Reverend Reality speaks at TedX about Reality Reconciles Science and Religion. Talking about the Evidential Reformation Reverend Reality lays out a common path that both Religion and Atheism can evolve into. This is religion 3.0 – the authority of evidence rather than the authority of scripture. And this is a religious view that even Atheists can appreciate. (If you can listen long enough to get past religious terminology).

Does the religious world and Atheism have a common future? Michael Dowd says YES! How so?

  • Reality is our God
  • Evidence is our Scripture
  • Big History is our Creation Story
  • Ecology is our Theology
  • Integrity is our Salvation
  • A just and health future is our Mission

Religious people try to do the right thing but their map of reality is limited to old books. We now have a common creation story that is being revealed through evidence. In short – the Hubble Telescope is revealing the nature of reality. This is a creation story that the universe is telling us and scientists who are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Atheist alike are discovering the same thing. God isn’t an invisible cloud being – God is merely a personification of Reality itself. We now know more about Reality than we did thousands of years ago. Reality is the upgraded version of all other religions.

Similarly, Realism is the upgrade to Atheism. Atheism is about God and Atheists spend way too much time reading the Bible and talking about the Bible. In fact Atheists are more obnoxious about the Bible than Christians are. What Atheists don’t get is that religious people don’t care about what you don’t believe in. They are interested however in what you do believe in.

One of the problems with Atheism is that knowing everything about nothing has no value. Knowing all about what doesn’t exist doesn’t tell you anything about what does exist. Realism is actually the opposite of Atheism in that Realism is about everything and Atheism is about nothing.

So when it comes to the issue of “what is the meaning of meaning?”, Atheism has nothing. How should we live our lives? What is the purpose of humanity? What should I do when I wake up in the morning? Where does right and wrong come from? These questions are not only the important questions, but for some reason they make Atheists squirm.

Sam Harris is an example of this. Sam is so adverse to religion that just saying the word “Church” shuts him down. So scared is he of these ideas that he write a book claiming we have no free will. That we live in a deterministic universe that we are playing through like puppets in a deterministic movie that has already been filmed.

Humanism and Naturalism are examples of Atheists moving in the right direction towards an understanding of how to live in Right Relationship to Reality. Understanding the meaning of meaning.

Religious people don’t get that Reality isn’t a choice and that choosing to believe in something doesn’t make it real. Atheists don’t get that Reality is fundamental to Atheism because without Reality there would be no place for God not to be real in. Atheists also don’t get that being a smug asshole isn’t the best way to win souls for Darwin.

 



  1. Scott M. says:

    No. Those two worlds cannot meet because they are structured differently for their individual purposes.

    Religion is a control mechanism which relies on a hierarchy and set-in-stone rules for the lesser participants. You are told what to think. Children are willingly subjected to brainwashing before they are able to reason for themselves to perpetuate the existence of the “belief”. Religion = Fascism based on the natural progression: Habit, Custom, Ritual, Religion, Orthodoxy, Fanaticism.

    Atheism is a lack of imposed structure. You are free to draw your own conclusions. You are free to question anything based on your investigation/analysis of the available facts. Because you exist outside a hierarchy, the small-minded and the religious do not understand you, their control structure sees you as a threat because you can see through their bullshit and thus your mindset must be wrong/demonized.

    The controlled and the free never merge. It’s either one or the other – usually accompanied by an exertion of force.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Good first draft. I will only comment that atheism does not established by the exertion of force—other than by that required to throw off the religious. Not quite the same dynamic.

      Atheism, of the weak vs strong type, would be quite happy with people being religious. The only reason people notice religion at all is that is does force itself on other people.

      Trying to impose in this world what god has planned for us in the next. Evil….. however it is clearly seen.

    • dusanmal says:

      Ted speaker and you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. You sound exactly as my Marxism teachers in the Communist country of my origin. Exactly. Essentially hate speech against religion without even an attempt to understand it.
      Ted speaker shows his lack of understanding of anything about religion from his first two principles which are fundamentally opposed to what religion is and why it is: Religion stems from one question Science and Scientific principles fundamentally can’t answer because they are incompatible with it. Is everything that is measurable (evidence) or is there transcendental? Religion starts from assumption that there is transcendental. You can’t have religion without that. Ted guy attempts opposite.
      As for science and transcendental – what was if anything before Big Bang? Current SCIENTIFIC answer is that we can’t know. There could have been or not but answer to that is literally … transcendental. Because we CAN’T get evidence. Can’t. Hence, by science – transcendental is plausible….

      • noname says:

        Exactly, science requires “positive proof” and predictability! Predictable and controllable positive events are how we confirm or refute our current scientific understanding of causality and “reality”.

        I agree there appears to be no scientifically controlled, experimental[ly] verifiable information regarding life after death. However, both logic and math shows, UNTIL you have actually examined every single possibility (known possibilities and unknown), then scientifically you have no experimentally verifiable information to say definitively and scientifically it’s not so! The logic and math works both ways and what’s left is faith!

        Scientifically we discover things all the time we didn’t know beforehand existed! Unscientific fools like to declare by fiat (and convenience) thing don’t exist and proof of a negative is possible or not necessary, without knowing first it’s truly impossible!

        Marc Perkel can believe thing don’t exist and proof of a negative is possible or not necessary, all he wants, it’s a free country!

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          The logic and math works both ways and what’s left is faith! /// or….what we have is a possibility without any proof and at the minimum the need to collect more information until a tentative hypothesis can be reached.

          Its “pragmatic” to withhold belief until proof of its existence is at hand. Too much BS otherwise.

          Yea, verily!

          • noname says:

            Ever the hypocrite, trying to impose your uniformed beliefs on others!

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            No Brain: how so?

            You know—identify the dots and connect them?

            I could help you, but I’ll leave you speechless instead.

            I have faith.

          • noname says:

            You need me to connect the dots for you, so lazy!

            Yes, I am soo speechless… as I type…

            You can hypocritically promulgate your “BS” and eschew all reason, all you want…it’s a free country!

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            So like Pedro you are.

            Connect the dots: what “information” do I lack?

            You can’t do it. So like a passive/aggressive incompetent.

            Hint: I see an easy resolution based on what it means to have “faith” on an issue.

            Does that help at all?

          • noname says:

            Sounds like (at least in your mind) you have all the answers you want: “Hint: I see an easy resolution based on what it means to have “faith” on an issue.”

            I guess you are trying to play some self-aggrandizing game game.

            You really think I am the only person here to think your bogus, circular reasoning and self-aggrandizing posting are mostly long-winded BS?

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            Connect the dots.

            The game you play: you make a statement, get challenged on it or asked for clarification and your response is to NOT EXPLAIN YOURSEF and to put the burden on the other person.

            Just like Pedro. I suspect quite simply you can’t think about a subject any other way than the way you think about it…. ergo…. everyone else must be wrong?

            Is that about it?

          • noname says:

            bobbo, you such a confused tool. Connect the dots you ask; really, do you think you have your dots connected? I leave your “connect the dots” game to your ilk (think George Bush).

            “Its “pragmatic” to withhold belief until proof of its existence is at hand. Too much BS otherwise.”

            From that, I call BS on your nonsensical intertwining circular reasoning, you then arrogantly topped with a claim of being non-BS! To which I said you are “trying to impose your uniformed beliefs on others!” and called you a hypocrite!

            Then you try to mitigate, unwind and back-peddle your original circular reasoning by conflating your definition of faith with it:: “Hint: I see an easy resolution based on what it means to have “faith” on an issue.”

            You just keep losing ground and credibility with each attempt of intertwining circular reasoning you obviously then try to salt with what you believe are ego strokes for my benefit!

            Why are you so lame!?

            Are you still wonder why I don’t “get” your bogus reasoning?

            Let me know, if I connected enough dots for your “dultness”!

            It’s really the best I think I can do to help you understand!

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            No Brain—do you “have faith” on every issue that has no proof or evidence to support it?

          • noname says:

            Wow, bobbo, almost unbelievable; you finally made a clarifying succinct direct and simple question!

            I will reciprocate and give you a clarifying succinct direct and simple answer.

            NO!

            I really don’t expect you to understand the fallacious parts of your own question “on every issue”.

            Please, stop the boredom!

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            So which is it?

            First you say: “The logic and math works both ways and what’s left is faith!”

            and then I said: No, you can waith for more information.

            and then you said I was being a hypocrite.

            But now you say you don’t have faith when there is no evidence or proof.

            So….. which is it?

            And assuming the later====do you have any sense at all that you are unnecessarily, even mindlessly, combative in a very ineffectual way?

            Ha, ha……… but I dither.

            Can you do better? Learn a thing every once and then?

            Or not?

          • noname says:

            What an utter dult!

            You completely mischaracterized what your question asked: “But now you say you don’t have faith when there is no evidence or proof.”

            NO I DID NOT!

            You try and boil a complex subject of science and faith into a very ignorantly worded black & white question “do you “have faith” on every issue that has no proof or evidence to support it?”

            I answered NO, for two reasons, first; “every issue” is a very loose concept. Do I believe the weatherperson (some are actual scientist) when they say there is 60% chance of rain tomorrow. I typically just ignore such reports, unless it’s a report about a chance of hurricane, then I listen!

            The first reason I said NO, to your question about “on every issue” in which we know, “Not all issues are equal”!

            2nd reason I said NO, is even for issues we think are settled with extreme certainty (think of Newton gravity) you have people like Einstein who “believed”, knew and highly respected Newton, realized there was a deeper truth to be had!!! What we think we know, our scientific theories, are ever changing as a function of how science works.

            I am certain this is likely well above your demonstrated comprehension level!

            Even-though my training/education is as a physicist and engineer, I do have faith; “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”; YES!

            Can I prove what I hope for and/or what I do not see; NO!

            Does this mean we are “free” to not be rigorous, serious and always challenging of our thinking and searching for truth; NO!

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            No Name—the issue is clearly before you. You, like everyone else on earth, do NOT TAKE most unproven by science issues as a matter of faith. Its only a few rare things that are taken on faith in the absence of proof or evidence. All you did (simply) was to misplace your emphasis.

