, universal, and macroscopic as a blackbody. Understanding and applying qm is in fact requisite to our entire modern cornucopia of digital electronics; qm is the basis of our understanding, exploitation, and ability to custom fabricate semiconductors. And so on...

'What are we?' is an absolutely fantastic question and has given rise to biology and genetics and entire new fields such as computational biology and computational genomics, both of which, again, have a theoretical basis that relies on qm; however, it is a decidedly different question than 'why are we here?' Perhaps the origin of our differing outlooks is that I hold both why and what worthy of serious inquiry?

evansvillehousewife, really?

See nun. Nun takes vows. Pray nun, pray! Yay nun!

See atheists. Athiests prove facts. Use your photon beam, atheists!! Prove Atheists prove! Yay Atheists!!

See bible thumpers. Bible thumpers thump the good book. Thump, thumpers! Yay Bible thumpers!

See Everybody Else. Everybody else gets sick of reading COMPLETELY INANE WORTHLESS ARGUMENT. Puke, Everybody else, Puke!

Part Two

Physics more precisely says that we can’t determine a photon’s location when we attempt to determine its motion. And it says that we can’t determine its motion when we attempt to determine its location. If you’re talking about quantum mechanics, all we know is that the behavior of particles can only be determined statistically. But most important, no quantum physicist has ever said that what happens in the micro world of quantum mechanics applies to the macro world we live in.

It seems that you’re saying that an argument for some higher purpose can be derived from the peculiarities of physics. I don’t see a valuable syllogism there.

“…why we are….” is the wrong question. The real question is: What are we? Our species is an ongoing process of evolution that has as some of its important adaptations the characteristics of civil competition and social cooperation. Though, I’m sure you’ve noticed that there’s a lot of bad behavior associated with our species. Evolution isn’t perfect: The better parts of our brains required backward compatibility in order for us to survive. We still carry our primal brains as we heroically struggle to be more than what our primal brains want us to be. It would be nice if there were something more than this, but if there isn’t –and there probably isn’t- I never cease to be dazzled at being part of an evolutionary process.

The only true transcendence is the transcendence of reality-based arts –especially literature. At best, the bible was a literary attempt. Its supernatural elements do it fatal damage, unless we negate that element and only see it as an outdated and dangerous struggle to make sense of everything.

Part One

joeflint, I am aware that there are contradictions in the bible. But contradictions are not necessarily nullifications. Jesus taught the Old Testament and he said things that run contrary to what’s in the Old Testament. The problem is: It’s all supposed to true. There are theologians, clergy, and laity who exhibit Orwellian double-think and double-speak in accordance with everything in the bible being true.

I’m not sure if your self-description of your writing as “densely” is a compliment or a self-criticism. But upon another reading of the sentence in question, I now understand what you meant. However, if by “densely” you mean that you only write for yourself, I suggest that you keep the reader in mind: The sentence in question needs additional punctuation and more language. Here is the sentence:

“What I find curious about atheism as a belief system is that it ultimately rejects considering the question of why we are, discounting millennia of accumulated human wisdom including philosophy and religion.”

Here is the sentence rewritten:

What I find curious about atheism as a belief system is that it ultimately rejects considering the question of why we are; atheism rejects the question of why we are by discounting speculations on that very subject contained in millennia of accumulated human wisdom including philosophy and religion.

> And what is the underlying idea you refer to?

To be clearer and more explicit, if one asks the question 'how have we come to be here?' we immediately seize the path of scientific inquiry.

If one instead asks 'why have we come to be here?' there are ultimately only two possibilities: existence either has or does not have a (higher) purpose. The latter answer may very well be true but then that's it, end of discussion. Here is where I claim that in general atheism needs not the many sacred texts nor accompanying critical analysis of the past few millennia.

Contemplating the alternative presents a vastly more interesting Universe, this from someone who marvels at the utter elegance, divine or not, of Noether's Theorem, Hamiltonian mechanics, and a figurative Universe of other ideas deep within physics and mathematics.

I fall firmly on the side of the theory of evolution, a ~13.7 billion-year old Universe, and against the (universal) anthropomorphic principle. I assure you my belief in the supernatural is not of or from the Bible but rather the result of very careful, considered thought.

