The
following conversation resulted from this post (set off here) and highlights the absolute
intractability of "believers," who operate without fact or evidence
and who, when provided with ample evidence that their stance is flawed and
ridiculous, resort to avoidance, straw man arguments, attacks, insults and to
revising history as means to protect the "god" for which they have
not a shred of evidence. My comments are marked "WW," as in
WriterWriter.
AS ALWAYS, as much as I can, I have removed the names of the guilty here in order they be protected from exposure via their own stupidity.
AS ALWAYS, as much as I can, I have removed the names of the guilty here in order they be protected from exposure via their own stupidity.
COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER125
Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday,
Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School
shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House
Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during
this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.
They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it
received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every
politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert!
These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and
deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in
the wilderness... The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.
"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent
I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.
Your laws ignore our deepest needs; your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage, you've outlawed simple
prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms, and precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere, and ask the question
"Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws, through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand, That God is what we need!
"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of
body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our
make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in
and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational
systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as
theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a
nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to
hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy
occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They
immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away
our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric
and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws
can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real
villain lies within our own hearts.
"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott
IT:
My usual snark aside, I honestly
don't get this. Of all first world nations on earth, the US is BY FAR the most
religious and it also has by BY FAR the highest murder rate. In particular the
highest rate of gun violence. Gun regulation is definitely a problem for the US. So is the
selfish attitude towards any and all social costs such as health care including
mental health care? This is exemplified by the current Republican Party and
their general attitude of "I got mine, F** you". This is the party of
Social Conservatives and the Christian right. In other words, living by the
actual principles would be of use. Forcing everyone in society to deal with
bible study in public (whether they are Christian or not) will not be of use.
IT:
"I like your Christ; I do
not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Mahatma Gandhi
WW:
It is a despicable thing to say,
that a killer took these children because "god" is not allowed in
schools.
Such an allegation blames the victims for being in such a place; it blames legislators for making schools places of equality - because not everyone believes the same thing, the same version of the thing or the thing at all; and in north America, we are guaranteed equality in our schools and courts regardless of belief or not.
But worse, such an odious suggestion ignores that many of these children come from christian families; is this 'god' so capricious that the second people leave their "christian" homes, they are fair game?
And worse yet, such an appalling sentiment gives free ride to a "god" alleged to have created all things - humans, guns and mental illness included; to be all powerful, and so able to stop such events; all-knowing and so having foreknowledge that this young man would have significant mental illness, an illness 'created' by such a 'god;' that his mother would buy guns and train herself (to no avail) and her son to use them; and this "god" would have known that this sick young man would use the guns to kill those 27 people but did nothing at all. Is this "god" powerless? Vengeful? Impotent? Malicious?
THIS is the "god" this man wishes to have brought back into the very schools; his "god" so malfeasant and malevolent that it will refuse to acknowledge, let alone act on its own creations to stop them from murdering children?
This man is not thinking.
Such an allegation blames the victims for being in such a place; it blames legislators for making schools places of equality - because not everyone believes the same thing, the same version of the thing or the thing at all; and in north America, we are guaranteed equality in our schools and courts regardless of belief or not.
But worse, such an odious suggestion ignores that many of these children come from christian families; is this 'god' so capricious that the second people leave their "christian" homes, they are fair game?
And worse yet, such an appalling sentiment gives free ride to a "god" alleged to have created all things - humans, guns and mental illness included; to be all powerful, and so able to stop such events; all-knowing and so having foreknowledge that this young man would have significant mental illness, an illness 'created' by such a 'god;' that his mother would buy guns and train herself (to no avail) and her son to use them; and this "god" would have known that this sick young man would use the guns to kill those 27 people but did nothing at all. Is this "god" powerless? Vengeful? Impotent? Malicious?
THIS is the "god" this man wishes to have brought back into the very schools; his "god" so malfeasant and malevolent that it will refuse to acknowledge, let alone act on its own creations to stop them from murdering children?
This man is not thinking.
Also for the record, the
Republican party is the party of hate: they support guns - any and all; they
support ONE religion and vilify and exclude all others; hate is ensconced in
their doctrines; hate for women who think; hate for people who love who they
wish; hate for those whose biology gives them darker-pigmented skin; hate for
those whose first language is anything other than what passes for English in
the US - particularly if that language is Spanish. And yet this party, that
receives a significant part of its funding through the NRA, is, by their own
description, the most "christian."
What is shocking in the whole affair is the will of people to cling to things that are demonstrably false and demonstrably dangerous. When you ball those up and call those things "Politics," your country is doomed.
What is shocking in the whole affair is the will of people to cling to things that are demonstrably false and demonstrably dangerous. When you ball those up and call those things "Politics," your country is doomed.
MK (the main
offender here):
Wow, such angry people! The
entire point this man seeks to make is that when you diminish society's
deference to God, what ever God that may be, narcissism (sic) inevitably fills
the void and carnage ensues. (This is the first of this person's many insults: that
those who require evidence for extraordinary claims are narcissists - except he
doesn't understand that word or what it actually refers to...)
Ultimately, like Emilie Parker's dad said the day after the shooting, God gives us all free agency and can not take it away. The gunman chose what he would do with his agency; we all have to decide what we do with ours.
Ultimately, like Emilie Parker's dad said the day after the shooting, God gives us all free agency and can not take it away. The gunman chose what he would do with his agency; we all have to decide what we do with ours.
CM: (who will shortly
out herself as a very, very uneducated "christian." Watch for it)
God does not forcibly make
anybody believe in Him. He freely offers his gift of grace to everybody.
Unfortunately, many people choose not to accept it and they use their free will
to sin.
This is why there are horrible
tragedies such as this in the world (yes, "Virginia,"
except you ignore the basis for those tragedies...) These tragedies
hurt God as much and maybe more than they hurt us (oh fuck. What?).
God does not want these types of things to
happen and therefore continues to offer us His peace and love (really??? Well
you "god" is sure taking its sweet-ass time to y'know, step in...).
With regards to politics, there
are many more things at play than just a "religious" party and
"non-religious". No people are perfect and therefore there will never
be a perfect church, or Christian. The beauty is that God loves us even in our
unperfectness (sp??). All we have to do is accept Him (really? So, in the case of this shooter -
and his momma, who bought the guns and taught him to use them, and who was a
christian, acceptance stopped this crime how, exactly??).
WW:
CM, it is coercion to say
"you have a choice, but if you make a choice I don't like, you'll burn
forever."
Either you believe in me and do what I say or I kill you is NOT grace and it is NOT choice.
Many of the 'horrible tragedies to which you refer are committed in the name of "god," and I include here the thousands of children that are ejected from their communities due to some christian adult saying the child is "possessed" (Nigeria; and the rescuing organisation is SECULAR, not christian); I include the thousands upon thousands of people who are killed because of their sexuality, and the many thousands more who are rejected, refused rights, refused equality because their christian detractors pick a single Levitican law - and utterly ignore the other 18 or so in the same book - by which to abuse these people; I refer here to the millennia of women whose rights have been and still are denied thanks to tribal patriarchy in the christian bible.
Secondly, WHICH god are you referring to here?
What is your evidence for your choice
Please show how your evidence does not ALSO prove all other (approximately 5000) gods
Please explain why you do not believe in any of the other 4999
Either you believe in me and do what I say or I kill you is NOT grace and it is NOT choice.