            I wasn’t even directly contradicting you in my mind and was only bringing up a point I thought you might not be remembering.

            As you do most often, rather than see the point you actually agree with, you want to argue. BUT you don’t really see the issue, so you attack the other as being hypocritical.

            You should do better. Slow down. Learn rather than blather.

            Its all rather too obvious.

          • noname says:

            bobbo, huh, whatever; classic bobbo, we can at-least agree or agree to disagree!

            Your retorts and augments, don’t inspire confidence and when challenged don’t hold water and yet you persist! Your right; I don’t see your point(s), when you try to “cya” and argue from of both sides of your mouth. Your retorts and augments offer a restaurant menu of disjointed options and ideas, hoping I will only approach what “I like” and not argue, point out, pick apart or question your inconsistencies; good-luck with that.

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            no name===just read what is right in front of you. Lather, rinse, repeat until you see it.

            Good boy.

          • noname says:

            bobbo, how so embarrassing, have you no shame; are you trying to wash your “dog” PERSISTENCE in public again?

            Get a room!

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            It takes two to have a bum fight in the street, at night, pissing and slobbering all over themselves.

            Why not just admit when science doesn’t have an answer, you don’t have to accept anything on faith, and can just wait for some more evidence to come in?

            Whether recognized early or late, seems like an easy thing to do to me….. unless you just would rather piss and slobber in the street?

            Silly Hooman

          • noname says:

            “Why not just admit when science doesn’t have an answer, you don’t have to accept anything on faith, and can just wait for some more evidence to come in?”

            Silly boobo, still can’t win, can you. You have such a dogmatic and limited mind. What a lazy mind and heart you must have”just wait for some more evidence to come in”!

            “The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.”
            ― Franklin D. Roosevelt

          • Tim says:

            noname, i think it would be altruistically benificial to all blog spam {and some readers} if you would go ahead and answer bobbo’s partially legitimate question aboot the ‘bum fights in the streets’ and your affinity towards them.

            Seriously, man; You game?? it’s not like i’ll retweet it or anything. promis.

          • noname says:

            I am I game, really; and who do you think the bum is?

  2. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    As an existentialist, this is all BS.

    As a pragmatist, its better BS than the BS we have now.

    As an evangelical, lets continue the discusssion.

    As an anti-thiest, the religious overlay is only a candy coating.

    ……………….yea, verily.

  3. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Just for grins while I listen to his mantra (how many times is he going to repeat his tenets?)

    Reality is our God /// There is no God
    Evidence is our Scripture /// Evidence must be discovered, Scripture is a set of a priori findings
    Big History is our Creation Story /// History happens after creation….. but…. ok as long as you mean “pure” science
    Ecology is our Theology //// pure tautology…. or what elements of the ecology with its consequential good and bad choices to be filled in. With ecology as a theology: how many species should be estinguished in order to allow how many hoomans? Theology??? Ecology?????????===>Pulease.
    Integrity is our Salvation //// With History as our measure, and Science demonstrating and warning against AGW: more like our Damnation which is a purely religious term so lets go with the objective consequences and call it Extinction.
    A just and health future is our Mission /// A fine and meaningless generality with the Devil in the details.

    Crap pure crap. But what isn’t?

  4. deegee says:

    I didn’t watch the video, didn’t care to waste the time, since to me the description in the text looks like nothing more than mental masturbation.

    The truth of our existence is that we don’t have the answers to all of the really big questions. And by our own means we never will.

    We can no more definitively say “there is no God *” than we can definitively say “there are no other habitable worlds” or “there are no aliens on these other worlds”.

    And since it is extremely unlikely (statistically insignificant) that we will ever be able to travel to even our closest neighboring star (Proxima Centauri at 4.22 light years **), it is extremely unlikely that we will ever be able to confirm life on other worlds.

    * The basic definition of God is an “alien” being who exists outside our plane of existence and our universe, who had a hand in creating our universe. Depending on which theory of our universe you prefer to believe (Brane cosmology, etc.), it is not inconceivable that their is life elsewhere.
    An alien being who is sufficiently advanced that he can create or affect a universe is most likely deserving of the title of God.

    ** Travel time to Proxima Centauri (data from Universe Today Jul 2008):
    81,000 years by Ion Drive, as used by the 1998 Deep Space 1 Mission, attaining 56,000 km/hr. The equivalent of 2700 human generations.
    Or 19,000 years by Gravitational Assist, as used by the 1976 Helios 2 Mission, attaining 240,000 km/hr. The equivalent of 600 human generations.
    Of course the main issue in sending actual humans is carrying sufficient resources for humans to survive these numbers of generations in space.
    And no, there are no warp engines, no wormhole drives, and no cryosleep tubes, we are talking current and future reality here, not some fantasy scifi movie.

    Our biggest problem (us humans), is that we argue and fight over the most petty of ideas and ideals. Not only regarding religion, but also regarding science. We can’t even agree on whether we should better manage the earth’s resources, or reduce our impact on climate change. So to think that we would ever get to the point of answering the big questions when we fail at even the small ones?

    Where [do I believe] that humans are headed if we are left to our own devices? To quote Albert Einstein: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
    Even if we do not suffer a nuclear WW3, we are on the fast-track to our own demise: consuming all available resources, disasters from weather and climate change, lack of new antibiotics, resurgence of epidemic diseases through lack of vaccinations, the inevitable fall of our socioeconomic systems, etc.

    • Tim says:

      “”And since it is extremely unlikely (statistically insignificant) that we will ever be able to travel to even our closest neighboring star (Proxima Centauri at 4.22 light years **), it is extremely unlikely…

      Hmm. You should try basing your star-bridging inventions on the old cosmology; stuff was much closer together, then. It’s like copyright protection that way — always expanding to where knowledge is free for all to get sunburned with.

    • ± says:

      [snippity do da]

      ****** sayeth deegee ******
      We can no more definitively say “there is no God *” than we can definitively say “there are no other habitable worlds” or “there are no aliens on these other worlds”.
      ************************

      You can’t get two people to agree on the same definition of “god”. Ever. The word has no meaning. Certainly no one has ever been able to define it in terms of mass, energy, time, space — like every thing known to be real in the universe is.

      If you base an argument on “god”, you automatically have lost. There is no corporeal foundation.

      I can posit that there are not, or that there are, polka-dotted kangaroos jumping up and down on the back side of the third moon of the fifth planet orbiting Rigel and it makes infinitely more sense than anything you say in any argument which invokes your “god” in an argument.

      [barely avoided, soporific jejune homily here]

      • deegee says:

        o…k… no idea where this is from…
        Perhaps I didn’t word my post well by my use of negative questions, and you read your own personal feelings into it.

        How about I change it to:
        We can no more definitively say “there is a God” than we can definitively say “there are other habitable worlds” or “there are aliens on these other worlds”.

        Using the Scientific Method, there is no evidence of a god. However, our limited understanding of the universe and how everything works limits us from answering the big questions. That was my point.

  5. bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

    You surprised me with your first use of “mental masturbation” as I thought you meant it was a bad thing. Obviously not the case as you fully engage it.

    What we can prove by the power of logic is that a God as predominately conceptualized cannot exist pursuant to the Epicurus conundrum. A god that is not “personal” is irrelevant.

    So….. what are we left with????? The “BIG” questions?

    Silly hooman: BIG question do not have answers, they have applications. Applications of desires and preferences, goals and aspirations. A simple consequence of…… our meaningless Universe where we are free to think and believe as we wish….. only the reality of nothing but physical reality allowing us such free will.

    Ain’t that a marvel?

    • Tim says:

      Some questions are ‘bigger’ than others. I get it ^^ nullchrst mpt c;assofoed/ no class.

      • Tim says:

        “”nullchrst mpt c;assofoed/ no class.

        Umm. Sorry aboot that, my hand slipped on the keyboard {it is kinda dirty}.

        What I meant to say is that you, and people like you that taped up all the scientists, took their water hoses, and then showed the repuplineoconicotards how to run around squirting each other with them.

        Nobody even gives a shit about the banannas. Carry on!

        • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

          Timmmmy—you gotta stop hiding behind being irrelevant.

          Shitting bananas is a common full moon Friday Night E/R observation.

          Most shit is.

    • deegee says:

      bobbo:
      “You surprised me with your first use of “mental masturbation” as I thought you meant it was a bad thing. Obviously not the case as you fully engage it.”

      Mental Masturbation = Intellectual activity that serves no practical purpose.

      In my opinion my post does serve a practical purpose, not only to expose the idiocy of the blog post text, but some of my points are actually backed by scientific facts.
      Unlike the drivel in the blog post text.

      bobbo:
      “What we can prove by the power of logic is that a God as predominately conceptualized cannot exist pursuant to the Epicurus conundrum. A god that is not “personal” is irrelevant.”

      The lack of actual scriptural knowledge in this statement is overwhelming.
      I even did a Jean Luc Picard double-face-palm (google it if you don’t know what that is).
      The Epicurus Conundrum is no more than a poorly conceived riddle with a flawed presupposition.

      • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

        Not Bad DG. Not good….but not bad.

        “The Epicurus Conundrum is no more than a poorly conceived riddle with a flawed presupposition.” //// BS! A riddle has an answer. The trilemma challenge of Epicurus has no answer but logically reveals that god as MOST commonly conceptualized cannot exist. You can only construct a god with 2 of his 3 named essential characteristics.

        Prove me wrong: name the flawed presupposition …… if you even know what such a thing is.

        • deegee says:

          bobbo said:
          “BS! A riddle has an answer.”

          Your presupposition* is false.
          Google “riddles without answers”.
          Not all riddles have answers.

          * Presupposition: a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.

          How about we look at the meaning of the word “riddle”:
          “a question or statement intentionally phrased so as to require ingenuity in ascertaining its answer or meaning, typically presented as a game.”

          Is it possible to present a riddle without an answer? Yes.
          Riddle can also be structured on logical fallacies.

