In the spirit of two days of Twitter arguing with militant evangelical atheists who hate Christmas:

Holy crap, good blog post here:  http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/09/13/christianity-has-done-more-for-science-than-atheism-ever-could/

And if I get a chance I really need to compile all those tweets, but deadlines loom!

51 Responses

  1. There’s a huge logical flaw in the title that negates any potential message. :)

  2. Love the article, although he left out a few important names, like Mendel. But hey, if you tried to create a comprehensive list of Christians who were scientists, your blog post would be too long for anyone to read.

    • He sdpecifcally mentioned Mendel. Nor did he claim to be listing an exclusive and comprehensive list of Christian scientists.

    • What isn’t pointed out, though, is most of those guys would have been in pretty big trouble, and possibly burnt at the stake, if they’d proclaimed themselves atheists. Atheism was pretty much a closet thing in the west before this generation.

      So it really isn’t fair to claim that all science advances in an era of mandatory church membership for the religion.

      It’s kind of like declaring all Soviet advances in science a direct result of communism. The soviets and catholics both did plenty of science, but also did quite a bit of oppression too.

      • Don’t be ridiculous. Atheists were never burnt at the stake (okay, one or two I think, but not because they were atheists, and they were Socrates style atheists I think, not the contemporary concept). Heretics were, and they were religious. False teachers and all that. Non-believers were to be converted.

      • When everyone is baptized into the church at birth, becoming an atheist is heresy and apostasy.

      • So gimme a list, then. All the people that proclaimed they were atheists and got burned for it.

        And crikey, I would far more likely be burned at the stake for my theological beliefs.

        Christianity is actually still the most persecuted religion in the world, ironically. But it’s a little douchey to go on about it when my own life has been extraordinarily comfortable in comparison to the Christians actually suffering.

        So a little perspective, please.

        Atheism is basically the safest religious sentiment in the world to have. You don’t have to follow any sort of ‘profess your faith openly’ doctrine to worry about.

        When, or if, an atheist is murdered by a Christian (in America I ‘spose), you guys will go bat-shit over it as the apocalypse come nigh and this is why religion’s so dangerous.

        The other way round, and it’s always just ‘yeah, but stamp-collecting, and he didn’t shout ‘I love Atheism’ when he did it.’

        I mean, no offense, but it’s kind of annoying.

  3. Oh, this is a GREAT blog… for anyone who wants a prime example of a strawman argument! Plus, all of the “Christian” scientists he claims is a bit deceptive, since all people’s beliefs evolve over time. Darwin, for instance, was a devout Christian. And Newton, who made all of his great discoveries before embracing religion. Religion is regressive. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1te01rfEF0g)

    Atheists really don’t care about Christmas, let alone hate it. What we hate is people telling us we hate things. We might not like our tax dollars funding Christian displays, any more than pro-lifers want their tax dollars funding Planned Parenthood, but otherwise we’re happy to let Christians do their thing, and heck, most of us share in the festivities because we LIKE “peace on earth, goodwill toward men.” Apparently, though, the answer to “can’t we all just get along” by some Christians is NO, since we must suffer the annual deluge of crap like this.

    • Um, you’re mistaken the fact that he devoted his later life to religious studies as meaning he only embraced religion at that time.

      It is well documented that he was religious well before that point. Hell, he described religious concepts IN his scientific and mathematecal tracts, and was using the scientific and mathematical revelations to VALIDATE his belief in God.

      • No… watch the video. It was when he met the “wall” of his knowledge and ability that he then invokes god. Note, too, when he made all of his great discoveries and what came afterward.

      • Rather than rely on a YouTube video produced in modern times, I prefer to look at THE ACTUAL WORDS HE WROTE IN HIS SCIENTIFIC WORKS.

    • Reign in your sophists then. Police your own hotheads. Because I have to listen to the same bad behaviors you slam Christians for from atheists. Without going into who is right and wrong, both sides tend to feel persecuted by the other and are amazed that the other feels the same way.

      Because the answer to “can’t we all just get along” by some Atheists is NO, since we must suffer the annual deluge of crap like this.

      • Without degenerating into a “you started it” hollerin’ match, my guess is that any and all responses by atheists are just that: responses. We DO have some outreach programs to let other atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and humanists know that they’re not alone, and we’re also active in church/state separation issues. That’s called free speech. It’s laughable that Christians, being 77% of the population, can feel “persecuted” by anyone who question their claims. But the war on Christmas exists only in Bill O’Reilly’s fever dreams and in internet memes where myths turn into crises.

      • Too late, you did.

        Let me make a simple observation: some atheists indulge in similar behaviors in antitheistic zealotry as religious zealots do in the name of their faith. Those zealots give rise to the impression that atheists are a persecuting people instead of the persecuted people image you’re trying to sell. You don’t need a god to indulge in theological odium, just a philosophy.

        Bad behavior happens on both sides. “He started it first” isn’t a justification as a child, and it sure as hell isn’t one among adults. Ignoring and failing to deal with your side’s bad behavior causes the image problem. And atheism has an image problem.

      • Well, Nathan, it seems to me that Christians (and other faiths) do one HECK of a lot of promoting, proselytizing and recruiting in the public square and we’re just supposed to shut up and ignore it? Yet if we do the very same thing, we’re somehow being militant? Seriously?

        Religious philosophies are ideas, and ideas have a marketplace. When ideas are put out into the aether, they become open to questioning. Also, atheism takes a position which, if promoted, will appear oppositional to the theist (of any faith), yet atheists are free to do so because Americans have a right to free speech. And is that truly “bad behavior”? Or do theists think they should be able to tout their views without any resistance, opposition or skepticism?

        Sorry, but we’re not going to sit down and shut up, and if theists insist on making statements about atheists, at least get it right. Nobody ever loses a strawman argument. Why be afraid of a real one?

      • Because, quite frankly, you’re not worth my time and you have no real arguments besides shouting down your opponents. Hell, your point to a pagan was “Christianity sucks.” That alone should call into question your intellectual rigor.

    • “but otherwise we’re happy to let Christians do their thing” Then please for the love of whatever the hell you believe in, tell that to the angry evangelical atheists on Twitter! I beg you!

      • I hope I’m one of the “cool athiests”.

        I think Penn Jillette is one of the most kind and loving people I’ve ever met or heard of, and think he’s the salt of the earth. He’s a friend of Glenn Beck, who I’d think would try the patience of Job.

        I really like Hitchins, he knew what he was talking about, and went to the ends of the earth (including all 3 axis of evil countries) and looked evil in the face. I can respect his anti-theism and anti-deism. He hated religion, and was willing to respectfully argue it with anybody anywhere, and stood up for his beliefs.

        Hitchens believed that hurting children was the worst crime possible, and believed that, in spite of appearances, humanity is overwhelmingly good and honest and would be even better without religion. He was fighting to make the world a better place.

        Unfortunately, Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss are smug, condescending assholes, and give athiests a bad name.

      • The atheists ‘arguing’ with you on twitter are badly armed for a battle of wits. A much better use of your time would be a point by point refutation of any of Hitchins’ various YouTubed debates.

        He wrote a book “God is not Great” and offered to debate anybody, and there were quite a few takers, many on YouTube. Hitchins’ arguments against religion are more worthy of your talents than the trolls of twitter.

        That would make for some pretty good reading.

    • I see a lot of asshole atheists that seem to attack only Christians than I see anything else. You know, like the “Who needs Christ during Christmas” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/atheist-billboard-christmas_n_4393051.html

      I’m not a Christian, I’m a heathen, Asatru. I could give two shits about anyone’s beliefs as long as they don’t force them on me. Now militant atheists, they piss me off. They are miserable pathetic people who are unhappy and want everyone else to be unhappy.

      • Ah, but you don’t really KNOW what they are or what they want, because you don’t know them or talk to them. Their ad looks to me like a cure for those religious people who are unhappy and feeling miserable during the holidays. After all, Christianity tells people that they’re bad; they’re all sinners who fall short, for no reason other than being human. The ad appears to say that it’s better to focus on what really matters (firends, family and being together) than ancient myths. I know a heck of a lot of atheists, and none seem miserable or unhappy. On the other hand, the unhappiest of my friends and acquaintances are among the religious. One committed suicide. I don’t want that for anyone.

      • I know a heck of a lot of atheists, and none seem miserable or unhappy. On the other hand, the unhappiest of my friends and acquaintances are among the religious. One committed suicide. I don’t want that for anyone.

        Oh, bullshit. On a different day, you’d probably be going on about how atheists are ‘realistic’ and Christians wrap up all the bad things with fuzzy religious hokey to avoid reality… oh, wait, you did that already.

        The unhappiest of my friends are atheists or agnostics, who brag about being neurologically unhealthy. All my Christian friends are healthy, happy folks, typically married and having families. The atheists are not uncommonly single, pasty, overweight, and apathetic (still lovely people though, they just have a sucky perspective).

        The power of our anecdotes have cancelled each other out.

      • Discussions are much more happy and productive when your goal is actually arriving at the truth. Your mean-spirited trolling speaks for itself. I can also prove my “anecdotes.”

        http://www.corridortribe.com/obits/joseph_wesner.htm

      • Wrong. I love talking the way I do. It’s not mean-spirited at all, this is just the funnest way to be expressive.

        Go ahead, call me an idiot, you know you want to.

        Uh, but yes, I do speak for myself. Glad you noticed. :)

        Okay, you linked me to a thing of a dead guy? Why? To be clear, I have no idea whether you had a Christian friend suicide. For all I know you do. It was your claim that Christianity is a cause of institutional depression, and atheism is the way to life and sunshine meadows that was silly, especially because you’re trying to play it both ways.

    • Didn’t you guys make a big billboard in America to the effect of ‘Jesus is a myth and you all know it! blah blah blah Reason gives me blowjobs’ right in front of a Christmas celebration?

      Dude. Newton was always religious. And back in ye olde times, it was Christianity (specifically the Catholic Church, to give them their due) providing the higher education. Invented the universities.

      When Newton hit a wall of his knowledge and ability, he thought God was reponsible. So? How is that an issue? He really thought that was the explanation. When Zwicky ‘hit a wall’ for much the same thing, he invented invisible matter to explain it.

      Being wrong in your hypothesis isn’t the same as being ‘unscientific’ or using false reasoning.

      Is anyone bothered that he used Newtonian mechanics in his explanation, rather than the relativistic conception? No, because it’s a silly objection, and it doesn’t have the word ‘God’ in it (which is a powerful rhetorical override feature for relevance and reason, it seems).

      ‘All beliefs evolve over time’? What an idiotic tack. You’re trying to say that Christians weren’t really Christians? Then I guess all the atheist scientists now are closet Christians.

      No, ‘religion’ is not regressive. It’s a category.

      Christianity is not regressive, because for one thing, we don’t stop at the Big Bang. We can ask the big questions about God and the universe. We can speculate about the existence of non-material things like forces without handwaving non-particle things as particles, we can speculate about the mind existing in objective fact rather than only epistemic mechanical co-operation. We don’t have to accept all the bullshit about evolution, dark matter, gravitons or the appeals to hypothetical other universes, but neither are we forced to reject those things as philosophical axioms (they’re just stupid, imo). If it were regressive, then when Christianity took over education, that should have been it. No more science, no more development. But that wasn’t the case. The intellectual culture flourished.

      And ‘can’t we just get all along’ seems to have different meanings to the two camps. For you guys, people offering you a chance for happiness, immortality and a relationship with God is apparently a violent crime. However, deriding Christians, Christianity, Jesus and God are apparently just natural responses, even if you yourself have never personally been offended or evangelised by the Christians specifically commanded by the Bible to spread the Gospel.

      If this is not you specifically (for all I know someone offered you a bible once and it sent you spiralling into deep emotional anguish), it seems to be the case among many.

      And you may have noticed that the linked post is itself a reponse to political happenings, and above two sentence linker is a response to arguing with atheists. Which apparently is a personal assault against you, reader of the forum,

      Basically, the general behavior of the internet atheist seems to come down to: Christianity is your shiny Big Bad Autoriteh Figure, and you’re all so rebel.

      • Some atheist groups (which doesn’t include all of us atheist “you guys”) put up billboards. So what? Churches and religious groups do it all the time. It’s called free speech. Dig it.

        Newton was, like just about everybody at the time, part of a religious culture, yet he didn’t really throw himself into the study of religion before his mid-to-late 20s. This is where his great discoveries virtually dropped off. (Did you play the Neil deGrasse Tyson video?) I’m also unaware of anything in my post that stated that “being wrong in your hypothesis [is] the same as being ‘unscientific’ or using false reasoning.” EVERY scientist has been wrong and pursued blind alleys. This isn’t a bad thing; all wrong answers at least tell us we’re wrong, and nudge us toward the truth. It’s part and parcel of the scientific process.

        So it’s an “idiotic tack” to say that, as you grow, so do your beliefs? A good many atheists came from a religious background. Religious beliefs aren’t like gender or skin color; they’re not inherent. They also change over a person’s lifetime. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, once dug into religion so deeply that he edited his own version of the bible. Later in life, he wrote statements such as: “Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.” I recently read an account of Jefferson walking past a church building as Sunday services had just ended. Benjamin Franklin noting his absence said something along the lines of, “Hey, Tommy boy, why don’t you just come right out and admit that you’re an atheist?” Jefferson’s reply: “Atheists can’t win elections.”

        Religion is regressive in that it claims to have all the answers, whereas science claims to have some, all of which are provisional, as we know that deeper knowledge will come later. This is why scientists use the word “theory” for what is actually hard fact, confusing laypeople in the process. For instance, evolution is a fact. The “theory” part refers to our understanding of it. The same goes for our theory of gravitation; it is out understanding of how gravity works. Nobody disputes that it DOES work. The same holds true for our theory of aviation. Planes fly, so our understanding seems to be about as true as it gets, yet do we really think we know absolutely everything there is to know about aviation? Any honest person knows that we’re far from having all the answers.

        Religion, however, never makes such a claim! It knows EVERYTHING: God did it! And a lot of people throughout history abandoned their scientific pursuits content with this meme. Michael Shermer put it a bit more humorously when he said, “ ‘Supernaturalism’ is just a word meaning ‘beats the hell out of me, I give up and will just say ‘and then a miracle occurs.’ Those must be short days at the laboratory.”

        The idea of “entertaining” different ideas that science does not is hardly a sign that Christianity (or any other religion) is superior. In fact, it means the opposite: that any baseless conjecture holds equal status with hypotheses based on firm observation and/or experiment. Science tends to follow evidence, not the other way around. Your understanding of how it works is faulty. So is your history. Indeed, many religious authorities did fund universities and scientific endeavor, but whenever “inconvenient” details emerged, they reserved the right to fudge the data and silence anyone who objected. Galileo is a prime example; virtually imprisoned for daring to oppose the idea that Earth (and humans) are not at the center of the solar system! Galileo never denied god, but he also was honest enough with himself to not deny what his eyes and the data were telling him.

        I’ve spent many years studying scripture. In fact, there’s a joke among atheists: “How do you convert Christians to atheism? Encourage them to read the bible!” I have several translations including a Greek interlinear diaglot with the KJV and NIV running parallel. I own a good many commentaries as well as books that deal with scripture as archaeological artifact. If you really want to understand the bible, read anything and everything by Bart Ehrmann. To base one’s life on pages written by people who were ignorant of the atom, DNA, orbits, bacteria or viruses — and claiming an all-knowing god whose writings offer ZERO revelation of same — seems foolhardy to me. Time and knowledge has marched on. We’ve been to the heavens; there are no streets of gold there. We’ve been miles below the Earth’s crust; there are no screaming, wailing people burning without dying. Believers need to decide which they desire more: objective reality or a beautiful fantasy. Frankly, I don’t blame them for choosing the latter. It’s quite attractive in many ways. But, silly me, I’ve got this thing about facts. They’re pretty stubborn things, and really don’t care whether or not you believe in them. They just ARE.