Many of the 'horrible tragedies to which you refer are committed in the name of "god," and I include here the thousands of children that are ejected from their communities due to some christian adult saying the child is "possessed" (Nigeria; and the rescuing organisation is SECULAR, not christian); I include the thousands upon thousands of people who are killed because of their sexuality, and the many thousands more who are rejected, refused rights, refused equality because their christian detractors pick a single Levitican law - and utterly ignore the other 18 or so in the same book - by which to abuse these people; I refer here to the millennia of women whose rights have been and still are denied thanks to tribal patriarchy in the christian bible.
Secondly, WHICH god are you referring to here?
What is your evidence for your choice
Please show how your evidence does not ALSO prove all other (approximately 5000) gods
Please explain why you do not believe in any of the other 4999
IT:
Hateful? Really? I'm simply
saying that the premise is patently false. My point is that other first world
nations (Canada, Australia, Western Europe) are much less
religious than the US
and have drastically lower murder rates.
So clearly, reducing the
influence of religion does not have the impact that he (and you) claim. Have
your faith. Enjoy it, take comfort from it. I have no issue with that at all. I
do however take issue with the idea that me or my children should be forced to
participate in your faith. I send my children to public school to get an
education, not to be exposed to religion. If you want religion to be a part of
your child's education, great. There are options available to you. Don't take
away my options.
WW:
Point one: Exactly
Statistically, in the US, the states with the highest rates of religiosity also have the highest rates of crime, incarceration and gun deaths. They also have the lowest rates for education - particularly completed education.
Statistically, in the US, the states with the highest rates of religiosity also have the highest rates of crime, incarceration and gun deaths. They also have the lowest rates for education - particularly completed education.
Point two: Canada is a SECULAR society, as is the US. People in those SECULAR societies have the right to practice - or not - any religion, or not, they wish. People in those societies ALSO have the right to be free from having religion of any kind force-fed to them AND to be free from discrimination - which, it seems, comes most often from the religious.
Religious people do not know their own texts. In particular, christians are exhorted by their god to "go into your closet to pray," and not make loud, public demonstrations of faith.
Religion is a private and personal thing. Have it, but don't force it down anyone else's throat or bring it into their schools, courts, organisations.
CM:
I'm talking about Jesus, God and
Holy Spirit. I did a study on this once, but I forget the exact details (SEE??? These
people do NOT have even a working knowledge of their faith or its tenets),
so I have to do a little research.
According to my Bible's footnotes
(its
FOOTNOTES???), the verses in the Bible referring to Hell and burning
such as Matthew 5:22 refer to "an area of perpetually burning city dump in
a deep ravine outside Jerusalem
which became a figure for the final place of punishment". These verses
have been taken literally but I think there is more to it than that. Because of
this, I believe the burning is an interpretation. I believe that not accepting
God means that one would live an afterlife separate from God because this is
what was chosen. In my view nothing could be worse. Faith is a gift, all one
has to do is decide if they will open it.
WW:
MK, the gunman did NOT choose
free agency. He was a very, very ill young man and had been for his entire life.
To say that person was in any way in control of himself is again to blame a
victim.
BEFORE YOU GO OFF HERE: I do NOT excuse him his actions; however, that young man was not a regular person who had the capacity for reason and who one day woke up, decided to shoot his mother in the head four times, and then to calmly shuffle off to the local elementary school and kill 26 other people.
Those are NOT the actions of someone who was in any way able to make a choice like you're suggesting.
And before you bring "god" into any of this, first get your evidence in place and secondly, make sure your evidence does not also prove all other "gods" and also pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and Thor.
You have to establish "god" as an actual fact before you can start ascribing all this carnage to your "all mighty" who created that young man, his illness, the minerals and metals that make guns, the brains with which they are made, and which god decided, in his immense foreknowledge of everything and everyone to sit back and let 20 children be gunned down.
It is, frankly, a disgusting attitude.
BEFORE YOU GO OFF HERE: I do NOT excuse him his actions; however, that young man was not a regular person who had the capacity for reason and who one day woke up, decided to shoot his mother in the head four times, and then to calmly shuffle off to the local elementary school and kill 26 other people.
Those are NOT the actions of someone who was in any way able to make a choice like you're suggesting.
And before you bring "god" into any of this, first get your evidence in place and secondly, make sure your evidence does not also prove all other "gods" and also pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and Thor.
You have to establish "god" as an actual fact before you can start ascribing all this carnage to your "all mighty" who created that young man, his illness, the minerals and metals that make guns, the brains with which they are made, and which god decided, in his immense foreknowledge of everything and everyone to sit back and let 20 children be gunned down.
It is, frankly, a disgusting attitude.
MK:
I don't know where you get your
ideas about Canada.
Our head of state is the Queen and also the head of the Anglican Church. Our
constitution proclaims we are a nation founded upon the supremacy of God. Our
national anthem is a hymn asking God to keep our land glorious and free.
The problem addressed by Darrell Scott is not the allowing of different religious choices but the imposition of Godless secularism, what has become, through stealth, the "one true and only permissible state religion". We are not reaping what religious people have sown but the fruits that secularism has planted. Sadly, this whirlwind is merciless.
The problem addressed by Darrell Scott is not the allowing of different religious choices but the imposition of Godless secularism, what has become, through stealth, the "one true and only permissible state religion". We are not reaping what religious people have sown but the fruits that secularism has planted. Sadly, this whirlwind is merciless.
CM:
WW, sorry I just saw the rest of
your questions. I'd be happy to explain some of these things, but I think it
would be WAY to long of a post. I can send you an email if you want (I haven't
accepted this offer as yet, although the reply would probably make for a pretty
excellent and satirical piece).
WW:
CM, what is your evidence for
these "gods," and how does it not prove all others?
Sorry to tell you but there is no possibility "jesus" was a real person. That character is a remake of more than 20 others with identical or near-identical pedigrees, all dating from much prior to "jesus." Look up Horus.
Better yet, go here and watch the first 30 minutes:
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Otherwise, given that one cannot possibly believe any "god" has DNA or genes, nor can any "spirit" have such things, as those things are decidedly human biology, and given that biology, it is not possible for the very anglo-saxon-named "Mary" (for whom there is absolutely no evidence or history for) could have conceived a child without the help of a human male.
However, IF one can suspend reality to that point and assume a "spirit" did it, the simple fact of no DNA/genes would necessarily mean any child produced that way would be female. As such the story of "jesus" cannot be true. If said "spirit" had DNA/genes, then there is no "virgin" in this story.
Add to that there is not a single eye-witness of such a person - despite the 40 actively writing historians of the time. You would think that a person who was making such waves in society would be noted by historians of the time, but not a single note was made - not even in passing. The only mentions within a century of the alleged life of that person are made by men who were not alive at the time - meaning not eye-witnesses. The gospels were all written much later, the earliest, 60 years later, and NONE of them agree; in fact two of them make no mention at all of Mary or of any "virgin" birth.
The most oft-quoted is Josephus, who was not alive at the time and who, as a historian writing the history of JEWISH belief, was hardly likely to acknowledge the existence of the "messiah" because such an acknowledgement would have effectively terminated Judaism; as you surely know, Jewish people are still waiting for the FIRST coming.... there are four others who are referenced as having noted "jesus," but none of those was alive at the time either and none makes any more mention than "I heard this thing about this guy."
As for "god," it/he/she is an angry, jealous and fickle being, who can be stopped by iron chariots (that is biblical) and by state legislation if the odious T-shirt that is circulating is to be believed.