          The logical fallacy in the Epicurus Conundrum is akin to saying: “If God can do anything, can He create a rock that He cannot lift?”.

          This is nothing more than word trickery.
          I recommend reading about logical fallacies.

          If we examine the Epicurus Conundrum in-depth from a scholastic viewpoint, he is posing that if “God” is not able or willing, then why do we refer to Him as “God”, as He has not met our requirements applied to Him of omnipotence, etc.
          This riddle does not say that “God” does not exist, which is what many atheists assume it to mean, and would like it to mean.
          It simply says that there is a being we call “God” who we assert is not fulfilling the office that we believe that He should be, so why are we bothering to call him “God”.
          This conundrum has a false presupposition that if “God” is against evil or can prevent evil, then evil should not exist.

          Each of Epicurus’ statements can also be individually shown as fallacies.

          — feel free to stop reading here —

          Regarding what Epicurus stated from a scriptural standpoint, his line of reasoning shows that he has no understanding of either the person of YHWH as revealed in scripture, or the condition caused by the fall of man as revealed in scripture.

          Am I willing to go into this further with scriptural references? Not here. For two reasons.
          1. To explain this large scriptural topic to another person would require significantly more than what can be accomplished through comment posts.
          2. I stopped having in-depth discussions with anyone over the Internet on the subjects of religion, theism, atheism, evolution, etc. for a number of reasons.

          Am I copping out on answering scripturally?
          No.
          I provided context that his statements are flawed logical fallacies.
          I also provided the names of the two main scriptural subjects for study that refute his statements.
          I am simply not providing commentary on the results of those areas of study.

          Why?
          Am I actually equipped to debate the topic?
          Well, this is probably TLDR and TMI so go ahead and skip this:

          I am flying fast towards 60.
          In my youth I spent about 4 years on study and practical archaeology and meteorology (odd pair, I know) and a number of other college courses.
          Then on to university for my bachelors, plus microelectronics design mainly in RDAC and robotics. Numerous published articles as well.
          Then a few years running a large studio (as some may already know).
          During most of this time above, my part-time hobby was the study of scripture and theology, mainly from an academic overview. I then dedicated about 7 years to in-depth theology, transliteration, historical linguistics, etc., and studied ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic languages, with a number of very good non-denominational and some secular teachers.
          For the past 6 years I have been studying geology, geomorphology, and planetary sciences, including my own software development and algorithms.

          Overall I have more than 30 years into “theological” study. Regarding the time spent on the actual “theological” schooling, I feel I learned a great deal, and put in considerably more time and effort than most people who try to debate the subject. I also got really pissed off.

          I have had a lot of really good discussions with people over the years, both in the sciences and theology, and theist vs atheist.
          I rarely do that any more. I am at the point where I really don’t care what another person believes any more. Even though I will on rare occasion post mini-rants on this blog’s comment area. Perhaps I am just getting too old for this.

          Anyway, to conclude, the Epicurus Conundrum is hogwash.
          Read Bertrand Russell’s An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish, it outlines a similar conundrum regarding the notion of sin, and shows how it is nothing more than a logical fallacy, intellectual rubbish.

          • deegee says:

            “I also got really pissed off.”

            To clarify, in this comment I was referring to my personal revelations through years of both scientific and theological study, that there is so much BS on both sides of the theist vs atheist arguments.

        • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

          Very well done. Not correct. But very well done. ….. and I respect the time and effort you added after the invitation to not read further.

          You are right…. I did not consider “riddles without answers.” We are at a definitional impasse on this issue as I don’t think a riddle without an answer IS a riddle. It is more like what you called word trickery, or rhetoric, or a logical fallacy, or just an unanswerable question……. heh, heh…..or maybe it is a riddle w/o an answer….. for what difference does it make???

          A riddle without an answer===>so much like a god without ethics?

          YOU ARE WRONG. The Epicurus Conundrum/Challenge/Logic Trap is NOT a fallacy and what it “is” is just what I said: a demonstration that god if he does exist is not the entity as commonly described. And most commentators say that if he is not as commonly described, then he is not “a god” by definition. Another logical trap that cannot be avoided by dismissing logic and the requirements it sets up as being labeled and concluded without analysis as “fallacies.” The better argument would be to say that we don’t understand the nature of god. Defective…. but better.

          It comes down to epistemology doesn’t it? How can god be the author/creator/omnificient in all things and yet hoomans be charged for crimes according to our free will? Doesn’t make any sense. If you believe hoomans are self aware and conscious products of chemical processes then indeed god may or may not exist BUT he does not exist as popularily conceived. Course…. I also accept in some ambiguous not specific way that hooman consciousness may have some limitation to knowledge that have not been identified as yet that may include some resolution to what looks like a logic trap. I just don’t feel like being dogmatic on that subject today.

          If…… then. And if god is claimed to have the if but fails to exhibit the then…. then that god is not the if we proposed. Simple logic.

          All making bobbo the ANTI-theist I claim to be. I don’t care “what” god is, I proclaim my own self actualized authority to act without his interference. If not that, then I am not free and god is a tyrant.

          Just more logic though. Any good Christian will aver that as God stands outside of space, time, and causation…. he also is immune to logic. ie==yes he can make a rock he can’t lift and demonstrate this while holding the same over his head. Seeeeeee!==>there it is. Silly hoomans===no comprehension of those things that stand outside of mere human comprehension. Logic is like that.

          …………..but now to google riddles without answers. Is that like Sheep without fur?

          • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

            Ha, ha. Smooth Move ….DG. I see you riddled me. The google as always, was fun.

            The old $30 with $5 change riddle. As defined: rid·dle1
            ˈridl/
            noun
            noun: riddle; plural noun: riddles

            1.
            a question or statement intentionally phrased so as to require ingenuity in ascertaining its answer or meaning, typically presented as a game.

            Directing someone to google anything does not establish its truth or falsity.

            Just as I used it: in its best view, riddles have answers.

            “If a tree falls in the forest with no one around, does it make a sound?” /// That is NOT a riddle, as it has no answer, rather it is an invitation to define ones terms. What is “a sound.”

            As in our case: define omnipotent, omniscience, and all good. ie define god. Go beyond two, and he doesn’t cut it.

          • deegee says:

            bobbo said:
            “… as I don’t think a riddle without an answer IS a riddle …”

            Which is one reason why I mentioned that I no longer do in-depth debates online. If the two people debating cannot agree on the definitions and guidelines for their discussion, then the topic cannot be reasonably discussed with fairness.

            If a definition is changed by one side be to outside of what is commonly accepted, in order to suit the argument of that one side, then the other side cannot with any fairness express their side of the debate.

            bobbo said: “YOU ARE WRONG.”

            Shouting is wrong. Or at minimum it is bad netiquette.

            Evil:
            Immoral, wicked, bad, wrong, harmful, injurious, sinful, corrupt, …

            “Evil” by its very definition includes anything that is deemed immoral or wrong or bad or injurious. Who is going to decide what falls into that category? You? Me? I will bet that even between the two of us, there will be a lot of difference on what we each define as “immoral or wrong or bad or injurious”.

            Are we judging God because we are saying that he has failed in his duties? Just like we blame the parents for raising a child who does something bad?
            Does it nullify God because He is not doing what we feel He is supposed to be doing? Is it right and correct that we can be the doers of the evil, but then buffet God for not taking action against us?
            Do WE get to decide what God’s duties are? And at what time He is supposed to carry them out?

            Even if the above points are disregarded, the validity of Epicurus’s riddle is dismissed completely on the grounds that the definitions of god and evil are subject to interpretation, which varies widely among peoples, and therefore the riddle is only valid if you apply specific definitions to both words.

            If you do not believe in God, do you need to base your belief on riddles?
            I know I am not standing around waiting to see what the outcome of this riddle will be.

            Any person that I have discussed theology with has false beliefs about YHWH, what was here before, what we are living through now, and what is to come.
            However, all of this would be too lengthy to discuss here.

          • deegee says:

            bobbo said: “I see you riddled me.”

            I also stated that riddles can be constructed on logical fallacies.
            Does that mean that a riddle with an answer always has an answer that is logically or morally or scientifically or philosophically true or correct?

            bobbo said:
            “define omnipotent, omniscience, and all good. ie define god. Go beyond two, and he doesn’t cut it.”

            Omnipotent: all powerful
            Omniscient: all knowing
            All good: all good

            None of those personality traits or properties force God to do what our bidding is, or force Him to do what we feel His duties are.

            According to scripture, He warned us what would happen if we disobeyed His EASY rules, we chose to disobey anyway, we chose to live without his rules, and now we have to live with the consequences of that.

            So now we want “take backsies” because we don’t like that the consequences of our choice includes wrong-doers and death? Exactly what He told us would happen.
            And we shake our fists and say that if He doesn’t do what we want (and get rid of evil), we won’t believe He exists or deserves the title of God?

            That just makes us sound like spoiled brats.
            If I were God I would have nuked the planet.

          • deegee says:

            bobbo said:

            “1.
            a question or statement intentionally phrased so as to require ingenuity in ascertaining its answer or meaning, typically presented as a game.”

            Yes, the same definition for the word “riddle” that I posted earlier.

            bobbo said:

            “Just as I used it: in its best view, riddles have answers.”
            “If a tree falls …” /// That is NOT a riddle, as it has no answer, …”

            I did not use “If a tree falls…” as an example of a riddle.

            Let’s re-read the definition of “riddle” again:
            … in ascertaining its answer OR MEANING …

            A riddle does not have to have an answer, it can also have only a meaning, ie. a concept, explanation, etc.

          • deegee says:

            Just a few notes further to what I said a couple of posts above.

            In case anyone says: but the choice was given to Adam and Eve, it was not given to me.

            Adam and Eve knew that their actions would curse their offspring.
            How many human parents also do the same to their children.

            God (all powerful, all knowing, all good) provided a way out. Romans 5:12-21 (paraphrased) Just as one trespass (Adam) resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act (Christ) resulted in justification and life for all people.