Americans are ignorant of the Bible and Christianity in general:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28...

gfan, a brief answer perhaps begins with the numerous times that Jesus either reinterpreted or outright stated a new a fuller meaning of extant scripture; certainly, 1 Corinthians 2:11 is apposite. Paul in Galatians 4:21-26 explicitly states that Isaiah 54 should be taken figuratively! So enough of prooftexting.

Re: Biblical reinterpretation, you're, no pun intended, preaching to the choir. When analyzing /any/ text, one must consider the context: who wrote it?, what were the historical, political, economic, religious, etc climates?, what was the author's intent?, etc. You must note my previous comments on Biblical inerrancy, papal infallibility, etc.

Next, you will have to carefully reread my words; admittedly, I can write quite densely but I did not state "atheism rejects acquired human knowledge" -- far from such a statement, in fact.

I do not base my belief in the supernatural on the Bible; as your thesis here is completely wrong, the rest of your paragraph is inapplicable. Again, you'll note my previous comments on Biblical inerrancy, papal infallibility, etc. and many older comments within the Gazette on the supremacy of science; nevertheless, I think that there is wisdom within the pages of the Bible but I am not so close-minded as to not search out and discover the accumulated wisdom within other religious texts. Finding such wisdom is indeed winnowing the wheat from the chaff.

That said, your last sentence of that paragraph is worth addressing and in the particular case of Christianity, one would do well to start with the Sermon on the Plain, even without any belief whatsoever in religion. Separate the chaff (the horrors and incredibility) from the wheat ("do to others as you would have them do to you").

Predictably perhaps, I disagree with part of the thesis of your last paragraph. A particular theology, by definition, cannot be as mutable as scientific thought else one ends up with yet another religion. Certainly religion, especially in the West, has been shaped by external events but much of the core remains. I have no doubts that the long struggle to develop, enumerate, and enshrine the rights of the citizenry and the separation of church and state in the US have led the West on its upward trajectory from political and religious serfdom.

joeflint, if you're saying that the bible is open to interpretation, you'll have to provide something from the bible that specifically says that it's open to interpretation. You'll have to find that verse or verses among all the other verses that don't allow for interpretation. For example: Deuteronomy 12:32 (god says don't change his words).

The fact is that the bible has been subjected to interpretation, or relativism. However, any change in what the bible literally means is in contradiction to god's direct words or his inspired words. The bible is used as a mood-tome. Someone can find anything he or she wants in the bible that will support the current mood of the believer -including every manner of horror that humans are capable of. What other doctrine is respectfully allowed this bizarre usage?

And how did you come to the conclusion that atheism rejects acquired human wisdom?

And since the bible is a human creation, anything good and bad in it is a manifestation of how humans think. Everything good in the bible comes from humans, as does everything bad. Attributing superhuman cause to those things is dangerous (my first paragraph).

And what is the underlying idea you refer to? If you're tantalized by the possibility of a supernatural cause for it all, consider the basis for how that idea even entered your consciousness. That basis is the bible. Everyone alive now either directly (if he has read it) or indirectly (if he has only been influenced by those who read it) gets his idea of a supernatural cause from the bible (I am referencing your "Near East"). No one who depends on the bible in those direct or indirect ways actually experienced the supernatural events claimed by the bible. So the question becomes: Given the horror and incredibility of the bible, why would you use it as source for a belief in the supernatural?

By the way, the scientific method is a self-correcting way of rejecting what can't be verified and accepting what can be verified, verified for usability til newer discoveries are developed. The meaning of the bible and belief only changes from outside-pressure -particularly in the area of true cultural progress e.g. in contradiction to the bible: no more stoning of misbehaving children. Theologians and laity take the pulse of the people when that pulse is in opposition to the bible. Opposition to the literal meaning of the bible is atheistic in nature because that opposition reflects what humans really are without regard to the supernatural.

Sigma40, please. Even if you are 100% atheist, how is it a waste of a life to devote one's life to helping others?

Joe you are correct about one thing in your original post to me - the bible was written by bronze age man, and the biblical god that they speak of was created by them too. Which is exactly the point of the Numbers 31 slaughter of toddlers and raping of preteen/teen girls that was both condoned and ordered by the Christian loving god.