MK, the Canadian constitution makes it very, very clear this is a SECULAR nation in which one has the right to have a religion or not and in neither case be persecuted.
To you the same challenges: WHICH "god" are you referring to? Give evidence for this "god" that does not also support all other gods.
Explain why you do NOT believe in any (or all) of Thor, Zeus, Mithras, or any of the other 4999 or so "gods" that have appeared in human history.
Once you can explain why you do not believe in any of those "gods" you will understand why and how one can not believe in ANY; the missing ingredient for ALL is evidence (At NO point does this idiot even attempt to answer any of these questions; in fact, this idiot avoids these questions with a vengeance - and I do mean vengefully).
Sorry to tell you but there is no possibility "jesus" was a real person. That character is a remake of more than 20 others with identical or near-identical pedigrees, all dating from much prior to "jesus." Look up Horus.
Better yet, go here and watch the first 30 minutes:
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Otherwise, given that one cannot possibly believe any "god" has DNA or genes, nor can any "spirit" have such things, as those things are decidedly human biology, and given that biology, it is not possible for the very anglo-saxon-named "Mary" (for whom there is absolutely no evidence or history for) could have conceived a child without the help of a human male.
However, IF one can suspend reality to that point and assume a "spirit" did it, the simple fact of no DNA/genes would necessarily mean any child produced that way would be female. As such the story of "jesus" cannot be true. If said "spirit" had DNA/genes, then there is no "virgin" in this story.
Add to that there is not a single eye-witness of such a person - despite the 40 actively writing historians of the time. You would think that a person who was making such waves in society would be noted by historians of the time, but not a single note was made - not even in passing. The only mentions within a century of the alleged life of that person are made by men who were not alive at the time - meaning not eye-witnesses. The gospels were all written much later, the earliest, 60 years later, and NONE of them agree; in fact two of them make no mention at all of Mary or of any "virgin" birth.
The most oft-quoted is Josephus, who was not alive at the time and who, as a historian writing the history of JEWISH belief, was hardly likely to acknowledge the existence of the "messiah" because such an acknowledgement would have effectively terminated Judaism; as you surely know, Jewish people are still waiting for the FIRST coming.... there are four others who are referenced as having noted "jesus," but none of those was alive at the time either and none makes any more mention than "I heard this thing about this guy."
As for "god," it/he/she is an angry, jealous and fickle being, who can be stopped by iron chariots (that is biblical) and by state legislation if the odious T-shirt that is circulating is to be believed.
MK, the Canadian constitution makes it very, very clear this is a SECULAR nation in which one has the right to have a religion or not and in neither case be persecuted.
To you the same challenges: WHICH "god" are you referring to? Give evidence for this "god" that does not also support all other gods.
Explain why you do NOT believe in any (or all) of Thor, Zeus, Mithras, or any of the other 4999 or so "gods" that have appeared in human history.
Once you can explain why you do not believe in any of those "gods" you will understand why and how one can not believe in ANY; the missing ingredient for ALL is evidence (At NO point does this idiot even attempt to answer any of these questions; in fact, this idiot avoids these questions with a vengeance - and I do mean vengefully).
IT:
The Queen is our head of state
because of inertia and tradition. Secularism has grown because we are an
increasingly multi-cultural, multi-religious nation. This includes people like
me who do not subscribe to any religion or faith. I can tell you that I live my
life to a stricter moral code than many so called "Christians" that I
meet, and that I know more about their religions than they do. I require
neither the "stick" of hell or "carrot" of heaven in order
to live this way. So understand that about me when I say that blaming
secularism, and by extension secular people such as myself for the ills of
society is offensive, and more to the point it is wrong.
WW:
^Exactly. Well said, IT.
Just for fun, here's a list
(which is by no means exhaustive) of crimes - murders, rapes, etc. etc.
committed in the name of the christian god.
MK;
WW, I find it strange that you
demand such evidence of God (yes, I always ask for evidence when someone - an idiot in
this case - claims a thing exists) when you engage in such rampant
speculation about the gunman and his condition, devoid of evidence (this idiot seems
not to read any newspapers; had he, he would have come across the same
information I did about the young man - and his mother - in question).
The gunman's level of planning
clearly indicates a level of cognition that would allow him to choose not to
carry out his plan. The simple fact that he shot himself when police entered
the building showed a full understanding and comprehension of the consequences
of the events he set in motion. He made his choice using the agency God grants
us all and God, in His wisdom, will judge him for it (this idiot's position is not only wrong and
uninformed, it completely ignores the fact of the young man's long-term mental
illness and the realities of his life: his mother is a "prepper" and
an evangelical; divorced family, father distant but involved... link:
http://goo.gl/WsvkZ
I don't know why you are so obviously angry with religion and religious people (Ah... that old argument. He won't give evidence but he'll attack anyone who pushes against his statements. This is the usual tactic of someone who has no argument).
I don't know why you are so obviously angry with religion and religious people (Ah... that old argument. He won't give evidence but he'll attack anyone who pushes against his statements. This is the usual tactic of someone who has no argument).
Before you blame all that is
wrong with America
on the religious you should ponder if their beliefs are there because they have
seen the effect of the irreligious on society. Don't forget that in Columbine
one of the gunmen asked a girl if she believed in God and then shot her dead
because she said yes.
CM:
WW, yes I agree that many
horrible things have been done in the name of the Christian God, which is not
God's will (really?
Then why doesn't your all-powerful "god" step in and stop things that
are not its will? Hmmm???).
It has to be noted that several
atrocities have happened with other religious entities as well as atheist
entities (No, my friend, there is not one
single incident that was done in the name of atheism). The goal of
Christianity is to love God and move towards becoming like Him. Nobody will be
like Him immediately and everyone will make mistakes along the way. You have to
admit that there are also SEVERAL things that have been done by Christians that
have helped many. For example, Mother Teresa for one (Mother Teresa made a job out of letting
people die. That woman capitalised on poverty, illness and death. She had the
world's powerful at her beck and call and was in possession of MILLIIONS of
dollars, with which she could easily have bought medicines and medical care but
she did not. She was evil), as well as several Christian ministries
in Calgary such as the Dream Centre and Acadia Place (I didn't ask this person but what exactly
does either of these places do that atheists/humanists do not and cannot do?
That good can only be done by the religious is false, first of all but does not
bear out in reality, secondly).
IT:
CM, people have done wonderful
and horrible things in the name of every faith. I would actually argue that
Mother Teresa was not who you think she was, but do not argue that some very
good things are done in the name of religion. I suspect the point WW was trying to make is that many
terrible things are also done in the name of Christianity, and it isn't
realistic to present only the good things.
WW:
MK, there is ample evidence
emerging today about Adam Lanza and his mental health.
I did a quick search just now - but have read a substantial number of articles today - and turned up more than 21 MILLION results. Here is the link:
adam Lanza + mental health - Google Search
I did a quick search just now - but have read a substantial number of articles today - and turned up more than 21 MILLION results. Here is the link:
adam Lanza + mental health - Google Search
Last point: MK, if one asserts
the existence of something it is to them to PROVE or support that assertion.
As an example, were I to tell you I can fly, the first thing you would say is "prove it."
If you assert there is an invisible man who creates all things, all the earth and everything in it (from Genesis), but stands back and watches children he created being mowed down by a boy who he created who had a mental illness he created, then you must prove it.
As I said, I have an excellent knowledge of this subject area, including the part pertaining to burden of proof; that rests with you.
As an example, were I to tell you I can fly, the first thing you would say is "prove it."