      • Actively trying to ruin someone’s Christmas is the work of a reprobate. There is freedom of speech, and also freedom of being an arsehole. It’s also really, really stupid.

        People seeking to ruin Christmas deserve to be up against the wall with the Westboro Baptists. It’s just as vile, and yes, I’m an athiest.

        The poop stirrers think Christianity is immune to violence. They have no clue about European history. Or the religions of the IRA and the Ulsters.

        Athiests have a point in not wanting public funds to pay for Christmas celebrations, just like not using public funds to pay for Muslim celebrations.

        That’s still a huge difference from refusing to finance a religious celebration, and in ruining a celebration.

      • Some atheist groups (which doesn’t include all of us atheist “you guys”) put up billboards. So what? Churches and religious groups do it all the time. It’s called free speech. Dig it.

        So you were wrong, that’s what. You guys are proactively douchebagging. You were specifically telling us how amazing and special atheists are in their passivity, when you’re not. So strike one.

        “Religious beliefs aren’t like gender or skin color; they’re not inherent. They also change over a person’s lifetime.”

        So the heck what does have to do with anything? Was Newton religious? Yes or no? Yes, yes he was.

        If you can say ‘oh, but that was just the culture’ when he devoted the latter part of his entire life to its study, then I can say that scientists are only mostly atheists because ‘that’s the culture’.

        It’s freaking stupid, dude, and it has nothing to do with anything. That’s another.

        (And generalisations save time. The Crusades weren’t ‘all Christians’ either. If you identify yourself with them (being ‘atheist’ groups), so will I.)

        So it’s an “idiotic tack” to say that, as you grow, so do your beliefs?

        Yes. Yes it is. It doesn’t mean anything at all. It doesn’t even look like it means anything.

        Religion, however, never makes such a claim! It knows EVERYTHING: God did it!

        I love the way you guys use your imagination as evidence, in opposition to anything Christians (why do you keep saying ‘religion’ like Hinduism and Wicca are relevant) actually believe.

        You know what’s funny? No Christian claims to ‘know everything’, in fact you guys give Christians crap for saying how mysterious God’s ways are. No Christian has ever says ‘God did it’ as the ultimate back-up answer for everything.

        But atheists, or rather the evolutionists among them, are apparently happy to explain everything, and I mean everything with evolution. Humanity, sexual attractions, why some prefer blondes to brunettes, why some people become lawyers and others become jockeys, the internet, automobile design, airplanes, you name it. Everything is cos evolution. For crying out loud, yoiu guys even try to explain the universe and stellar formation through natural selection of all idiotic things.

        The most obvious proof that your assertion is idiotic, is that you have Christians that are both religious and believe in evolution! That’s two-fer-one, dude!

        So is your history. Indeed, many religious authorities did fund universities and scientific endeavor, but whenever “inconvenient” details emerged, they reserved the right to fudge the data and silence anyone who objected

        You make me laugh. Read a lot of Dan Brown novels, right?

        (Look, should I just assume that ‘religious’ is your word for Christian? What an insular world you live in.)

        Let’s just assume that’s true, without any evidence whatsoever to support Christianity ‘fudging the data’ since the ancient days of philosophy. (In fact, the most egregarious example of ‘fudging the data’ in ye olde tymes, was when the greek Pythagoreans tried to cover up the existence of irrational numbers, just because they had an illicit affair with rational integers.)

        Shit’s gotten a lot worse since then.

        I’m sure even you would be forced to admit, even if you assume that Global Warming, and everything else, is absolutely true, you can still understand how Greed and Self-interest are far more effective motivation to ‘fudge data’.

        And now that we’ve done that, feel free to show me all these examples of the Catholic Church ‘fudging data’. I’m sure the list of crimes is long and heinous, which is why I’ve never heard atheists bring any us.

        Galileo is a prime example; virtually imprisoned for daring to oppose the idea that Earth (and humans) are not at the center of the solar system! Galileo never denied god, but he also was honest enough with himself to not deny what his eyes and the data were telling him.

        Man! One entire person in the history of the Catholic Church! That’s some hardcore oppression. Especially when you consider that the dude wasn’t put on trial for inventing an already existing theory, nor was biblical interpretation an obstacle, but for a) teaching what was considered scientifically false as a fact rather than a theory (score one for Church skepticism, huh?) and b) insulting the pope as a simpleton. Which is a bad move.

        ‘His eyes’ and ‘the data’ were precisely the things that weren’t agreeing with him. To all rational senses, the earth wasn’t moving. He turned out to be right, and kudos to him, but it was pure stroke of intuition or genius or whatever the heck, that he didn’t even come up with.

        And yes, the dude was a Christian. So your ‘inhibitory religion’ kind of falls on it’s ass don’t it, when you have to cite the amazing progress of Christians to support it. Guess what? We all believe in heliocentrism!

        I know you’d like to think that Christians believe complete scientific information about the entire universe in contained within the Bible, but we don’t. The Bible is mostly history and wisdom, some poetry too.

        You’re the only ones trying to shoe-horn some theology of knowing everything in to the Bible.

        Which is embarrassing, because if we really were idiotic, you wouldn’t have to lie about what we believe.

        If you really want to understand the bible, read anything and everything by Bart Ehrmann.

        Uh-huh, yeah because reading the bible is for boring people.
        And I have read one of Bart Ehrman’s books. I wasn’t impressed. He was kind of a deceptive asshole the way he put the major objections as tiny minutae at the end. But I understand the polemical reasons.

        “How do you convert Christians to atheism? Encourage them to read the bible!”

        It’s a joke for a reason. You guys are idiots.

        I’ve read the bible. When I mention that and argue it, you guys then immediately progress to ‘well, you are like, so evil, and I don’t want to talk to you anymore’.

        Colour me unimpressed with your ability to have multiple books about the most famous and popular book in the world. Oh, I have six different bible translations, and an entire shelf of commentaries and research material. I totally own you now!

        We’ve been to the heavens; there are no streets of gold there. We’ve been miles below the Earth’s crust; there are no screaming, wailing people burning without dying.

        What are you, flaming crazy? Where the heck did you grow up that you think this is an argument? You think when Galileo looked through his telescope he was thinking ‘gee, I wonder where all the angels are?’

        Stop making crap up, for crying out loud. Reality is great, pay more attention to it. I’m not interested in your imagination.

        Believers need to decide which they desire more: objective reality or a beautiful fantasy. Frankly, I don’t blame them for choosing the latter. It’s quite attractive in many ways. But, silly me, I’ve got this thing about facts. They’re pretty stubborn things, and really don’t care whether or not you believe in them. They just ARE.

        Uh-huh. Did you want to paint that in bright neon pink on a bill-board with flashing lights somewhere? Or is it just my attention you’re seeking?

        Silly you, if only you researched the facts as vigorously as you masturbated to your theme song of reason, you might have some respectable arguments.

        I have nothing in common with your pendatic, boorish, infantile, and honestly, massively ignorant spool of bullshit.

        To base one’s life on pages written by people who were ignorant of the atom, DNA, orbits, bacteria or viruses — and claiming an all-knowing god whose writings offer ZERO revelation of same

        Oh, yeah, of course. That’s what we need to do, base our lives on the moral instrospection of the chemical bases of DNA. That amazing sequence of 4 letters is an untold paradise of moral wisdom. As opposed to an All-Knowing God (and did you notice that moderately well-know book of the Bible called the Revelation? Musta missed it, right?)

        And I’m sorry, those things are relevant why? In five hundred years is everything you say going to be wrong because you didn’t know about the subspace travel system, or there’s an army of dancing intangible monkeys in the Higgs particle?

        Do you only accept revelations from God if He gives them to people in a certain level of technological development. Did the technology for listening to people improve substantially since then?

        You don’t even think about what it is you’re saying. It doesn’t have any relevance to anything.

        This whole ‘religion stops science’ is childish, is obviously wrong (the whole world is/was basically religious), and betrays a fundamental error in thinking. As in, you don’t do enough of it.

        Honestly, you guys are so freaking boring to argue with, now. You all say the exact same things, you’re all ignorant of the exact same things, and you never cop to being wrong. It’s against your religion or something.

        And by ‘you guys’ I mean the majority of the internet atheist lemmings. There are a few atheists who understand the value of independent reasoning, and have respectable positions. Damn few, though.

      • Strike a nerve, did I? :)
        I wasn’t wrong, dumbass. Did you SEE the “which doesn’t include all of us atheist ‘you guys'” part. If that makes me “proactively douchebagging,” then you’re a douche for Westboro protests of military funerals. Yes: EXACT SAME THING. Plus, the billboards I saw were in very good taste.

        You might want to check out the concept of “personal growth.” This might come as a shock to you, but some people’s beliefs change over time, sometimes completely. From all the evidence at hand, Newton was far less concerned with religion early in life when he made all of his biggest discoveries. Once he hit the limits of his own knowledge and abilities, his work stopped, by and large. That’s just plain old FACT. Sorry it bothers you, dude.

        Your understanding of how science works, and especially evolution (as opposed to natural selection) is faulty as well. I’ve never heard anyone explain stellar formation using natural selection, but there IS an evolution that the universe has undergone and, if it hadn’t, we wouldn’t be here hollerin’ at each other. By the looks of your post here, your understanding of the basic definitions is lacking.

        I know a good many Christians that believe in evolution. In fact, one of them was the last Pope. I’m not here to give you remedial history lessons, DUDE, but any bugnut with Google and some time to kill can find a lot of examples of scientific progress being killed in the cradle by religious authorities. (Did you ever hear of the Library of Alexandria?) Galileo wasn’t even opposing any scriptural assertions — it was all church doctrine that had Earth as the center of everything. His telescopes were obviously tainted by the devil. Or something. Lest we forget, the Church admitted it’s error back in the ’90s or thereabouts.

        Scientists have indeed fudged data, but their transgressions usually get discovered quickly and the penalties are harsh. This is due to a rigorous process of peer review, where other scientists pick over their published data and try to reproduce their results. A good recent example are the cold fusion guys. Heard of them lately? Religion has no such peer review. Alterations to the Christian bible sometimes take centuries to discover. Again, read “Lost Christianities” by Bart Ehrmann for some great examples. (Which book did you read?) This is why biblical scholars get so excited whenever they find a newly discovered scripture buried somewhere that is older than those we already have. Comparisons are quite revealing.

        Anyone can look over the data and see that global warming is a fact. No serious scientists, expecially meteorologists and climatologists, doubt it. The data is published for anyone to see. Got any pen pals in Greenland? Ask if they believe it. Anyway, the only dispute is how much of it is caused by human activity. Trouble is, we’ve been unable to discover any alternative sources of climate change that are enough to account for the change we’re observing.

        Funny you should talk about motivation for data fudging! What about the same motivation to thwart efforts to cut down on greenhouse gasses? See, the big oil, gas and coal companies might have some big-time monetary inscentive to bury global warming data, don’tcha think? And what will the Union of Concerned Scientists get if they win the argument? What’s their inscentive?

        The reason why the bible FAILS as anything other than an old book cobbled together by ignorant people from a time when they barely understood how to alloy metals is because all of the information you amit is lacking — anything revelatory about the universe — isn’t there. The Christian god seemed quite happy to demonstrate his authenticity by having his minions perform miracles and healings, etc., so why the reluctance to reveal to the world that many sicknesses are caused by bacteria? That there are no actual “spirits” in alcohol? Or maybe have taken a bit of heat off of Galileo in advance by revealing the Earth’s subservient position in the solar system. But it’s simply not there because the bible is not divine in origin. Talk about embarrassing! You should also be embarrassed because you obviously didn’t read any of Ehrmann’s books which are nothing like you describe.

        You also toss-in a strawman (“you guys then immediately progress to ‘well, you are like, so evil, and I don’t want to talk to you anymore’” — said no atheist EVER) just after the ad hominem (“You guys are idiots”) — a crazy train to logical fallacyland! Total FAIL.

        The fact I have the materials I mentioned wasn’t meant to impress, and I feel no need to impress some internet troll I’ve never met and know nothing about. My point is that I USE them; I’ve read them quite thoroughly. My dismissal of Christianity wasn’t done casually, as was your dismissal of our exploration of our Earth and universe.

        I’m happy to pay attention to reality — I do it constantly! Let me know when you start. Seems to me that you’re quite gifted at ad hominem, expletives and non-arguments through dismissive, nonsensical rhetoric containing nothing coming close to logic. You sure make a guy feel the love of Jesus — LOL! Newsflash: you can’t be a Christian, because you act nothing like any Christ I ever read about. And at least he wouldn’t lie about what books he read.

        Maybe “we guys” all say the same things all the time because facts are facts. Sorry they bother you.

      • Strike a nerve, did I?

        Oh, don’t be a loser. Let’s say you did strike a nerve, the one that says ‘man I hate morons’. Did I just make your day?

        I wasn’t wrong, dumbass. Did you SEE the “which doesn’t include all of us atheist ‘you guys’” part. If that makes me “proactively douchebagging,” then you’re a douche for Westboro protests of military funerals. Yes: EXACT SAME THING. Plus, the billboards I saw were in very good taste.

        Hey guess what, I’m including you when I say atheists. When you make a broad generalisation about ‘atheists never do that’ then when atheist groups do it, you’re wrong.

        If I said Christians never say ‘God hates fags’, yeah I’d be wrong wouldn’t I?

        And more importantly, I’m not Westboro, whereas you are atheist, so it’s not thte same thing at all. I can even argue those guys are not Christian because they behave un-Christian-like, but you can’t argue that the atheist groups aren’t atheist, because there is no such criteria for atheist behaviour.

        You might want to check out the concept of “personal growth.” This might come as a shock to you, but some people’s beliefs change over time, sometimes completely. From all the evidence at hand, Newton was far less concerned with religion early in life when he made all of his biggest discoveries. Once he hit the limits of his own knowledge and abilities, his work stopped, by and large. That’s just plain old FACT. Sorry it bothers you, dude.

        It bothers me that it’s both wrong and irrelevant. Just because he focused more on his religious studies later on, did not make him non-religious before that, you twit. He was a Christian at the beginning, and a Christian at the end, so what the heck is your ‘personal growth’ about? he got more Christian? Oh, burnnn.

        Guess science makes believers of us, huh?

        Once he hit the limits of his own knowledge and abilities, his work stopped, by and large.

        You floppy biscuit of a man. Who works beyond the limits of their abilities?

        Honestly, I’m pretty ready to believe that you’re simply a troll, which is unfortunate because you’re making both yourself and atheists in general look like dumbasses.

        Galileo wasn’t even opposing any scriptural assertions — it was all church doctrine that had Earth as the center of everything. His telescopes were obviously tainted by the devil. Or something. Lest we forget, the Church admitted it’s error back in the ’90s or thereabouts.

        Yes to the first, exactly as I said. No, to the second. Yes, to the third. I think. You’d have to ask a Catholic if that actually means anything.