            Recognition and acceptance of that act is our “out”. God has stated that He does not forget what any of us go through in this life. And will in the future in His own time, raise all people from the dead, both the righteous and unrighteous. And those who practice evil will get cut off.

            Take it as you will.
            My profession is not to preach or to convert.
            My own personal beliefs and convictions are not relevant to the discussion.

          • deegee says:

            Regarding Epicurus’s Conundrum, I will also just say, what would he and you have God do regarding evil?

            Evil is not a mystical concept; it is not some supernatural power or entity; it is not invisible gremlins.

            Evil is simply people making choices to do actions that we deem to be wrong or immoral or corrupt.

            So what should God do?

            Whose definition of what actions constitute evil do we use as a guide? Which “wrong” choices and actions should be acted against?

            Should God remove our freedom to make those choices? Then how will we learn the difference between right and wrong, good and evil? After all, according to scripture, we are the ones who chose to go our own way and rule ourselves.

            Should God have angels step in and stop the people making these evil choices and doing these evil actions?

            Or should God immediately punish those that do evil?
            What should the punishment be for each type of evil deed?
            At what age should punishment begin?

            The world currently has a large percentage of atheist people and people of differing religions and gods, if God suddenly made His existence undeniably known in order to get rid of evil, do you really think that most of the people in the world would happily go along with whatever action God chose to do?

          • Tim says:

            Evil people suck.

  6. Porky Rottenham says:

    If “Integrity is our Salvation,” then we’re bound for Hell.

  7. Benjamin says:

    Ecology is our salvation? More global warning jingoism. The truth is that we are in a period of cooling. The ice age is coming. We need to get the carbon credit taxes in place so we can claim credit when the cooling becomes more pronounced. It’s about control. Ecology is our slavery.

  8. norman says:

    scussie miu

    knuffeller of kittens and seagulls

    sir mumbai.. no Mangalore, Perth Edinborough Auklands st. louis hehhe etc etc

    sedrious lisening to best comcast universe, over me shoulder see three/four kittens, not more then week ould , really… their mum turn out later. it mid summer here landz of midnight sun son

    seagulls pluk chewing gum off of yer st.

    hehhe most mass murders use.. hehhe.. ocasual mass murder price pay.. hehhe

    bullet resistent white boads. hehhe

    home school saluting
    brookings yakkin hiary , dis dah udder

    Iowah hehhe Gerogie hehhe blue bull
    austan dallis on the bieyo

    hehe califate is commin

    tpb

    fcc

    promulgate

    (mate of mine his grandad, run over by own steam roller) promulgate

    hehhe harley st. london.. yer heart is in wrong place, can’t operate

    pantry waist, were yer mum hide her sanitary towels

    • norman says:

      ‘here in gran rappids. hehhhe… mate of mine, well maybe it was cedar rappids. well anyways when he was teen… student exchange and flood injin country.. and his canadian mum phone him he danish dad priest come back euro lands wwii.. but his mum know he not flooded out.. but he always tell story like she not know

      • orchidcup says:

        Well said, norman.

      • norman says:

        she had a 1950s engolandish accent, never spoke it , rare, he would sometimne address her such… ignorant man… he would horriscope and ‘ring ‘phone home.. she was a lady… imagine yer drunken son claim… well this that aoubt this that…

        she was a lady.. he would claim stuff about stars and universe and all.. like i was a leo .. wootever that mean…

        she knew history of euro church dom… he only copy west caost horrorscope bolic.. okey he tx it from engolandish to danish and sell print – outs

  9. orchidcup says:

    Only God knows if there is a God.

    • norman says:

      and only god know iffn god knows

    • jpfitz says:

      exactly correct, as our human minds cannot comprehend a omnipresent, Omnipotent entity. only faith, which is a blind belief in a superior being makes the human able to know believe in god and actually talk with god. me, all i know is that 1+1=2. maybe math is god.

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

        Hey JP==you’ve stumbled onto a truth that is actually relevant here. “Proof” of the rigorous, absolute, and scientific variety is of two types: math and logic.

        When you don’t like what math and logic “prove,” then you can say that math is abstract and can only be proved by real world confirmation, and that logic is a riddle.

        Those arguments in both cases are wrong, but thats what the ignorant say.

  10. norman says:

    woot is that norwegian writter name. this ‘god’ debate well played out 100yrs ago.. can’t stand it.. it barn storming.. silly

  11. norman says:

    did i vote for flouride in my water.. batman

  12. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    I thought I had read the entire Marc Perkel preamble to this thread, but obviously not as I checked it again: what a bunch of jumbled up hogwash, BS, and logical disconnects.

    Marc….. what the hey is your rant on atheism? Doesn’t make any sense. If we are all moving towards reality as our new religion, how do you single out atheist for your special castigation without ever connecting your review to any set of consequences?

    Just a touch:

    1. This is religion 3.0 – the authority of evidence rather than the authority of scripture. And this is a religious view that even Atheists can appreciate. /// Huh? What else do atheists ask for EXCEPT EVIDENCE? Asking for evidence is purely scientific, not religious at all. Are you confusing cause and effect again Marc?

    2. Atheism is about God and Atheists spend way too much time reading the Bible and talking about the Bible. /// Ha, ha. How so? Unsupported assertion without any discernible point of consequence. To whatever degree atheists read the Bible, I’ll bet you donuts to assholes they spend even more time reading: not the Bible. Hey!!!==guess what? When you read “a lot” you understand more of what you read. When the only thing you read is the Bible, but only selected portions of it ((over and over and over again))==you can get caught up pretty easily by those who give the whole (two) books a light perusal. Your Score==-2.

    3. One of the problems with Atheism is that knowing everything about nothing has no value. //// Buffoonery rarely reaches so high. Can you explain what is behind this meaningless word salad?? Most “scientists” are atheists. You’re telling me they know everything about nothing????

    4. So when it comes to the issue of “what is the meaning of meaning?”, Atheism has nothing. /// Yeah, its like asking a taxidermist to fix your toaster. Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Seems like a good start to me, but only a start.

    5. Sam Harris is an example of this. Sam is so adverse to religion that just saying the word “Church” shuts him down. /// Link? Preferably a youtube? I’ve seen a dozen or so of his public debates. I’ve not seen him shut down or claim to know everything about…. anything.

    6. Atheists don’t get that Reality is fundamental to Atheism because without Reality there would be no place for God not to be real in. //// Gibberish.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Marc…… really?

    • jpfitz says:

      Yeah, one persons reality is another persons dream. Who’s to say what IS reality. I have a brother diagnosed with schizophrenia, I think maybe he took too much x or is bi-polar. My point is when he and I disagree on matters of the world, science or spirituality he says “don’t mess with my reality”. That’s a coincidence, man.

      Now reality is a “religion” of sorts? Nah, stop fuckin with my head.

      https://youtube.com/watch?v=xwtdhWltSIg

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

        Reality is what hits you in the nose when you think nothing is there.

      • reader says:

        “The only man I know who behaves sensibly is my tailor; he takes my measurements anew each time he sees me. The rest go on with their old measurements and expect me to fit them.” Mr. Shaw

        We are moving toward a measurement based economy away from a reputation based economy. Church is like the bank. You put your money in and never touch it again because they can do more with it and make more of it than you. We have fewer tailors and more malls because cheap imports are a religion. Keep writing.

        • the man with the tape says:

          “”The only man I know who behaves sensibly is my tailor; he takes my measurements anew each time he sees me.

          old fucker is probably just bitter he didn’t get the job at the NSA.

    • deegee says:

      bobbo said:
      “What else do atheists ask for EXCEPT EVIDENCE?”

      That is not entirely true.
      There are some scientific “facts” that have not met the requirements of The Scientific Method and have no scientific evidence, yet they are taught as scientific fact because Atheists are presented with either choice A or B, and refuse to consider one of the choices because it does not line up with their philosophy.

      bobbo said:
      “Most “scientists” are atheists.”

      Reliable link? Or assumption?

      • bobbo, the says:

        “Facts” are usually observations and no dispute does exist. Are you confusing facts with hypotheticals of which many are wrong?

        What are you thinking of?

        I’ve seen too many reviews showing the increasing levels of atheism or agnosticism as the rigor of the scientific component increases. Like a riddle, its a side issue. If you want to think the opposite, thats fine with me.

        • deegee says:

          Too often I see people equating “science” and “atheism” as the same thing. To me they are not the same.
          Science is science, regardless of the observer’s personal athiest or theist beliefs.
          See “confirmation bias” etc.

          In discussions regarding various scientific subjects with hard-line atheists, even if we are both discussing the subject purely academically, I often run into ones who will refuse to say “we don’t know” or “we only have a hypothesis at this time”, because they (imho falsely) believe that it will give theists some foothold.

          • bobbo, done been corrupted by reading too Much DU says:

            I agree Marc demonstrates that confusion. He fails to apply the simple dictionary meaning of words to the discussion/thinking he is engaged in.

            So…… what example of a scientific fact that has no evidence do you have?

            ………………do you know what a brain fart is?

  13. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    DG demonstrating how limited an appreciation of rhetoric can be says:
    6/20/2014 at 5:42 pm

    bobbo said:
    “… as I don’t think a riddle without an answer IS a riddle …”

    Which is one reason why I mentioned that I no longer do in-depth debates online. If the two people debating cannot agree on the definitions and guidelines for their discussion, then the topic cannot be reasonably discussed with fairness. /// –OR–the topic can be reasonably discussed taking into comprehension as much as possible BOTH definitions the parties are using, or discuss with one definition and then the other then compare and contrast and see which one illuminate more etc? HOWEVER–in this case the subject of the discussion was NOT the nature of a riddle but rather the nature of god. No reason at all to obsess over the definition of a riddle…. unless you lack stomach to be disagreed with……….?

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    If a definition is changed by one side be to outside of what is commonly accepted, in order to suit the argument of that one side, then the other side cannot with any fairness express their side of the debate. //// Well dickwad==I provided you with the first “standard” definition I googled and fairly read it calls for an answer. YOU are the one with outside what is commonly accepted defintions of words. Good thing its irrelevant huh?

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    bobbo said: “YOU ARE WRONG.”

    Shouting is wrong. Or at minimum it is bad netiquette. //// I enjoy it. A technique of emphasis.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Evil:
    Immoral, wicked, bad, wrong, harmful, injurious, sinful, corrupt, …

    “Evil” by its very definition includes anything that is deemed immoral or wrong or bad or injurious. Who is going to decide what falls into that category? You? Me? I will bet that even between the two of us, there will be a lot of difference on what we each define as “immoral or wrong or bad or injurious”. //// Correct…. so apply that understanding to the issue at hand? Or do you only deal in the obvious???

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Are we judging God because we are saying that he has failed in his duties? Just like we blame the parents for raising a child who does something bad?
    Does it nullify God because He is not doing what we feel He is supposed to be doing? Is it right and correct that we can be the doers of the evil, but then buffet God for not taking action against us?
    Do WE get to decide what God’s duties are? And at what time He is supposed to carry them out?

    Even if the above points are disregarded, the validity of Epicurus’s riddle //// Its not a riddle. Its LOGIC!!! and the consequences that flow therefrom. Silly to avoid the Epicurus Challenge/recognitions by trying to put a label on it. I don’t care===ANSWER THE RIDDLE then, as you will? If the nature of god as commonly described is an impossibility, then is that the nature of God?===>or must God be something other than what is commonly described??? And if so, is that something other still worthy of worship and faith, or is it as I have decided something to be contended????

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    is dismissed completely on the grounds that the definitions of god and evil are subject to interpretation, which varies widely among peoples, and therefore the riddle is only valid if you apply specific definitions to both words. /// I agree, all words used must be defined…. with the options thereafter still in play.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    If you do not believe in God, do you need to base your belief on riddles? /// As an atheist, I simply say to this “idea” of god: I see no proof and your description is a logical impossibility as far as I experience life. Why do you “believe” in one god and reject all the rest who are basically more the same than different?

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    I know I am not standing around waiting to see what the outcome of this riddle will be.

    Any person that I have discussed theology with has false beliefs about YHWH, what was here before, what we are living through now, and what is to come. //// Yep, people are like that.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    However, all of this would be too lengthy to discuss here. /// Bits and pieces, parts is parts.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Yea, verily!

    • deegee says:

      bobbo said:
      ” … in this case the subject of the discussion was NOT the nature of a riddle … No reason at all to obsess over the definition of a riddle”

      There is that bobbo moving target again.
      Re-read your posts.
      You told me to give you an _answer_ to Epicurus’s riddle.
      I stated that by its definition a riddle can also be a _statement_ that has a _meaning_, and that Epicurus’s riddle has no answer because it is based on a logical fallacy.

      bobbo said:
      “Well dickwad … YOU are the one with outside what is commonly accepted defintions of words.”

      When a person resorts to name calling, it means they have lost the argument, and they have in that moment abandoned logic in favor of an exaggerated expression of their feelings.

      I am not the one who is outside of the standard meaning of the word riddle.
      Look at the meaning of riddle again, highlighted portions by me:

      Riddle:
      A question OR STATEMENT intentionally phrased so as to require ingenuity in ascertaining its answer OR MEANING, typically presented as a game.

      A question does have an answer.
      A statement does not have an answer.

      Regarding the rest of your post, go back up and read my posts, especially where I listed the three properties of God (all knowing all powerful all good) that you requested that I list, and then I explained exactly how God can have those three properties and not be impossible as you claim. I also explained how God can have those three properties and how evil choices can still be made by mankind.
      If you choose not to believe in God, that is your right to choice.
      If God does exist, whether you believe in Him or not is irrelevant to His existence.

  14. orchidcup says:

    If faith cannot be reconciled with rational thinking, it has to be eliminated as an anachronistic remnant of earlier stages of culture and replaced by science dealing with facts and theories which are intelligible and can be validated.

    — Erich Fromm (1900-1980)

  15. reader says:

    “Ooooh, nobody knows you
    When you’re down and out.
    In your pocket, not one penny,
    And as for friends, you don’t have any.

    When you get back on your feet again,
    Everybody wants to be your long-lost friend.
    I Said it’s strange, without any doubt
    Nobody knows you,
    Nobody knows you,
    Nobody knows you when you’re down and out.”
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=_O24KixmFFc

    You don’t need friends to screw you when there is family to do it.

    Silence is the perfect expression of scorn.
    Pt. V
    All there is around this country is scorn and lust for gold. The best things in life are free and we can’t afford them. The two faced pale face voted and we got more troubles. Everybody we voted for lost and we got more repression. War expenses led to depression. With another trillion of debt we’ll have this solved.
    Pt. VI get the others to pay? Reality is something you would not of expected according to C.S. Lewis.

    If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. — C.S.
    http://godlessgirl.com/2011/09/c-s-lewis-and-reality/

    SpaceX claims we can be on Mars in 10 years.

  16. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist who recognizes most arguments can be settled once one defines the words being used rather than blithly ignoring the morass of confusion so often contained therein says:

    Dee Gee–you did a better job initially than I focused on Easy enough to correct. I see your focus on riddle is NOT a sidebar to the dicussion but more your conclusion of what the Epicurus Paradox is.

    You say:

    “How about we look at the meaning of the word “riddle”:
    “a question or statement intentionally phrased so as to require ingenuity in ascertaining its answer or meaning, typically presented as a game.”

    Is it possible to present a riddle without an answer? Yes.
    Riddle can also be structured on logical fallacies.

    The logical fallacy in the Epicurus Conundrum is akin to saying: “If God can do anything, can He create a rock that He cannot lift?”.

    Let’s parse:

    How about we look at the meaning of the word “riddle”:
    “a question or statement intentionally phrased so as to require ingenuity in ascertaining its answer or meaning, typically presented as a game.” /// when the riddle is a question you see that this definition says there is INTENTION to require ingenuity in ASCERTAINING ITS ANSWER. Restated: to be a riddle, there must be an answer otherwise the question or statement while in the FORM of a riddle is not a riddle but rather as stated just a question or statement. Gosh, I’m dithering because the “riddle” at issue does have “an answer” so the larger more general question we fell into is irrelevant. But, words are a passion of mine….. they are what we think with ….. when we think. Riddles are constructed to make us think. Lots of riddles are based on faulty definitions, logical errors like the misdirection of the undistributed middle and so forth. Fun stuff.

    Is it possible to present a riddle without an answer? Yes.
    Riddle can also be structured on logical fallacies. /// As stated–if you want to add to the actual definition additional ideas and constructs that actually go against the stated definition, that is fine with me. I only hope for your sake you see can see that this is what you are doing? Like yelling or name calling, once you go about changing the definitions of the words you use, you have made a directly implied admission you have lost the argument in chief.

    The logical fallacy in the Epicurus Conundrum is akin to saying: “If God can do anything, can He create a rock that He cannot lift?”. /// If there is a logical fallacy in the Epicurus Conundrum then you MUST be able to state directly what it is==>NOT what it is “akin” to. Your construct is a total dodge revealing the weakness/falsity of your position. I agree there is word trickery in the rock riddle but note that “both parts” of the riddle are about the self same rock. That construct is NOT at play in the Epicurus Conundrum making your conclusion that it is a logical fallacy incorrect. The point/meaning of the EC is that god as typically presented can only LOGICALLY have any two of the three attributes named.

    You have focused on god being all good as a truth any failure in recognition of which is the failure of human beings by way of acting on free will. Sorry…. but there is no free will one way or the other in the 200,000 folks killed by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. God could have designed the universe so that tsunamis did not occur but he chose otherwise. To accept god as all good we must accept that having 200K of our brothers killed is all for the good. You may be the obedient slave who does so…. I remain an anti-theist who does not.

    Fact is—you have created a god you can’t explain. God may or may not exist but if he does, he does not have all three attributes. Blaming “me” for not accepting the notion he does is a violation of what I consider to be sacred: the human ability to think, seek, find and accept the truth.

    Sucks to be you.

    • deegee says:

      You must have really missed everything that I said.
      That is ok. My job is not to convince you of what you choose not to believe or understand.

      Why is it God’s responsibility to get rid of evil that we chose to impose on ourselves, especially after we told Him to buzz off and that we don’t want to follow His rules. The scriptures do say that God will eventually get rid of evil, on His timetable, not ours, He does not answer to us. We need to learn that there are consequences for our actions.

      Do you believe that just because He is all good that he should take away our freedom of choice? Do you honestly believe that atheists would agree to allow Him to do that if He appeared on the earth right now?

      If you don’t believe in God, then what does it matter anyway? “I’m not going to believe in you if you don’t do what I say!”

      Regarding tsunamis etc., attempting to blame naturally occurring earth processes on God is a really poor argument.
      If I build a house on quicksand, should I not expect it to sink?
      The biggest flaw in this reasoning is that it takes all ownership and accountability off of us and places it all onto God. “If God is all powerful, all knowing, all good, then He is accountable for every bad thing that I do”. Hogwash.

      Do you blame your parents for every wrong choice that you have made? And curse them when they don’t take any responsibility for your choices?

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        Ha, ha. Quite a miasma of stuttering umbrage.

        Focus.

        I’ll say it again: FOCUS!!!!!!

        For the time being, you are accepting that 200K people drowning in an Act of God is a bad thing. I’ve heard the religious argue as coming from god it is a good thing and we humans simply don’t understand the majesty that is god. Some kind of test for the survivors. How long before you evolve to that standard of goodness?

        In standard theological discussion, there are indeed two main categories of evil==those caused by the decisions of man and those “natural” occurrences.

        You mix the two together. Keep it separated. Mankind in no way has chosen tsunamis or other acts of god. God could easily have designed the universe not to have tsunamis so we mere humans have a choice: recognize we don’t understand the nature of good or evil that justifies natural acts of god OR==we have the nature of god wrong.

        My answer is easy: we have the nature of god wrong.