If you assert there is an invisible man who creates all things, all the earth and everything in it (from Genesis), but stands back and watches children he created being mowed down by a boy who he created who had a mental illness he created, then you must prove it.
As I said, I have an excellent knowledge of this subject area, including the part pertaining to burden of proof; that rests with you.
CM:
I did not always believe in God.
But, now I know there is a God because I have felt his power in my life. All I can
say is that faith is a gift; one just has to decide if they will open it, and
I'm glad I did (I
respond to this bullshit in a bit).
MK:
Wow, Julie such radical militant
secularism (Ah...
the attempted insult. The terms "radical," "militant," and,
for this person, "secularism," are designed to diminish the intended
victim's credibility. However, this person doesn't understand the terms or
their definitions. He does, however, use them as an attack).
Demanding I prove God exists but also saying you don't have to prove he doesn't (yes, because this person makes the claim! If one makes a claim for something, one must establish that something actually exists). Neither is provable. If you understood the bible you would understand that faith is part of God's plan. Who would defy God if it were certain he existed (Um, exactly! As there is utterly no evidence of any 'god' there is no reason NOT to "defy." However, just to put a point on it, "defy" in this person's vernacular means "live life NOT as a sheep")?
By their fruits you shall know them. Look at the results of the prominent secular atheist philosophies. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Pot, Hitler (**NOT an atheist), Mao and all the rest. Collectively they have killed more people than all other causes combined (NOT true; the christian wars, the inquisitions, the witch burnings, the simple act of Rome establishing the political structure of 2000 years ago, have taken MANY more lives). Kill the God who is over us all and it becomes very easy to kill those whom you deem beneath you (what bullshit).
Intellectually we could go on and on and on, but this isn't intellectual, it's emotional (Right. So again, no proof at all because this person has just 'moved the goalposts;' I don't have to operate on an intellectual level; this is all emotional). Your pain is obvious, your anger seen by all (This is also a very common means of moving the goalposts; the writer here refuses to answer the questions or provide evidence for his claims and resorts to attacking the person asking the questions and questioning their emotions and motivations. It is a fraudulent and frustrating tactic).
Demanding I prove God exists but also saying you don't have to prove he doesn't (yes, because this person makes the claim! If one makes a claim for something, one must establish that something actually exists). Neither is provable. If you understood the bible you would understand that faith is part of God's plan. Who would defy God if it were certain he existed (Um, exactly! As there is utterly no evidence of any 'god' there is no reason NOT to "defy." However, just to put a point on it, "defy" in this person's vernacular means "live life NOT as a sheep")?
By their fruits you shall know them. Look at the results of the prominent secular atheist philosophies. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Pot, Hitler (**NOT an atheist), Mao and all the rest. Collectively they have killed more people than all other causes combined (NOT true; the christian wars, the inquisitions, the witch burnings, the simple act of Rome establishing the political structure of 2000 years ago, have taken MANY more lives). Kill the God who is over us all and it becomes very easy to kill those whom you deem beneath you (what bullshit).
Intellectually we could go on and on and on, but this isn't intellectual, it's emotional (Right. So again, no proof at all because this person has just 'moved the goalposts;' I don't have to operate on an intellectual level; this is all emotional). Your pain is obvious, your anger seen by all (This is also a very common means of moving the goalposts; the writer here refuses to answer the questions or provide evidence for his claims and resorts to attacking the person asking the questions and questioning their emotions and motivations. It is a fraudulent and frustrating tactic).
It blinds you to those things
sitting right in front of you (SUCH AS??? GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE!) and denies
you the peace that you seek by rejecting the long standing traditions of your
family. I hope you find that peace but you won't do it here and you won't do it
without dealing with whatever caused you all that pain.
WW:
CM, honestly say what you have in
your life that is NOT due to the other PEOPLE in your life. If you can cite one
thing where NO human was in any way involved... It is insulting to the people
around you - friends, family, teachers, doctors and nurses (if that applies)
and even strangers, to attribute the effects of their actions and goodness to
an invisible "man." It is the people - flesh and blood humans - who
make our lives good and our thanks and faith is more appropriately given to
them than some invisible 'man.'
MK, if you state a thing exists you must provide evidence to support your statement. Whether you like that or not is immaterial. You cannot make a statement and require someone else to prove you are right. That is not how the burden of proof works. Besides, if you're so very sure, provide evidence for what makes you sure.
Hitler was a devout Catholic. Devout. The entire frontispiece to Mein Kampf is a dedication to god. Every SS officer and soldier in the nazi regime wore a belt buckle inscribed with Gott mit uns - god with us.
Hitler's atrocities were fully and openly committed in the name of god for the good of catholicism and with the blessing of the then pope and the vatican - which was the beneficiary of a outrageous amount of wealth by virtue of killing the original owners, the vatican demanding poverty and chastity only for those NOT inside its walls.
The others you cite here may well have been secular, atheists; who knows. They were, however, decidedly all psychopaths and, with the exception of Hitler, did not commit atrocities in the name of anything other than their own pursuit of power. I say it is a far worse thing to commit atrocities in the name of whatever your particular god might be.
Otherwise, you may psychoanalyse me all you wish, my friend, but you are STILL avoiding any offer to provide evidence or proof for your god - that doesn't also prove all others; until you leave off doing that, you may say whatever you wish about me personally, none of which in any way proves the existence of your 'god' or any other. That is the nature of the straw man argument; it is an intellectual side step that immediately exposes the straw man as not having a basis for his claims and so trying to distract. That is otherwise known as a shell game - you see those in non-religious circuses quite often too.
So MK:
What is your evidence of this thing you are so convinced exists?
How can you, in good conscience, give that malevolent being a free ride?
I realise that people who believe as you do must, at all costs, and no matter how many hoops must be jumped, no matter how much innate morality must be ignored, no matter how many holes in the stories there are, absolutely ignore it all, override their innate intelligence AND resort to insulting strangers, calling them mentally ill, suggesting they are in 'pain', rather than taking a very public opportunity to provide evidence for your claims and do EXACTLY what your bible exhorts you to do and CONVERT someone.
I hardly think making an enemy by insults and castigations is the means by which you will do any of your 'god's' work: your comments here do not entice me into your fold because I have been in that fold and have grown up around people like you - those who revile anyone who truly questions - who leaves the milk of childhood for the meat of maturity (Corinthians 3;2).
I will also say your fear is showing; fear of what you know to be true being exposed. I had this fear and I too was a vocal, dedicated christian who took it very personally when anyone would dare to question the "truth." However, one cannot have a solid faith if one is not willing to turn over the rocks - and turning over the rocks will expose a truth you already know.
MK, if you state a thing exists you must provide evidence to support your statement. Whether you like that or not is immaterial. You cannot make a statement and require someone else to prove you are right. That is not how the burden of proof works. Besides, if you're so very sure, provide evidence for what makes you sure.
Hitler was a devout Catholic. Devout. The entire frontispiece to Mein Kampf is a dedication to god. Every SS officer and soldier in the nazi regime wore a belt buckle inscribed with Gott mit uns - god with us.
Hitler's atrocities were fully and openly committed in the name of god for the good of catholicism and with the blessing of the then pope and the vatican - which was the beneficiary of a outrageous amount of wealth by virtue of killing the original owners, the vatican demanding poverty and chastity only for those NOT inside its walls.