        Heliocentrism was always treated as a theory which needed to be proved before accepted as a fact. Good science, right? Isn’t evolution still a theory?

        The data was against him. Deal with it.

        Scientists have indeed fudged data, but their transgressions usually get discovered quickly and the penalties are harsh.

        Rubbish. Scientists find peer review tiresome and boring, and doesn’t imbue them with any magic mistake-finding powers.

        Here’s an easy link:

        http://voxday.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/peer-review-is-joke.html

        Religion has no such peer review. Alterations to the Christian bible sometimes take centuries to discover. Again, read “Lost Christianities” by Bart Ehrmann for some great examples. (Which book did you read?) This is why biblical scholars get so excited whenever they find a newly discovered scripture buried somewhere that is older than those we already have. Comparisons are quite revealing.

        That’s real interesting story, guy. Thank you for enlightening me that biblical scholarship and archaeology is a big deal for a religion with a 3500 year history.

        ‘Religion has no peer review’ are you kidding? My rugby team has no peer review either. What we do have is people who aren’t idiots, and spent a large amount of time doing what they’re supposed to, and not lying about it in the first place.

        And the book was about ‘the bible doesn’t answer the question of evil’. Which has to be the dumbest title I’ve ever read, and the book wasn’t much better.

        Anyone can look over the data and see that global warming is a fact. No serious scientists, expecially meteorologists and climatologists, doubt it.

        As opposed to all the ‘non-serious’ scientists of course (being everyone who disagrees). But hey, no problem, so if they’re wrong (because they’re so great at predicting weather and earthquakes) that means that scientists basically suck, huh?

        Oh, but anyone can look over the data? Is that only serious anybodies? Or can the people who think GW is a myth look at it too?

        Funny you should talk about motivation for data fudging! What about the same motivation to thwart efforts to cut down on greenhouse gasses? See, the big oil, gas and coal companies might have some big-time monetary inscentive to bury global warming data, don’tcha think? And what will the Union of Concerned Scientists get if they win the argument? What’s their inscentive?

        Oh, so you agree with me? I love how simple you are. You automatically assume that since I don’t believe in Global Warming and that I’ll fight to the death to defend the reputation of companies. Well you’re partially right. I actually just don’t give a shit about GW, whether it’s true or not.

        It’s wonderful that you’re so willing to agree with me. Christianity is at the bottom of the list for ‘fudge data’ motivation.

        The reason why the bible FAILS as anything other than an old book cobbled together by ignorant people from a time when they barely understood how to alloy metals is because all of the information you amit is lacking — anything revelatory about the universe — isn’t there.

        Except for the revelation about the universe, how it got here, where it’s going, what it all means, what’s important, and what we should be prepared for.

        Yeah, how often has your happiness depended on your ability to alloy two metals? Why the heck would God bother having it written down, when we’re obviously capable of finding it out for ourselves. Not to mention that metal-working was in fine shape at the time, and it still is irrelevant.

        You’re complaining that it isn’t a scientific text-book? Well tough bikkies. If you want one of those, you should go find a you know, a scientific text-book.

        Your lazy-crazy theological pondering are terrible. Why don’t you just ask Christians if that’s what they expect form the Bible, instead of inventing your own weirdo straw-cult to molest?

        The Christian god seemed quite happy to demonstrate his authenticity by having his minions perform miracles and healings, etc., so why the reluctance to reveal to the world that many sicknesses are caused by bacteria?

        Oh, how about because ‘who gives a shit?’ He told them to keep clean, to practise hygiene, don’t you think that’s a little more practical than telling them there’s evil micro-cellular animals making them sick?

        You want God to take all the fun out of science for us? Don’t be so lazy.

        You also toss-in a strawman (“you guys then immediately progress to ‘well, you are like, so evil, and I don’t want to talk to you anymore’” — said no atheist EVER) just after the ad hominem (“You guys are idiots”) — a crazy train to logical fallacyland! Total FAIL.

        I’m sorry that relating actual events that happen to me consistently on the internet bother you. I thought you liked facts?

        You know, it’s a sad day when you’re argument is so weak that you feel you have to actually say fail. You’d think it’s be obvious, right?

        That there are no actual “spirits” in alcohol? Or maybe have taken a bit of heat off of Galileo in advance by revealing the Earth’s subservient position in the solar system. But it’s simply not there because the bible is not divine in origin. Talk about embarrassing! You should also be embarrassed because you obviously didn’t read any of Ehrmann’s books which are nothing like you describe.

        You tool. What a load of arbitraily invented nonsense. Why not complain he didn’t give you a Ferrari so you wouldn’t be late for work that one time?

        And hey, if you want to think Ehrman is amazeballs because he wrote books, that’s cool. What is he, your saint?

        The fact I have the materials I mentioned wasn’t meant to impress, and I feel no need to impress some internet troll I’ve never met and know nothing about. My point is that I USE them; I’ve read them quite thoroughly. My dismissal of Christianity wasn’t done casually, as was your dismissal of our exploration of our Earth and universe.

        That’s also amazing! You read the books you buy! Your arguments are now suddenly valid!

        Did I dismiss our ‘exploration of our Earth and universe’? You’re the one trying to say that Christians hate science. Personally, I’m a huge geek. It was a terrible day when they said they were shutting down the shuttle program.

        But if you want some perspective, our accomplishments to date is getting men on the moon, and a probe past Pluto. That’s not a very large amount of the universe.

        I’m happy to pay attention to reality — I do it constantly! Let me know when you start. Seems to me that you’re quite gifted at ad hominem, expletives and non-arguments through dismissive, nonsensical rhetoric containing nothing coming close to logic. You sure make a guy feel the love of Jesus — LOL! Newsflash: you can’t be a Christian, because you act nothing like any Christ I ever read about. And at least he wouldn’t lie about what books he read.

        Oh, ye of retarded brain, Lemme guess, this is where you get tired of getting called out on your bullshit, and try to make the conversation about ‘How Christian of You’, right? Kiss my ass. Like the Apostle Paui said, go with what works. I’ll be mild and gentle when it actually serves a purpose.

        Would you like me to call you the son of vipers and a hypocrite instead? Or how about ‘the fool has said in his heart there is no God?’, or something about you eating your own vomit? But I’ll admit, I’m just uninterested in a long conversation, so I go with the quick and convenient. And honestly, I’m tired of you dudes taking advantage of Christian meekness to be assholes with no attendance to the facts. So you need to be humiliated once in a while.

        And c’mon, grow some balls. You’re going to whinge that I called you an idiot? So what? You are. My friends and I happily use harsher language than that to each other, it doesn’t mean anything, I doubt very much you’re so thin-skinned it’s going to cause you irreparable emotional damage.

        Hey, if this was in public, or if we had more time, sure, maybe I’ll hold your hand through this whole thing, but believe it or not, there are a lot of things I’d rather be doing than arguing with some douchebag on the netz.

        Maybe “we guys” all say the same things all the time because facts are facts. Sorry they bother you.

        No, I can honestly say that’s not why you do it.

      • [b]you need to be humiliated once in a while.[b/]

        You have humiliated yourself far more than anything I could ever write in response. Meekness? I’d settle for basic civility.

      • “Honestly, I’m pretty ready to believe that you’re simply a troll, which is unfortunate because you’re making both yourself and atheists in general look like dumbasses.”

        No, strike that, that’s unfair. It’s just you. But you would be terrible PR for them.

      • >> Oh, don’t be a loser.

        No worries. The crown remains yours.

        >> When you make a broad generalization [sic] about ‘atheists never do that’ then when atheist groups do it, you’re wrong.

        Maybe, if I’d said that at all. You’re hallucinating again. Take your meds.

        >> I’m not Westboro, whereas you are atheist,

        I’m not FFRF (or whoever put up the billboard), whereas you claim to be Christian. (Hold on… it’s hard to type and laugh at the same time…)

        >> I can even argue those guys are not Christian because they behave un-Christian-like, but you can’t argue that the atheist groups aren’t atheist, because there is no such criteria for atheist behavior.

        You mean like YOUR behavior here! Oh, you’re an endless supply of laughs!

        >> Just because he focused more on his religious studies later on, did not make him non-religious before that, you twit.

        …which was NEVER the point. The POINT was that his brilliant discoveries STOPPED, you twat.

        >> You floppy biscuit of a man. Who works beyond the limits of their abilities?

        People who grow and progress. Weren’t your abilities greater at 20 than at 10, you peabrained putz?

        >> … you’re making both yourself and atheists in general look like dumbasses.

        Good! It still makes us look about ten levels above your sorry ass state, Christboy.

        >> Heliocentrism was always treated as a theory which needed to be proved before accepted as a fact. Good science, right? Isn’t evolution still a theory?

        Okay, I’m gonna type REAL slow so you can understand this: heliocentrism was a FACT before we proved it, while we were proving it and after we proved it. Aviation is also a theory. Planes fly, so it’s proved. So why do we still call it “theory?” Maybe because scientists use the word differently? [HINT: It does NOT mean “educated guess.”] Evolution is a fact. Our understanding of it is the theory. See a pattern here, you simp?

        >> The data was against him. Deal with it.

        Opinion was against him. The data he collected is what convinced him and got him into trouble.

        >> Scientists find peer review tiresome and boring, and doesn’t imbue them with any magic mistake-finding powers. Here’s an easy link:

        http://voxday.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/peer-review-is-joke.html

        What kind of garbage source is THAT? You’re really reaching! What’s next? Getting marriage advice from Kim Kardassian? Even wikipedia’s entry trounces your piece of crap link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

        >> ‘Religion has no peer review’ are you kidding? My rugby team has no peer review either. What we do have is [sic] people who aren’t idiots, and spent a large amount of time doing what they’re supposed to, and not lying about it in the first place.

        “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Yes, I borrowed that from Christopher Hitchens.) NO, I’m most certainly not kidding. The claims of scripture and religious adherents have no B.S. filter; believers are told to accept assertions “on faith.” Science never does this. (No, really, it never does!)

        >> And the book was about ‘the bible doesn’t answer the question of evil’. Which has to be the dumbest title I’ve ever read, and the book wasn’t much better.

        Bullshit. You lied. You’re like Sarah Palin – you can’t even Google a convincing lie! So you’re a pottymouth AND a liar. Hypocrite. Here; knock yourself out: https://www.google.com/search?q=Bart+Ehrman+books&rlz=1C1SAVI_enUS507US507&oq=Bart+Ehrman+books&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6067j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

        >> As opposed to all the ‘non-serious’ scientists of course (being everyone who disagrees)

        Like who?

        >> But hey, no problem, so if they’re wrong (because they’re so great at predicting weather and earthquakes) that means that scientists basically suck, huh?

        Non-sequitur; global warming is a data set based on what already happened, which we then can project outward to make predictions. Weather and earthquakes are dynamic, complex systems that cannot be predicted beyond a certain point. If you cannot grasp the distinction, pick up “Between Inner Space and Outer Space” by John D. Barrow. If you’re not immune to that book learnin’ stuff.

        >> Oh, but anyone can look over the data? Is that only serious anybodies? Or can the people who think GW is a myth look at it too?

        Even the totally brain dead such as yourself can have at it. Knock yourself out starting here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.php

        >> Oh, so you agree with me? I love how simple you are. You automatically assume that since I don’t believe in Global Warming and that I’ll fight to the death to defend the reputation of companies. Well you’re partially right. I actually just don’t give a shit about GW, whether it’s true or not.

        Which shows what a complete moron YOU are. When it starts impacting your wallet, you will. (Oh, wait… it’s already started. Nevermind.)

        >> It’s wonderful that you’re so willing to agree with me.

        Accidents happen.

        >> Christianity is at the bottom of the list for ‘fudge data’ motivation.

        NOW who’s kidding who? Christianity is a multi-billion-dollar global industry! A whole lot of people have a huge stake in keeping the gullible filling their collection plates and sending in their tithes, donations and pledges.

        >> Except for the revelation about the universe, how it got here, where it’s going, what it all means, what’s important, and what we should be prepared for.

        Seriously? Aside from “god did it,” it is devoid of anything like FACTS. Nothing to tell us that the sun is just another star (and, in fact, appears to say it’s something separate and distinct); nothing to tell us what the moon is or how it got there; nothing about orbits or how the planet moves; nothing about the universe expanding… as Cardinal Baronius said to Galileo, “”The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” Take a good long read. He’s right.

        >> Yeah, how often has your happiness depended on your ability to alloy two metals?

        I never said it did. You’re now the one dragging irrelevancies into the discussion (if it can properly be called a “discussion”). But I’m pretty happy that somebody can, since our world would be a pretty crappy place without ‘em.

        >> Why the heck would God bother having it written down, when we’re obviously capable of finding it out for ourselves. Not to mention that metal-working was in fine shape at the time, and it still is irrelevant.

        Again, non-sequitur: the question was why the bible is devoid of any “revelations” that people of the time didn’t know themselves. Your lame excuses aren’t convincing.

        >> You’re complaining that it isn’t a scientific text-book?

        Only through your warped mind prism. I’ve made a convincing argument for the bible being of mundane, human origin devoid of any divine influence. And you’ve made insults, non-sequiturs and apologies. Beyond lame.

        >> Well tough bikkies. If you want one of those, you should go find a you know, a scientific text-book.

        Oh, I might have a few lying around… :D

        >> Your lazy-crazy theological pondering are terrible. Why don’t you just ask Christians if that’s what they expect form the Bible, instead of inventing your own weirdo straw-cult to molest?

        Your inept word stew is nearly indecipherable. It’s the Christians making the claim that their bible is da shizzle. I’m the guy they’re chartered to convince. So convince me, already! Or go away and leave decent people alone.

        >> Oh, how about because ‘who gives a shit?’ He told them to keep clean, to practise hygiene, don’t you think that’s a little more practical than telling them there’s evil micro-cellular animals making them sick?

        Are you auditioning to be the next Duck Dynasty rube? ‘Cause you’d get my vote! There’s a classic, emptyheaded, thoughtless response! The bible has strange cleaning rituals, bloodletting rituals and strange prohibitions against eating this or that, most of which is arbitrary. Even a HINT of knowledge that people at the time didn’t have would likewise be a hint of “divine inspiration.” But there isn’t a hint, because it’s not. It’s “The Greatest Bullshit Story Ever Told!”

        >> You want God to take all the fun out of science for us? Don’t be so lazy.

        No, you silly tit, I’m asking for his ID. I’m checking the author’s bona-fides.

        >> I thought you liked facts?

        I do. I’m waiting for you to mention any.

        >> You know, it’s a sad day when you’re argument is so weak that you feel you have to actually say fail. You’d think it’s be obvious, right?

        It’s an even sadder day when a failure’s fail is such a huge failing fail that he has to take exception to the use of the word “fail.” Failure sucks, doesn’t it? I’m sure you’re used to it. With such a failure of basic logic, I don’t see how you ever win any of these arguments.

        >> You tool. What a load of arbitraily invented nonsense. Why not complain he didn’t give you a Ferrari so you wouldn’t be late for work that one time?

        Is English a second language for you? Or are you like a cat when you try to point something out to it and it stares stupidly at your finger? What I’ve clearly demonstrated is that the bible is bullshit based as much on what it does NOT say as what it DOES. (And it gets a lot wrong when it does actually state some things that can be fact checked.) Now, if it had MENTIONED a Ferrari, or cars in general, I might be able to take it (and you) seriously.

        >> And hey, if you want to think Ehrman is amazeballs because he wrote books, that’s cool. What is he, your saint?