As for me those behaviors are to be expected from brutal men and their brutal, evil, imaginary dictator god.

Spearing a kid an innocent toddler in the eye is always wrong - there are many christians on this board that can't agree with that - the source of their moral code says its sometimes ok to spear a baby while the mother screams, waiting her turn.

Incidentally and in case it is not presently clear, you'll find in that I decidedly find the debate of science vs religion specious and so-called Biblical inerrancy or papal infallibility intellectually dishonest, at best. I trust science specifically because it is testable and demonstrably repeatable but I cannot discount religion as science, by definition, will always fail at resolving not how but why we are here. Atheism rejects the supernatural, rightfully, on the ground that it is not inherently repeatable. What I find curious about atheism as a belief system is that it ultimately rejects considering the question of why we are, discounting millennia of accumulated human wisdom including philosophy and religion.

One can argue ad naseum about the ills of institutionalized religion, arguably even what the Jesus movement intended, and certainly wrongs have been and will be committed in the name of religion but this though it tarnishes cannot annihilate the power of the underlying idea.

It is apparent that something very powerful happened in the Near East around our calendar's first century; whether this was revolt against Roman imperialism, religious, supernatural, or some combination of factors is also an interesting question to consider.

gfan, The problem with absolutes, especially when dealing with a subject so open to interpretation as philosophy or religion, is that it is not even known if there exists one true, objective reality.

Physics, for instance, has shown that what is observed depends on the observer's frame of reference and that the Universe appears to have as its underlying fabric a stochastic reality. Mathematics, for its part, also rests ultimately upon a less certain foundation than one might think; for instance, the axioms of choice and determinacy are incompatible.

Now those are concrete subjects that many consider far removed from religion. So, what is reality? That it is different for everyone is a distinction that every philosophy of which I am aware makes, from largely atheistic Existentialism through mono- and polytheism. Are there counter-examples? I'd be surprised if there weren't but then it is not I who trades in absolutes.

Your certitude that there is nothing in the New Testament is facilely disabused. I mean to impart the full weight of the word facile: "appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial" according to my dictionary.

Instances of Jesus contravening the religious authorities -- contravening men, not the religion of those men -- are manifold. Yet, can we discover Jesus violating the Law?

Jesus is to have performed miracles on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:10; Mark 3:2, John 9:14) clearly contravening the prohibition to perform work on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32). One can escape from this logical conundrum by arguing that since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, perhaps the Law does not apply to him.

Jesus and his disciples walked through a grain field on the Sabbath, picking the heads of grain and eating (Mark 2:23). Not only has Jesus broken the Sabbath law but now too his human followers. Yet, clearly, they were not put to death as required by an extremely narrow reading of the Law.

Is this an allegorical foreshadowing of God walking amongst humanity, harvesting those who are worthy or simply a knot of hungry men talking advantage of the bounty of the Earth (Matthew 6:26) or something else altogether? So many possible interpretations of just a few lines of text!

If we contextualize the story of the men walking through the grain field, we see in verse 27 that Jesus is to have stated "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Much critical analysis of this verse exists and if you are inclined, I encourage to you avail yourself. In short, this single verse may well indicate that the trappings of religion are intended for the benefit, not enslavement, of man; that too narrow an understanding of the Law, whether the Judeo-Christian Law or Natural Law or some other set of moral laws, leads also to immorality, in the present case the unjustifiable prosecution of a few hungry men.

As far as religion goes...not my thing. I worked at St. Elizabeths at one time as a nonbeliever. Of course, they were worried about my after life etc. I have nothing but respect for these women. They have fun, crack jokes, etc. They are not wasting thier lives or feel or act like they have. They are happy and content. More so than most people I know. They are loving and dedicated people and open their hearts to everyone. These women are probably the happiest people I have ever met. If Sister Gabriella is happy with her choice...let her be happy! It takes all kinds of people to make the world go around. It is not for anyone else to question another real, caring, respectful, giving person about her choices. She is happy...that is all that matters! Again, good for you!

AnatPhysTchr, I hope the likes of billnewbie and BelieveMe take heed of your heartfelt post.