The others you cite here may well have been secular, atheists; who knows. They were, however, decidedly all psychopaths and, with the exception of Hitler, did not commit atrocities in the name of anything other than their own pursuit of power. I say it is a far worse thing to commit atrocities in the name of whatever your particular god might be.
Otherwise, you may psychoanalyse me all you wish, my friend, but you are STILL avoiding any offer to provide evidence or proof for your god - that doesn't also prove all others; until you leave off doing that, you may say whatever you wish about me personally, none of which in any way proves the existence of your 'god' or any other. That is the nature of the straw man argument; it is an intellectual side step that immediately exposes the straw man as not having a basis for his claims and so trying to distract. That is otherwise known as a shell game - you see those in non-religious circuses quite often too.
So MK:
What is your evidence of this thing you are so convinced exists?
How can you, in good conscience, give that malevolent being a free ride?
I realise that people who believe as you do must, at all costs, and no matter how many hoops must be jumped, no matter how much innate morality must be ignored, no matter how many holes in the stories there are, absolutely ignore it all, override their innate intelligence AND resort to insulting strangers, calling them mentally ill, suggesting they are in 'pain', rather than taking a very public opportunity to provide evidence for your claims and do EXACTLY what your bible exhorts you to do and CONVERT someone.
I hardly think making an enemy by insults and castigations is the means by which you will do any of your 'god's' work: your comments here do not entice me into your fold because I have been in that fold and have grown up around people like you - those who revile anyone who truly questions - who leaves the milk of childhood for the meat of maturity (Corinthians 3;2).
I will also say your fear is showing; fear of what you know to be true being exposed. I had this fear and I too was a vocal, dedicated christian who took it very personally when anyone would dare to question the "truth." However, one cannot have a solid faith if one is not willing to turn over the rocks - and turning over the rocks will expose a truth you already know.
IT:
Sigh. MK this will be my last
post here. Julie's point about proof is simply the scientific method. Claims
require proof, including claims that there is a god. This is not
something that can be proven, which is why it's called faith. The difficulty I
have with your positions is that you present your faith as fact (I love this guy).
I understand that in your mind it is fact, but why is your Christian faith to
be taken as fact and not Islam, Hinduism, or any other faith (Note: MK never
responds to this question)? As for the talking point about Atheists
being responsible for more murder than all other causes combined, it is old and
discredited and you would do yourself a favour to research it. For example Hitler
was Catholic and the Nazi Party platform explicitly endorsed and promoted
Christianity.
Entry removed for irrelevance
WW:
WW:
I have posted a rather long list
of atrocities committed in the name of the christian god (above)
There is NO list of atrocities committed in the name of atheism.
There is NO list of atrocities committed in the name of atheism.
There ARE atrocities committed by
atheists. There is NOT, however, any atrocity ever that was committed in the
name of atheism. Never.
MK, here is that list again. PLEASE explain to me WHERE your "god" was when all these things were going on. Please explain why your loving god, who created all things including good AND EVIL, NEVER steps in to stop the actions of the beings you claim your "god" created (MK never responds to any of this. People like this CAN'T respond because doing so will explode their myth and I think they know it).
Please explain why this "god" of yours is endlessly invisible. ... except when it is pissed off and drowning the entire world (the Noah story). Or suggesting the tribes kill the neighbouring tribes - all the men, boys and married women but they can keep the virgins as spoils.... Or tell me why this lovely 'god' of yours thinks it a good punishment for naughty children who call a man "baldie" to be torn apart and killed by bears? Or, how about you explain to me how your "god" thinks his followers will be so happy about bashing other tribes' babies against the rocks to kill them? HMMM???
Oh... and before you go all "that's old testament" on me, may I remind you of Matthew 5;18-19 and also Leviticus is also old testament.... So, either you follow christ and adhere to all the old laws that will not pass away until he returns, or you don't. If you're wearing a shirt of mixed fabrics at the moment and you're eating any foods that were grown in a field along side others - your basic mixed crop - you're in trouble. Also, if that's your avatar, you cut your hair of the temples, which is also a sin... and I suspect you may have, if you're married, share a bed with a menstruating woman, the punishment for which is death....
And exactly how did a 600 year-old drunk manage to load all the world's animals (iguanas and penguins?) into a boat 1/3 the size of the Titanic, load in all the specialised food they'd need - and keep it fresh for a year - keep them from dying and killing each other, deal with all the literal shit that would pile up on a daily basis, keep a wooden boat afloat for a year and then put them all back where they belonged - with no grass or prey left at all for them to eat and hope they'd survive a week, let alone reproduce. #ridiculous.
MK, here is that list again. PLEASE explain to me WHERE your "god" was when all these things were going on. Please explain why your loving god, who created all things including good AND EVIL, NEVER steps in to stop the actions of the beings you claim your "god" created (MK never responds to any of this. People like this CAN'T respond because doing so will explode their myth and I think they know it).
Please explain why this "god" of yours is endlessly invisible. ... except when it is pissed off and drowning the entire world (the Noah story). Or suggesting the tribes kill the neighbouring tribes - all the men, boys and married women but they can keep the virgins as spoils.... Or tell me why this lovely 'god' of yours thinks it a good punishment for naughty children who call a man "baldie" to be torn apart and killed by bears? Or, how about you explain to me how your "god" thinks his followers will be so happy about bashing other tribes' babies against the rocks to kill them? HMMM???
Oh... and before you go all "that's old testament" on me, may I remind you of Matthew 5;18-19 and also Leviticus is also old testament.... So, either you follow christ and adhere to all the old laws that will not pass away until he returns, or you don't. If you're wearing a shirt of mixed fabrics at the moment and you're eating any foods that were grown in a field along side others - your basic mixed crop - you're in trouble. Also, if that's your avatar, you cut your hair of the temples, which is also a sin... and I suspect you may have, if you're married, share a bed with a menstruating woman, the punishment for which is death....
And exactly how did a 600 year-old drunk manage to load all the world's animals (iguanas and penguins?) into a boat 1/3 the size of the Titanic, load in all the specialised food they'd need - and keep it fresh for a year - keep them from dying and killing each other, deal with all the literal shit that would pile up on a daily basis, keep a wooden boat afloat for a year and then put them all back where they belonged - with no grass or prey left at all for them to eat and hope they'd survive a week, let alone reproduce. #ridiculous.
And I take it, as you're a
bible-believing christian who follows christ who says the rules are still in
play, that you're cool with selling your daughters off as slaves or, if not
that, forcing them to marry anyone who rapes them - and providing them a dowry
to go to that rapist? Also, how do you manage to keep slaves in modern times -
it's quite frowned on - and illegal, I'm sure - but your god's a fan - as long
as you don't beat them to death - at least not too often. And as for your kids
(if you have any) which edge of the city do you take them to to be stoned for
being unruly?
Seriously, if that's the kind of morality you have - y'know, the biblical kind - um.... no thanks.
Seriously, if that's the kind of morality you have - y'know, the biblical kind - um.... no thanks.
WW:
@CM, very good point. Adam Lanza
was extremely ill and had been most of his life. I understand his mother was
not only an evangelical, she was a survivalist; in that context, someone who is
profoundly mentally ill didn't have a chance. His mom gave him training to use
all those legally-acquired guns - two handguns and an automatic rifle - and a fourth
weapon in the car, I understand - for self-protection. I wonder if she believed
having a gun in the house would protect her... apparently she didn't know of or
care about the very high correlation between gun deaths an injuries in homes
where guns are present - and the very, very low incidence of an intruder being
scared off or shot when a gun is present; it's tough to get your safely-stored
guns out of storage in an invasion scenario... however, your mentally-ill son
who you've trained DOES know where the guns and ammo are and DOES know he's a
rotten sinner and headed for hell anyway, so who cares?
MK:
Wow again, WW, if everyone
interpreted the bible the way you do you might have a point (Yes, I would -
and people who have studied the bible DO interpret it that way).
However, your interpretation is clear twisted towards no other end than
discrediting religion and is thus useless (Ah. I see. So, when I bring facts into the argument, this
person rejects them out of hand because they conflict with his carefully-constructed
but completely uninformed understanding of his religion. Got it).
How hypocritical is it to interpret the word of God while denying his existence
(oh stupid
boy. I didn't deny. I said, "Where is the EVIDENCE for this thing you
claim!)?
Hitler removed God from Germany's national motto and put himself in God's place (Wrong). You can't get more secular atheist than that. Communism is synonymous with atheism so saying no one has been killed in the name of atheism is ridiculous (Oh brother...).
As for Christianity being right, I guess you just have to look at the world and see pragmatically what works. I have a feeling that would result in a much larger argument (at this point, I realised this person had utterly avoided the links I posted - twice - and was very comfortable in his ignorance and terrified to challenge anything he was stating).
Hitler removed God from Germany's national motto and put himself in God's place (Wrong). You can't get more secular atheist than that. Communism is synonymous with atheism so saying no one has been killed in the name of atheism is ridiculous (Oh brother...).
As for Christianity being right, I guess you just have to look at the world and see pragmatically what works. I have a feeling that would result in a much larger argument (at this point, I realised this person had utterly avoided the links I posted - twice - and was very comfortable in his ignorance and terrified to challenge anything he was stating).
WW:
Darling, I can give you the
verses - all of them - if you wish... but then, you're the faithful one; I'm
sure you know exactly where they are. The argument "you're twisting the
meaning" falls on deaf ears if you're cherry picking - i.e. wearing mixed
fabrics for instance... It is disingenuous to not know the basics of the book
you say you believe in. Are you actually denying those things exist in your
bible? Seriously?
Are you suggesting I'm "interpreting" the Noah story - one of the key stories of your faith? If you are, explain my 'interpretation' and where it fails (this person never rises to this challenge - never points out the flaws in my arguments - because he knows I am actually referencing scripture and if he goes looking, he'll find it - and I suspect he hasn't ever contemplated any of this, because churches tend much to avoid these subjects).
Religion, quite readily disproves itself with the slightest research....
Hitler did no such thing. Are you actually denying the FACTS of that epoch? Seriously??? Hitler was a devout catholic who was SURE 'god' was on his side and had the pope telling him that was true. C'mon. Your argument is bloody weak!
You're suggesting that "christianity" works? Oh man. Yes. that would definitely elicit a whole other argument, which, my friend, I'm sure, given that you have utterly avoided every opportunity to respond to specifics here, you would not have substantiation for either.
Are you suggesting I'm "interpreting" the Noah story - one of the key stories of your faith? If you are, explain my 'interpretation' and where it fails (this person never rises to this challenge - never points out the flaws in my arguments - because he knows I am actually referencing scripture and if he goes looking, he'll find it - and I suspect he hasn't ever contemplated any of this, because churches tend much to avoid these subjects).
Religion, quite readily disproves itself with the slightest research....
Hitler did no such thing. Are you actually denying the FACTS of that epoch? Seriously??? Hitler was a devout catholic who was SURE 'god' was on his side and had the pope telling him that was true. C'mon. Your argument is bloody weak!
You're suggesting that "christianity" works? Oh man. Yes. that would definitely elicit a whole other argument, which, my friend, I'm sure, given that you have utterly avoided every opportunity to respond to specifics here, you would not have substantiation for either.
MK:
Hitler changed Ein Reich, Ein
Volk, Ein Gott to Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer. The Nazis philosophical
roots come from Nietzsche, a well known anti-Christ (Nietzsche is
brilliant and yes, atheist - and brilliant; click here for quotes).
I have read the bible and I am familiar with all those verses, although I would not interpret them as you would. To paraphrase Reagan, what is an atheist, someone who has read the bible and dismissed it; what is a Christian, some one who has read the bible and understands it (Both these statements are utter bullshit: Atheists on balance have a FAR greater knowledge of what's in the bible than christians have - that plays out every time there's a discussion like this one; the christians are always caught with their pants down, not knowing what's in their own book; secondly, atheists do not reject the bible: as a literary work, it is unquestionably interesting but it is not, cannot and should not be considered historical in any other sense than interpretive, as there is NO historical or archaeological support for the majority of its characters).
Proof of God's existence doesn't come from a book (OH REALLY!?), it comes from living life and learning to recognize His hand in things, even when they are difficult. You were raised in faith but something happened that made you think God abandoned you (thank you for your baseless psychoanalysis, speaking of narcissism... ), even though you were taught that he loved you. You rant and rave that there is no God but something inside of you won't let you believe it, no matter how much you profess it, no matter how much you want to believe it and make the pain of that perceived abandonment go away. He didn't abandon you. Turn to Him and you may find that peace you have been so long denied (Oh for fuck's sake... could this person just please answer any of the proposed 'where's the evidence' questions?)
I have read the bible and I am familiar with all those verses, although I would not interpret them as you would. To paraphrase Reagan, what is an atheist, someone who has read the bible and dismissed it; what is a Christian, some one who has read the bible and understands it (Both these statements are utter bullshit: Atheists on balance have a FAR greater knowledge of what's in the bible than christians have - that plays out every time there's a discussion like this one; the christians are always caught with their pants down, not knowing what's in their own book; secondly, atheists do not reject the bible: as a literary work, it is unquestionably interesting but it is not, cannot and should not be considered historical in any other sense than interpretive, as there is NO historical or archaeological support for the majority of its characters).
Proof of God's existence doesn't come from a book (OH REALLY!?), it comes from living life and learning to recognize His hand in things, even when they are difficult. You were raised in faith but something happened that made you think God abandoned you (thank you for your baseless psychoanalysis, speaking of narcissism... ), even though you were taught that he loved you. You rant and rave that there is no God but something inside of you won't let you believe it, no matter how much you profess it, no matter how much you want to believe it and make the pain of that perceived abandonment go away. He didn't abandon you. Turn to Him and you may find that peace you have been so long denied (Oh for fuck's sake... could this person just please answer any of the proposed 'where's the evidence' questions?)
IT:
I know I should leave it alone MK,
but seriously that is your "evidence" that Hitler was atheist (my bullets
added)?
- How about the fact that the public platform of the party endorsed Christianity?
- How about the fact that in addition to Jews, the Nazi's rounded up and murdered homosexuals and atheists?
- How about the fact that Hitler had well known ties and support from the Vatican?
I don't really care about this
argument about Hitler, except that you distort well documented fact and use it
to try to paint atheists and atheism as evil. Enough of this. You clearly
cannot or will not look at facts objectively.
WW:
Oh MK, that is indeed ridiculous.
NONE of that is proof. All of it is your position - an emotional position.
Here's what you have NOT done:
Here's what you have NOT done:
- Provided EVIDENCE. Saying a thing is so does not make it so; if it does because of a book, Harry Potter is true.
- You have NOT provided ANY evidence, let alone that which would show your "god" exists when the other 4999 or so do not.
- You have NOT specified why you choose your "god" over the other choices, nor have you described why you do not believe in any of those others
As to your comprehension of
atheism, you obviously do not even know the basic meaning of the word. A
-without; theism - gods. Atheists do not reject gods; the simply state - and
please read this carefully!
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for ANY GOD.
If you, as a good christian wish to sway any atheist, you must present your EVIDENCE in a way that is convincing. It would probably be a good idea to do that in a context of NOT insulting people's intelligence, experience, research, education, logic and reason.
I have not once said here or anywhere else "there is no god." I have repeatedly asked you for EVIDENCE of the 'god' you say exists and you have provided none. You have opted, instead, for the USUAL and PREDICTABLE tactic of insulting and attacking and proffering straw man arguments.
My friend, I have seven years in this field and I have heard all of what you've said so many times, I've lost count.
What I have never heard, not from my family, my church or any other church I've attended, not from the apologists, not from those who seek to pervert history and deny archaeology, not from those who can't understand a simple time line is EVIDENCE.
I realise you come from a religious paradigm that "Believe in me or I will burn you forever" as its mantra and that your religion teaches people to instil religion by force or coercion but the time for that is very, very quickly passing.
The fact that there is no limit to the research a person can do - because GOOGLE is, in actual fact, the oracle - means that the age of coercive, repressive religions based on tribal stories more than 2000 years old is at an end.
The ONLY way it will not come to an end is for your "god" to literally appear. It has NOT in all of this planet's life and it certainly has not in the time span homosapiens have walked this earth. It does not during any war - and if you still claim Hitler was an atheist, then why didn't your 'god' appear to save its chosen people. Hitler being a devout christian was STILL left to burn in an underground bunker after committing a genocidal atrocity. You can't have it both ways: either your 'god' steps in to stop such a horrific crime or your 'god' gets on side with a true believer.
As to your suggestions re Hitler here, that is exactly the type of disgusting, revisionism that christians MUST resort to in order to absolve their 'god.' The FACT is, however, MK, Hitler was very much a christian with the backing of the also very christian vatican.
You have not even clicked that link, have you? You will not for any reason even dare to consider your position is completely, utterly flawed and that there is some 2000 years of PROOF that your position is flawed, in that christianity - because it was initially a political structure - was and continues to be equal to Islam, lethal in its quest to subjugate humans and create them as unthinking serfs who will kill other humans in the name of their 'god,' for which they have now, never have had and never will have the SLIGHTEST atom of EVIDENCE.
With respect to the initial subject, being the horrific crime in Sandy Hook, you have ALSO ignored the FACT that this mother and her son were CHRISTIANS, which flies in the face of your assertion people need more 'god.' What tripe.
The hoops you jump through MK! What a waste of time. Wake up.
You have made it AMPLY clear you refuse any intrusion of logic and evidence that you will not, under any circumstances provide evidence for your claims, and that you will resort to attack rather than analyse your position - and you have done so in public.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for ANY GOD.
If you, as a good christian wish to sway any atheist, you must present your EVIDENCE in a way that is convincing. It would probably be a good idea to do that in a context of NOT insulting people's intelligence, experience, research, education, logic and reason.
I have not once said here or anywhere else "there is no god." I have repeatedly asked you for EVIDENCE of the 'god' you say exists and you have provided none. You have opted, instead, for the USUAL and PREDICTABLE tactic of insulting and attacking and proffering straw man arguments.
My friend, I have seven years in this field and I have heard all of what you've said so many times, I've lost count.
What I have never heard, not from my family, my church or any other church I've attended, not from the apologists, not from those who seek to pervert history and deny archaeology, not from those who can't understand a simple time line is EVIDENCE.
I realise you come from a religious paradigm that "Believe in me or I will burn you forever" as its mantra and that your religion teaches people to instil religion by force or coercion but the time for that is very, very quickly passing.
The fact that there is no limit to the research a person can do - because GOOGLE is, in actual fact, the oracle - means that the age of coercive, repressive religions based on tribal stories more than 2000 years old is at an end.
The ONLY way it will not come to an end is for your "god" to literally appear. It has NOT in all of this planet's life and it certainly has not in the time span homosapiens have walked this earth. It does not during any war - and if you still claim Hitler was an atheist, then why didn't your 'god' appear to save its chosen people. Hitler being a devout christian was STILL left to burn in an underground bunker after committing a genocidal atrocity. You can't have it both ways: either your 'god' steps in to stop such a horrific crime or your 'god' gets on side with a true believer.
As to your suggestions re Hitler here, that is exactly the type of disgusting, revisionism that christians MUST resort to in order to absolve their 'god.' The FACT is, however, MK, Hitler was very much a christian with the backing of the also very christian vatican.
You have not even clicked that link, have you? You will not for any reason even dare to consider your position is completely, utterly flawed and that there is some 2000 years of PROOF that your position is flawed, in that christianity - because it was initially a political structure - was and continues to be equal to Islam, lethal in its quest to subjugate humans and create them as unthinking serfs who will kill other humans in the name of their 'god,' for which they have now, never have had and never will have the SLIGHTEST atom of EVIDENCE.
With respect to the initial subject, being the horrific crime in Sandy Hook, you have ALSO ignored the FACT that this mother and her son were CHRISTIANS, which flies in the face of your assertion people need more 'god.' What tripe.
The hoops you jump through MK! What a waste of time. Wake up.
You have made it AMPLY clear you refuse any intrusion of logic and evidence that you will not, under any circumstances provide evidence for your claims, and that you will resort to attack rather than analyse your position - and you have done so in public.
MK:
You claim I'm not objective(Yes, because
you've provided absolutely NO support for any of your arguments AND you've
resorted to revisionist tactics)? Really, Hitler could claim to be
Catholic (oh
for shit's sake! Hitler's Mein Kampf was an ODE to is catholicism - and a
rejection of his Judaism; his father was Jewish!) and seek support
politically from the Vatican
but any sane person looking at the Nazis can tell they worship the "Cult
of War". And Hitler was just one of the many people I mentioned.
You claim to be objective and blame religious people for the world's ills but
turn a blind eye to massive death and destruction caused by atheists,
destruction that dwarfs any evils committed in the name of religion. You're
offended that I portray atheism as evil? An objective look at the BILLIONS
slaughtered in the name of Godless philosophies shows that it is the greatest
evil the world has ever known.
As for evidence of God, it's abundant and all around us. Though people view Him from different perspectives the vast majority of people in the country, and the world, believe in a supreme being. You ask for evidence but, having run into your type before, you would accept none of what I present and would only mock what I hold sacred. You don't cast pearls before swine. You claim to be scientific but if you held up such an absolute standard of proof to any scientific theory you would dismiss everything, including your own existence.
I don't know what you hope to achieve with all your railing against religion. Those of us who do believe in a God who rules over us all seek peace, prosperity and good will towards all mankind, especially at this time of year. I hope you have a Merry Christmas or what ever you atheists do at this time of year.
As for evidence of God, it's abundant and all around us. Though people view Him from different perspectives the vast majority of people in the country, and the world, believe in a supreme being. You ask for evidence but, having run into your type before, you would accept none of what I present and would only mock what I hold sacred. You don't cast pearls before swine. You claim to be scientific but if you held up such an absolute standard of proof to any scientific theory you would dismiss everything, including your own existence.
I don't know what you hope to achieve with all your railing against religion. Those of us who do believe in a God who rules over us all seek peace, prosperity and good will towards all mankind, especially at this time of year. I hope you have a Merry Christmas or what ever you atheists do at this time of year.
post removed for irrelevance
WW:
MK, NAME ANY atrocity committed
in the NAME of atheism!