        No, he’s a world-class biblical scholar. You’re a schmuck. He knows what he’s talking about. You don’t have a friggin’ clue. AND you’re a grown-ass man using the word “amazeballs.” You must be very amusing to the 12-year-old girls in your neighborhood.

        >> That’s also amazing! You read the books you buy! Your arguments are now suddenly valid!

        Yeah, I’m weird like that. I read n’ stuff. Went to school and everything. But being a snarky assface doesn’t make your arguments valid either.

        >> You’re the one trying to say that Christians hate science.

        Where? Where did I say that? You lose your reading glasses?

        >> Personally, I’m a huge geek. It was a terrible day when they said they were shutting down the shuttle program.

        HOLY CATS! Well, it had to happen. We talked so much that you finally blurted something we can agree on. I’ve been a NASA nerd since I watched the Gemini and Apollo flights as a kid. Abandoning space exploration is abandoning our future IMO. (“Space Chronicles” by Neil deGrasse Tyson contains my sentiments perfectly. Yeah, I know… another damned book!) 

        >> But if you want some perspective, our accomplishments to date is getting men on the moon, and a probe past Pluto. That’s not a very large amount of the universe.

        We’re not very large critters, and we’re doing what we can. But our accomplishments are WAY more than those two items! We’ve got robots on Mars, we’ve landed on Venus (long enough for a few minutes of photos!), we plunked a probe on Titan, we’ve got volumes of data on Jupiter’s own little solar system – and Saturn’s too. We’re discovering new exoplanets almost every day. We’ve discovered more in the past 100 years about the universe than in all of previous human history. Maybe THIS is a good place to use “amazeballs!”

        >> Lemme guess, this is where you get tired of getting called out on your bullshit, and try to make the conversation about ‘How Christian of You’, right?

        Well, if being a mean-spirited, confrontational asshole is your idea of “calling out,” then yes, you’re tiresome. And a hypocrite. Jesus would kick you square in the nutz.

        >> Kiss my ass. Like the Apostle Paui said, go with what works. I’ll be mild and gentle when it actually serves a purpose.

        Lick my balls. Like Bertrand Russel said, “A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he can understand.” That’s about the only way I can think of how you could get such a thought from the gay heretic.

        >> Would you like me to call you the son of vipers and a hypocrite instead?

        Would that make you feel better, binky?

        >> Or how about ‘the fool has said in his heart there is no God?’

        I love how insecure believers constantly trot-out this screed from their bag of tricks; a transparent attempt to stifle any opposition or skepticism! I say that only a fool believes there’s an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do and loves you more than anyone could ever love anyone… unless you piss him off by not believing in him even though he’s done his level best to hide himself and obfuscate his existence. Then, you’re tossed into the everlasting lake of fire. Love, God. Niiice. And stupid. God is a myth.

        >> But I’ll admit, I’m just uninterested in a long conversation, so I go with the quick and convenient.

        And you call ME lazy? Shit, calling you a hypocrite is being kinda harsh toward hypocrites!

        >> And honestly, I’m tired of you dudes taking advantage of Christian meekness to be assholes with no attendance to the facts. So you need to be humiliated once in a while.

        Sorry, but honesty doesn’t seem to be your strong suit. Demanding civility and decent manners is hardly “taking advantage,” and when it comes to facts, we got ‘em! But they won’t do you much good without a good grasp of logic and reason, which you seem to possess in equal proportion to your honesty. Speaking of humiliation, how’s the stinging shame of being publically bitch-slapped feel?

        >> And c’mon, grow some balls. You’re going to whinge that I called you an idiot?

        WTF is “whinge?” I think that name calling is a white flag; the grand finale of a losing argument. It’s not lost on me that you saved this part for last, loser. Your vocabulary really needs some work.

        >> I doubt very much you’re so thin-skinned it’s going to cause you irreparable emotional damage.

        You finally got something right! It’s clear that you’re the one with emotional damage. You should really get help.

      • You have humiliated yourself far more than anything I could ever write in response. Meekness? I’d settle for basic civility.

        Funny, I don’t feel particularly embarrassed. Oh, right, I forgot, your imagination is magical, it doesn’t need to have anything to do with reality.

        That’s gonna be your excuse for leaving? I’m rude? That’s even more pathetic than ‘yu so evil’, not to mention it’s wildly hypocritical.

        While I called you an idiot, you denigrated my faith, and Christianity in general as well as my honesty, wasted my time with weird and crazy non-existent scenarios (demons in Galileos telescope, really?) and made up a lot of crap to do it.

        All I did was use sharper and shorter words to express how tiresome you are. ‘Idiot’ is not a swear-word, doofus. And I backed up everything with arguments (heckl, when there was anything to argue). Call it rhetorical flavour, because I’m a loveable guy.

        If you like, I’m perfectly willing to continue this argument, and treat you like a normal human being instead of an electronic aberration of noise. But if you keep resorting to making up stuff about what I or Christians believe so you can perfectly fit it on the end of some random really irritating and stupid thing you want to insult us with, I’m gonna get impolite real quick.

        If you want civility, you need to start arguing in good faith, instead of throwing around pseudo-intellectual fluff about how Christians hate brains and science, when you can’t get even the basic facts right, nor admit it when you’re corrected.

      • >> Oh, don’t be a loser.

        No worries. The crown remains yours.

        That would make me a winner, genius.

        >> When you make a broad generalization [sic] about ‘atheists never do that’ then when atheist groups do it, you’re wrong.
        Maybe, if I’d said that at all. You’re hallucinating again. Take your meds.

        I quote: “Atheists really don’t care about Christmas, let alone hate it.”

        Boom.

        >> I’m not Westboro, whereas you are atheist,

        I’m not FFRF (or whoever put up the billboard), whereas you claim to be Christian. (Hold on… it’s hard to type and laugh at the same time…)

        So you’re not laughing? Does your life lack that Christmas spirit?

        It doesn’t matter that you’re not FFRF, that wasn’t the criteria. The criteria is that they were atheists and so are you. I’ll understand if that’s confusing for you.

        And it’s funny how you imply that I’m not Christian enough like that’s a bad thing. Is Christianity your model of morality as well? Do you love the Christ as much as we do? Does this impede your ability to learn science?

        >> I can even argue those guys are not Christian because they behave un-Christian-like, but you can’t argue that the atheist groups aren’t atheist, because there is no such criteria for atheist behavior.

        You mean like YOUR behavior here! Oh, you’re an endless supply of laughs!

        It’s real convincing when you have to say how happy you are. Didn’t people tell you that’s one of the first signs of depression?

        >> Just because he focused more on his religious studies later on, did not make him non-religious before that, you twit.
        …which was NEVER the point. The POINT was that his brilliant discoveries STOPPED, you twat.

        Oh, you mean like every single other scientist in the entire world ever? Oh, he stopped making scientific discoveries when he started focusing on theology?

        Whatever you thought your point was, you got every single potential one wrong.

        >> You floppy biscuit of a man. Who works beyond the limits of their abilities?

        People who grow and progress. Weren’t your abilities greater at 20 than at 10, you peabrained putz?

        Look at this, you can’t even admit an obvious logical error. It is impossible to work beyond your limits. Now you’re trying to cover up by say that your abilities improve which is not what you said, and doesn’t apply here anyway. He had already done his run as a scientist, he was old, if his abilities improved, then he was applying them to theological study.

        Good! It still makes us look about ten levels above your sorry ass state, Christboy.

        You think being a dumbass is 10 levels better than being intelligent and erudite? Sucks, bro.

        >> Heliocentrism was always treated as a theory which needed to be proved before accepted as a fact. Good science, right? Isn’t evolution still a theory?

        Okay, I’m gonna type REAL slow so you can understand this: heliocentrism was a FACT before we proved it, while we were proving it and after we proved it. Aviation is also a theory. Planes fly, so it’s proved. So why do we still call it “theory?” Maybe because scientists use the word differently? [HINT: It does NOT mean “educated guess.”] Evolution is a fact. Our understanding of it is the theory. See a pattern here, you simp?

        You realise that no matter what speed you type at, it comes out just as stupid right?

        Everything is a FACT before you prove it, moron. That’s why you can prove it.

        This equivocation you guys make of fact and theory is ridiculous. It may well be both a fact and a theory, but you have to prove it’s a fact before that means anything. The existence of God is both a fact and a theory, oh, I guess you can’t argue that now.

        >> The data was against him. Deal with it.

        Opinion was against him. The data he collected is what convinced him and got him into trouble.

        Dude. You’re wrong. Maybe you’ll pay attention if I link to an atheist site:

        http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.nz/search?q=galileo

        It’s so easy just to google ‘Galileo myth’, dude. Try it.

        Oh, yeah, I forgot about your ‘Library of Alexandria’ snipe. I’ll take care of that too:

        http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.nz/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia-hollywood-strikes.html

        >> Scientists find peer review tiresome and boring, and doesn’t imbue them with any magic mistake-finding powers. Here’s an easy link:

        http://voxday.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/peer-review-is-joke.html

        What kind of garbage source is THAT? You’re really reaching! What’s next? Getting marriage advice from Kim Kardassian? Even wikipedia’s entry trounces your piece of crap link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

        You realise that just posting a different link isn’t an argument right?

        You think that a post about peer review from an actual scientist who deliberately went out to test the peer review process (with hilarious results) is a waste of time? Okay. That’s totally up to you, dude.

        >> ‘Religion has no peer review’ are you kidding? My rugby team has no peer review either. What we do have is [sic] people who aren’t idiots, and spent a large amount of time doing what they’re supposed to, and not lying about it in the first place.

        “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Yes, I borrowed that from Christopher Hitchens.) NO, I’m most certainly not kidding. The claims of scripture and religious adherents have no B.S. filter; believers are told to accept assertions “on faith.” Science never does this. (No, really, it never does!)

        So I can dismiss everything you said. You idiot, what I said didn’t even require any evidence, you could have viewed it as a pure hypothetical.

        And there you go again. Here you have a real believer talking to you, but apparently the only way you can argue, is for you, an atheist, to tell me, a Christian how my religion works. We have no bullshit filter, yet I’ve done nothing but call you out on your bullshit in our whole convo.

        Uh-huh, science never gets told to accept assertions on faith, but you do it anyway. Bet you think evolution is an indisputable fact, despite the fact that we’re all disputing it.

        How many people do you think are living on the planet. Seven billion? Did you personally verify this, or did you assume that the people taking the surveys know what they’re doing

        Bullshit. You lied. You’re like Sarah Palin – you can’t even Google a convincing lie! So you’re a pottymouth AND a liar. Hypocrite. Here; knock yourself out: https://www.google.com/search?q=Bart+Ehrman+books&rlz=1C1SAVI_enUS507US507&oq=Bart+Ehrman+books&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6067j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

        Ooo, you compared me to Sarah Palin, that really hurts man. What’s next, you’re gonna tell me I dress like Barney the Dinosaur? You really should stop trying to be clever, you’re not any good at it.

        And no, I couldn’t be bothered going into my library folder, where I have my massive collection of atheist books.

        If you don’t find it convincing that’s because you’re an insecure tweat that can’t believe I read an Ehrman book and didn’t immediately start jacking off to it, or because you simply can’t recognise the truth.

        If my paraphrase (hence the: ‘) wasn’t the exact title, as I knew perfectly well (the real title was actually even more retarded than I made out), don’t you think that in googling it, I could have easily copy-pasted it? You’re so desperate to disbelieve me, that you don’t realise your accusation makes no sense. I had to have seen the title in order to either tell the truth or lie about it, and it’s more likely for me to mis-remember a title that is actually in my memory than I’m looking at on the freaking page. Get it?

        >> As opposed to all the ‘non-serious’ scientists of course (being everyone who disagrees)

        Like who?

        Figured it was self-defining, but here you go:

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

        As a side-note, I’d say that scientists are very interested in keeping their jobs. That tends to be good motivation for fudging data right? or how about political sensibilities? You’d agree that can be an issue, right?

        Non-sequitur; global warming is a data set based on what already happened, which we then can project outward to make predictions. Weather and earthquakes are dynamic, complex systems that cannot be predicted beyond a certain point. If you cannot grasp the distinction, pick up “Between Inner Space and Outer Space” by John D. Barrow. If you’re not immune to that book learnin’ stuff.

        The Bible is an account of stuff that already happened. Guess you gotta believe in God.

        And dude, Global Warming is something that’s supposed to happen in the future. Weather is something that you predict based on current data.

        So weather can’t be predicted ‘beyond a certain point’ because it’s so complex, but the weather of the entire planet is a piece of kelp?

        Hey, whatever makes you happy, man. Like I said, I don’t care.

        >> Oh, but anyone can look over the data? Is that only serious anybodies? Or can the people who think GW is a myth look at it too?

        Even the totally brain dead such as yourself can have at it. Knock yourself out starting here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.php

        Oh, so I shouldn’t just be taking scientists word for it, because they’re so expert? Am I now allowed to evaluate the data? Well, gee, that’s kind of what a lot of people are doing, you know the Global Warming deniers.

        >> Oh, so you agree with me? I love how simple you are. You automatically assume that since I don’t believe in Global Warming and that I’ll fight to the death to defend the reputation of companies. Well you’re partially right. I actually just don’t give a shit about GW, whether it’s true or not.

        Which shows what a complete moron YOU are. When it starts impacting your wallet, you will. (Oh, wait… it’s already started. Nevermind.)

        What a weak comeback.

        It’s gonna freeze my wallet is it? You don’t know where I live, or how I live. Trust me, if the temperature goes up another few degrees, if America blows up (as I’m expecting anyway), my wallet will be just fine.

        >> Christianity is at the bottom of the list for ‘fudge data’ motivation.
        NOW who’s kidding who? Christianity is a multi-billion-dollar global industry! A whole lot of people have a huge stake in keeping the gullible filling their collection plates and sending in their tithes, donations and pledges.

        Idiot. Christianity is a religion. What industry? They’re producing bibles and tracts? Telling sermons? As for the Catholics, the money goes into maintaining the building, or charity or somesuch Christiany thing. If the priests get any money, it’s a wage for living. (Heck, don’t you guys even have to tip waitresses over there?)

        The priests, bishops, cardinals and even the pope take a vow of poverty, genius. They don’t even really own anything. Your conspiracy theory of monetary worth makes the Church evil is cute, but stupid. You’re a real believer in magic words, huh?

        And hey, if that’s the case, then I guess that Christians have a stronger sense of ethic, having this multi-billion-dollar global industry (watch out for our armies of doom man, we’re conquering the world) and not bullshitting people for their money.

        They pass around a hat, and people know exactly what and why they’re putting their money in for.

        A whole lot of people have a huge stake in serving Christ.

        >> Except for the revelation about the universe, how it got here, where it’s going, what it all means, what’s important, and what we should be prepared for.

        Seriously? Aside from “god did it,” it is devoid of anything like FACTS. Nothing to tell us that the sun is just another star (and, in fact, appears to say it’s something separate and distinct); nothing to tell us what the moon is or how it got there; nothing about orbits or how the planet moves; nothing about the universe expanding… as Cardinal Baronius said to Galileo, “”The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” Take a good long read. He’s right.

        What is with your arbitrary bullshit? There’s nothing to tell us that one island is made out of dirt like another island. Who cares? Did He ever say in any of the Bible that He would?

        Yes He did explain. God created the heavens and the earth. That’s a fact. He created the Sun and the Moon. If you want to complain about it, that’s your problem. It tells us that He created it out of void, and the order of creation. It explains the fall of man and how we became afflicted with sin, suffering and imperfection.