        Your challenge is to explain how killing 200K people is a good thing ==or == simply admit what is obvious that you believe in a god that you don’t/can’t understand.

        Seems fair enough to me. It just doubles up on your passivity and willingless to be hornswaggled.

        Put it all together, and the best explanation from your point of view is that God did everything all good and then left to play elsewhere and we are dealing with the Devil.

        Isn’t that more consistent with the observable universe, Doppler shift and all?

        • deegee says:

          I’m supposed to focus, and you believe that God should have designed the universe to be without tsunamis or other “Acts of God” (Things that are naturally occurring scientific phenomenon).
          (Which are not God’s “acts” at all, or are you saying that now you believe in God doing some stuff on earth? I call them “natural disasters”, maybe you are just trying to muddy the waters, or use inflammatory arguments).

          Ok…

          I can easily answer that one, but I am no longer going to continue this discussion.
          You have repeatedly shown that you will never concede to any facts where you have been shown wrong in your posts (definition of riddle for one), and repeatedly shown that you will never concede to any valid points that do not fit your argument or personal viewpoint.

          Good luck in life.

  17. reader says:

    ISIS has tried to nominate a new governor from among the ranks of old Baathist officers, but no one was willing, according to Nujeifi. “They all refused because they know there is no future with ISIS,” he said. “They are not able to run the city by themselves.”

    But for many in Mosul who despised the rule of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shi’ite-led government from Baghdad, a lack of services is not the most important thing. “We don’t have water or power but we have security,” said Omar, who came to Erbil from his native Mosul on Tuesday, a week after ISIS took the city. The streets of Mosul are calm, he said, and he only left for his job as a chef at this hotel in Kurdish Erbil. “They are not making any problems with the local people. ISIS only came for the army.” http://time.com/2901388/mosul-isis-iraq-syria/

    First they came for the army and I said nothing. Then they came for the clergy and I said nothing…the history doesn’t repeat the mistakes do. They had water and power until we turned it into Amish Country. Now they have security, which for most dipshits means the gas pumps are still working and all the horses haven’t been shot for food. They are having mass (execution) for thousands. Fools, religion and knavery. They have billions worth of equipment and weapons compliments of US. It was too much trouble to bring it back. We can locate your phone and have your email from 5 years ago! We’re going to partner with Iran to make thing right.

    The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfeld deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

    Bush is a very stupid man. The American people are not stupid, they are very clever. I can’t understand how such clever people came to elect such a stupid president.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Given your evidence, how do you conclude the American people are not stupid?

  18. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Twat says:
    6/21/2014 at 1:05 pm

    Atheism’s belief there is no God, requires the Atheist to be God equal, omniscient. /// No it doesn’t.

    Therefore its self-contradiction, irrational. /// Only your pretend equivalence is irrational.

    And amusing to watch blowhards wax bold about what they cannot possibly know, with such religious zeal. /// I’m feeling a stiff breeze coming from you right now.

    According to scripture, reality is is a matrix generated by the infinite mind of the Eternal Son of God, the Word: /// Nice modern overlay.

    And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col 1:17 NAS) /// quoting the bible is……… (fill in)

    That fits what we know about particles, the all are intrinsically massless. //// by definition, particles have mass.

    The very nature of reality requires God to hold it all together. /// What we don’t know, we call god.

    Sucks to be you.

    • Tim says:

      “”by definition, particles have mass.

      Umm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        Well Timmy—of course I was thinking of sub light speed particles as THIS discussion is taking place within a time coordinated context?

        Heh, heh….. thank you.

        I welcome being shown I’m wrong. Like Cronus, on each such occasion, I become stronger.

        Always amusing to observe people reaching a certain stage of expertise and experience and refusing to learn anything new.

        Stay frosty.

        • Tim says:

          Umm. –> “”That fits what we know about particles, the all are intrinsically massless.”” <–

          {that dude} is on 'solid' particle-physicsy ground with that one. Particles do not have intrinsic mass. Most *exhibit* mass through the interaction with the Higgs field {or so some people say, and not just the black guy}.

          ^^ I've arrived late in the game to be so comfortable with that one, myself; But, while I'm not knowing the difference between a fermion and a majorana pion, it seems to me that he seems to have valid/plausible insight as to {Col 1:17 }.

  19. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Sadly, most theists get their theology from pop culture and then get it wrong time two.

    Regarding Hubbles expanding universe, do popular tv evangelical atheist scientists get it wrong by saying ALL galaxies are moving away from each other thereby ignoring the collisions of galaxies they talk about in the same breath …. or is something else going on?

    Here is the first youtube on the subject I found. Must be a pure coincidence, the work of the Devil, that Neil De Grasse Tastes Good Tyson does NOT SAY all galaxies are moving apart from one another.

    What he says is “The distant galaxies are drifting away from one another.” See that little modifier: “distant.” So like a Theist to pick and choose what to quote and to get it wrong. To accurately quote the definition of a term and then go on to use a contradictory one.

    So like a Theist…….((ie—they are full of it.))

    Making everything about “MEEEEEEEEEeeeeeee”–this is why I hate posting on a public forum. People disagree with MEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeee. Why can’t I be treated as a god and simply have my asshole sucked?

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=CSvVM9SAZwY

    • deegee says:

      Your rambling has nothing to do with the subject of my post.
      You really need to get out more.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        The subject of your post is how much you disdain trying to support your beliefs.

        What did I get wrong?

  20. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Denying Gods omnifiscence thereby revealing his own philosophastry deegee says:
    6/21/2014 at 2:21 pm

    I’m supposed to focus, and you believe that God should have designed the universe to be without tsunamis or other “Acts of God” (Things that are naturally occurring scientific phenomenon). /// What UNholy blastopheres you grow. ((Yeah, I know…. reduced to my own word play.))

    (Which are not God’s “acts” at all, or are you saying that now you believe in God doing some stuff on earth? I call them “natural disasters”, maybe you are just trying to muddy the waters, or use inflammatory arguments). /// Dee Gee…. in refusing to accept simple truths, or at least the simple consequences of your own initial positions, I hope you damn your sould for all eternity, as well as lose the argument?

    Did god NOT create the Heaven and Earth just as it is? Glass Spheres overhead on which to attach the revolving sun across the 4 corners of this obviously flat earth?

    check it out—no religious person says god does not make (allow?) earthquakes. Why do you think its even called “An Act of god”—for Christs Sake?

    wrong evolves into stupid into psychotic denial all in one thread. How easily your faith is challenged. I’m embarrassed for you. Back to Sunday School.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Ok…

    I can easily answer that one, but I am no longer going to continue this discussion.
    You have repeatedly shown that you will never concede to any facts where you have been shown wrong in your posts (definition of riddle for one), and repeatedly shown that you will never concede to any valid points that do not fit your argument or personal viewpoint. /// ….. or just the opposite. TALK TO MEEEEEEEEeeeeeee DG, put the mirror down, and talk to MEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeee. Only by coincidence did I just previously thank Timmmmy for correcting me. Ha, ha. Must really suck to be you…… but in a state of denial….. you think shit is ice cream. Beyond my understanding.

    Good luck in life. //// Nothing for the after life? What a scrooge===there is room for all of us afterall or would that be another “natural act” having nothing to do with god?

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Correction: “I hope you DON’T damn your soul…..”

      I’m a bad typist.

    • deegee says:

      I honestly don’t care what anyone personally believes.
      Be free to be an atheist.
      The people of the world have been arguing this for much longer than I have been here, and they will continue to argue it long after I am gone.

      I am not an evangelist. I do not even classify myself as a “Christian”. It is only because I also have years of academic study in theology, ancient linguistics and archaeology, etc., that I am at times willing to discuss theological topics. Does that mean that my academia is always correct? Not at all. I’m only human.

      Read the scriptures.
      It tells you your answers.

      “Acts of God” and a perfect earth?
      The fall of man caused the original perfect design of the heavens and earth to be dramatically changed, physically changed, not metaphorically. Thorns, disease, hard work, disasters, …
      When all of this is finished, God will change it back to it’s original perfect design, what is here now will be changed to a new heaven and a new earth.
      See the books of Genesis and Revelations, and numerous other scriptures.

      It is up to you whether you wish to believe what it says, however, it does answer the question from a scriptural point of view.

      Regarding our definition of God and His personality traits, and why are we living in times where evil is abundant.
      God is: All Powerful, All Knowing, All Good.

      One person’s definition for each of these may vary from the next.

      Having those three traits does not mean that He is not also Just. In fact it would mean that He would have to also be All Just, perfectly Just.

      God states that if any person breaks any of His laws, then the penalty for that is separation from God.
      What does “separation” mean to you?

      Let the first among us who has not broken any law step forward. Have any of us never lied? Or stolen? Or cheated? Or gotten angry? Or hit someone? Or worse?

      No one stepping forward?
      No one?

      Epicurus et al want God to eradicate evil (which we brought on ourselves and many choose to do every day).
      But we are currently under penalty of separation for breaking the law, ALL of us, EVERY person.
      If God does not uphold the penalty given for breaking His law, then what would that say of His character?
      Is God wishy-washy? Is being wishy-washy still being All Powerful, All Knowing and All Good.

      Wishy washy:
      “Lacking in strength of character or purpose; ineffective; weak in willpower. ”

      I feel that too many people who don’t have the knowledge of God’s character from scripture, incorrectly believe that God is a big bully, because they believe that God is ignoring their cries for help, for which they believe that God somehow owes it to them to help them. And if God doesn’t answer them, then God doesn’t love them. I don’t fault anyone for feeling that, it’s just not a correct view of God according to scripture.

      Don’t expect God to simply come forward and rid our unlawful society of the evils that we have brought onto ourselves, simply because in our pride and narcissism we believe that we somehow deserve it, when not even one of us is blameless under the law, and being judged under the law has a penalty of separation from God.