You confuse "in the name of" with "BY" - and it is by this device you IGNORE THE 2000 YEARS of atrocities committed IN THE NAME OF YOUR GOD.
The "all around us" argument is ridiculous, as everything around us has an evident, provable, repeatable, biological explanation.
Regardless of the number of people that believe a thing, that demographic does not constitute PROOF of that thing. But as you've brought it up, Michael, if mass belief constitutes proof, WHY THEN, was THOR not real or is KRISHNA or VISHNU? You understand the utter ridiculousness of your argument here?
I am NOT mocking what you hold sacred: I am asking you to provide evidence for this thing. IF you hold it sacred then ante up some evidence and stop avoiding all the questions Ian and I have put to you. Your avoidance of those questions is VERY, VERY telling, my friend.
I am not railing. I am asking for evidence for your "god" and evidence that proves it - apart from the other 4999 - is real when those others are not. You said demographics but you ignore the FACT that the various religions positions held just in India are held by many millions more people than christianity is. You ignore that Islam is the region of may millions more people than christianity; as such, your argument is fatally-flawed.
You claimed that "more god" is what's needed when it is CLEAR that religion of ANY type is a malignant force - and if we are just considering Sandy Hook here, religion played a HUGE part in that scenario, from an evangelical, "prepper" gun-owing mother who's religion and whose 'god' did NOTHING to stop her son from killing children who ALSO came from religious families. Your "god" did NOT STEP IN in this case, never has before and never.
As for what we do during this holiday, which WAS a pagan holiday that the Romans purloined during their quest to spread their politics and culture throughout the eastern world and Europe (SEE MICHAEL, you'd know this if you ever cracked open Google for two minute), we spend the time with our families and friends, who we love dearly, and celebrate our relationships with them with food and good cheer. We just don't accord any of that to a figure who never existed and who was a remake of 20 others of exactly, or near exactly the same pedigree. So really, our means of, and drive for celebration at this time is based on reality and honesty and not on some made-up figure.
You seem completely unaware that christians tried - including going to court - to BAN christmas as they found it an affront to their religion.
http://www.chroniclewatch.com/biblical-issues/religion/catholicism/when-christians-banned-christmas/
Christmas trees are ALSO a pagan left-over AND the bible specifically says to christians (In Corinthians 3:2), don't do as the pagans do and bring trees into the house.
So, Michael, I suggest you not only do not understand the foundations of your faith, you also do not know where some of your traditions come from and how they became "christian." You might do well to look up how corporations began capitalising on the event during the 20th century. But then, I know you don't actually do research.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com.
Go watch the first 25 minutes. ((I know this person will not and cannot, because preservation of the myth is at the core; no challenge will be made because [the religious) know that myth will blow apart like clouds in the wind if they look at it too hard).
You confuse "in the name of" with "BY" - and it is by this device you IGNORE THE 2000 YEARS of atrocities committed IN THE NAME OF YOUR GOD.
The "all around us" argument is ridiculous, as everything around us has an evident, provable, repeatable, biological explanation.
Regardless of the number of people that believe a thing, that demographic does not constitute PROOF of that thing. But as you've brought it up, Michael, if mass belief constitutes proof, WHY THEN, was THOR not real or is KRISHNA or VISHNU? You understand the utter ridiculousness of your argument here?
I am NOT mocking what you hold sacred: I am asking you to provide evidence for this thing. IF you hold it sacred then ante up some evidence and stop avoiding all the questions Ian and I have put to you. Your avoidance of those questions is VERY, VERY telling, my friend.
I am not railing. I am asking for evidence for your "god" and evidence that proves it - apart from the other 4999 - is real when those others are not. You said demographics but you ignore the FACT that the various religions positions held just in India are held by many millions more people than christianity is. You ignore that Islam is the region of may millions more people than christianity; as such, your argument is fatally-flawed.
You claimed that "more god" is what's needed when it is CLEAR that religion of ANY type is a malignant force - and if we are just considering Sandy Hook here, religion played a HUGE part in that scenario, from an evangelical, "prepper" gun-owing mother who's religion and whose 'god' did NOTHING to stop her son from killing children who ALSO came from religious families. Your "god" did NOT STEP IN in this case, never has before and never.
As for what we do during this holiday, which WAS a pagan holiday that the Romans purloined during their quest to spread their politics and culture throughout the eastern world and Europe (SEE MICHAEL, you'd know this if you ever cracked open Google for two minute), we spend the time with our families and friends, who we love dearly, and celebrate our relationships with them with food and good cheer. We just don't accord any of that to a figure who never existed and who was a remake of 20 others of exactly, or near exactly the same pedigree. So really, our means of, and drive for celebration at this time is based on reality and honesty and not on some made-up figure.
You seem completely unaware that christians tried - including going to court - to BAN christmas as they found it an affront to their religion.
http://www.chroniclewatch.com/biblical-issues/religion/catholicism/when-christians-banned-christmas/
Christmas trees are ALSO a pagan left-over AND the bible specifically says to christians (In Corinthians 3:2), don't do as the pagans do and bring trees into the house.
So, Michael, I suggest you not only do not understand the foundations of your faith, you also do not know where some of your traditions come from and how they became "christian." You might do well to look up how corporations began capitalising on the event during the 20th century. But then, I know you don't actually do research.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com.
Go watch the first 25 minutes. ((I know this person will not and cannot, because preservation of the myth is at the core; no challenge will be made because [the religious) know that myth will blow apart like clouds in the wind if they look at it too hard).
WW:
Also, MK, as you seem to either ignore or not know the
facts, Hitler was a devout Catholic for a variety of reasons, one being
Catholic support - and I mean MONEY - for his war against the Jews, and because
his father, who abandoned him and his mother, was Jewish. The man was SICK. He
was a psychopath and there is evidence his sickness was worsened by syphilis,
which it is understood, progressed and contributed to the extent and severities
of the atrocities committed by the SS under Hitler's direction.
Acts of psychopaths and other ill individuals cannot be attributed to beliefs, "gods," or lack there of; they can only be attributed to unchecked psychopathology in the context of politics and of having got a psychopath into the position of leadership.
Honestly Michael, your grasp of politics and your grasp of your own religion and of mental illness are so obviously compromised...
Also full disclosure: this is a critically-interesting feed and exposes many of the tactics employed by the religions (of any stripe) to avoid substantiating their claims and their attempts to discredit those who ask for substantiation. As such, I have copied the entire feed, removed any identifying information and names and am posting the conversation to my blog in an annotated form, which points out the straw man arguments the moving goal posts and the attempts to revise or downplay aspects of known historical events and personalities.
Many thanks, Michael for contributing to this exposure of those tactics.
Acts of psychopaths and other ill individuals cannot be attributed to beliefs, "gods," or lack there of; they can only be attributed to unchecked psychopathology in the context of politics and of having got a psychopath into the position of leadership.
Honestly Michael, your grasp of politics and your grasp of your own religion and of mental illness are so obviously compromised...
Also full disclosure: this is a critically-interesting feed and exposes many of the tactics employed by the religions (of any stripe) to avoid substantiating their claims and their attempts to discredit those who ask for substantiation. As such, I have copied the entire feed, removed any identifying information and names and am posting the conversation to my blog in an annotated form, which points out the straw man arguments the moving goal posts and the attempts to revise or downplay aspects of known historical events and personalities.
Many thanks, Michael for contributing to this exposure of those tactics.