        It’s funny how you’re happy to pull out the words of a Christian from centuries past, but it’s apparently too much of a strain for you to pay attention to what I’m telling you. Talk about selective.

        ‘How the heavens go’ is different from ‘where it came from’, and I imagine that the good Cardinal believed much the same as I do, that God is Creator.

        >> Yeah, how often has your happiness depended on your ability to alloy two metals?

        I never said it did. You’re now the one dragging irrelevancies into the discussion (if it can properly be called a “discussion”). But I’m pretty happy that somebody can, since our world would be a pretty crappy place without ‘em.

        You’re the one that brought up ‘barely able to alloy two metals’, douchebag, like it was relevant to their ability to bear witness to God.

        >> Why the heck would God bother having it written down, when we’re obviously capable of finding it out for ourselves. Not to mention that metal-working was in fine shape at the time, and it still is irrelevant.

        Again, non-sequitur: the question was why the bible is devoid of any “revelations” that people of the time didn’t know themselves. Your lame excuses aren’t convincing.

        You retard. How about Genesis? How about God? How about the creation of light, earth, heavens? How about the Mosaic law? How about hygiene? That may be your question, but it’s a bad one that presumes He should have. Why should God be giving them random scientific information that they didn’t require, and according to all your examples, couldn’t have made use of anyway?
        Look, the obvious fact is that He <i.didn’t reveal these arbitrary scientific truths. You seem to have a lot of trouble grasping this.
        Inventing your own notions of ‘What God should have done’ is ludicrous.

        Your lame questions are retarded. This is why atheists shouldn’t try to get involved in theology, you guys don’t have a clue, and you don’t want it.

        >> You’re complaining that it isn’t a scientific text-book?

        Only through your warped mind prism. I’ve made a convincing argument for the bible being of mundane, human origin devoid of any divine influence. And you’ve made insults, non-sequiturs and apologies. Beyond lame.

        No, I can’t say you have. You haven’t made a convincing argument for anything. All you did was pants around a lot.

        Ah yes, ‘apologetics’ is what I’m here for. And please, don’t cry because I’m better at displaying my genuine contempt.

        >> Your lazy-crazy theological pondering are terrible. Why don’t you just ask Christians if that’s what they expect form the Bible, instead of inventing your own weirdo straw-cult to molest?

        Your inept word stew is nearly indecipherable. It’s the Christians making the claim that their bible is da shizzle. I’m the guy they’re chartered to convince. So convince me, already! Or go away and leave decent people alone.

        What we’re discussing here is Christians Hate Science. Don’t change the subject just because you’re getting your ass kicked.

        >> Oh, how about because ‘who gives a shit?’ He told them to keep clean, to practise hygiene, don’t you think that’s a little more practical than telling them there’s evil micro-cellular animals making them sick?

        Are you auditioning to be the next Duck Dynasty rube? ‘Cause you’d get my vote! There’s a classic, emptyheaded, thoughtless response! The bible has strange cleaning rituals, bloodletting rituals and strange prohibitions against eating this or that, most of which is arbitrary. Even a HINT of knowledge that people at the time didn’t have would likewise be a hint of “divine inspiration.” But there isn’t a hint, because it’s not. It’s “The Greatest Bullshit Story Ever Told!”

        You’re saying I should be the most popular actor on TV right now? Wow, thanks!

        Oh, lemme guess, anything that they learn from God is ‘stuff they knew’. Talk about circular reasoning, dipstick. ‘Strange cleaning rituals’? Holy crap. Here you are going on about how they just knew stuff everyone knew, and even you don’t understand the benefits of hygiene! That must make you like, Stone Age or something.

        And if they already knew it, why was He telling them? Why did He have to tell them to stop eating blood from the dead things lying around? You know how popular that sort of thing was?

        Ask yourself this, He told them how to fix the diseases and about hygiene which prevents the spread of harmful bacteria. How did they know? If they didn’t know about how the disease was caused, how did they know how to prevent the spread of tiny germs? How is it that God, or whoever, knew the best way to fix it, instead of just saying ‘it’s the will of God’?

        There you go, Divine Inspiration.

        “Also if one of the animals dies which you have for food, the one who touches its carcass becomes unclean until evening. He, too, who eats some of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening; and the one who picks up its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening’”

        Sounds like He was worried about bacteria and transmitting disease, don’t it?

        So what’s interesting, is that they had the information to prevent the spread of germs, without actually knowing there were germs. I wonder where they got that information from? Could it be that person that they wrote about at great length in their histories, God?
        This looks good: http://www.hope-of-israel.org/bihealth.htm

        If you’re looking for Divine Inspiration, how about looking at the prophecies? Buit lemme guess again, no matter what, you’re just going to say that they just teleported from the future or something right?

        The prophecy of Daniel foretold the date of the Messiah’s birth, just for starters.

        >> You want God to take all the fun out of science for us? Don’t be so lazy.

        No, you silly tit, I’m asking for his ID. I’m checking the author’s bona-fides.

        He’s God, you retard. You don’t know who God is? What’s this criteria you’re checking it against, your imagination? I doubt He’s interested.

        You being unable to recognise God is your failure.

        >> You know, it’s a sad day when you’re argument is so weak that you feel you have to actually say fail. You’d think it’s be obvious, right?

        It’s an even sadder day when a failure’s fail is such a huge failing fail that he has to take exception to the use of the word “fail.” Failure sucks, doesn’t it? I’m sure you’re used to it. With such a failure of basic logic, I don’t see how you ever win any of these arguments.

        I try to point out where you went wrong and go from there. But you’re right, rational examination of the facts doesn’t seem to be your forte.

        >> You tool. What a load of arbitraily invented nonsense. Why not complain he didn’t give you a Ferrari so you wouldn’t be late for work that one time?

        Is English a second language for you? Or are you like a cat when you try to point something out to it and it stares stupidly at your finger? What I’ve clearly demonstrated is that the bible is bullshit based as much on what it does NOT say as what it DOES. (And it gets a lot wrong when it does actually state some things that can be fact checked.) Now, if it had MENTIONED a Ferrari, or cars in general, I might be able to take it (and you) seriously.

        You are seriously an idiot. You’re trying to prove its bullshit on random shit you make up that it didn’t say? Well it didn’t say it, get over it. You’d take it seriously if it mentioned a <Ferrari?

        I’m sure your brain is sinning against nature somehow, if I could only prove it…

        >> And hey, if you want to think Ehrman is amazeballs because he wrote books, that’s cool. What is he, your saint?

        No, he’s a world-class biblical scholar. You’re a schmuck. He knows what he’s talking about. You don’t have a friggin’ clue. AND you’re a grown-ass man using the word “amazeballs.” You must be very amusing to the 12-year-old girls in your neighborhood.

        Hahaha, it really does bother you right? You didn’t even say, ‘well, wait till you read his other books’, you just went straight into cry-baby mode.

        You know what’s funny, I don’t have a problem with him. I know very well that he’s a useful resource against Jesus Mythers.

        But I’ve only read one book, and as I said, he was kind of a deceptive asshole in it. It happens. He wanted to sell his book that told atheists the Bible didn’t answer the its own favourite subject.

        You don’t actually know how old I am, and you figure I care. Pretty sad. Wouldn’t you be embarrassed if I was like 14 or something?

        >> That’s also amazing! You read the books you buy! Your arguments are now suddenly valid!

        Yeah, I’m weird like that. I read n’ stuff. Went to school and everything. But being a snarky assface doesn’t make your arguments valid either.

        You had to go to school to learn to read? Being snarky doesn’t make me smarter, but I didn’t need help with that anyway. Of the two of us, I’m the only one pulling it off.

        >> You’re the one trying to say that Christians hate science.
        Where? Where did I say that? You lose your reading glasses?

        You could use ‘em. Try and figure out why I said ‘trying to say’, instead of ‘you said.

        But here’s some of your words:

        “Religion is regressive.”
        “The claims of scripture and religious adherents have no B.S. filter; believers are told to accept assertions “on faith.” Science never does this.”
        “many religious authorities did fund universities and scientific endeavor, but whenever “inconvenient” details emerged, they reserved the right to fudge the data and silence anyone who objected.”

        All of which had no evidence to back it up, and I proved to be nonsense the things you tried to pass off as evidence.

        >> Personally, I’m a huge geek. It was a terrible day when they said they were shutting down the shuttle program.
        HOLY CATS! Well, it had to happen. We talked so much that you finally blurted something we can agree on. I’ve been a NASA nerd since I watched the Gemini and Apollo flights as a kid. Abandoning space exploration is abandoning our future IMO. (“Space Chronicles” by Neil deGrasse Tyson contains my sentiments perfectly. Yeah, I know… another damned book!) 

        Hahaha, I find it strangely odd to dislike you right now.

        And you read Vox Popoli often, do you? Big Vox Day fan?

        In fact, have I argued with you before? It’s hard to separate people on the internet.

        >> But if you want some perspective, our accomplishments to date is getting men on the moon, and a probe past Pluto. That’s not a very large amount of the universe.
        We’re not very large critters, and we’re doing what we can. But our accomplishments are WAY more than those two items! We’ve got robots on Mars, we’ve landed on Venus (long enough for a few minutes of photos!), we plunked a probe on Titan, we’ve got volumes of data on Jupiter’s own little solar system – and Saturn’s too. We’re discovering new exoplanets almost every day. We’ve discovered more in the past 100 years about the universe than in all of previous human history. Maybe THIS is a good place to use “amazeballs!”

        That didn’t actually expand the radius of ‘universe explored’ you know.

        Mankind discovered more about the universe the first time he looked up at night than we ever have since. He saw that there was a universe.

        >> Lemme guess, this is where you get tired of getting called out on your bullshit, and try to make the conversation about ‘How Christian of You’, right?

        Well, if being a mean-spirited, confrontational asshole is your idea of “calling out,” then yes, you’re tiresome. And a hypocrite. Jesus would kick you square in the nutz.

        So, calling you an idiot is Un-Christ-like, but you think kicking people in the nuts is Jesus-like? Where do you get the gall to speak for Jesus, anyway? You’re an atheist for crying out loud, why the heck are you arguing for what you believe is Christianity? I mean, I sure Jesus appreciates it, but it’s really bizarre.

        Don’t tell me it’s because you have no integrity and will use any rhetoric, any lie, any method to shut down argument? Surely not.

        And did you want to argue without confrontation? Sounds magical.

        >> Kiss my ass. Like the Apostle Paul said, go with what works. I’ll be mild and gentle when it actually serves a purpose.
        Lick my balls. Like Bertrand Russel said, “A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he can understand.” That’s about the only way I can think of how you could get such a thought from the gay heretic.

        What a faggot response.

        You’re incredibly lazy. You don’t have an argument, so you just quote a smart guy saying something like it applies to me, or even this particular argument.

        Here you go, for the scripturally impaired:

        1 Corinthians 9: 19 – “For, though I am free from all persons, I have made myself the slave to all, that I may gain the most persons. (20) And so to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law (21) to those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law towards God but under law toward Christ, so that I might gain those without law. (22) To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, that I might by all means save some.”

        You’re an asshole, so I come to you as an asshole. Gutted, right?

        Not as much fun being a douchebag to Christians when one decides to give you a good ass-kicking for it, is it?

        >> Or how about ‘the fool has said in his heart there is no God?’

        I love how insecure believers constantly trot-out this screed from their bag of tricks; a transparent attempt to stifle any opposition or skepticism! I say that only a fool believes there’s an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do and loves you more than anyone could ever love anyone… unless you piss him off by not believing in him even though he’s done his level best to hide himself and obfuscate his existence. Then, you’re tossed into the everlasting lake of fire. Love, God. Niiice. And stupid. God is a myth.

        I just love your reply. No, honestly I do. Our ‘bag of tricks’ huh? Quoting the bible? Oh, we’re tricky.

        And since when was it ever used in the context of ‘stifling opposition or skepticism’. I’m not even annoyed, because you’re being so transparent that I have no worries that any reader is going to take it seriously.

        I was just asking you what flavour of insult you preferred. I can go old-school if that’s what you really want. Satan’s your daddy. Howzat?

        Hey, if you sell some doves in the temple, maybe you’ll let me flog you?

        Yeah, God really went out of His way to hide Himself by exploding onto the scene on Mt. Sinai, taking over government, and have a detailed account of His appearance written down in book that survived for 3500 years and forms the basis of the largest and largests religions of the world, so that everyone has heard of Him.

        But no, don’t let that stop you. Maybe somewhere in some far away magical alternate universe, everything you believe in is true, and not an appalling waste of neuronal activity.

        >> But I’ll admit, I’m just uninterested in a long conversation, so I go with the quick and convenient.
        And you call ME lazy? Shit, calling you a hypocrite is being kinda harsh toward hypocrites!

        Sure, if you want to call it that. I call it ‘lack of interest’ personally.

        But I know, it’s pretty bad when you have lazy people calling you lazy. That makes you pretty low on the scale.

        And blah, blah, blah, the rest of your post is just crying about getting turkey-slapped in the mouth. You’ll get over it.

      • That would make me a winner, genius.

        >> Only on Planet Assface. Congratulations.

        I quote: “Atheists really don’t care about Christmas, let alone hate it.” Boom.

        >> Seriously? So you’re going to judge all by a single group? SO YOU ARE WESTBORO!!! So tell me, dickbreath, is your self-loathing because god DOES hate fags?
        So you’re not laughing? Does your life lack that Christmas spirit?
        >> Au contraire – you’re an endless supply of laughs. I’m surprised it took you so long to cobble together this lame reply. It must’ve taxed your abilities to no end, what with your impairments and all. Yeah, that “Christmas spirit” just spills off of your posts. Glad I don’t celebrate at YOUR house.

        It doesn’t matter that you’re not FFRF, that wasn’t the criteria. The criteria is that they were atheists and so are you. I’ll understand if that’s confusing for you.

        >> NOT! The criteria was a strawman screed against all atheists based on the actions of a few, and me calling the author on his bullshit. See, you don’t get to set the criteria. Also… and again, I’ll type slow for you… discussions tend to LEAD somewhere. You know… you have a starting point, a journey and an ultimate destination. That means shit changes; expands, covers broader ground, goes off on side tangents and so on. Or, when apes like you trip over semantics, you get a flat and have to go remedial. Guess that’s life on the short bus, eh remedial boy?

        And it’s funny how you imply that I’m not Christian enough like that’s a bad thing. Is Christianity your model of morality as well? Do you love the Christ as much as we do? Does this impede your ability to learn science?

        >> Oh, I imply nothing; I’M SAYING IT. I’m calling you on your hypocrisy. YOU, by your actions, are NOT “Christian” by anyone’s standards. You love nothing but yourself, thinking your asinine spew to be clever. Your allegiance to a pre-industrial mythos from the dark ages impedes your ability to learn science. If I understand your bible correctly, you’ve got some repentin’ to do.
        It’s real convincing when you have to say how happy you are. Didn’t people tell you that’s one of the first signs of depression?

        >> See? An endless supply of laughs! I’ll look for you on Comedy Central. They could do a special: “The Sad Sack Comedy Hour.”

        Oh, you mean like every single other scientist in the entire world ever? Oh, he stopped making scientific discoveries when he started focusing on theology?