      In God’s due time, final judgement for every person will come, some to eternal life, some to *poof* eternally gone.
      Those people who are doing the evil acts will get their day of judgement, God promises that.
      We are currently in the time of grace. God has given a very simple way out of that judgement for any person who chooses it (John 3:16). Note: but then anyone continuing to cultivate evil will be harshly judged.

      So, still mad at God for having to go through these times of tribulation?
      Really, what is suffering through a lifetime of tribulation versus the possibility of an eternity of peace? On a cosmological or eternal scale our lifetime is over in the blink of an eye.
      And in all honesty, just how bad off are most of us whiners right now anyway.

      Take from that what you will.
      All that I am posting is what the scriptures say. I didn’t write them.

    • deegee says:

      “The fall of man caused the original perfect design of the heavens and earth to be dramatically changed …”

      Let me clarify that.
      As part of our penalty and separation from God, the heavens and earth were changed by God, as a consequence to man’s fall.

      “I don’t fault anyone for feeling that.”

      To add further to this.
      The scriptures say that God has promised that those who go through this life of tribulation, and make it through judgement into eternal life, they will receive gifts of life and love and peace that will make this life of tribulation completely forgettable.

    • deegee says:

      And let me clarify this:

      “As part of our penalty and separation from God, the heavens and earth were changed by God, as a consequence to man’s fall.”

      In that: you break the law, you are separated from God, you no longer get to live in the original perfect world.

      I don’t mean it to convey: God is a meany and made everything crappy to live in so He doesn’t love us.

  21. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    dee gee, I’m impressed by how tightly wrapped up in your own dogma you are. It does take years of study. Study of one subject, to the exclusion of all else.

    Pros and Cons.

    I prefer responding to every point made so as to more likely avoid the misperception of any nuance that might be there… but in your silence, you have expressed too much. So I will pick 2-3 of the more salient statements. If I miss one of interest to you, post it.

    I lied:

    I honestly don’t care what anyone personally believes.
    Be free to be an atheist. /// No one has asked for or implied the need or desire for any permission from you.

    The people of the world have been arguing this for much longer than I have been here, and they will continue to argue it long after I am gone. /// Obvious to the point of being trite.

    I am not an evangelist. /// I agree. You have avoided that spear.

    I do not even classify myself as a “Christian”. /// Your orthodoxy in biblical inerrancy is totally Christian. Conservative. Only passivity will separate you from being a Jihadist.

    It is only because I also have years of academic study in theology, ancient linguistics and archaeology, etc., that I am at times willing to discuss theological topics. /// Your background does not provide motive or justification for your decision to post. That comes from something else.

    Does that mean that my academia is always correct? Not at all. I’m only human. /// I have yet to ascertain ANYTHING you have posted as correct, making you totally human….. of the silly type.

    Read the scriptures.
    It tells you your answers. /// What do conservative religious bible thumpers read and not understand? …. Not “my” question.

    “Acts of God” and a perfect earth?
    The fall of man caused the original perfect design of the heavens and earth to be dramatically changed, physically changed, not metaphorically. Thorns, disease, hard work, disasters, …
    When all of this is finished, God will change it back to it’s original perfect design, what is here now will be changed to a new heaven and a new earth.
    See the books of Genesis and Revelations, and numerous other scriptures. //// Irrelevant. God made the change from perfect to imperfect as you characterize it. The impossible illogical nature of YOUR god is simply demonstrated again. Your explanation provides none. Instead of studying theology, you ought to go to ToastMasters and learn how to construct a logical argument…. to debate on point?

    It is up to you whether you wish to believe what it says, however, it does answer the question from a scriptural point of view. //// Yeah—The Tower of Babble—everyone reading it coming away with a different understanding. Great Book.

    Regarding our definition of God and His personality traits, and why are we living in times where evil is abundant.
    God is: All Powerful, All Knowing, All Good. //// Yep. I say that is impossible. You double down on it. Every theologian “steeped” on this issue ((That I see on TV—smile!)) concludes that ultimately the nature of god is “a mystery.” Like everything else about god outside the dogmatic chants of those bound to the belief system.

    One person’s definition for each of these may vary from the next. /// Yes. I define all good as not allowing for natural disasters but would also have it encroach upon the free will of man. Why is our free will not totally satisfactorially expressed through the love of one another? Its our god given nature. But, god designed hoomans not to fly or breath underwater yet we see no limitation in that. Why not exercise our free will/choices within the context of love for one another? that would be a better more loving world.

    Having those three traits does not mean that He is not also Just. In fact it would mean that He would have to also be All Just, perfectly Just. /// Just adding to the stupidity of it all. A rock that “you” can’t lift.

    God states that if any person breaks any of His laws, then the penalty for that is separation from God.
    What does “separation” mean to you? /// The religious community trying to avoid the horrible meaning of a god that would throw his children into an eternal hell. Thats your Darwinian morality rejecting gods teachings.

    Let the first among us who has not broken any law step forward. Have any of us never lied? Or stolen? Or cheated? Or gotten angry? Or hit someone? Or worse? /// Sure. Thats fantastic feed back showing me how wrong it usually is to do those things.

    No one stepping forward?
    No one? /// I reject your premise, and step forward.

    Epicurus et al want God to eradicate evil (which we brought on ourselves and many choose to do every day). /// No he doesn’t. He just wants to resolve the impossible description of god held by most too conservative bible bound religious types.

    But we are currently under penalty of separation for breaking the law, ALL of us, EVERY person.
    If God does not uphold the penalty given for breaking His law, then what would that say of His character? /// That all along we humans have tried to control gods nature through our limited understanding of his omnifiscence would mean…. like ants contemplating humans. The distance is too great, but with the sin of pride…we write books and give sermons on it all while saying (ultimately) that it remains a mystery. Its all arrogance, hubris, the desire to control other people.

    Is God wishy-washy? Is being wishy-washy still being All Powerful, All Knowing and All Good. /// I don’t think God would be wishy washy although a few passages in the bible do make him look that way–the trials of job for instance.

    Wishy washy:
    “Lacking in strength of character or purpose; ineffective; weak in willpower. ” /// Yeah, I’d say it comes from fear of the unknown and not wanting to make a mistake.

    I feel that too many people who don’t have the knowledge of God’s character from scripture, incorrectly believe that God is a big bully, because they believe that God is ignoring their cries for help, for which they believe that God somehow owes it to them to help them. And if God doesn’t answer them, then God doesn’t love them. I don’t fault anyone for feeling that, it’s just not a correct view of God according to scripture. /// God is a bully because he visit eternal whatever it is for whatever transpired during a very short lifetime. Its disproportionate. A concept central to criminal justice.

    Don’t expect God to simply come forward and rid our unlawful society of the evils that we have brought onto ourselves, simply because in our pride and narcissism we believe that we somehow deserve it, when not even one of us is blameless under the law, and being judged under the law has a penalty of separation from God. /// There you go again==mixing the free will issue with the natural acts of god issue. God doesn’t exist. I don’t expect him to do anything.

    In God’s due time, final judgement for every person will come, some to eternal life, some to *poof* eternally gone. /// Love the way you “know” what god does.

    Those people who are doing the evil acts will get their day of judgement, God promises that. /// Lots of people read the bible and come to a different conclusion.

    We are currently in the time of grace. God has given a very simple way out of that judgement for any person who chooses it (John 3:16). Note: but then anyone continuing to cultivate evil will be harshly judged. /// derp.

    So, still mad at God for having to go through these times of tribulation? /// God doesn’t exist. I’m not mad at him.

    Really, what is suffering through a lifetime of tribulation versus the possibility of an eternity of peace? /// or a lifetime of evil all as determined by god versus an eternity of….. *poof.*

    On a cosmological or eternal scale our lifetime is over in the blink of an eye. /// Exactly so. God has nothing to judge except the consequences of his own decisions.

    And in all honesty, just how bad off are most of us whiners right now anyway. /// You, me, and Dupre? We got it pretty good. The other 95% of the world? Not so much. Our grandkiddies???? I do fear for them given the consequences of our own decisions.

    Take from that what you will.
    All that I am posting is what the scriptures say. I didn’t write them. /// Scriptures say whatever you cherry pick from them. Old/New testament conflict being the easiest to point out.

    Fail.

    • deegee says:

      I’m just telling you what the scriptures say.
      That is exactly what you asked me to do.
      Then you get all angry and confrontational over it.
      Nowhere did I say what I personally believed.
      Yet you deride and belittle me and act superior.
      When all that I did was give you the answer to what you asked.
      There is a name for people like that.

      “of a god that would throw his children into an eternal hell”

      There is no eternal hell.

      “I reject your premise, and step forward.”

      It must be nice to have never done anything wrong in your entire life.
      That must be why discussions with you are pointless, you are perfect in your own mind.

      Sorry, but I wouldn’t even want to have a scientific discussion with you, you are so far out there.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        deegee in a rolling revelation continues to show how much sand is in his feet of clay says:
        6/21/2014 at 5:38 pm

        I’m just telling you what the scriptures say. /// I don’t think the scriptures say that if you violate gods law you go poof. I think you got some HEAVY personal editing going on…. just as in your responses throughout this thread.

        That is exactly what you asked me to do. /// I never said or implied anything close to it. Prove me wrong: copy and paste what you take as such a request.

        Then you get all angry and confrontational over it. /// I’m not angry at god, and I’m not angry at you. Confrontational??? Broad enough term to include a simple disagreement I suppose. But to be fair, your failures as a scholar are so overwhelming you are getting a dose of that as well.

        Nowhere did I say what I personally believed. // BS. What have you posted that you don’t believe?

        Yet you deride and belittle me and act superior. /// Well–if you are posting what you don’t believe, wouldn’t that be a compliment to our in fact more harmonious consitutions?

        When all that I did was give you the answer to what you asked. /// Copy and paste please. What I think of an my request of you was to: resolve the Epicurus Conundrum===BY RECOGNIZING you don’t know the nature of god and therefore should STFU.

        There is a name for people like that. /// Ohhh, another mystery?

        “of a god that would throw his children into an eternal hell”

        There is no eternal hell. /// Uh…. thats about all some of those tv ministries talk about. I guess they read the bible wrong huh? A quick google reveals about 25 bible passages addressing hell such as: ” “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” ===>boogey, boogey!!!

        “I reject your premise, and step forward.”

        It must be nice to have never done anything wrong in your entire life. /// Dipshit===I said just the opposite. Can’t you read?

        That must be why discussions with you are pointless, you are perfect in your own mind. /// Ha, ha. “The Religious Mindset”–teetering between perfection and damnation…no shades inbetween.

        Sorry, but I wouldn’t even want to have a scientific discussion with you, you are so far out there. //// Why? Because you got Hubble’s discovery wrong? Even the tv version???

        Ha, ha. Silly Hooman.

  22. reader says:

    BARTILLA, IRAQ—The Christians of Bartilla are wondering if these are the final days. Since the second century and the origins of Christianity in the Nineveh plains of northern Iraq, they have been unfortunate in their neighbors, suffering attacks and massacres at the hands of Persians, Iraqi Muslims and Kurds. And if geography is destiny, then it is surprising they are still here, but for how much longer they aren’t sure.
    http://thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/22/the-tragic-exodus-of-iraq-s-christians.html

    Survived since second century. Now with terrorists armed with modern weapons and a failed government they are history. Hey, you got to admit it was a long run.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist still in awe of the wonderment of it all says:

      As the world fills up with hoomans, any and all minorities of whatever description will be killed or assimilated into the larger mono culture.

      Its a statistical thing.

  23. Max says:

    Where is the Audience?

  24. reader says:

    “Kass has a problem not just with longevity and health but with the modern conception of freedom. There is a “mortal danger,” he writes, in the notion “that a person has a right over his body, a right that allows him to do whatever he wants to do with it.” He is troubled by cosmetic surgery, by gender reassignment, and by women who postpone motherhood or choose to remain single in their twenties. Sometimes his fixation on dignity takes him right off the deep end:

    Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone–a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive. … Eating on the street–even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat–displays [a] lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. … Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. … This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if we feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior.

    And, in 2001, this man, whose pro-death, anti-freedom views put him well outside the American mainstream, became the President’s adviser on bioethics–a position from which he convinced the president to outlaw federally funded research that used new stem-cell lines. In his speech announcing the stem-cell policy, Bush invited Kass to form the Council.”
    http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/The%20Stupidity%20of%20Dignity.htm

    They funded the pro-death anti-freedom agenda and you ended up with Iraq as the model country for the new order.

  25. reader says:

    Nudist Claims Catholic Saint Francis Embraced Body Freedom, Plans Naked March To Religious Shrine. By Brandon Mercer June 19, 2014 … http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/06/19/nudist-claims-catholic-saint-embraced-body-freedom-plans-naked-march-to-religious-shrine/

    Clothes make the man and the pope came out against made men. Death to the dresses. You were born naked because God wanted it that way.

  26. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist still in awe of the wonderment of it all says:

    Holy Crap Alfie, profound construction regardless of his own abysmal ignorance says:
    6/22/2014 at 3:46 am

    Atheism’s belief there is no God, requires the Atheist to be God’s equal, omniscient. Therefore God Himself. ///// Ha, ha. While I REJECT your constant drone that Atheists are irrantional BECAUSE they are religious in their beliefs, since YOU equate this ignorant state of being with Our Lord, let me underline your salient positions…………….WHeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Hence Atheism is logically self-contradictory, so irrational. /// If atheists are “like god” how then is this not a description of the god you worship but can’t explain?

    And it is amusing to watch Atheist blowhards wax bold about what they cannot possibly know, with such [U]religious zeal.[/U] //// Exactly. Epicurus Conundrum and all. So religious. One basic tenet of the “most” sophisticated is that God is a mystery, that we cannot know his mind===and then the onslaught of what he wants spills forth.

    However, contradicting all their arguments is the simple fact, our reality is a matrix according to particle physics—particles are intrinsically massless. That is another way of saying they are virtual. /// Then why do the Catholics have mass?

    Also:

    According to scripture—our matrix is generated by the infinite mind of the Eternal Son of God, God the Word (John 1:1ff):

    And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col 1:17 NAS) //// Like dried jizz on a Blue Dress?

    [B]So the very nature of reality, requires God exist to hold it all together.[/B]/// Well, in a multiverse, god could well be playing by different rules according to his nature…. although in final analysis, god must stand outside his own nature too.

    No God, no holding together. /// What god does by his will says nothing about what nature without god would be. You ass sume too much.

    Reply /// I’m kinda embarassed that I did. Forgive me Bezzlebub.

    • Steven Pinker says:

      “…Like dried jizz on a Blue Dress?”

      as if

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist still in awe of the wonderment of it all says:

        Ah…4 Tits…..you know me too well.

        Taking my lords name in vain. (sic)

        Well done.

        Note: As an antitheist, No “one” is a god to me…. I only conflated Pinkers area of expertise (linguistics) as indeed linguistics is how we come to know the universe: we give it names…. ie: words.

        ………..and thats how we come to think…. which is our highest calling as human beings.

        Try it.

        • Tim says:

          I think those are toes. They could be hiding tits but, to me, it looks like some little ‘…shna’ type character; deep in thought and purple because…….. deep in thought..

    • Tim says:

      “”Then why do the Catholics have mass?

      Again; As they point out, Colossians 1:17 lends an accredited, underwritten scientist to conclude that it is because they are full of Him.

      “”Alternatively, if a particle interacts significantly with the Higgs field, it will have a higher mass.

      “”Nicknamed the God particle, the subatomic Higgs helps explain why much of the mass in the universe exists.

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140623-higgs-boson-large-hadron-collider-science-lhc/

  27. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    Timmy you are demonstrating was I supposed 6 months back: you don’t like the public policy suggestions to cure co2 pollution so you are attacking the science trying to nip the issue in the bud. But the science is an independent fact. Its just bad thinking to confuse “whatever” the science is of AGW with whatever the political response might be. Surely you see that?

    ”you have ALREADY MADE UP YOUR POSITION…Why?

    Because the policy is preordained. /// How so? The policy for the last 100 years has been for big coal and oil to pollute as they see fit without charge or even criticism. As you noted, the changes are slow, but they are with us now.

    It does not matter one whit what co2 does to the atmosphere, /// of course it does. Pros and Cons to all we do, don’t do, and all points inbetween.

    the policy condems millions regardless. /// No….. its the AGW that is going to condemn people. “If we are smart” and act to curb its worst effects, it will be millions of people who escape the condemnation. You got things totally backwards.

    Haven’t you ever sat back and watched someone ruin a thing with a proceedure or method that you just knew to be incorrect; That you knew the outcome from the beginning but were powerless to stop it — ‘cleaning’ the plastic monitor with windex, for instance?? /// Of course==and the argument I make is don’t use the windex because it will ruin the plastic. I don’t say: Don’t use the Windex because it makes no difference. Windex either ruins plastic or it doesn’t. AGW either destroys our environment for advanced human culture, or it doesn’t.

    Now, I sit back and watch this control structure {that’s all it is bobbo, just another control structure} be parroted out onto the people knowing {call me an has-been imaginative futurist} what tears it leads to from the beginning and bitter that it splashes all over me. /// WHAT control structure? There isn’t any… thats the whole point. We are RIGHT NOW drowning in rises heat levels, ocean levels, etc…. the whole list. THAT is what is splashing on you.

    It’s funny now — to see the ‘solution’ be these efficient, compact cities when the root of the problem was concentrating people into cities in the first place — a stated goal of Dupont. People are naturally not liking ‘on the grid’. //// Lots of people like city life, lots like the country. I like both so live in the next farthest out suburb. The “root” of the problem is allocation of jobs and resources and a whole host of other issues. Thing is–city or country doesn’t matter because the pollution hits everyone the same, just as will the solutions. (sic–don’t quibble)

    Left to their own devices; clean, silent, efficient energy solutions would have been born out. /// Coal and oil burning is increasing. I can’t even imagine what the heck you are talking about.

    That will not be tolerated as individual empowerment is anathama to ‘government’ and, apparently, to those who feel the need to unabashadly pimp for them with little more background than a gradeschool coloring book depicting drowning polar bears and penguins with laserbeams on their heads. /// There is no individual empowerment when you are 6 feet underwater and the ocean food chain has collapsed.

    Take off the crazy glasses.

    • Tim says:

      sea level pro’lly gonna go up real quick like —

      http://techtimes.com/articles/8278/20140610/underwater-volcanoes-climate-change-reason-melting-west-antarctic-ice.htm

      things that make you go hmmm…

      mind the penguins

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

        I’m sure thats it as pumping trillions of tons of co2 into the air shouldn’t have any adverse effects at all.

        You are arguing like a theist now. Never in response to what you are challenged with but rather change the subject or repeat your mantra.

        ………………..I don’t know………………..
        ……………….You don’t know…………………..

        So… I trust the majority scientific position on the subject and will change my position when/if they do.

        its the best bet.

  28. reader says:

    Electricity is just organized lightning.

    “The triviality of [the] copyright [battles] tell you that when
    other sectors of the economy start to evince concerns about
    the Internet and the PC, that copyright will be revealed for
    a minor skirmish, and not a war. Why would other sectors nurse
    grudges against computers? Well, because the world we live
    in today is made of computers. We don’t have cars anymore,
    we have computers we ride in; we don’t have airplanes anymore,
    we have flying Solaris boxes with a big bucketful of SCADA
    controllers; a 3D printer is not a device, it’s a peripheral,
    and it only works connected to a computer; a radio is no longer
    a crystal, it’s a general-purpose computer with a fast ADC and
    a fast DAC and some software.”

    With the interstate closed it’s a good thing we don’t need cars now.

    “The essence of discipline is finding effective alternatives to punishment.

    To punish a child is to enrage him and make him uneducable. He becomes a hostage of hostility. A captive of rancor. A prisoner of vengeance.” http://eqi.org/ginott.htm

    They don’t have much discipline.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 19558 access attempts in the last 7 days.