I was one of Sister Gabriella's teachers when she was a student at Craig. Even as a high school sophomore, she was happiest when she was helping others / making a difference to someone else. The path she has chosen is one of many that will allow her to continue to do these things that make her happy. This is a story of success.

If it is not a path that you would have chosen for yourself, so be it! There are many ways to make a difference in the world...go pursue one that appeals to you! It is good that we all contribute to society in different ways. It is my hope that when the naysayers do choose their paths, they receive only words of encouragement, and are not criticized for their personal choices by people who have never met them.

Best Wishes, Sister Gabriella!

DwightKSchrute, based on comments I've seen by Sigma40, he was talking about his own life.
But-I was imagining the bliss Sister Gabriella is apparently experiencing in her choice of a lifetime of selfless committment to others, and I know that the residents of Saint Elizabeth's will benefit greatly by her choice. If the world only had more just like Sister Gabriella...

If someone is happy and at peace, how is it a waste, Sigma40?

joeflint, you fail to understand that there is nothing in the New Testament that nullifies what's in the Old Testament. Jesus taught the Old Testament, including the Torah, as what it claims to be: the word of god.

As for what Jesus had to say regarding our understanding of the human experience: He has us burning in hell forever if we don't accept him as our lord and savior. It should have occurred to you by now that many people, including Muslims and Jews, have a big, big problem with Jesus' admonition, that admonition still being in effect by all Christian accounts.

prounion, I know, having debated you in the past, that you already know better: wrong religion. Don't bother with stale illations about the Crusades or some other wrong, perceived or real.

/All/ human endeavors have yielded merciless bloodshed; it seems inevitable, perhaps due to some element of human nature. All religions have attempted to ask the questions why are we here? and who are we? The best parts of all religions have quietly and unceremoniously served the helpless.

Have religions pro forma committed wrongs and atrocities? Have those who seek worldly gains -- land, riches, political power -- co-opted religion? Have those with no religiosity performed good works? Is the destruction of the Midianites God's will or a theomorphism of a Bronze Age military victory? Surely you are expert in the military tactics of the Bronze Age Levant.

Why continue to focus on the immoral constituents and actions of religion? Your attacks on religion are shallow and imprecise; your misconceptions about religion continue to prevent you from convincing those who believe. If you are going to attack Christianity, stop sourcing the Old Testament. Adversus solem ne loquitor.

Further, there is no need for a sweeping indictment of religion. This article is not about the Catholic Church; it is about a young woman who has given up her life in order to serve others, a point sorely lost on many of the commenters. No doubt you have spent the day improving the world around you.

As for another commenter, you completely lack the shock value that you no doubt hoped you would have; nevertheless, you clearly have absolutely no place in civilized discourse. Assuredly, I hope that your comment remains in plain sight as a testament to your vice.

Sad - she traded an education for a career convincing herself and children that the death cult she has entered into worships and actual being that exists in reality, not simply in thier minds.

Of course the "god" she has traded her rational thought for orders actions like this one - I know, its been awhile though and its a really moving biblical verse from the book where morals come from:
Numbers 31:

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Bill - still sometimes ok to spear a toddler int he eye?

displacedworker, HOW RUDE! No wonder you are out of a job! Lack of respect for others!

billnewbie and BelieveMe, (both believers), take heed of SarahB1's admonition. Though, to be precise, Sarah, to criticize the bickerers makes you one of them. But, at least you addressed the Sister properly. And don't be so sure that clergy members aren't open to participating in a civil discussion re: faith; though I am certain that some of them would disapprove of billnewbie's and BelieveMe's hostile "contributions" so far.

billnewbie, are you familiar with the fact that some clergy members have changed their minds about their belief? And are you and BelieveMe aware of the fact that Muslims and Jews and Christians worship the same god? And that Muslims acknowledge the existence of Jesus (but only as a prophet and not as the son of God)? And so it is therefore conceivable that a believer might adjust his or her belief to not include Jesus as the son of god while not excluding Jesus altogether?

billnewbie, in addition to your self-comforting act of psychological projection which is aided by the soothing effect of self-serving and unusual beliefs, I’ve also noticed that in your disparagement-wrought posts a certain condescension toward Sister Gabriela.

First, you said that you “WOULDN’T” do what Sister Gabriela did, suggesting disapproval on your part. It seems that true respect for what she’s did would have you say that you COULDN’T do what she did.

Second, and most important, you continue to refer to her in a way that suggests misogyny and/or disapproval for her particular brand of faith. That is, your inappropriate use of the honorific “Miss” and her last name (Moldonado) when her proper honorific is Sister with her first name (Gabriela).

BelieveMe, I didn’t react, I responded, you REACTED. Did you actually read billnewbie’s first post? Including his second post, he made approximately 14 hostile comments about posters on this thread. I read this story before anyone posted on it and I wasn’t going to post here, then later I saw billnebie’s unprovoked hostile post.

As for your post, it’s very clear that in the dept of your own unprovoked hostility you couldn’t find anything positive to say about Sister Gabriela as the atheist rkkraa did, as the believer jasondowd did, and as I did –you didn’t notice that I granted her the all-important quality of tolerance. Tolerance for the viewpoints of others is very important.

Enjoy the contemplative life and may the fruits of your labors be manifold.

Congratulations! It's wonderful to see a young person devote her life to others. Beautiful :)

A woman devotes her life to a religious order and someone thinks it's reasonable to question whether she has ever considered the possibility that she is wrong? What nonsense.

It's typical, though, of some of the people who prowl for these types of stories on the Gazette to assume that people who believe something they don't are too dimwitted to come to the "right" conclusions, their conclusions. In their eyes, such a person as Miss Moldonado could never have considered all the alternatives and still chosen the one she has. If she had seriously considered all, she'd be an atheist as all "clear thinkers" are, and everyone who isn't is a muddle headed simpleton, they flatter themselves to infer. That's not just nonsense, it's soul-rotting arrogance. Still, I can't find it in my heart to hate people like that. They are consumed with vanity, so enamored with themselves that they are angry that the rest of us don't recognize their superiority and pay deference to it. It drives them to insult, to intentionally try to hurt feelings hoping to incite a response they can condemn, and to take offense of same even when none exists. It's as though their souls are dying a terrible death, and they intend to spread their misery and hopelessness as far and wide as possible. What a contrast they are to people like Miss Moldonado who want to spread her joy and hopefulness as far and wide as they can.

Haters look for a response don't give them one. Not a Catholic but congratulations!

Good for you!! Congrats on finding your way through life! I too am atheist but I think it's great when anyone of any religion finds the path they were ment to lead!

Sister Gabby,

I am so proud and I only wish you the most sincere best wishes. I know you will accomplish much and I am very pleased you found a path in life that has provided comfort, challenges, and peace within yourself.
I remember the Gabby that attended St. Patrick's Church and also remember the absoulte honor of being a faciliatator for your confirmation retreat (I think it was the first I helped with). I know you will accomplish much!

"God" goes by many names.

God bless the sisters and their mission.

billnewbie, the comment in question was reasonable. But, as usual with you, you reacted with hostility and ridicule to a reasonable comment on this subject.

It's a common practice for people with "faith" to react with hostility and ridicule to reasonable comments and questions about "faith." Why?

Didn't it occur to you that the Sister might welcome that comment?

ImJusySayin: What's your problem? Such a negative attitude on a very positive story. Just can't stand to see someone happy with their choice of what to do with their life? I feel sorry for you.

If I were Miss Moldonado, I wouldn't do what she's done. But it would be absurd of me to question whether she ever considered the possibility that she was wrong. She's taken a stand based on her faith. That may seem foolish to those who have no faith. They seem to think that faith is something only the blind have. How little they know. Miss Moldonado has labored long to achieve her goal. Those who post snide, flippant remarks that take no effort to create have little understanding of what kind of effort and forethought Miss Moldonado has devoted to her goal. It's easy and self-aggrandizing to sneer with contempt at people like her, someone with whom such a scoffer may feel his character has trouble measuring up to. I'm just sayin'...

I wonder if her ever considered what would happen if she was wrong, and Allah turned out to be the one true God?
I'm just sayin'...

So happy you listened to that quiet voice in your heart and found your place. Prayers are with you.