        >> A prime example of “speak and show your ignorance.” Check your facts: he was hardly over the hill. Did you even BOTHER to listen to the Tyson video? And dig it: Neil is a HUGE FAN of Newton! Don’t look now, but your logical disconnect is showing.

        Whatever you thought your point was, you got every single potential one wrong.

        >> Your lack of comprehension does not make me wrong. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

        Look at this, you can’t even admit an obvious logical error. It is impossible to work beyond your limits. Now you’re trying to cover up by say that your abilities improve which is not what you said, and doesn’t apply here anyway. He had already done his run as a scientist, he was old, if his abilities improved, then he was applying them to theological study.

        >> Wow, you DO have a real problem with basic comprehension skills, don’t you? First, you cannot TELL me what I meant, because you can’t even understand basic written English. People – scientists and non-scientists alike – grow by pushing against their limits. Well, some of us do, anyway. Others just waste their lives in church and trolling on websites. And if you’re implying that old people can’t make discoveries (he was still under 30, you idiot), then you’ve got more Googling to do. The fact is, Newton gave up. He tossed-in the towel. For all his brilliance, he said, “Shit, if I can’t figure it out, it must be god.” Sadly enough, he contented himself with that answer. Good thing others did not, because we’ve gone WAY beyond since then.

        You think being a dumbass is 10 levels better than being intelligent and erudite? Sucks, bro.

        >> Stop sucking, dumbass! Don’t you remember: god hates fags? It’s nice to have goals. Maybe one day you’ll approximate “intelligent and erudite.” Nice to see you using big words.

        You realise that no matter what speed you type at, it comes out just as stupid right?

        >> Yes; it precisely matches the ability of the reader, so it will come out stupid to stupid people, jagoff.

        Everything is a FACT before you prove it, moron. That’s why you can prove it.

        >> Partially true. But some “facts” seem to elude proof, one being the god hypothesis. There is nothing that constitutes anything like proof. In fact, there’s no evidence of ANY sort of spirit realm. None. Lots of OPINION, lots of anecdote, but nothing that stands up as proof. Please, by all means, re-read this paragraph until you understand it. I know it’s tough, but I’ve got hope for ya.

        This equivocation you guys make of fact and theory is ridiculous. It may well be both a fact and a theory, but you have to prove it’s a fact before that means anything. The existence of God is both a fact and a theory, oh, I guess you can’t argue that now.

        >> No, it’s actually a dictionary level definition, wrongboy! See, even facts can be expanded upon. Things we know as facts, such as the existence of the atom, didn’t somehow become non-facts when we found out that the atom itself, once thought to be the smallest unit (hence the name “atom”) was made of even smaller stuff – things even more miniscule than your excuse for a brain. This is the case with just about everything. Theories are based on facts, incorporate facts and are sometimes open ended, because even though we know something is happening (evolution), we obviously haven’t learned all there is to learn. As to the existence of god, it doesn’t even reach the level of theory; it’s a hypothesis. If you had any clue as to how science is actually done, you’d know that you’d have to test your hypothesis and come up with anything to support it before it could reach the level of “theory.” (I can almost hear you scampering off to Google to become an instant expert! Go on – knock yerself out.)

        Dude. You’re wrong. Maybe you’ll pay attention if I link to an atheist site: http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.nz/search?q=galileo

        >> Okay… so where in all that alphabet soup does it contradict what I said? They didn’t keep him under “house arrest” for nothing! And what was it that the Pope finally apologized and forgave him for? (Lastly, you DO understand that blogs are NOT sources; not authoritative, right?)

        It’s so easy just to google ‘Galileo myth’, dude. Try it.

        >> Oh, I’m sure if you type ANYTHING into Google followed by the word “myth,” you’ll come up with all sorts of Jesse Ventura style conspiracy bugnutty bullshit! How about actual HISTORY, dimwit? Ever think of Googling that? Or, better yet, maybe you should’ve just stayed awake during history class.

        Oh, yeah, I forgot about your ‘Library of Alexandria’ snipe. I’ll take care of that too: http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.nz/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia-hollywood-strikes.html

        >> Oh, gee, a movie review! What… no popcorn? Cheapskate! Again, you seem to need some remedial history here. You DO understand that the library was sacked – TWICE – with smaller acts of destruction and vandalism during its existence, right? How about starting with a more basic reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

        You realise that just posting a different link isn’t an argument right?

        >> No, but it does show that you’re full of shit.

        You think that a post about peer review from an actual scientist who deliberately went out to test the peer review process (with hilarious results) is a waste of time? Okay. That’s totally up to you, dude.

        >> When peer review shreds your favorite theory, some crybabies won’t let go of their binkie no matter what. Wherever there are winners and losers, you’ll find crybabies. And they’re usually online bitching at atheists. Peer review is a SYSTEM. Because it’s basically “open source,” while it can be abused like any human construct, such abuses are limited in scope, easily discovered and handily exposed. Again, remember the cold fusion guys? There’s a lot about science that is boring. If boredom is anathema to you, find another line of work. Clinical trials, hours and hours of research and tedious data collection/observation is the hallmark of science. Peer review is often a much more swift process, which would hardly peg most scientist’s boredom meters. But if you want to believe some anecdotal blog, that’s totally up to you, dude.

        So I can dismiss everything you said. You idiot, what I said didn’t even require any evidence, you could have viewed it as a pure hypothetical.

        >> Yes, you could, but here you are, blathering as if you had any firm ground to stand on. I’ll hand it to you: it takes some cajones grandes to be so blatantly idiotic while calling others idiots!

        And there you go again. Here you have a real believer talking to you, but apparently the only way you can argue, is for you, an atheist, to tell me, a Christian how my religion works. We have no bullshit filter, yet I’ve done nothing but call you out on your bullshit in our whole convo.

        >> I nominate this for THE most retarded sentence in the conversation thus far! Did it ever occur to you that I was once a Christian? That I attended a Christian college? That I’ve studied scripture long and hard? That I taught classes to both children and adults? Agree or not, I’m as qualified to talk about how Christianity “works” as anybody, thanks. I think you’d better smell what you say, ‘cause I think you’re talkin’ shit. Especially about being a “true believer.” You don’t seem worried about the penalties for being a douchebag.

        Uh-huh, science never gets told to accept assertions on faith, but you do it anyway. Bet you think evolution is an indisputable fact, despite the fact that we’re all disputing it.

        >> No scientists are disputing it. All assertions of evolution theory are supported by evidence. Faith has zero to do with it. No scientists go around telling people to accept “the mysteries of science.” But I hear a lot about the “mysteries of faith” from the Christian side (Catholics n’ Lutherans mostly.) Only theocrats and those too lazy to do the math showing that Noah’s Ark didn’t have nearly enough capacity to house the billions of species of animals dispute it. No, I wouldn’t call evolution an indisputable fact. I’d call it demonstrably provable. Although there are many details we need to fill-in, it can be shown that it has happened and continues to happen. If you spent as much time Googling facts on evolution from secular sources as you do bullshit from theocratic or biased ones, you might be able to grasp just how much supporting evidence there is.

        How many people do you think are living on the planet. Seven billion? Did you personally verify this, or did you assume that the people taking the surveys know what they’re doing

        >> What reason do I have to disbelieve those numbers? Did you personally investigate and discover some huge conspiracy to inflate numbers ‘cause… panic?

        Ooo, you compared me to Sarah Palin, that really hurts man.

        >> It should, although now that I think about it, it was an unfair slam… to Sarah Palin. At least she was relevant at one time…somewhere.

        What’s next, you’re gonna tell me I dress like Barney the Dinosaur?

        >> I don’t know… do you? God hates dinosaurs, too, ya know, unless you’re the batshit Creation Museum. They’ve got ‘em hanging out with people n’ stuff.

        You really should stop trying to be clever, you’re not any good at it.

        >> If you’re the judge, I’ll take that as a badge of honor. “My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch.” – Jack Nicholson

        And no, I couldn’t be bothered going into my library folder, where I have my massive collection of atheist books.

        >> They only work if you crack ‘em open and read ‘em every now and then. If they exist at all, that is. You should take a look, since some psychotropic drugs can induce hallucinations.

        If you don’t find it convincing that’s because you’re an insecure tweat that can’t believe I read an Ehrman book and didn’t immediately start jacking off to it, or because you simply can’t recognise the truth.

        >> No, I call bullshit on your bullshit. You can’t discuss the details of what you read because you DIDN’T READ IT. You’re a liar and a fraud.

        If my paraphrase (hence the: ‘) wasn’t the exact title, as I knew perfectly well (the real title was actually even more retarded than I made out), don’t you think that in googling it, I could have easily copy-pasted it? You’re so desperate to disbelieve me, that you don’t realise your accusation makes no sense. I had to have seen the title in order to either tell the truth or lie about it, and it’s more likely for me to mis-remember a title that is actually in my memory than I’m looking at on the freaking page. Get it?

        >> No. What I get is that you had some vague memory you once saw somewhere. The fact that you can’t pull any cogent facts or ideas from what you supposedly read demonstrates that you either have a piss-poor memory or that you’re lying. Don’t you ever get tired of picking up your teeth?

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

        >> You guys always trot-out this list. The trouble with it is that there are so few actual climatologists included. TV weathermen and dentists really aren’t qualified to chime-in. Also, where’s the contradictory data? Lest we forget, Big Tobacco trotted out all sorts of accredited scientists who swore under oath that smoking was just hunky dunky.

        As a side-note, I’d say that scientists are very interested in keeping their jobs. That tends to be good motivation for fudging data right? or how about political sensibilities? You’d agree that can be an issue, right?

        >> Indeed… hence my last reply. Don’tcha think the list you jack off to includes some slaves chained to big oil and the corporatocracy by their wallets? But how do scientists get paid by touting a theory that nobody wants to hear? Is there a secret Al Gore payroll we don’t know about?

        The Bible is an account of stuff that already happened. Guess you gotta believe in God.

        >> The bible is rife with inaccuracy and historical error. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html)

        And dude, Global Warming is something that’s supposed to happen in the future. Weather is something that you predict based on current data.

        >> We can compare past conditions over several thousand years and chart the direction that things are headed in, extrapolating from hard data to make predictions. (Something science does way better than religion, by the way.) Weather patterns are more immediate, dynamic and tougher to predict. If you look into the science behind weather, which incorporates fluid dynamics and elements of chaos theory, you’ll understand that the two aren’t even remotely the same. Dude.

        So weather can’t be predicted ‘beyond a certain point’ because it’s so complex, but the weather of the entire planet is a piece of kelp?

        >> Again, not the same thing, you damned dirty ape!

        Hey, whatever makes you happy, man. Like I said, I don’t care.

        >> Apparently you do, ‘cause here you are, wasting my time with your stupid blather.

        Oh, so I shouldn’t just be taking scientists word for it, because they’re so expert?

        >> No. I’m saying you don’t HAVE to. If you think you’ve got the mojo, you can pick over the data and try to shred it yourself.

        Am I now allowed to evaluate the data?

        >> Well, first you go to school and get some education. You know… some real book learnin’. Then you work in the field for a bit, gaining something known as “credibility.” Then, once you’ve done your research, gathered your data and written your paper with your conclusions, you get it published in an accredited scientific journal, such as the AAAS. Then other scientists try to shred you. If you survive the process, or even take a few hits but aren’t fully discredited, then you’re golden. Good luck to you.

        Well, gee, that’s kind of what a lot of people are doing, you know the Global Warming deniers.

        >> Um… not exactly. Being a chiropractor doesn’t permit you to submit papers on climate change to any accredited publication. Unless you also have a degree in Climatology. This ain’t like hiring in at the factory and winning the job just ‘cause you’ve got some sort of degree. In science, your area of study is important.

        What a weak comeback.

        >> I give what I get. Sue me.

        It’s gonna freeze my wallet is it?

        >> Do you eat meat? (Aside from your fag activities, that is?) Or corn products? Do you live near a lake or ocean? Do you experience WEATHER? Unless you’re on the ISS, then you’ll figure it out, assclown.

        You don’t know where I live, or how I live. Trust me, if the temperature goes up another few degrees, if America blows up (as I’m expecting anyway), my wallet will be just fine.

        >> Indeed, I have no clue as to where your institution is located, or what ward allows patients to access the internet. Your simpleton logic ignores the global consequences of “another few degrees” because your understanding is a bit like your dog’s: you both sit and watch the same TV shows together, but your dog just doesn’t get as much out of it as you do.

        Idiot. Christianity is a religion. What industry?

        >> You think they’re just printing up all them bibles, tracts and other books for FREE? (http://zondervan.com/) You think churches are raised by groups of Amish who do it for the love? You think that providing all of the stuff churches depend on come from god? (http://www.kingdom.com/Kingdom-Christmas-Extravaganza-s/275.htm?click=75266&gclid=CMDlltWlxbsCFetAMgodlmoASQ) And all of this is aside from all of the preachers and others who make their living off of religion. Are you so vapid as to think this isn’t about MONEY?

        They’re producing bibles and tracts? Telling sermons? As for the Catholics, the money goes into maintaining the building, or charity or somesuch Christiany thing. If the priests get any money, it’s a wage for living. (Heck, don’t you guys even have to tip waitresses over there?)

        >> Of course we tip the waitresses. We just don’t fuck the altar boys.

        The priests, bishops, cardinals and even the pope take a vow of poverty, genius. They don’t even really own anything. Your conspiracy theory of monetary worth makes the Church evil is cute, but stupid. You’re a real believer in magic words, huh?

        >> They don’t have to have money; most live in opulence, aside from some orders of monks. They live in nice houses provided by the Church; their food comes from the Church; their clothing comes from the Church. Plus, few other religions practice any such poverty living. I’m a believer in facts, and religion is demonstrably a HUGE industry. Since you’re a “believer,” you’re also the one who buys into magic.

        And hey, if that’s the case, then I guess that Christians have a stronger sense of ethic, having this multi-billion-dollar global industry (watch out for our armies of doom man, we’re conquering the world) and not bullshitting people for their money.

        >> Drop your bucks into the place or go to hell sounds pretty bullshitty to me. Oh, and you’re gonna talk about ethics after the aforementioned altar boys, and such shining examples as Jim Bakker, Benny Hinn and Jimmy Swaggert? And since we’re going to lump all atheists together with some group that puts up billboards you don’t like, then how ‘bout we lump YOU in with these evil bastards? Hey, fair is fair.

        They pass around a hat, and people know exactly what and why they’re putting their money in for.

        >> They don’t. They have “faith” that their money is going to help people, maybe maintain their buildings, etc. It might come as a shock to them that they’re also financing the preacher’s Navigator, private school for his kids and even political contributions, among other things. Besides, if god is so AMAZEBALLS, then how come he always needs money? Is he fucking Irish? Does he play the ponies or have a crack problem?

        A whole lot of people have a huge stake in serving Christ.

        >> There ya go! A huge FINANCIAL stake. Some quite literally – Kingdom also sells communion wafers. Yum yum!

        What is with your arbitrary bullshit?

        >> Arbitrary how? I directly address everything you write. If you’re unable to follow a simple conversation, you can be replaced with a parrot.

        There’s nothing to tell us that one island is made out of dirt like another island. Who cares? Did He ever say in any of the Bible that He would?

        >> Again, the point was that one would expect any book written by god might contain some sort of revelatory content. Do you know why few people seriously believe in psychics? Because if they were real, they’d be millionaires, cashing in their winning lottery tickets. Or betting on the outcomes of sporting events. ‘Cause they’re psychics. But they aren’t, ‘cause they can’t. Same with the bible: it makes no “revelation” that men of the period didn’t already know, or wrote as vaguely as today’s horoscopes so that it might apply to anything. (Nostradamus picked up on this tactic and is now regarded as some great oracle.)

        Yes He did explain. God created the heavens and the earth. That’s a fact.

        >> It’s a myth. Nothing is “explained.” According to Genesis, god just happened to be zipping along through the void, doo dah, doo dah, when he stumbles upon an already existent Earth, which was “without form and void.” So he picks up the cosmic silly putty and supposedly makes it more like the Earth we know. No explanation of how it got there or how he pulled off this crap. We’re supposed to believe he speaks things into existence, but there is nothing about the mechanics behind it. Is it like our AI where we can give a computer a voice command? Are there spiritual minions that act when he blurts orders? Explanation, please!

        He created the Sun and the Moon. If you want to complain about it, that’s your problem.

        >> Proof, please. We have some pretty good evidence that the sun formed well ahead of the Earth, regardless of what some ignorant savage wrote at the dawn of the Iron Age. Ditto for how the planets formed around it, all without any evidence of a creator’s hand.

        It tells us that He created it out of void, and the order of creation.

        >> Which it got wrong…

        It explains the fall of man and how we became afflicted with sin, suffering and imperfection.

        >> Oh, here we go: forbidden knowledge and talking snakes. Yeah, THAT’S credible. Tell me: have you ever heard a snake talk? (Or is that why you’re on medication?)

        ‘How the heavens go’ is different from ‘where it came from’, and I imagine that the good Cardinal believed much the same as I do, that God is Creator.

        >> But at least he was sensible enough to understand that facts are facts, and if the facts don’t conform to what we might believe, then the fault is with our beliefs, not the facts. I know more than a few believers who also believe that evolution is the mechanism of how god created the diversity we see. But that isn’t good enough for Christian zealot literalists. Or just plain stupid people.

        You’re the one that brought up ‘barely able to alloy two metals’, douchebag, like it was relevant to their ability to bear witness to God.

        >> The reference, of course, was that we’ve come a long way since the time of the barely civilized, ignorant apes who wrote your ancient drivel…er, I mean, scripture. Cat… finger…

        You retard. How about Genesis?

        >> A myth, most of which is cribbed from older religions…

        How about God?

        >> Ditto.

        How about the creation of light, earth, heavens?

        >> Neat fiction. (Oh, and did you ever notice how god creates the sun, moon and stars all AFTER he says “let there be light?” Somebody’s editor wasn’t paying attention.)

        How about the Mosaic law?

        >> What about it? Nothing revelatory here; just a list of arbitrary prohibitions based on prejudices of the time.

        How about hygiene?

        >> You mean like calling women “unclean” because they’ve got their period and the big rituals should their evil, vile nastiness fall on the floor or anything! Ditto if a man “spills his seed.” And WTF is THAT? Are we plants? Sperm is NOT “seed” any more than bolts are trees.

        That may be your question, but it’s a bad one that presumes He should have. Why should God be giving them random scientific information that they didn’t require, and according to all your examples, couldn’t have made use of anyway?

        >> Reading the bible, it seems like god loves to prove himself. He raises the dead, causes miracles and all kinds of proofs “so that you might believe.” So you’d think such a narcissistic entity would toss in something that would verify his existence and validity for all time, like maybe the cure for cancer. Or E=MC2. Or ONE GODDAMNED THING that we didn’t already know. But the bible is devoid of such information because it wasn’t written by a god.

        Look, the obvious fact is that He > Tell me: if a UFO landed and aliens came out and met people face-to-face, wouldn’t you have some expectations? Might it not be natural to ask them questions, the first being to verify that they are, indeed, aliens and not some clever college kids in costumes who invented some sort of new aircraft? And once we established their true nature, might we then not expect them to reveal stuff we just plain don’t know because of their superior technology? SAME THING. Here we have a claim: that the bible is the “word of god.” Well, if the creator of the universe is talking with me, then I’d have some expectations as to what he/she/it might say; one might expect to hear things that no human could know. But there’s nothing.

        Your lame questions are retarded. This is why atheists shouldn’t try to get involved in theology, you guys don’t have a clue, and you don’t want it.

        >> Here comes Mr. Strawman again. Don’t you ever get tired of stepping on the same rakes? Your lame apologies are unconvincing and, frankly, some of the dumbest drivel I’ve ever read. If I wanted “a clue,” it would behoove me to talk with someone who has one. You don’t qualify, you prattling emptyhead. You are to logic what Paris Hilton is to talent.

        No, I can’t say you have [made a convincing argument for the bible being of mundane, human origin devoid of any divine influence]. You haven’t made a convincing argument for anything. All you did was pants around a lot.

        >> YOU can’t say it because you’re dumber than turds in a basket. But that I did it is here, for all to see. And I can keep going if you like.

        Ah yes, ‘apologetics’ is what I’m here for. And please, don’t cry because I’m better at displaying my genuine contempt.

        >> Is THAT what you call it? “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle I agree with Ari. I can entertain all sorts of thoughts and give them consideration, all without becoming angry, hostile or impugning the character of those I’m debating. Unless, of course, they beg for it. I need not accept something to understand it fully; and I understand fully that which I do accept, for the most part. Guess that’s another difference between you n’ me.

        What we’re discussing here is Christians Hate Science. Don’t change the subject just because you’re getting your ass kicked.

        >> Since when? Zip back up to the top of the page, jackass! Your little heart was bwoken because some mean old atheists put up a billboard that shook your shaky beliefs. (If they weren’t shaky, you wouldn’t be so butthurt over it.) And then you want to lump us all together ‘cause… what? “They all look the same to me”? Funny, how not only isn’t my ass kicked, but I’m having a battle of logic and reason with an unarmed opponent.

        You’re saying I should be the most popular actor on TV right now? Wow, thanks!

        >> On what planet? Go ahead: do some “Jaywalking” and run the asshole’s name by people. Nobody knows this fool. He’s the most popular actor on A&E, a basic cable station among hundreds. And you’re still a schmuck by comparison.

        Oh, lemme guess, anything that they learn from God is ‘stuff they knew’. Talk about circular reasoning, dipstick. ‘Strange cleaning rituals’? Holy crap. Here you are going on about how they just knew stuff everyone knew, and even you don’t understand the benefits of hygiene! That must make you like, Stone Age or something.

        >> Show me the word “hygiene” in the bible. It’s not there. Know why? Because it’s not about hygiene at all, but some arbitrary rituals that are “pleasing to god.” And that’s what it’s all about. This is why nobody mentions bacteria, which causes things like body odor and, once you know the nature of the beast, can take better precautions against it. Cooking our food, which no other creatures do, protects against many food borne pathogens and parasites. If the bible had dropped a damned HINT, people could’ve come up with things like pasteurization a HELL of a lot longer ago, saving countless lives in the process! Either god just doesn’t care or doesn’t exist. You pick.

        And if they already knew it, why was He telling them? Why did He have to tell them to stop eating blood from the dead things lying around? You know how popular that sort of thing was?

        >> No, but again, there’s no great wisdom here. You see that people get very sick and die when they do such things, it doesn’t take a Newton or Einstein to make the connection. The author doesn’t mention bacteria or viruses because he doesn’t KNOW about them. Without knowing the exact mechanism as to how or why, people just figured out that noshing on stale corpses doesn’t turn out good. Hell, we didn’t understand exactly how aspirin works until very recently – we just knew that it did! (And hey… why isn’t there anything like aspirin mentioned in the bible? Except for some ritual about mud in the eyes to cure blindness, the bible is mute on natural pharmacology even at its most basic. Know what that tells me? NOT DIVINE IN ORIGIN!)

        Ask yourself this, He told them how to fix the diseases and about hygiene which prevents the spread of harmful bacteria. How did they know?

        >> What they were told was only partially effective and mostly ritualistic. Some had nothing to do with anything. With what we know today, we also can see that some “advice” is downright dangerous. And since when is god military, working on a “need to know” basis? We’re just supposed to say, “Yes sir, right away sir” without any questions? If you believe that, then drop and give me twenty, jackwagon!

        If they didn’t know about how the disease was caused, how did they know how to prevent the spread of tiny germs? How is it that God, or whoever, knew the best way to fix it, instead of just saying ‘it’s the will of God’?

        >> They didn’t! Some rituals had been around far longer than Christianity, and some pretty smart people happened to notice that some things were effective. The bible didn’t originate this stuff. You fail to understand just how much scripture is cribbed or stolen outright from older religions.

        There you go, Divine Inspiration.

        >> To a simpleton, maybe. Have you ever heard of Occam’s Razor? (Quick – run to Google, asshole!) What do you think might be the simplest answer here? Oh, yeah… god did it. Uh huh.

        “Also if one of the animals dies which you have for food, the one who touches its carcass becomes unclean until evening. He, too, who eats some of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening; and the one who picks up its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening’” Sounds like He was worried about bacteria and transmitting disease, don’t it?

        >> Yes, because we all know that bacteria expire by nightfall. Do they also disappear during an eclipse? What a buttnugget!

        So what’s interesting, is that they had the information to prevent the spread of germs, without actually knowing there were germs. I wonder where they got that information from? Could it be that person that they wrote about at great length in their histories, God?
        This looks good: http://www.hope-of-israel.org/bihealth.htm

        >> The term is “ignorant of the true cause of disease.” Again, I explained it fully above: people observe and can see cause and effect. Not all of the bible’s edicts are effective and some are outright bad or nonsensical. It’s the hit-and-miss we’d expect from the process I describe – NOT divine revelation.

        If you’re looking for Divine Inspiration, how about looking at the prophecies? Buit lemme guess again, no matter what, you’re just going to say that they just teleported from the future or something right? The prophecy of Daniel foretold the date of the Messiah’s birth, just for starters.

        >> Are you KIDDING me? You DO realize that the date of Jesus’ birth is not agreed upon by any stretch of the imagination! In fact, there’s considerable evidence that there was no historical Jesus, and, in fact, the things described in the bible are cribbed from a completely different history. (His birth date and circumstances being that of Horus – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology and/or a stitching together of other individual histories into the fable we know today.)

        He’s God, you retard. You don’t know who God is?

        >> I do! Just like Spider Man, he’s a fictional character, albeit a much older one.

        You being unable to recognise God is your failure.

        >> Your seeing things that aren’t there is yours.

        I try to point out where you went wrong and go from there. But you’re right, rational examination of the facts doesn’t seem to be your forte.

        >> You could’ve stopped with “But you’re right.” So far, you’ve only pointed out what an ignorant asshole you are. You seem to think that endlessly repeating stuff will make you right and that facts and cold logic mean nothing. What you accept as fact is sloppy.

        You are seriously an idiot. You’re trying to prove its bullshit on random shit you make up that it didn’t say?

        >> No, I PROVED it is bullshit by what it omits, since said omission is a sure sign of ignorance. Can your god be ignorant of anything? Now, think of the implications of either choice – yes or no – and get back to me.

        Hahaha, it really does bother you right? You didn’t even say, ‘well, wait till you read his other books’, you just went straight into cry-baby mode.

        >> LOL! In your head, maybe.

        You know what’s funny, I don’t have a problem with him. I know very well that he’s a useful resource against Jesus Mythers.

        >> Then why don’t you try adding some FACTS or CONTENT into the discussion? Try some logic and reason while you’re at it… if you’re capable. I won’t set my hopes too high.

        But I’ve only read one book, and as I said, he was kind of a deceptive asshole in it. It happens. He wanted to sell his book that told atheists the Bible didn’t answer the its own favourite subject.

        >> WTF? You know he’s not an atheist, don’t you? Oh, wait… of course you don’t. Because you’re a fucking liar and never read anything by him. How many times are you gonna get caught outright lying before you give it up, dude?

        You don’t actually know how old I am, and you figure I care. Pretty sad. Wouldn’t you be embarrassed if I was like 14 or something?

        >> No, I’d be surprised. I know few 14-year-olds as ignorant as you.

        You had to go to school to learn to read? Being snarky doesn’t make me smarter, but I didn’t need help with that anyway. Of the two of us, I’m the only one pulling it off.

        >> Really? Looks to me like I popped your being bested by an atheist cherry!

        You could use ‘em. Try and figure out why I said ‘trying to say’, instead of ‘you said.

        >> Ah, semantic shenanigans instead of real debate again. Nice dodge, shit-for-brains! Seriously, do you EVER win one of these things?

        But here’s some of your words:
        “Religion is regressive.”
        “The claims of scripture and religious adherents have no B.S. filter; believers are told to accept assertions “on faith.” Science never does this.”
        “many religious authorities did fund universities and scientific endeavor, but whenever “inconvenient” details emerged, they reserved the right to fudge the data and silence anyone who objected.”
        All of which had no evidence to back it up, and I proved to be nonsense the things you tried to pass off as evidence.

        >> Yup, those are indeed my words. And they’re all true. These aren’t isolated incidents where you can Google up a headline, you zombie worshipping dunce; they’re things that religion constantly does in comparison to the scientific community. You might rightfully call it “opinion,” but I stand by it and you cannot disprove it.

        Hahaha, I find it strangely odd to dislike you right now.

        >> Sorry, flamey one, I don’t swing that way.

        And you read Vox Popoli often, do you? Big Vox Day fan?

        >> No time. I come to the internet to work.

        In fact, have I argued with you before? It’s hard to separate people on the internet.

        >> If you argue with everyone using the same level of class and tact, then I can definitely say that we’ve never argued before. I remember insufferable pricks who imagine themselves as intellectuals. Also, most Christians at least TRY to follow the tenets of their “faith.”

        That didn’t actually expand the radius of ‘universe explored’ you know. Mankind discovered more about the universe the first time he looked up at night than we ever have since. He saw that there was a universe.

        >> Complete and utter rubbish. When people first looked up, they saw lights that they couldn’t comprehend. They watched their movements and were utterly incapable of understanding what was going on. They invented myths to explain what they saw. It was only when a few very gifted men applied the scientific method to those observations did we begin to unravel its mysteries. And only after the industrial revolution to the high point, at around 1974, human science was doubling everything we had EVER KNOWN at a rate of about every 4 or 5 years. See, dipshit, all of the money that NASA and Russia poured into sending probes and people into space paid off in an equally proportionate way. You might know this if you paid attention.

        >> But guess what remained static? YOUR BIBLE! Since Constantine took a meat ax to scripture, very little about the bible has changed. It gets older and more discredited as time marches on. The more we learn, the less relevant it becomes.

        So, calling you an idiot is Un-Christ-like, but you think kicking people in the nuts is Jesus-like?

        >> I make no claim to be “Jesus like,” unless, of course, you’re referring to my very attractive beard. YOU are the one claiming the “Christian” title, and somewhere on Planet Douchebag, it seems that the idea of Christian means something quite different from anything I’ve ever heard.

        Where do you get the gall to speak for Jesus, anyway?

        >> Oh, I dunno… spending several decades studying his words, I think I’ve at least earned the right to an opinion on what he supposedly said. What’s your excuse, cement head?

        You’re an atheist for crying out loud, why the heck are you arguing for what you believe is Christianity? I mean, I sure Jesus appreciates it, but it’s really bizarre.

        >> Jesus, if he ever existed, is long dead and appreciates nothing. (Lucky for you, or he’d be aghast at your excuse for manners and treating others as you would have them treat you! Frankly, if you believed in the terms of the Christian deal, then your pants would be overflowing with shit ‘cause you’d be terrified of what awaits you in the fiery pit of hell. Good thing for both of us it’s all bullshit, and if your pants are empty, you know I’m right. I say it here again, just so it sinks in: I came from a Christian background. I did the homework. Plus, everybody knows what Christian behavior is, you vapid assclown!

        Don’t tell me it’s because you have no integrity and will use any rhetoric, any lie, any method to shut down argument? Surely not.

        >> I don’t need to when the facts support my position. I also make it a habit not to lie. That way, there are no stories to keep straight, and, frankly, I don’t have the memory for it. Now, you may or may not believe that, but you can believe this: the very LAST person I’m ever going to lie to is myself, and I find that in order to be religious, that is a prerequisite. Since we’ve already firmly established that you’re a habitual liar, I’d say your above sentence better describes your lying sack self.

        And did you want to argue without confrontation? Sounds magical.

        >> Argument IS confrontation. I’m referring to hostility; it’s about manners. Apparently your momma never taught you any. The debates I’ve attended usually end in hugs and handshakes, because even though participants may vigorously disagree, there is a mutual respect. If you’ve ever had a wife or girlfriend… oh, wait, I mean boyfriend or butt-buddy… you know that you can disagree without hating the other person. This is called “disagreeing without being disagreeable.”

        What a faggot response.

        >> I’ll take your word for it, dickbreath, since you’re the authority on all things faggoty.

        You’re incredibly lazy. You don’t have an argument, so you just quote a smart guy saying something like it applies to me, or even this particular argument.

        >> I could quote Dan Quayle and he’d be smarter than you. You can’t punch holes in my argument, and you bristle when I can find supporting quotes, yet somehow in your magical world I’M the lazy one? Sorry, but not only is my argument valid, but I’m not the guy who made it up, nor the only one who believes it.

        Here you go, for the scripturally impaired:
        1 Corinthians 9: 19 – “For, though I am free from all persons, I have made myself the slave to all, that I may gain the most persons. (20) And so to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law (21) to those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law towards God but under law toward Christ, so that I might gain those without law. (22) To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, that I might by all means save some.”
        You’re an asshole, so I come to you as an asshole. Gutted, right?

        >> Wow, you’ve got the asshole part NAILED! I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more bastardized interpretation of scripture ever! So, let’s see… if you wanted to witness to a serial killer, you’d become a serial killer, too? (See? You’ve achieved asshole perfection!) And talk about irrelevancy – as if the moldy old scriptures which I’ve long ago studied and set aside as rubbish is going to influence my thinking now in ANY way? You really are a special kind of stupid, aren’t you?

        Not as much fun being a douchebag to Christians when one decides to give you a good ass-kicking for it, is it?

        >> I know you fudgepackers like to hyperfocus on my ass a lot, but frankly it’s feeling more kissed than kicked. See, the only reason I’m wasting my time with you is because it’s ever so fun and entertaining! So please, keep on kissing… er, I mean, kicking. It’s like being in a boxing ring with Don Knotts. (And to any fans of Don Knotts, my deepest apologies for the unfortunate comparison.)

        I just love your reply. No, honestly I do. Our ‘bag of tricks’ huh? Quoting the bible? Oh, we’re tricky.

        >> Cat, finger. Of course I was talking about the tedium of every damned argument I’ve ever had with you guys. But of course your counters are stale; your source material never advances or changes. Same shit, different day. I sure didn’t think it would happen here, but you’re actually bordering on boring.

        And since when was it ever used in the context of ‘stifling opposition or skepticism’. I’m not even annoyed, because you’re being so transparent that I have no worries that any reader is going to take it seriously.

        >> Good! Because most readers, being much smarter and capable of following a coherent thought will no doubt see your failing. (Transparent is the correct word, but you’ve applied it to the wrong side, wrongboy!)

        I was just asking you what flavour of insult you preferred. I can go old-school if that’s what you really want. Satan’s your daddy. Howzat?

        >> I would prefer none. I like my debates salt-free. You must be a submissive, though, since you whined, cried and begged for me to bitch slap you around like a bad little girl. Now that you’ve gathered a few bruises, you’re going to start talkin’ about playin’ the dozens? Sorry, but I don’t think you’ve got any teeth left and your vagina is bleeding. I’m happy to go back to something like a fact-based, logic based argument sans the hostility, but if you want me to keep playin’ the dom, I’m all in, kitten.

        Hey, if you sell some doves in the temple, maybe you’ll let me flog you?

        >> Sorry, I’m not ready to change roles just yet. :)

        Yeah, God really went out of His way to hide Himself by exploding onto the scene on Mt. Sinai, taking over government, and have a detailed account of His appearance written down in book that survived for 3500 years and forms the basis of the largest and largests religions of the world, so that everyone has heard of Him.

        >> Nothing but old, old myths, unsupported by evidence. You confuse the Jewish Torah with Christianity, which is much younger. You also ignore the fact that there are more practicing Buddhists in the world, and that Buddhism goes back well over 5,000 years. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority)

        But no, don’t let that stop you. Maybe somewhere in some far away magical alternate universe, everything you believe in is true, and not an appalling waste of neuronal activity.

        >> Funny – that’s exactly what I was going to say to YOU! Wonders DO never cease! See, that “wasted neuronal activity” is exactly how religion is regressive; it takes brilliant minds like Newton’s (and even the minds of retarded online douchebags like yourself), and turns them towards the study of nonsense and bullshit when they could be studying more important things like curing cancer or inventing starships or something . “Appalling waste”… a good term for it. Thanks.

        Sure, if you want to call it that. I call it ‘lack of interest’ personally.

        >> Yet here you are, once again proving you’re a liar. Does it ever stop with you?

        But I know, it’s pretty bad when you have lazy people calling you lazy. That makes you pretty low on the scale.

        >> But then you wake up and realize that you’re talking out your dick-filled ass. Low on the scale? So you must like it on the bottom, eh? Kinda personal stuff to put out there on the internet, don’tcha think, dinky?

        And blah, blah, blah, the rest of your post is just crying about getting turkey-slapped in the mouth. You’ll get over it.

        >> You basically admit to not reading the rest of my post and then call ME lazy? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case! Merry Christmas, faggot. Maybe Santa – you believe in him, too, right? — will bring you some new teeth to replace the ones I kicked out of your sorry excuse for a head.

  4. Religion has a wider definition than that often imagined by those displeased with the aesthetics of Christanity.

    Historically and prehistorically, it has encompassed situations where a phenomena is observed, a theory behind it created, and said theory is used to attempt to modify the phenomena by wishing, prayer and so forth.

    There is reason to think religion describes a common feature of how humans process patterns, or is a component of human nature. (‘human nature’ describes emergent properties of the usual results of human self assembly, self wiring and self programming. If one must put well understood phenomena in terms of modern fashions.)

    So, what do statements of ‘religion causes x’, which also neglect the possibility that ‘religion and x both correlate with being human’, seem to be? What do statement of ‘religion can be stopped, which will stop x’ sound like?

    There are grounds to understand these sorts of statements as magical thinking attempting to manipulate non-social phenomena with social phenomena.

    Like hitting one’s monitor to fix the mouse, or starting a vast IT project by having lawyers write the project spec. Or all the other modern day religious rituals that many monotheists overlook, and do not reject as being syncratic.

  5. Presenting historical scientific progress as a christian vs. atheist issue is a bizarre argument. What about the ancient Egyptian, Greek, Hindu and Arabic scholars whose work underpins all of western science?

    Also, correlating evolution and atheism with nihilism is projecting. Disbelief in a supernatural higher power does not imply a person cannot find meaning in life or have a moral values. The fact that life on this planet has evolved has nothing to do with philosophical ‘meaning’ or ‘value’.

    Faith in the Christian God should not, and does not have anything to do with belief in scientific results. Faith deals with issues that cannot be proved, and science only works with verifiable results. These things are orthogonal by definition.

    • Alas, science is also now working in areas that can’t be proved and with unverifiable results.

      Exhibit one: Anthropomorphic Global Warming

    • I dunno about it being /necessarily/ a bizarre argument.

      Let’s ask some questions here, along the same lines as ‘Why didn’t the Song Dynasty have an industrial revolution?’

      Why didn’t the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans (added because I am a fan, and they were decent engineers), Hindu or Arabs develop scientists the way they started to be developed in the nineteenth century? They were fairly sophisticated peoples, with very skilled artisans, and like all populations had some very intelligent and capable persons. (China also fits this description.)

      There’s a quote somewhere to the effect that ‘a science is any discipline where a fool of this generation can follow a genius of the last’.

      What makes this happen in a society, and what prevents this from happening?

      The argument has been made that many of these societies impaired their tech because their values fit the slavery they practiced. (Throw slaves/serfs at a problem, rather than making a machine.) And economic issues. (Confucianism can be understood as preferring peasants (perhaps serfs or slaves) being thrown at a problem to letting merchants make a profit of machinery. )

      One part of the answer might be in rereading The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism.

      Anyway, that, the impact of the Black Death, a shift in values over centuries of Christianity being practiced, and various other things might be understood as related possibilities.

      Atheism might well correlate with nihilism if very many atheists are those comfortable with the supernatural and magical thinking, who also disagree with Christian philosophy.

  6. …I genuinely don’t give a shit about it. If somebody wishes me merry christmas and I’m not christian, I don’t think it’s hate speech. I just think something like “oh, hey, they wanted to wish me well, or to have a good time around now. That’s nice of them!”

  7. Well I skipped some of the last few rants on both sides of this argument.
    Might I suggest that you two just agree to disagree. Also might I recommend a few books to add to your lists as companions to the bible and all that other stuff. mainly the Book of Mormon as it clarifies a lot of doctrines and vague things mentioned in the bible, I also recommend the Doctrine and Covenants for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
    Yes they are religios works and I believe them to be true as well as that the Bible contains many truths but I think you will find that there are also some rather inturesting scientific conseps discussed.
    For example there is a bit in the Doctine and Covenants as I recall that mentions that all is matter, including spirit but that it is more refined. so I hold that there is life after death but that those things are not generally seen, likely being in either a diffrent spectrum from what we can see and hear on most occasions.
    Learning whether these things are true or not actually fallows along the lines of the scientific method or an experiment in many cases also.

    Everyones welcome to believe what they want, and I will hold to what I know and/or believe to be true, both scientific and that which is considered otherwise.
    Though I possibly could also argue that religion could be viewed as another branch of science just as there are many other types of science.
    I don’t know everything and find that the more I know the better I know that I don’t know everything, to the best of my knowledge God knows everything, but I’m not him and he doesn’t pour everything down our throats when we aren’t ready for it, so I am still learning a lot.

    I am afraid that I may not have stated my intended statements and reasonings in a manner clear enough to avoid confusion and misunderstanding but this is what I will write for the time being, leaving you with the invitation to look into these things for yourself and come to your own conclusions but only if you want to.
    I expect there are many who will disagree with what I have said and that’s alright. As has been stated by others there is freedom of speech and I won’t be offended if anyone seeks to argue with what I have written, though I hope to avoid contention in any debating as I believe such to not be good.

    • By your simple statement that “I possibly could also argue that religion could be viewed as another branch of science” tells me that you don’t understand science at all. (Unless, of course, you meant philosophy, which I could agree with you on.) No offense, but I view Mormonism as a cult, and one of the weirder ones at that. But if it works for you, then worship on, my friend! The happiest of holidays to you and yours.

      • I’ve stayed out of you guys’ little Philosophy 101 Tea Party, but I’m stepping in on the “Mormonism as a cult” bit, because that is utter horse shit. There are 15 million Mormons. There are as many Mormons in America as there are Jews. (unless you are an equal opportunity moron and you think that Jews are a cult too, because then you just have trouble with definitions) Mormons are one of the fastest growing religions in the world. If they ONLY match the rate of growth from the slowest growth decade in the LDS church’s history (which if you knew anything about our demograpics or history you’d know that isn’t likely), they will be the numerically largest religion in America in two generations, and by the mid 2100s, they will be the 2nd largest religion in the world behind only Islam.

        And Mormons aren’t out in some compound in the desert with our multiple wives churning butter in their prarie dresses. We tend to have above average education, especially tending toward the STEM degrees (which means for all your self rightous bullshit about science there are Mormons in your field far more accomplished than you are in it). Statisitcally we are also more successful and make more money, and the one thing that brings the average down is our gigantic number of converts, but then their education and success rate usualy jumps the next generation too.

        So we’re a cult? Oh no! I got the sneering disapproval of somebody who thinks he’s smarter than I am? How will I live?

        Signed- A Mormon that knows bullshit when he sees it.

      • No offense intended — notice that I said “my view,” meaning IMO.

        Your stats overlook that Muslims claim similar explosive growth. The human capacity to believe in the magical is stunning to me. Michael Shermer hit the nail on the head when he wrote “Why People Believe Weird Things.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k) I don’t think religious people are stupid by any means. We’re humans. We have failings.

        In any case, among scientists that were surveyed, more than 80% identified as atheist, agnostic or non-religious. As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, that’s not the big headline. The big headline is: why is that not zero? In any case, that >20% slice of the pie is where your degreed LDS members live. So again, it’s not about intelligence.

        As for making money, the richest man to live, thus far, is Bill Gates, a big ol’ atheist. Which proves nothing, by the way, just as wealthy LDS people prove nothing. Truth can’t be bought. Facts don’t care if the majority believe them or the status of their supporters or detractors. And facts are my only concern. I have no stake in which way the evidence goes; I’m attached to no specific philosophy, although I’m of the opinion that the scientific method is our best tool to learn about our universe.

        In any case, any “sneer” you detected wasn’t intended. I also make no claim to smarts, except that I’m always trying to improve and have some comprehension of how much it is I don’t know! With any luck, all of us will be a tad smarter at this time next year than we are now.

    • I wouldn’t worry about it, the rants weren’t actually for anyone else.

      I’m a scientist, Mr. Gilmore. When I invent a rhetorical device, I want to make sure that’s it’s workin’.

  8. O and in case you are wondering from my above statement I am a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though many know us as Mormons, and yes we do believe Jesus Christ to be our Savior and Redeemer.
    The depression problems mentioned by some as I have seen them in religiose sorts I think tends to come from a misunderstanding of the atonement and God’s love.
    Though there are so many people out there of varying beliefs and ideas that I hope you all understand that my statements are not ment to reffer to everyone, not blanket statements which I find tends to lead to innacuracies but rather I would reffer to some people on a more individual level if that makes any sense.
    Merry Christmas by the way whether you believe in Christ or not I hope you can all enjoy the holiday.

  9. I see your point on the science thing DJStuCrew though I still hold that at least with my religion I can approuch learning of its truthfulness in a scientific manner.
    Having seen the things I’ve seen I cannot deny what I know to be true, though they are of a nature that I cannot provide physical evidence to others for them but rather give the invitation to try the experiment themselves and find out for themselves.
    I also suppose your statement as to religion falling under philosophy instead of science would depend on your definition of science and philosophy which may be diffrent from mine.

    As to the cult thing, well that very much depends on your definition of cult, I have seen multiple definitions of the term, some fit others don’t and as I recall the ones that do apply would also likely apply to practically any religion out there.

    No offense taken by the way, it is inturesting to learn of others point of views and beliefs, and I for one believe that understanding is a rather important thing to avoiding conflict in many cases.
    So thanks for replying.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,797 other followers

%d bloggers like this: