The Radical Truth About Moderate Islam – by Eric Allen Bell

Eric Allen Bell

Eric Allen Bell is a writer, filmmaker and Media Consultant, presently living in New York, NY. While making a documentary about the construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in Murfreesboro, TN he attempted to expose “Islamophobia”. Once he stated that Islam was the biggest threat to human rights in the world today, he was banned from the writing Daily Kos and MichaelMoore.com, after LoonWatch.com created a petition to silence him. His article, “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam” has been widely circulated and has caused several Liberals to rethink how they look at the Religion of Peace. CHECK OUT MY BLOG AT: http://www.EricAllenBell.com

You may also like...

300 Responses

  1. why? says:

    Steve,

    “Which contradicts what you said before when you said the law (of karma) will punish regardless of whether you act with knowledge or not. Not that this means anything given the fact there is no evidence at all of karma and reincarnation.”

    Strawman…..

    “What foolish man does this have to with rituals for the dead? Eh? What has praying and rituals ever produced? Nothing whatever – apart from ignorance of how the universe works.”

    It has produced results in my own life. Doing right rituals does give right environment, which I have seen in my own life which has dramatically changed. There are unseen causes beyond our normal senses. Now keeping this aside, whether you believe it or not, answer me logically why does one person have all the capital and others do not have. You just cannot answer this question logically. I have seen many people having same educational qualifications and capacities, one succeeds while other fails. One succeeds in business, while other fails and loses money to cheaters. Such situations and environment do NOT have any logical answer. Mere logic does NOT answer and solve problems in life.

    “Where does Hindu texts talk about the evolution and the Big Bang for example? Where does it talk about atomic theory? Where does it talk about black holes? From my understanding Hindu texts claim human beings have been around for billions of years this is scientifically false.”

    Oh… so if Hindu texts do NOT talk about astronomical theories, then it did NOt contribute to any Science? Stupidity.

    “Since the information philosopher doesn’t claim that all this text of yours in bold writing was a waste of your time.”

    Listen idiot…..do NOT put words into my mouth….It is a logical question…despite your information philosophy, I am showing logically that nothing arises independent of the intrinsic properties of associated individual constituents, including your emergent properties….did you get it thick headed fellow?

    “Information theory says completely new information enters the universe. This a result of indeterminism. For example before you flip a coin the information about the result didn’t exist anywhere in the universe. Thus the information is completely new. Nobody claims however that the information comes into being independently of the material world. ”

    Now talk about contradictory gibberish…..What is this “information” you are blabbering here about? Does “information” mean the conscious awareness of the result of flipping the coin or does “information” mean the objective result of which side of the coin faces up? Either way this “information” is part of Universe and did NOT enter into the Universe from somewhere else.

    If something new enters into the Universe, then it has to be independent of the contents of the Universe.

    “Every human being that comes into existence is completely unique with its own information/material structure ( from genes and experience ). Now do you believe that a human being cannot come into existence or any information processing system? What nonsense claim is this?”

    What you call as information is mere genetic structure, i.e. arrangement of molecules in particular order. This is already part of the Universe. None of the cells receive this information from outside of the Universe, but from the molecular structure of the DNA sequence only. Hence “information” is dependent on intrinsic properties of the individual constituents.

    “Material world does to rise to information structures therefore your claim is false.”

    The information structures are nothing but mere arrangement of molecules in space, which exactly appears ONLY because of intrinsic properties that lead to attractive and repulsive forces of its individual constituents. Therefore my claim is true. No new extrinsic property can arise independent of the intrinsic properties of individual constituents.

    “Call it whatever you want immaterial or material
    “Information philosophy says http://www.informationphilosopher.com/mind/ “Mind-body as a dualism coincides with Plato’s “Ideas” or “Forms” as pure form, with an ontology different from that of matter.”

    So what? You have NOT bridged the gap between so called sensory information which travels as electrical signals and subjectivity itself. My argument proves that this gap is impossible to be bridged precisely because you cannot have an extrinsic property arise independent of intrinsic properties of individual constituents..

    On the other hand if you claim mind-body dualism, then mind is independent of the body and hence you prove my point that brain does NOT lead to consciousness. Lets call this mind as soul…If mind can exist independent of bdy then so cal soul which gives rise to this mind.

    Again on the other hand if you say mind is dependent on body but different from body, then mind is mere property of body in your definition. This leads to the same problem of unbridgeable gap between how electrical signals can become consciousness?

    “The immaterial Forms, seen by the intellect (nous), allow us to understand the world. ….. “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.”

    Gobberish and does NOT address the argument at all..

    “Yes it is, the electrical signals contain information that information is thoughts. What is your theory of consciousness ? You don’t have one because you believe in magic.”

    Stupid fellow…..does the claim that some entity or substance contains a certain property as intrinsic property constitute magic to you? One must be a moron to suggest that…

    On the other hand, one who suggests that mere “electrical signals (current of electrons)” somehow magically transforms into consciousness or awareness is certainly a believer in magic.

    “What then stupid Hindu is consciousness if not the information about the environment and the body’s response to the environment that the brain receives and stores? Nothing else is involved In consciousness you are repeating your religious dogmas.”

    Even if the brain stores electrical signals, it CANNOT lead to consciousness for the simple reason that mere electrical signals itself cannot lead to consciousness by themselves. This is clearly observed that mere electrical signals in circuits, or computers or robots or say your electrical transmission wires do NOT lead to consciousness? Now why would the same electrical signal which is merely current of electrons in brain lead to consciousness? It logically cannot…

    Now do NOT come with the stupid counter-argument that computers can compute information, while electrical transmission wires do NOT. All computations are mere measurement of electrical signals and a software is used to interpret the results through a post-processor via graphs or display of numbers. Neither the computer itself nor the post-processor nor the display panel of a computer know it has made any computations. It is a conscious human agent that interprets the results as computations. NOTE HERE that it is conscious agent that says this display of graph or numbers are results of a computation and NOT the computer.

    Here again a conscious entity is required to interpret any results. All computer does is transmit and control movement of electrons as per the circuit design and software without any knowledge of its processes. A computer is not aware that it does any computations, it merely transmits and controls electrical signals.

    “And that is all that is involved in consciousness, thus no soul is needed.”

    Sorry….as proven above, electrical signals do NOT and CANNOT lead to consciousness.

    “Since the Buddha had a naturalistic understanding of karma he means the karmic consequences may not be what you expect or want them to be. For example you can be thinking positive thoughts and doing good things and you could be murdered in a random act of violence immediately afterwards.”

    YOU re obviously a liar and do NOT even read the quote correctly…

    “In the Anguttara Nikaya, it is stated that **karmic results are experienced either in this life (P. diṭṭadhammika) or in a future lives** (P. samparāyika).[79] **The former may involve a readily observable connection between action and karmic consequence**, **such as when a thief is captured and tortured by the authorities,**[79] but the connection need not necessarily be that obvious and in fact usually is not observable.”

    Clearly Buddha’s belief includes karmic results faced in future lives (In the Anguttara Nikaya, it is stated that **karmic results are experienced** either in this life (P. diṭṭadhammika) or **in a future lives** (P. samparāyika))

    and an example is also given as the case of a thief captured and tortured by authorities..(**such as when a thief is captured and tortured by the authorities,*)

    Clearly Buddhist belief is against your claims…

    “Right despite the fact you keep saying that soul has no personality or memories or thoughts.”

    yeah….Just as a wave in sea does NOT alter the contents of the sea but merely displaces them so is the soul and its karmas….The intrinsic properties remain the same as soul is constant.

    “But wait you might have realised the absurdity of this so now you are presenting what you think is the evidence for “past lives” is. Which is this……Right the evidence for reincarnation is CLAIMS of past lives memories. ”

    That is why I said it is a claim. You made a claim that nobody is there who claimed of knowing past lives and I showed that this is NOT the case…It is irrelevant to me if you agree with it or not. The point is there are claims about reincarnation, including in predominantly christian countries and even from christian kids.

    “Your so called argument is nonsense. I have explained how the brain a physical system responds to changes in its environment and stores and reproduces our experiences.”

    Your so called explanation is idiotic. Brain responding to electrical signals is a kin to control system responding to signals from sensors. Do you claim foolishly control system is conscious? NO..

    Neither is the brain….

    NOTE: You have clearly avoided the following points

    2. ALSO OBSERVE CAREFULLY. ALL PROPERTIES OF MATTER DISCUSSED AS EMERGENT PROPERTIES ARE OF THE NATURE OF FORCES AND MOTION. THEY ARE NOT FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE NATURE OF INTRINSIC PROPERTIES OF SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES, ATOMS AND MOLECULES WHICH MAKE UP THESE STRUCTURES AND FUNCTIONS. ALL OF THEM OCCUR DEPENDENT ON INTRINSIC PROPERTIES OF INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENTS OF MATTER.

    3. THE NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS OR SUBJECTIVITY IS NOT OF THE NATURE OF MOTION OR FORCE. HENCE NO KNOWN INTRINSIC PROPERTY OF MATTER CAN GIVE RISE TO CONSCIOUSNESS AS A PHENOMENON. THEREFORE, BRAIN CANNOT GIVE RISE TO CONSCIOUSNESS.

    “This is all that is required. No magical souls needed.”

    Your thinking or rather lack of capacity to think is obvious….. Souls are needed as clearly seen above…

    “You are too dumb to make such judgements. Stick to performing rituals for dead ancestors to ward of bad karma.”

    There is nothing inherently wrong in assuming dead ancestors affect you in real life when karma and Souls are true. If Karma and souls are not true, it is merely wrong assumption and nothing logically wrong in this assumption.

    Now, however it is clearly way too dumb and moronic to assume electrical signals themselves somehow magically turn into consciousness….Clearly the philosopher is way too dumb and you are way more dumber NOT to see this simple fact.

    “By the way what is your definition of consciousness if not the one I gave (which is the only sane and sensible one)? “Consciousness can be defined in information terms as a property of an entity (usually a living thing but we can also include artificially conscious machines or computers) that reacts to the information (and particularly to changes in the information) in its environment.” I ask this since you don’t clearly define your terms but instead come out with hopelessly vague and meaningless words like “soul” and “God”.”

    Now this is enough to show what a dumb moron you are? Lets take your definition and see if this definition is precise…A dumb moron like you does NOT even know what constitutes a correct definition and all you can o is copy-paste like a bot from other people’s work.

    “Consciousness can be defined in information terms as a property of an entity (usually a living thing but we can also include artificially conscious machines or computers) that reacts to the information (and particularly to changes in the information) in its environment.””

    Really!!!!!

    So according to you dumb moron nut cases, a computer or control system or say even an artificial machine (what ever it is) is conscious?

    What constitutes “information” in your definition? Again no proper definition is given for this as well.

    So your definition is vague, ambiguous, does not precisely define the terms used for defining consciousness.

    Even a magnet reacts to magnetic field. Does it mean a magnet is conscious?

    A control system designed to control a nuclear power plant or say a robot (without so called AI) also reacts to environment via sensors connected to them. In your definition these are also conscious. ONLY A BRAIN DEAD MORON like you will claim this guy is a philosopher who gave this definition.

    CORRECT DEFINITION:

    Consciousness is subjectivity or subjective awareness of oneself and environment. All naturally born mobile living beings possess this property. The way to recognize this property is whether naturally born mobile living beings react to some external input. If they react, they possess consciousness.

    TO CONCLUDE:

    Steve,

    1. You have utterly failed to bridge the gap between electrical signals transforming into consciousness. All you have done here is moronically like a retard assert that electrical signals themselves are consciousness. It is self-evident that electrical signals, whether present in simple electrical transmission wires or computers do NOT lead to consciousness. There is no credible reason that electrical signals in brain should lead to consciousness as well. Computers that do computations do NOT know they are computing anything. They simply transmit electrical signals as per circuit design. It is a conscious human being that interprets results as computations.

    Besides, consciousness is NOT of the nature of forces or motion of particles. Hence no known intrinsic property of matter (which are all of the nature of forces and motion of particles) can lead to consciousness. Hence brain cannot cause consciousness.

    2. You claimed “information” itself is consciousness based on some nincompoop name sake philosopher. When asked what constitutes “information”, you have come up with vague useless idiotic definitions and no concrete definition.

    At one point you claimed it is electrical signals and at another point you claimed it is new immaterial stuff which enters into Universe and causes in-determinism. Is this philosopher for real? What is this immaterial stuff? Information either exists in our mind (consciousness of the information assuming consciousness exists) or in terms of physical reality such as the electrical signals in a computer, the side of coin facing up for a flipped coin, as coded information in DNA sequence (molecules in DNAs), etc. A living cell read DNA sequence and works like an analog computer. Just like analog computer does NOT know it is doing certain computations, living cells also do NOT know it is doing computations.

    There is no “information” beyond this.

    Since it is clear that brain contains only measurable electrical signals, and that no known intrinsic properties (of the nature of forces or motion) can lead to subjectivity, no known matter can give rise to consciousness.

    REST IS ALL BOGUS CRAP FROM A retarded DUMB MORON called Steve.

  2. Ron says:

    Steve et al,
    I was giving an answer to EAB about anyone not knowing Christ and anyone rejecting Christ.

    If you reject Christ after being preached about Christ and salvation then whether you rejected because of your unbelief in the existence of Christ or you rejected because of unbelief in the divinity of Christ does not make a difference.
    In both cases you chose to reject salvation through Christ and have consequences in afterlife (whether you believe in afterlife or not)

    If you never heard of Christ then you have not rejected Christ and in these cases, our merciful God will do the proper justice in after life.

    Salvation is always a choice and is not forced upon you or anyone.
    Watch this video it reflects the worldview of many in this forum

    An Atheist, Then a Religious Hypocrite, Now a Lover of Christ – Testimony
    .

  3. With each passing day, as I look inward and as I take in what is going on with the world outside, my heart opens. And the more it opens the more I understand why I have kept it shut for so long. The more my heart opens, the more I understand why the world has closed its heart.

    I find it harder and harder to criticize the world from a place of anger or disappointment. The screwed up world and the screwed up self are not only reflections of each other, they are one in the same. I am the suffering and the beauty and everything in between – not as some new philosophy but as a felt experience, moment by moment. And there are moments when the sadness of this place is overwhelming. And there are moments of such calm, such peace, such bliss beyond all understanding. These moments, they pass by like clouds. But the sky remains.

    If you love the world, it will break your heart. And if you don’t love the world, it will break your heart.

    Deep inside of you is a place where no sane person would go. But once visited, it is clear that to have ever avoided it, in the first place, was the true insanity. This world will take you for everything you’ve got. You won’t get out alive. You will be left with nothing. And in each glimpse, each taste I get of this nothingness, I find what is left. I will meet you there.

    – Eric Allen Bell

  4. Steve says:

    Ron you said “There is a difference between not knowing Christ and rejecting Christ.” I already explained that atheists and non believers don’t and cannot *reject* Christ – because they don’t believe he exists. This is easy to demonstrate can you *reject* Santa? No because you don’t believe in the existence of Santa.

  5. Steve says:

    +Why

    Strawman again……Buddhist stevo, unless you understand the concept of “intrinsic qualities” you will keep making silly buddhist conclusions. Difference between “evil” and “good” soul are intrinsic to them, whether actions exist or not, just like gold and iron have intrinsic properties that distinguish them from one another.
    Second, I have already told the analogy of factory workers in an automobile plant. Results are proportional to the effort each soul puts. You see a designer of a car intentionally makes plans for how the car is built and assembled and therefore is compensated more than a mere worker in the auto plant who say assembles different parts of car. An intrinsically evil soul is more like the designer of car, while the intrinsically good soul does acts out of ignorance or not knowing everything like the worker in an auto plant and is compensated suitably” Which contradicts what you said before when you said the law (of karma) will punish regardless of whether you act with knowledge or not. Not that this means anything given the fact there is no evidence at all of karma and reincarnation.

    “Mere actions and learning are not enough. You need capital of various kinds (namely money, resources like material, men, right political situation, above all all of them coming together at right time) to complete any action. None of these are under the control of any individual. Even the learning comes to a person ONLY when the individual has all the capital mentioned above. All these happen beyond the control of the individual.” What foolish man does this have to with rituals for the dead? Eh? What has praying and rituals ever produced? Nothing whatever – apart from ignorance of how the universe works.

    “All of the said things from mathematics to medicine are first found in the religious Hindu texts and later expanded. Unlike Newton who went beyond bible, medicine is part of Hindu religious text (Ayurveda), mathematics is part of Hindu religious text (Sulba Sutras) etc. etc.” Where does Hindu texts talk about the evolution and the Big Bang for example? Where does it talk about atomic theory? Where does it talk about black holes? From my understanding Hindu texts claim human beings have been around for billions of years this is scientifically false.

    ” If you claim otherwise, that the emergent property is independent of even the structural arrangement of matter, then the proponents believe in pure magic namely that emergent properties arise independent of the matter from which they appear to occur, which is utter nonsense.” Since the information philosopher doesn’t claim that all this text of yours in bold writing was a waste of your time.

    “NOW, IF ONE CLAIMS THAT A PARTICULAR structural ARRANGEMENT (STATIC/DYNAMIC FUNCTIONALLY and/or PHYSICALLY) OF MATTER ITSELF IS AN EMERGENT PHENOMENON, that is a particular arrangement of matter in space-time and/or functioning takes place independent of intrinsic properties of its individual constituents, then this IS OBVIOUSLY A FALSE CLAIM” Information theory says completely new information enters the universe. This a result of indeterminism. For example before you flip a coin the information about the result didn’t exist anywhere in the universe. Thus the information is completely new. Nobody claims however that the information comes into being independently of the material world. Every human being that comes into existence is completely unique with its own information/material structure ( from genes and experience ). Now do you believe that a human being cannot come into existence or any information processing system? What nonsense claim is this?

    ” HENCE NO KNOWN INTRINSIC PROPERTY OF MATTER CAN GIVE RISE TO CONSCIOUSNESS AS A PHENOMENON. THEREFORE, BRAIN CANNOT GIVE RISE TO CONSCIOUSNESS” Material world does to rise to information structures therefore your claim is false.

    “How is information (signals from environment through sense organs) neither matter nor energy? What you or the site calls as information is of two categories.
    (a.) lets say embedded (in matter) information (arising dependent on matter)
    (b.) lets say non-embedded information such as communication between biological organisms.
    How are the above two NOT energy or matter?” Call it whatever you want immaterial or material
    “Information philosophy says http://www.informationphilosopher.com/mind/ “Mind-body as a dualism coincides with Plato’s “Ideas” or “Forms” as pure form, with an ontology different from that of matter. The immaterial Forms, seen by the intellect (nous), allow us to understand the world. On the other hand, mind-body as a monism can picture both sides of the mind-body distinction as pure physicalism, since information embodied in matter corresponds simply to a reorganization of the matter. This was Aristotle’s more practical view. For him, Plato’s Ideas were mere abstractions generalized from many existent particulars. Form without matter is empty, matter without form is inconceivable, unimaginable. Kant rewrote this pre-Socratic observation somewhat obscurely as “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.”

    “Information is NOT consciousness. What you call information is mere electrical signals in neurons and they do not lead to consciousness by themselves. This is humbug theory.” Yes it is, the electrical signals contain information that information is thoughts. What is your theory of consciousness ? You don’t have one because you believe in magic.

    “A stupid Buddhist who thinks that electrical signals themselves are consciousness is talking about rationality.” What then stupid Hindu is consciousness if not the information about the environment and the body’s response to the environment that the brain receives and stores? Nothing else is involved In consciousness you are repeating your religious dogmas.

    Strawman…..Where did I say that brain causes consciousness? All I said is that brain processes information or electrical signals much like a control system and brain does NOT give rise to consciousness itself. ” And that is all that is involved in consciousness, thus no soul is needed.

    “In AN 5.292, the Buddha asserted that it is not possible to avoid experiencing the result of a karmic deed once it’s been committed.[78]” What the Buddha means is that actions always have consequences. You cannot escape cause and effect – not even Buddhas can.
    “In the Anguttara Nikaya, it is stated that karmic results are experienced either in this life (P. diṭṭadhammika) or in a future lives (P. samparāyika).[79] The former may involve a readily observable connection between action and karmic consequence, such as when a thief is captured and tortured by the authorities,[79] but the connection need not necessarily be that obvious and in fact usually is not observable.” Since the Buddha had a naturalistic understanding of karma he means the karmic consequences may not be what you expect or want them to be. For example you can be thinking positive thoughts and doing good things and you could be murdered in a random act of violence immediately afterwards.

    “Soul is a constant, permanent entity which goes from one body to another carrying with it history of karma, like a traveler carrying different baggages with different contents from one destination to another. ” Right despite the fact you keep saying that soul has no personality or memories or thoughts. But wait you might have realised the absurdity of this so now you are presenting what you think is the evidence for “past lives” is. Which is this.

    “There are claims about past lives and reincarnation published by Ian Stevenson. So you cannot claim that we have NOT found anybody. This is patently false claim whether you believe they are genuine or questionable stories.” Right the evidence for reincarnation is CLAIMS of past lives memories. Claims investigated by a guy who is most cases couldn’t speak the language of the people and didn’t take recordings of what was said. And the translator was a believer in a reincarnation. Sounds convincing eh? In other words the evidence is absolutely none.

    “Now, despite all your claims, my argument still stand logically.” Your so called argument is nonsense. I have explained how the brain a physical system responds to changes in its environment and stores and reproduces our experiences. This is all that is required. No magical souls needed.

    “The rest of the claims about abstract information theory to explain consciousness, are all bogus misinformation models.” You are too dumb to make such judgements. Stick to performing rituals for dead ancestors to ward of bad karma. By the way what is your definition of consciousness if not the one I gave (which is the only sane and sensible one)? “Consciousness can be defined in information terms as a property of an entity (usually a living thing but we can also include artificially conscious machines or computers) that reacts to the information (and particularly to changes in the information) in its environment.” I ask this since you don’t clearly define your terms but instead come out with hopelessly vague and meaningless words like “soul” and “God”.

  6. Ron says:

    EAB, There is a difference between not knowing Christ and rejecting Christ.

  7. QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THE BIBLE LITERALLY:

    If a child grows up in India, has not been exposed to the Gospel and is also too young to understand it – let’s say that child then dies of starvation or disease. This would mean that the child failed to believe that Jesus Christ is the “Son of God”. According to mainstream Christianity, doesn’t that mean that this nonbeliever must therefore be cast into a lake of hell fire, for all eternity?

  8. why? says:

    Steve,

    “‘So then your distinction between “evil” and “good people who ignorantly commit evil acts”is none existent. They all get punishment regardless. Which means you was just coming out with nonsense to defend your superstitious beliefs.”

    Strawman again……Buddhist stevo, unless you understand the concept of “intrinsic qualities” you will keep making silly buddhist conclusions. Difference between “evil” and “good” soul are intrinsic to them, whether actions exist or not, just like gold and iron have intrinsic properties that distinguish them from one another.

    Second, I have already told the analogy of factory workers in an automobile plant. Results are proportional to the effort each soul puts. You see a designer of a car intentionally makes plans for how the car is built and assembled and therefore is compensated more than a mere worker in the auto plant who say assembles different parts of car. An intrinsically evil soul is more like the designer of car, while the intrinsically good soul does acts out of ignorance or not knowing everything like the worker in an auto plant and is compensated suitably.

    “Yes it is, actions and learning about the world leads to progress not praying or performing rituals for dead people and other nonsense.”

    Buddhist, it is clear you have no experience of the world. Mere actions and learning are not enough. You need capital of various kinds (namely money, resources like material, men, right political situation, above all all of them coming together at right time) to complete any action. None of these are under the control of any individual. Even the learning comes to a person ONLY when the individual has all the capital mentioned above. All these happen beyond the control of the individual.

    “What any of these discoveries have to do with prayer and rituals for dead relatives? Nothing whatsoever, it is like saying Newton got his theory of gravity from the bible. Or Darwin got evolution from genesis or other codswallop. So please do not come up with nonsense claims.”

    It is clear you are a stupid fellow, ignorant of the history of Hinduism. All of the said things from mathematics to medicine are first found in the religious Hindu texts and later expanded. Unlike Newton who went beyond bible, medicine is part of Hindu religious text (Ayurveda), mathematics is part of Hindu religious text (Sulba Sutras) etc. etc.

    “Which is something you asserted and given no proof of.”
    “A logical argument is proof in itself.
    Since no known intrinsic properties of matter can give rise to consciousness or subjectivity, brain cannot give rise to consciousness.
    If you think there exists a known intrinsic property of matter that gives rise to consciousness please let me know what it is. It must be a scientific theory proven and demonstrated beyond doubt. I can make a list of all known intrinsic properties of matter. All of them are associated with forces and motion of material particles and none of them are responsible for causing consciousness. It is clear that you are spouting nonsense here…”

    “See these http://www.informationphilosopher.com/problems/consciousness/ and
    http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/emergence.html
    Quote from there. “The Emergence of Immaterial Information Processing”

    NOTE:

    Now let us for argument sake assume certain properties are “emergent”.

    If a property appears merely because of “complexity (whatever this means)” in structural arrangement, THEN OBVIOUSLY THIS NEW EMERGENT PROPERTY IS SOMEHOW DEPENDENT ON THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENT OF MATTER. If you claim otherwise, that the emergent property is independent of even the structural arrangement of matter, then the proponents believe in pure magic namely that emergent properties arise independent of the matter from which they appear to occur, which is utter nonsense.

    SO NOW THE OBVIOUS QUESTION IS

    “DID THE STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENT OF MATTER HAPPEN INDEPENDENT OF INTRINSIC PROPERTIES OF CONSTITUENTS OF MATTER?” THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS NO.

    ALL STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENT OF MATTER arise DEPENDENT ON THE INTRINSIC PROPERTIES OF ITS CONSTITUENTS. Therefore if an emergent property arises dependent on structural arrangement of certain order of complexity, then since the structural arrangement itself arose dependent on intrinsic properties of individual constituents by extension the so called “emergent property” also appears dependent on intrinsic properties of individual constituents. ONLY. THIS ARGUMENT ENFORCES MY POINT THAT ALL EXTRINSIC PROPERTIES (INCLUDING SO CALLED EMERGENT PROPERTIES) ARISE DEPENDENT ON INTRINSIC PROPERTIES OF INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENTS OF MATTER.

    NOW, IF ONE CLAIMS THAT A PARTICULAR structural ARRANGEMENT (STATIC/DYNAMIC FUNCTIONALLY and/or PHYSICALLY) OF MATTER ITSELF IS AN EMERGENT PHENOMENON, that is a particular arrangement of matter in space-time and/or functioning takes place independent of intrinsic properties of its individual constituents, then this IS OBVIOUSLY A FALSE CLAIM.

    FOR EXAMPLE, take biology which claim that functioning at different levels of structural complexity (namely atoms, molecules, DNAs and proteins, biological cells, tissues, organs and organisms) are all “emergent properties”, i.e. one cannot predict the functioning at different levels from MERELY KNOWING properties of individual constituents of matter.

    Consider function of a cell or tissues, one cannot know/predict that particular arrangement of matter will lead to functioning of tissues or cells by merely knowing the intrinsic properties of molecules and/or atoms or sub-atomic particles. THIS IS THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF EMERGENT PROPERTIES. This is perfectly acceptable definition based on our present knowledge.

    However CAN BIOLOGISTS CLAIM THAT THESE FUNCTIONS HAPPEN INDEPENDENT OF INTRINSIC PROPERTIES OF INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENTS LIKE SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES ATOMS AND MOLECULES? OBVIOUSLY NO IS THE ANSWER.

    In fact, biologists use chemistry/physics to study how cells break proteins and make it available for other cells. Without physical forces that exist between individual subatomic particles, no structural arrangement (like cells, proteins, tissues, organs etc.) and motion of different constituents of matter etc. are even possible. Obviously all these processes and structural arrangement take place dependent on intrinsic properties of individual constituents of matter (namely, sub-atomic particles, atoms and molecules).

    CONCLUSION:

    1. So even a so called “emergent properties” occur dependent on the “intrinsic properties” of individual matter.

    2. ALSO OBSERVE CAREFULLY. ALL PROPERTIES OF MATTER DISCUSSED AS EMERGENT PROPERTIES ARE OF THE NATURE OF FORCES AND MOTION. THEY ARE NOT FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE NATURE OF INTRINSIC PROPERTIES OF SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES, ATOMS AND MOLECULES WHICH MAKE UP THESE STRUCTURES AND FUNCTIONS. ALL OF THEM OCCUR DEPENDENT ON INTRINSIC PROPERTIES OF INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENTS OF MATTER.

    3. THE NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS OR SUBJECTIVITY IS NOT OF THE NATURE OF MOTION OR FORCE. HENCE NO KNOWN INTRINSIC PROPERTY OF MATTER CAN GIVE RISE TO CONSCIOUSNESS AS A PHENOMENON. THEREFORE, BRAIN CANNOT GIVE RISE TO CONSCIOUSNESS.

    “Can information provide the basis for a different kind of mental substance?
    Abstract information is neither matter nor energy, yet it needs matter for its concrete embodiment and energy for its communication. Information is immaterial.
    It is the modern spirit, the ghost in the machine.”

    How is information (signals from environment through sense organs) neither matter nor energy? What you or the site calls as information is of two categories.

    (a.) lets say embedded (in matter) information (arising dependent on matter)
    (b.) lets say non-embedded information such as communication between biological organisms.

    How are the above two NOT energy or matter?

    Communication between biological organisms is primarily due to sound waves or may be through visual forms or touching or other forms of emotions through our sense organs. All of them involve physical motion of some kind which lead to sound waves or touch or visual perception etc. All of them involve energy in some form. Even the mental processing of these inputs involve information as energy in some form, electrical signals firing in neurons. Information is energy.

    Embedded information arise as memories in brain and other matter through its preserved structural arrangement. So information is necessarily energy or matter in some form always. \

    So this claim about immaterial information is humbug to detract the legitimate question on origin of consciousness.

    Immaterial information is perhaps as close as a physical or biological scientist can get to the idea of a soul or spirit that departs the body at death. When a living being dies, it is the maintenance of biological and mental information that ceases. The matter remains.

    Information philosophy proposes a mind-body dualism in which thoughts (pure information processing) in our minds have genuine causal power over the body. This is not a metaphysical mind. It is purely biological and entirely dependent on the brain, which is one of the multiple realizations of physical/material “hardware” that can implement the “software” of our ideas.

    For example, when one person teaches another some new technique, or transmits some purely intellectual knowledge, the other person is another physical realization, different hardware now running the same software.

    “Learn how matter gives rise to information.”

    Information is NOT consciousness. What you call information is mere electrical signals in neurons and they do not lead to consciousness by themselves. This is humbug theory.

    “It makes sense to people who can think rationally, it obviously doesn’t make sense to a superstitious foolish Hindu.”

    A stupid Buddhist who thinks that electrical signals themselves are consciousness is talking about rationality.

    “Consciousness can be defined in information terms as a property of an entity (usually a living thing but we can also include artificially conscious machines or computers) that reacts to the information (and particularly to changes in the information) in its environment.”

    Then information is NOT consciousness copy-paste dumb ass.

    “Nothing magical involved – unlike with your soul and reincarnation.”

    What is magical about soul or reincarnation. If matter can be recycled to form different objects, why cant soul reincarnate?

    “So now you admit what I said above about information is true. Brain does everything that you claim a soul does, your soul is not needed.”

    Strawman…..Where did I say that brain causes consciousness? All I said is that brain processes information or electrical signals much like a control system and brain does NOT give rise to consciousness itself. I have been saying from the beginning that brain cannot give rise to consciousness.

    “Even though soul doesn’t contain anything? Stop acting as though you know any of these things you talk about (“souls” “past lives” and all the other nonsense you believe in) are true and not superstitious nonsense.”

    Strawman….buddhist stevo stop putting your words in my mouth….Do you call ears as nothing just because sound waves pass through ear drum? Ears and ear drum is made of something and has its own properties like elasticity of ear-drum, structural integrity of ear and ear-drum forms etc. Similarly soul contains intrinsic properties of being evil or good or mixed. Just like you can have ear wax stuck in your ears, you can have karma as particles stuck to soul.

    “Is a being the result of one being (past life) or countless beings (past lives of many different beings)? What is your view?”

    You are a fool who cannot go beyond your buddhist traps. Soul is a constant, permanent entity which goes from one body to another carrying with it history of karma, like a traveler carrying different baggages with different contents from one destination to another. Each body a soul ha in life is like the different baggage a traveler carries from one destination to another, while karma is like the different contents of the baggage of traveler. Karma does NOT lead to creation of new soul(s) as in Buddhism, which is a nonsense concept. In fact you have merely refuted and proved wrong the Buddhist concept of karma which you stupid Buddha propagated.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism

    In AN 5.292, the Buddha asserted that it is not possible to avoid experiencing the result of a karmic deed once it’s been committed.[78]

    In the Anguttara Nikaya, it is stated that karmic results are experienced either in this life (P. diṭṭadhammika) or in a future lives (P. samparāyika).[79] The former may involve a readily observable connection between action and karmic consequence, such as when a thief is captured and tortured by the authorities,[79] but the connection need not necessarily be that obvious and in fact usually is not observable.

    “Also if no new “souls” are created then we should find this person being reborn. For example Hitler would have being born again somewhere – with all his memories and personality traits intact. Why we have never found any one person with past lives?”

    This is a stupid argument. Do you remember every event that occurs in this life and does your personality remain same even in this life? If one can forget events in this life only and cannot remember them, and one’s personality changes as experiences modify the man, then it is obvious that a person may NOT remember anything about past life.

    However, the characteristics or traits of the person remains the same. If Hitler were reborn, because of his karma and innate nature, he will have the same hatred for Jews and will try to repeat the same actions. There are claims about past lives and reincarnation published by Ian Stevenson. So you cannot claim that we have NOT found anybody. This is patently false claim whether you believe they are genuine or questionable stories.

    Now, despite all your claims, my argument still stand logically.

    There cannot arise “emergent properties” independent of intrinsic properties of associated individual constituents of matter. Since no known intrinsic properties of matter can give rise to consciousness or subjectivity, as all known intrinsic properties of matter are of the nature of forces and motion, while consciousness or subjectivity is NOT of the nature of force or motion, brain cannot give rise to consciousness.

    The rest of the claims about abstract information theory to explain consciousness, are all bogus misinformation models.

  9. Steve says:

    +Why
    “Whether you lack knowledge or not about the law, law would still punish you. For example, if a driver is NOT aware of certain traffic rules, still the driver will get fines, just as fire burns whether you know it or not. The state has laws for driving and it is the responsibility of the driver to know the laws of state for driving before driving any vehicle. The driver cannot claim innocence here and it is driver’s responsibility. Similarly, it is the responsibility of the soul living to find out the laws of karma. That is how karma works. It is the responsibility of the soul to think and act.” So then your distinction between “evil” and “good people who ignorantly commit evil acts”is none existent. They all get punishment regardless. Which means you was just coming out with nonsense to defend your superstitious beliefs. All people who suffer DESERVE to be suffering this is your belief karma makes no distinction between evil people and ignorant people. So you was indeed lying before to try to hide what your immoral doctrine actually teaches.
    “These are your assertions, that God does NOT exist, and that praying leads to lack of progress. Neither is true. ” Yes it is, actions and learning about the world leads to progress not praying or performing rituals for dead people and other nonsense.
    “Hinduism has given rise to much of medical science from surgery to treatment of diseases like small pox. Vaccination of small pox comes from Hindu medical treatment. Arabic numerals, concept of zero all arise from Hinduism. There are many medieval mathematical schools that gave rise to much of modern concepts like infinite series, preliminary models of calculus etc. in Kerala. All of this science arose from religious people. People built structures and lived for almost 5000-6000 years of known history without any knowledge of modern science. So please do NOT come up with nonsense claims.” What any of these discoveries have to do with prayer and rituals for dead relatives? Nothing whatsoever, it is like saying Newton got his theory of gravity from the bible. Or Darwin got evolution from genesis or other codswallop. So please do not come up with nonsense claims.
    “Which is something you asserted and given no proof of.”
    “A logical argument is proof in itself.
    Since no known intrinsic properties of matter can give rise to consciousness or subjectivity, brain cannot give rise to consciousness.
    If you think there exists a known intrinsic property of matter that gives rise to consciousness please let me know what it is. It must be a scientific theory proven and demonstrated beyond doubt. I can make a list of all known intrinsic properties of matter. All of them are associated with forces and motion of material particles and none of them are responsible for causing consciousness. It is clear that you are spouting nonsense here…” See these http://www.informationphilosopher.com/problems/consciousness/ and
    http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/emergence.html
    Quote from there. “The Emergence of Immaterial Information Processing
    Can information provide the basis for a different kind of mental substance?
    Abstract information is neither matter nor energy, yet it needs matter for its concrete embodiment and energy for its communication. Information is immaterial.
    It is the modern spirit, the ghost in the machine.

    Immaterial information is perhaps as close as a physical or biological scientist can get to the idea of a soul or spirit that departs the body at death. When a living being dies, it is the maintenance of biological and mental information that ceases. The matter remains.

    Information philosophy proposes a mind-body dualism in which thoughts (pure information processing) in our minds have genuine causal power over the body. This is not a metaphysical mind. It is purely biological and entirely dependent on the brain, which is one of the multiple realizations of physical/material “hardware” that can implement the “software” of our ideas.

    For example, when one person teaches another some new technique, or transmits some purely intellectual knowledge, the other person is another physical realization, different hardware now running the same software.

    To make this case, we need to establish the following:

    that the information in a mind can be regarded as an immaterial substance
    that the information in a mind, while dependent on the body, has genuine causal (adequately determined) power over the body
    that the information in a mind has not been pre-determined by the sum of genetic inputs and life experiences, but has at least in part been created by the agent, with inputs from some indeterministic processes.”

    “Brain does rise to consciousness, you are ignoring reality.”
    “Brain does NOT and cannot give rise to consciousness. Read above argument again until you get it. ” Learn how matter gives rise to information.
    “Brain processes the information that it receives from its environment, like it processes these words you are reading now. That information IS consciousness (along with the thoughts and feelings that arise in response to the stimuli that the brain receives from its environment). Consciousness is not magical.”
    “Does it make any sense? Its pure nonsense coming out of your mouth…” It makes sense to people who can think rationally, it obviously doesn’t make sense to a superstitious foolish Hindu.
    “There is a clear difference between the “information” that comes from environment and “consciousness” that arises even in your claim. So how does “information” convert into “consciousness”? You have NOT given any valuable insight into this and you have NOT given any thought about this as well. You just assumed the “information” itself is somehow magically transformed into “consciousness”.” “Consciousness can be defined in information terms as a property of an entity (usually a living thing but we can also include artificially conscious machines or computers) that reacts to the information (and particularly to changes in the information) in its environment.” Nothing magical involved – unlike with your soul and reincarnation.
    “Are you claiming ears is nothing? Ears is something that enables hearing. Similarly, soul is something that enables subjectivity or consciousness itself to occur.” Brain is what enables consciousness no magical soul needed.
    “You see brain receives data from outside which comes and goes. Does that mean brain is nothing?” So now you admit what I said above about information is true. Brain does everything that you claim a soul does, your soul is not needed.
    ” In addition soul has intrinsic property of being good, mixed or evil. The actions of souls (in thought, speech and action) are according to its nature and all past to present karma, which covers and modifies the soul as material particles.” Even though soul doesn’t contain anything? Stop acting as though you know any of these things you talk about (“souls” “past lives” and all the other nonsense you believe in) are true and not superstitious nonsense.

    Strawman……Aren’t you one thick-headed fool?
    “Just like the employees of automobile company share the profits of the company proportional to their work, similarly any karma done by groups of souls will share the fruits of that karma proportional to their involvement in the karma.
    Now where did I say new souls are created? Where did you come up with nonsense claim?” Is a being the result of one being (past life) or countless beings (past lives of many different beings)? What is your view?Also if no new “souls” are created then we should find this person being reborn. For example Hitler would have being born again somewhere – with all his memories and personality traits intact. Why we have never found any one person with past lives? When if your beliefs are true everybody alive now should be recognisable as the person who they “was” in their past life? Now obviously you will play your “soul is not memories or personality or anything else which is tangible” card but yet this soul is supposed to be reborn again and again on earth presumably for some purpose. So soul without memories, personality or identity doesn’t have any purpose. Another example of your stupid beliefs.

  10. why? says:

    EAB,

    “You may have been born Hindu and gone to a Hindu school. But someone born Catholic who went to Catholic school could be convinced that they understand Christianity inside and out and that there’s is the only true understanding, that anyone who does not acknowledge the Pope just doesn’t get it.”

    EAB, you must at the least understand Sanskrit and studied to know Vedic religion. You cannot claim without reading bible to know christianity. Similarly you should have learned Vedas to know what Vedas teach. You neither know Sanskrit nor Vedas. So why make unnecessary claims.

    “You are looking at a very complex series of traditions, all under the banner of “Hinduism” based on seeing it through the lens you were given and based on your own indoctrination.”

    The same is true for you as well. One who does NOT know basic Sanskrit nor even the ABCs of Vedas cannot claim the other person is indoctrinated or is biased. You need to know at the least the basics to argue here.

    “Swami Vivekananda, much like Martin Luther, ushered in a different and less dogmatic understanding of the Upanishads and the Mahabarata, as did later teachers such as Ramana Maharshi. And this list goes on and on.”

    Vivekananda or Ramana are no better than those that existed before them. The fact is there are way better teachers than these two neo-Vedantists.

    “There simply is no official interpretation of the Vedic scriptures, no official Hindu Pope, etc.”

    On the other hand there are officially known and Universally accepted methods of interpreting Vedas based on Universally accepted Vedanga texts like yAkas irukta etc. So there is definitive interpretation for Vedas.

    “The Hare Krishna’s take an extremely literal point of view such that they believe that an actual little blue boy with a flute rules the Universe.”

    Even your Adi Shankara, the founder of Advaita school too believes that Krishna is Vedic God aka Ishvara. There is nothing wrong here against this tradition.

    “Other Hindus see the deities, such as Shiva, as metaphor. Shiva being both creation and destruction is not seen as a statue to pray to but rather as aspect of the Divine. And from that point of view all of the deities are merely symbolic as “OM” is the ultimate. Atman is Brahman. We are extension of, expressions of the most high. God in me, as me, is me. And the purpose of a human incarnation is to realize this, or rather to achieve Self Realization.””

    First of all, entire advaita is nothing but a crupto-Buddhist school. This is claim of many Hindu schools of thought including the schools of sad-darshanas like that of Bhaskara etc. Your claims are as dogmatic as my claims. You believe all souls are God (Atman is Brahman). How is this NOT dogmatic?

    “So whatever school you went to you taught you a version of the Hindu experience. That’s fine. But to think that all of Hinduism conforms to this is dogmatic and misinformed.”

    You are highly mis-informed. How is your claim that “Atman is Brahman” is NOT dogmatic?

  11. why? says:

    Steve,

    “In that case inflicting pain on people who committed evil but are unaware of the effect that their behaviour has on other people is even worse than inflicting horrendous pain on evil criminals. ’s like torturing a child or an animal or someone who is mentally challenged. Much worse than torturing the most evil hardened and brutal vicious and sadistic criminals. So you have made your position even worse with this view.”

    Whether you lack knowledge or not about the law, law would still punish you. For example, if a driver is NOT aware of certain traffic rules, still the driver will get fines, just as fire burns whether you know it or not. The state has laws for driving and it is the responsibility of the driver to know the laws of state for driving before driving any vehicle. The driver cannot claim innocence here and it is driver’s responsibility. Similarly, it is the responsibility of the soul living to find out the laws of karma. That is how karma works. It is the responsibility of the soul to think and act.

    “Why is praying to an imaginary God harmful instead of dealing with reality? It’s harmful because it is not based in reality which means it hinders human progress and learning.”

    These are your assertions, that God does NOT exist, and that praying leads to lack of progress. Neither is true. Hinduism has given rise to much of medical science from surgery to treatment of diseases like small pox. Vaccination of small pox comes from Hindu medical treatment. Arabic numerals, concept of zero all arise from Hinduism. There are many medieval mathematical schools that gave rise to much of modern concepts like infinite series, preliminary models of calculus etc. in Kerala. All of this science arose from religious people. People built structures and lived for almost 5000-6000 years of known history without any knowledge of modern science. So please do NOT come up with nonsense claims.

    “Utter nonsense, did this message arise independently of your brain? No.”

    No extrinsic property arises independent of intrinsic properties of associated matter.

    “Which is something you asserted and given no proof of.”

    A logical argument is proof in itself.

    Since no known intrinsic properties of matter can give rise to consciousness or subjectivity, brain cannot give rise to consciousness.

    If you think there exists a known intrinsic property of matter that gives rise to consciousness please let me know what it is. It must be a scientific theory proven and demonstrated beyond doubt. I can make a list of all known intrinsic properties of matter. All of them are associated with forces and motion of material particles and none of them are responsible for causing consciousness. It is clear that you are spouting nonsense here…

    1. mass gives rise to forces due to gravity.

    2. Electric charges or charges of whatever kind, gives ris e to corresponding forces.

    3. Spin 4. color 5. density of composite particles 6. temperature of composite particles… etc. etc…

    You can go on listing all known intrinsic properties of individual particles and composite matter. None of them are associated with causing subjectivity or consciousness.

    All of these listed intrinsic properties of matter or particles are associated ONLY with forces of some kind or motion of particles or matter. Hence it is a logical statement.

    Since no known intrinsic properties of matter can give rise to consciousness or subjectivity, brain cannot give rise to consciousness.

    “Brain does rise to consciousness, you are ignoring reality.”

    Brain does NOT and cannot give rise to consciousness. Read above argument again until you get it.

    “Brain processes the information that it receives from its environment, like it processes these words you are reading now. That information IS consciousness (along with the thoughts and feelings that arise in response to the stimuli that the brain receives from its environment). Consciousness is not magical.”

    It is crystal clear that you have no understanding of implication of what you write here. How stupid can one person be is clear from this statement.

    Let me try to explain. You claim that brain processes “information”.

    I asked you in what form this “information” exists within brain?

    You have answered it as “information IS consciousness”.

    In other words “Brain processes the consciousness (information) that it receives from its environment, like it processes these words you are reading now.”

    Does it make any sense? Its pure nonsense coming out of your mouth…

    There is a clear difference between the “information” that comes from environment and “consciousness” that arises even in your claim. So how does “information” convert into “consciousness”? You have NOT given any valuable insight into this and you have NOT given any thought about this as well. You just assumed the “information” itself is somehow magically transformed into “consciousness”.

    “So soul is nothing then. Unlike the body of water it does not “contain” anything – since the thoughts etc just “come and go”. Just like ears do not “contain” sound.”

    Are you claiming ears is nothing? Ears is something that enables hearing. Similarly, soul is something that enables subjectivity or consciousness itself to occur. “Soul is the vessel in which conscious thoughts, memories etc. come and go through its chitta or consciousness, which is like a body of water containing images of reflected objects.”

    “Your soul is nothing. It’s not thoughts, it’s not memories, it is not data about the environment, it has no identity or personality so it is nothing. Do people have an individual soul or not? And if so how do you distinguish between them – since soul just lets things “come and go” and has no personality? And if not then soul cannot have anything to do with the mind – since everybody has their own mind.”

    You see brain receives data from outside which comes and goes. Does that mean brain is nothing?

    Similarly soul is receptacle of all information and recognizes through its consciousness or awareness. Soul is the vessel in which conscious thoughts, memories etc. come and go through its chitta or consciousness, which is like a body of water containing images of reflected objects. In addition soul has intrinsic property of being good, mixed or evil. The actions of souls (in thought, speech and action) are according to its nature and all past to present karma, which covers and modifies the soul as material particles.

    “So you now believe that many beings or “souls” go into the production of a new being? This is not what Hindus and believers in reincarnation believe you are making this up.”

    Strawman……Aren’t you one thick-headed fool?

    Just like the employees of automobile company share the profits of the company proportional to their work, similarly any karma done by groups of souls will share the fruits of that karma proportional to their involvement in the karma.

    Now where did I say new souls are created? Where did you come up with nonsense claim?

  12. why? says:

    Madfijian,

    You are free to NOT read my posts if it is boring to you. Just as you are free to post what you want here, so can I post what is want. If you do not have any logical point do not waste my time here.

  13. madfijian says:

    The pagal Hindu called ‘Why’ is back. Please WHY spare us your boring tirade of posts trying to convince the rest of humanity that your version of reality based on the Vedas is Gods gift to humanity and we should all follow that. Do you know what the definition of Hindu is it is someone who will believe anything and everything without any evidence whatsoever. I have no beef with the Hindu’s in general as they don’t commit atrocious acts of violence on innocent people well only once in while against Muslims but again once in a rare while.This is however a hate Islam website lets not make it a Hindu propaganda website just as the Christians are trying.

  14. THE THE PERSON CALLED “why?”

    You may have been born Hindu and gone to a Hindu school. But someone born Catholic who went to Catholic school could be convinced that they understand Christianity inside and out and that there’s is the only true understanding, that anyone who does not acknowledge the Pope just doesn’t get it.

    You are looking at a very complex series of traditions, all under the banner of “Hinduism” based on seeing it through the lens you were given and based on your own indoctrination.

    Swami Vivekananda, much like Martin Luther, ushered in a different and less dogmatic understanding of the Upanishads and the Mahabarata, as did later teachers such as Ramana Maharshi. And this list goes on and on.

    There simply is no official interpretation of the Vedic scriptures, no official Hindu Pope, etc. The Hare Krishna’s take an extremely literal point of view such that they believe that an actual little blue boy with a flute rules the Universe. Other Hindus see the deities, such as Shiva, as metaphor. Shiva being both creation and destruction is not seen as a statue to pray to but rather as aspect of the Divine. And from that point of view all of the deities are merely symbolic as “OM” is the ultimate. Atman is Brahman. We are extension of, expressions of the most high. God in me, as me, is me. And the purpose of a human incarnation is to realize this, or rather to achieve Self Realization.

    So whatever school you went to you taught you a version of the Hindu experience. That’s fine. But to think that all of Hinduism conforms to this is dogmatic and misinformed.

  15. Steve says:

    +Why

    “Do you understand the difference between an “intrinsically evil soul” and a “intrinsically good soul” which ends up doing some evil acts due to lack of knowledge and ends suffering? ” In that case inflicting pain on people who committed evil but are unaware of the effect that their behaviour has on other people is even worse than inflicting horrendous pain on evil criminals. It’s like torturing a child or an animal or someone who is mentally challenged. Much worse than torturing the most evil hardened and brutal vicious and sadistic criminals. So you have made your position even worse with this view.

    “To whom it is harmful to do rituals to ancestors to relieve them from burden of karma? The question remains, whether Hindus committed genocide because of their beliefs? The sane answer is NO and therefore your claim that Hindu beliefs lead to any harm is your imagination.” Why is praying to an imaginary God harmful instead of dealing with reality? It’s harmful because it is not based in reality which means it hinders human progress and learning.

    “No extrinsic property arises independent of intrinsic properties of associated matter. ” Utter nonsense, did this message arise independently of your brain? No.

    “Since no known intrinsic properties of matter can give rise to consciousness or subjectivity,” Which is something you asserted and given no proof of.
    “brain cannot give rise to consciousness.” Brain does rise to consciousness, you are ignoring reality.
    “If you say information is conscious awareness of entities or phenomenon outside of oneself, then what you are doing here is merely asserting brain causes consciousness” Brain processes the information that it receives from its environment, like it processes these words you are reading now. That information IS consciousness (along with the thoughts and feelings that arise in response to the stimuli that the brain receives from its environment). Consciousness is not magical.

    “Soul is the vessel in which conscious thoughts, memories etc. come and go through its chitta or consciousness, which is like a body of water containing images of reflected objects.” So soul is nothing then. Unlike the body of water it does not “contain” anything – since the thoughts etc just “come and go”. Just like ears do not “contain” sound.

    “There you have a basic definition.” Your soul is nothing. It’s not thoughts, it’s not memories, it is not data about the environment, it has no identity or personality so it is nothing. Do people have an individual soul or not? And if so how do you distinguish between them – since soul just lets things “come and go” and has no personality? And if not then soul cannot have anything to do with the mind – since everybody has their own mind.

    “Imagine an automobile company where so many emplyees are involved in production of a car and each person is compensated proportional to the job he does. Similar is karma. Nowhere it is said there is identity between different entities” So you now believe that many beings or “souls” go into the production of a new being? This is not what Hindus and believers in reincarnation believe you are making this up.

  16. why? says:

    Steve,

    “You lie again you wrote above. So what is it, people who are suffering are getting their just desserts for past life sins or not? The answer must be yes because if not karma is not delivering justice since innocent people are suffering.”

    Do you understand the difference between an “intrinsically evil soul” and a “intrinsically good soul” which ends up doing some evil acts due to lack of knowledge and ends suffering?

    “So, their belief is still spreading ignorance and falsehood. Like belief that rituals will relieve bad karma of ancestors such beliefs are harmful superstitions. Like Christians who would rather pray for rain on their crops instead of dealing with reality.”

    To whom it is harmful to do rituals to ancestors to relieve them from burden of karma? The question remains, whether Hindus committed genocide because of their beliefs? The sane answer is NO and therefore your claim that Hindu beliefs lead to any harm is your imagination.

    “Why it can’t?”

    Read the argument again. I have old hundred times this argument and you do NOT get it still…. No extrinsic property arises independent of intrinsic properties of associated matter. Since no known intrinsic properties of matter can give rise to consciousness or subjectivity, brain cannot give rise to consciousness.

    “Brain is a highly complex information processor, that information is consciousness. Information is not matter or energy even though it needs matter for its embodiment and energy to communicate.”

    When you say information, what do you mean? If you say information is conscious awareness of entities or phenomenon outside of oneself, then what you are doing here is merely asserting brain causes consciousness. This is NOT an argument, but an assertion. . No extrinsic property arises independent of intrinsic properties of associated matter. Since no known intrinsic properties of matter can give rise to consciousness or subjectivity, brain cannot give rise to consciousness.

    “Your soul on the other is completely undefined and therefore worthless. So far soul is NOT memories it is NOT thoughts, it is NOT data received through the senses. What then is the soul and what is it needed for and what does it do? You cannot answer because “soul” is another one of your fantasies.”

    Soul is that which possesses consciousness or awareness as intrinsic property, just as an electron possesses electric charge/mass as intrinsic property. Soul is the vessel in which conscious thoughts, memories etc. come and go through its chitta or consciousness, which is like a body of water containing images of reflected objects. There you have a basic definition.

    “So let’s see the reality. The reality is that people have countless “past lives” (causes) and countless “future lives” (effects of actions). And these future lives are being constantly spawned – and not just at physical birth or death. So for example Hitlers “past lives” are his parents, his teachers, his culture, etc.”

    Again strawman…….Imagine an automobile company where so many emplyees are involved in production of a car and each person is compensated proportional to the job he does. Similar is karma. Nowhere it is said there is identity between different entities.

    “His future lives are the consequences of his actions so for example all the people that died and suffered as a result of his actions and his influence on today’s neo nazis. So either you accept the reality that people have countless past lives (and countless future lives which are constantly being spawned) or you believe in the fantasy that Hitler has no future life until he dies and when he does die his soul (whatever that is) is reborn in one single living being. Which is it? Because the reality is Hindus and believers in reincarnation believe in the latter.”

    Strawman again….read the example of automobile company…

  17. Steve says:

    +Why
    Straw Man…….In Hinduism people who are suffering are NOT necessarily “intrinsically evil souls”. You are misquoting my comparison of “pigs wallowing in filth” and “intrinsically evil souls” to something else I did NOT compare with.” You lie again you wrote above. “Yes, not only Jews but every soul that suffers now is based on past and present karma.” So what is it, people who are suffering are getting their just desserts for past life sins or not? The answer must be yes because if not karma is not delivering justice since innocent people are suffering.

    “Hindus never committed any genocide like Nazis because of their belief.” So, their belief is still spreading ignorance and falsehood. Like belief that rituals will relieve bad karma of ancestors such beliefs are harmful superstitions. Like Christians who would rather pray for rain on their crops instead of dealing with reality.

    “There does NOT exist a known intrinsic property of any matter that can give rise to consciosness or subjectivity phenomenon. All known intrinsic properties of matter are associated with forces of some kind/motion of particles. There is NOT one property of matter that arises independent of intrinsic properties of associated matter. Therefore, brain cannot give rise to consciousness and there must exist an unknown intrinsic property that should give rise to consciousness and that substance which contains this intrinsic property is soul” Why it can’t? Brain is a highly complex information processor, that information is consciousness. Information is not matter or energy even though it needs matter for its embodiment and energy to communicate. Your soul on the other is completely undefined and therefore worthless. So far soul is NOT memories it is NOT thoughts, it is NOT data received through the senses. What then is the soul and what is it needed for and what does it do? You cannot answer because “soul” is another one of your fantasies.

    All you have presented here is strawman and imagined that something is NOT plausible or possible. It is completely possible.” So let’s see the reality. The reality is that people have countless “past lives” (causes) and countless “future lives” (effects of actions). And these future lives are being constantly spawned – and not just at physical birth or death. So for example Hitlers “past lives” are his parents, his teachers, his culture, etc. His future lives are the consequences of his actions so for example all the people that died and suffered as a result of his actions and his influence on today’s neo nazis. So either you accept the reality that people have countless past lives (and countless future lives which are constantly being spawned) or you believe in the fantasy that Hitler has no future life until he dies and when he does die his soul (whatever that is) is reborn in one single living being. Which is it? Because the reality is Hindus and believers in reincarnation believe in the latter.

  18. why? says:

    EAB Says:
    ====================================================
    Your understanding of Orthodox Hinduism versus Vedic Mysticism is very much misinformed and rather dogmatic. There are so many problems with what you said that, rather than pick it apart, I will let my initial statement stand and move on.
    =====================================================

    Unlike you, I was born a Hindu and lived it with orthodox schools. So please try not to tell me what is what. Orthodox school implies Vedic schools only. Try picking it apart EAB. I am sure you do NOT know anything about Sanskrit language or Vedic scriptures.

    EAB Says:
    ====================================================
    But I will add this: The idea that there is an official Hindu doctrine is not quite true. The tradition tends to center around studying with a teacher, a “Guru”. ……
    ====================================================

    Vedic religion is centered around interpreting Vedic scriptures, including your advaita school. Unlike ur claims, Vedic way of living however is uniform. You cannot have tantric sex rituals within Vedic paradigm nor eat meat or consume alcohol. These are forbidden in all Vedic system of thought, which even ur advaita school does.

    So your claims are nonsense and NOT mainstream or orthodox Vedic Hinduism.

    EAB Says:
    ====================================================
    What you are putting forward is a very narrow and rather uninformed, naive, dogmatic point of view. Hinduism is practically a “make your own religion” and to try to define it in such narrow terms, as you have, demonstrates a very dim understanding of a complex, ancient, sophisticated series of traditions and belief systems.
    ===================================================

    As a born Hindu who lived, read authentic Vedic scriptures in original language and practice Hinduism in India, I think I know better what constitutes Vedic Hinduism better than you, a film producer in New York who has no knowledge of Hinduism in practice or in terms of language or in terms of its scriptures. You should first learn to be humble.

    If Hinduism is essentially “make ur own religion”, then why call it Hinduism and harp on what Vedas teach. You might as well call it EABism. You do NOT need Vedas or Hinduism to be used as a tool to spread your own thought processes.

    I need to know what effort you have put to learn Hinduism. What is the source of your knowledge as a person living in New York?

    You make arrogant claims that my view is dim understanding, but have not exhibited even a little bit of understanding on the topic of karma itself. At the most you make vague meaningless statements on karma that it law of cause and effect that helps in evolution of soul? What is this cause and effect other than that actions cause certain effects. Bad actions lead to bad effects. How does bad effects come about other than suffering in one’s life. What is crisis other than suffering? It is the same thing. You have NOT said anything different.

  19. PASSIVE OBSERVER:

    If Satan tempted Jesus by offering him all of the pleasures of the world, let’s think about that. Jesus is supposedly “god”. They are interchangeable if Christianity is monotheistic. So god the creator then created Satan who then offers him all of the pleasures of the world and tempts him. What?

    As a creator, this god has done a very sloppy job. What a mess. No wonder that by the last part of his best seller, “The Holy Bible” he wants to destroy his creation entirely. He had already tried that with his flood.

    If one of my subordinates had become insubordinate I would not promote him. But this god promotes Lucifer by basically handing him the corner office and giving him the throne to the Earth. Meanwhile, god stands on the sidelines, heartbroken and angry, trying to communicate to us through very cryptic books saying essentially, “As your father, I really wish you kids wouldn’t do all that stuff. You really should behave or you’re gonna get it later”.

    No wonder there was a coup the moment he established his kingdom. The talking snake took that whole thing down immediately.

    Is Satan the reason we have free will? And if so, will there be no free will in Heaven? If there is free will in Heaven, who is to say that one of us won’t get seduced by a talking rabbit who also has free will and falling in the footsteps of Lucifer?

    It’s all such a mess. Throw the whole thing out and find the truth that is self evident. I would agree that much of what Jesus said has a ring of truth to it. But I am well aware that historically, before Jesus, other sages said similar things and some more articulately.

    We are all capable of realizing the divinity within ourselves, without making up fairy tales to get there. It is time for the human race to evolve, both intellectually and spiritually. And on the material plane, as a species, we really cannot afford not to evolve out of all of this Abrahamic fiction. It will eventually be our undoing.

  20. PASSIVE OBSERVER:

    So you are saying this “god” is like a DJ who takes song requests. if god is God, then God is INFINITE. Therefore, God is the 4th beer. God is the flipped skirt. And God is the desire not to give into these things. It is the binary mind which divides everything into that which is of “god” and that which is of the flesh. But isn’t the flesh part of the Infinite, in other words, “God”?

    Think of the mind as a computer with an operating system. God, by definition is bigger than that, transcends that. You are trying to fit your “god” into the operating system and organize it, according to your binary value system.

    Creation and destruction are the same thing, but called by different names.

    Does “god” need a post it note from me, reminding “him” not to let me fall into temptation and reminding him to make sure I get my daily bread? Maybe if I were living in the Bronze Age and had invented him, based on the concept of a father, why then yes, of course. Dad, don’t punish me and remember to feed me.

    But we are living in the age of science and reason. This does not mean you cannot have a higher power or a spiritual experience. But must we dumb it down? It is well past time to move beyond our old creation myths and our messiah myths.

    The resurrection of the Christ happens within you. If you want to be Christ-like, recognize that you are an extension of God (for lack of a better word) sent to Earth. The part is not separate from the whole.

    I feel we can call upon our Higher Self to avoid falling into temptation and to deliver us from what we perceive to be evil. Certainly having a spiritual dimension to one’s life is fulfilling and helpful, but we can throw out all of the superstition, can’t we?

  21. TO THE PERSON CALLED “why?” –

    Your understanding of Orthodox Hinduism versus Vedic Mysticism is very much misinformed and rather dogmatic. There are so many problems with what you said that, rather than pick it apart, I will let my initial statement stand and move on.

    But I will add this: The idea that there is an official Hindu doctrine is not quite true. The tradition tends to center around studying with a teacher, a “Guru”. However that person came into their realization, the student studies this. Now I am not saying that all of the gurus are authentic. But there are those who eat meat and those who do not eat meat. There are those who practice nonviolence and those who take the Bhagavad Gita very literally and believe that warfare if often necessary. There are those who promote service, there are those who promote devotion, there are those who promote action, there are those who promote intellectual understanding, there are those who promote celibacy, there are those who promote tantric sex, there are those who promote turning away from the world, there are those who promote turning towards the world, there are those who promote becoming free of desire, there are those who say that desire is the life force and that you should harness it as a source of power, and so on.

    What you are putting forward is a very narrow and rather uninformed, naive, dogmatic point of view. Hinduism is practically a “make your own religion” and to try to define it in such narrow terms, as you have, demonstrates a very dim understanding of a complex, ancient, sophisticated series of traditions and belief systems.

  22. @Eric Allen Bell
    // I welcome your thoughts, or anyone else who wants to respond to this one//.
    Eric you have an excellent analytical mind, and you can find fault with every sentence of the Bible or with the words of Jesus. Are you finding fault with the English wording “Would “god” lead you into temptation if you do not pray and ask “him” not to do so? In other languages you will find “Lord keep us from falling into temptation” Yes we need to pray to the higher power, from falling into temptation. I don’t know about you, but I am a weak person. I am always tempted at the flip of a skirt, or go for a second or third glass of beer. This world is full of temptations and you know the millions of young people who have become addicted to alcohol, drugs, sex pornography etc. Jesus has correctly identified our problem particularly the power of temptation and asked us to pray to the highest power. It all depends on how you conceive God and the evil power Satan. I was bewildered and trembled, just as Blaise Pascal, the great mathematician did at the thought of millions of milky ways, Super clusters and billions and billions of stars. I became humbled and have no shame or problem prostraing before the Lord of the Universe. Coming to the power of Satan, who first identified Jesus as the Son of God in the Gospels? It is the Satan, not Mary or the disciples. In Mathews 4:8 The Satan offers all the pleasures of the world (as he is the boss of this world) to Jesus and asked Jesus to fall down and worship him: hence our prayer to God “Your Kingdom come” and your will be done on earth” (not Satan’s will)
    As per Ali Sina’s advice, you have to read the Gospels again with the knowledge you have gained from this holy site. Also read the cross references that alluded to Isaiah. Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 refers to the “Suffering Christ” and many Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Isiah 61:1-2 is the Mission statement of Jesus Proclaimed by His Father Yahweh. In the NT Jesus after Baptism, comes to Synagogue and reads the Mission statement to the people. (Luke 4:18-19) “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”
    Surprisingly you will find the essential thoughts of French philosopher Rousseau’s and Karl Marx’s are included in this Mission statement. Rousseau’s “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” Karl Marx’s “oppressed labour class. Please remember the last words of Jesus just before his death “It is accomplished” Yes the mission is accomplished by the victory over sin and death.
    Jesus’ parables are marvellous. For instance Jesus wanted to explain that the word he uttered in Palestine the remote region, and how it would spread to every nation in the world “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field.32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”
    Again Jesus wanted to explain when a person accepted his word and how it works in him. “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds[a of flour until it worked all through the dough.”(Mt.13:33)
    You don’t need to refer the millions of missionaries who bade good bye to their parents and went to 200 countries. You can simply watch Ali Sina how the yeast works in him.
    Eric these are few examples how I understood the word of Jesus. As Ali Sina said ‘Each person is different and our brains are structured differently, people from unexpected quarters attracted towards Jesus through variety of ways. Some Brahmins accepted Jesus because they were healed of their diseases; some see that about 300 predictions about Jesus in the OT are fulfilled in the NT; some amaze that Jesus wept over Jerusalem and after 2000 years it still remains a boiling spot: some find Christian prayers satisfy them. I was first attracted towards Jesus not through the Bible study but through the good works of Christians: Mother Theresa and the 700,000 nuns. How Nelson Mandela from the Dark Continent was able to forgive the atrocities of the Botha Government. Another fact is out of 830 or so Nobel prize winners more than 800 are influenced by the Bible.(180 Jews 620 Christians) Finally I agreed with Jesus’ prediction “ The stone the builders rejected has become the corner stone” (MT 21:42) Yes we killed Jesus but he has become the corner stone of the world.
    As Chinese philosopher Han Feizi warned “Knowing the facts is easy. Knowing how to act based on the facts is difficult, Jesus also warned us about His message
    “Whoever has ears let them hear” (Mt.11:15)
    “Many are called but few are chosen” (Mt.22:14)
    “Not everyone seeing sees; not everyone hearing hears” (Mt. 13:13)
    “ Broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it: Narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it: (Mt.7:13-14)

  23. why? says:

    EAB:
    ==========================================================
    Therefore, Karma, the cosmic law of cause and effect, exists to help the soul evolve and to transcend it’s limitations, thus becoming essentially a stronger soul. Another way of saying that is that the soul’s journey is toward Self Realization.
    ==========================================================

    The word for moral law in Hinduism is “dharma”. Karma is not only fruits of action, it is also one’s actions and actions what ought to be done. So karma when done with proper and correct knowledge becomes dharma and means for self-realization.

    EAB:
    ==========================================================
    Karma is no more a moral law than is gravity a moral law. For the soul to evolve toward Self Realization however, it be in harmony with the of Karma.
    =========================================================

    If karma is important for self-realization, then it is more than law of gravity in this context.

    EAB:
    ==========================================================
    So in this view Karma is not a system of rewards and punishments. This concept is far more sophisticated than the common peasant view of mainstream Hinduism and is generally accepted within Vedic Mysticism, often called Advaita Vedanta.
    ==========================================================

    Karma is a system of reward and punishment. If your self-realizaion is impaired by bad karma then it is punishment as it robs you of attaining ultimate happiness. There is nothing here about peasant view of mainstream Hinduism. This is the view of orthodox Hinduism of all schools, including the advaita school of Hinduism. No advaiti will ever prescribe you to do evil activities in the path to attain self-realization based on the simple Karmic law that one who does evil acts reaps suffering.

  24. Evolution does not mean there is no Source. It means that our creation myths are outdated:

  25. Consciousness is more than just the result of neurological activity. Consciousness is the ground of all being.

    The Universe is conscious. We have come out of the Universe (while still contained within it). You cannot transmit something you do not have. We are conscious because the Universe is the conscious.

    There is nothing superstitious about this statement. It’s truth is self evident.

    The Universe is self aware and self regulating. This perceive does not require faith. To perceive this requires a quieting of the mind and seeing what has always been right there, in front of you, inside of you, breathing you.

    What is it that looks out through your eyes? It is the very energy that animates the Universe.

    The problem with a lot of the “New Atheists” is the FAITH that is placed in the human sense organs. Just because one adds a scientific instrument, does not mean we are not still placing our FAITH in the human sense organs.

    The idea that all of reality can be perceived by the brain-body organism is about as ridiculous as the Earth being flat.

    Physics looks at the material world and attempts to make sense of it. Quantum physics asks, “Who is it that is looking?”

    If we do not understand the perceiving mechanism, then how can we understand what is being perceived?

    Is the observer really separate from the observed? Can the part be separate from the whole? Isn’t what you are looking for actually looking out through your own eyes?

    “God” is closer to you than your own self.

  26. DIRECTED TO THE PERSON CALLED “why?”

    In the Vedic tradition there is another point of view on Karma. That view is that Karma is in fact not a moral law. Rather, the soul seeks to evolve. And evolution occurs in response to crisis. Therefore, Karma, the cosmic law of cause and effect, exists to help the soul evolve and to transcend it’s limitations, thus becoming essentially a stronger soul. Another way of saying that is that the soul’s journey is toward Self Realization. Karma is no more a moral law than is gravity a moral law. For the soul to evolve toward Self Realization however, it must be in harmony with the of Karma.

    So in this view Karma is not a system of rewards and punishments. This concept is far more sophisticated than the common peasant view of mainstream Hinduism and is generally accepted within Vedic Mysticism, often called Advaita Vedanta.

  27. why? says:

    +Steve,

    “All false teachings are harmful.”

    like buddhist elief in Shunya which is a false teaching.

    “Do you believe people who suffer deserve their suffering? The answer must be yes given your false immoral belief. So in your belief God was giving Jews justice for “past life sins”.”

    Yes, not only Jews but every soul that suffers now is based on past and present karma.

    “Evil people (in Hinduism that is anyone or any group of people who are suffering) are like pigs wallowing in their own filth (your own words). They are not considered to be human or feeling beings and do not deserve any empathy. So what does the Hindus say should happen to evil filthy pigs wallowing in their own dung?”

    Strawman…….In Hinduism people who are suffering are NOT necessarily “intrinsically evil souls”. You are misquoting my comparison of “pigs wallowing in filth” and “intrinsically evil souls” to something else I did NOT compare with.

    “All false teachings are immoral and both the immoral beliefs of nazis and Hindus have harmful effects on the real world.”

    This is evidence that you should get your head examined by a good psychologist. Hindus never committed any genocide like Nazis because of their belief.

    “This is why I call you a fool. Past lives don’t exist memories depend on the physical brain. It is impossible for a human to be reborn if his entire personality is gone. It’s also impossible that a animal or insect could be reborn as a human (or vice versa). These are facts so reincarnation is impossible.”

    You are dead wrong.

    There does NOT exist a known intrinsic property of any matter that can give rise to consciosness or subjectivity phenomenon. All known intrinsic properties of matter are associated with forces of some kind/motion of particles. There is NOT one property of matter that arises independent of intrinsic properties of associated matter. Therefore, brain cannot give rise to consciousness and there must exist an unknown intrinsic property that should give rise to consciousness and that substance which contains this intrinsic property is soul.

    “Also cause and effect doesn’t work like you believe it does in one straight progression from life to life.”

    Strawman….

    “In reality everybody’s karma is connected and not isolated and our actions have many simultaneous effects and not just one and this happens all the time and not just at physical birth and death. Therefore your beliefs are impossible and since they are impossible they are not plausible and reasonable but fantasy magic beliefs no different from the crazy nonsense believed in by Christians and Muslims.”

    Strawman….In Hinduism Karma is intricately connected with those whom we associate and there is no statement in Hinduism tat one karma leads to one effect only. All of your claims are mere strawman….This is why karma is intricately related to family members in particular in Hinduism and father’s or forefather’s karmas effect future generations. In Hinduism people do shraddha or ritual for dead ancestors to relieve them of their burden of karma. If son does not do it, he suffers in this life only. This is a directly experienced phenomenon among many Hindus who get untold miseries (loss of wealth, diseases etc.) in life because of non-performance of this ritual. It is also directly experienced that performance of the rituals dramatically changes the fortune of the person. Karma is also intricately related to society in which one works or country or region where one lives. A collective bad karma leads a community to experience results through natural disasters like diseases, famine, earthquake etc. or wars by these souls getting placed in such situations/environment. NOTE that I am NOT saying here karma caused natural disasters. So do not give me another strawman.

    All you have presented here is strawman and imagined that something is NOT plausible or possible. It is completely possible.

  28. Steve says:

    +Why
    “However, to hold a belief is NOT morally wrong,”All false teachings are harmful.
    ” it is ONLY wrong when that belief without evidence is used to eliminate existence of others or torture others. It is wrong for Nazis to do it even when there is evidence, unless it is carried out through proper channels of justice system.” Do you believe people who suffer deserve their suffering? The answer must be yes given your false immoral belief. So in your belief God was giving Jews justice for “past life sins”. Evil people (in Hinduism that is anyone or any group of people who are suffering) are like pigs wallowing in their own filth (your own words). They are not considered to be human or feeling beings and do not deserve any empathy. So what does the Hindus say should happen to evil filthy pigs wallowing in their own dung?

    “as equivalently immoral? I think you should get your head examined from a proper psychologist Buddhist Stevo.” All false teachings are immoral and both the immoral beliefs of nazis and Hindus have harmful effects on the real world.
    “If you are claiming that God is equivalently wrong like Nazis because you lack knowledge of the past Karmas, then it is merely a logical fallacy.
    Argument from ignorance:” This is why I call you a fool. Past lives don’t exist memories depend on the physical brain. It is impossible for a human to be reborn if his entire personality is gone. It’s also impossible that a animal or insect could be reborn as a human (or vice versa). These are facts so reincarnation is impossible. Also cause and effect doesn’t work like you believe it does in one straight progression from life to life. In reality everybody’s karma is connected and not isolated and our actions have many simultaneous effects and not just one and this happens all the time and not just at physical birth and death. Therefore your beliefs are impossible and since they are impossible they are not plausible and reasonable but fantasy magic beliefs no different from the crazy nonsense believed in by Christians and Muslims.

  29. why? says:

    Ron Says:
    ===============================================
    Only the love of Christ can defeat Islam. By promoting atheism in the Islamic or non-Islamic countries you are just creating a spiritual vacuum which gets filled by Islam as shown in the examples above.

    If you feel these observations are true please respond.
    ===============================================

    History always shows that power shifts from one person to another, from one community to another, from one religion to another, from one country to another, from one civilization to another. That which has most financial, military and other resources succeed for that time. All of them also died and history will continue to repeat.

    If you take Japan, Islam has no chance in that nation. Should we say the whole world should convert to Shinto-Confuscian-Buddhist combo religion? It is more likely that a christian will convert to islam because of similarity in belief, rather than a Shinto/Confusican follower.

  30. Ron says:

    Atheism is growing in many places but the problem with atheism is that it creates a spiritual vacuum which is then filled by a resurgent Islam.

    Examples are Turkey which became secular under Kemal Pasha and these Young Turks promoted secularism, changed the dressing style, banned the hijab, changed the script of the language etc. of Turkey to make it modern secular Western nation. The secularist and atheists were overjoyed for a brief period of time.

    But then this spiritual vacuum in people’s soul created by atheism, agnosticism, secularism was filled immediately the Islam.

    Now we have a pro-Islamic government in Power since nearly 15 years. Islam is resurging there as Turkey covertly supports the ISIS, gets cheap oil from them, supports Hamas, and the hijabs are back, Christians are persecuted, Eid and Ramadan are widely observed and a government backing Islam and its culture.
    This sick man of Europe is now the entry gateway to ISIS.

    Another example is Albania which was the worlds first atheist state. After decades of atheism, the spiritual vacuum created by atheism has been filled again by Islam. Islam is observed everywhere and the mosques are full. The contribution of recruits to Islamic militants is significant.

    Chechnya, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan are also good examples where the spiritual vacuum created by atheism was filled in by Islam.

    Even Scandinavian countries and Western Europe, Australia, NZ, etc. where atheism was promoted by secularists have got increasing number of converts to Islam.

    Needless to say when you promote atheism you are abetting the growth of Islam, Marxism.

    Only the love of Christ can defeat Islam. By promoting atheism in the Islamic or non-Islamic countries you are just creating a spiritual vacuum which gets filled by Islam as shown in the examples above.

    If you feel these observations are true please respond.

  31. why? says:

    Steve Says:
    ======================================================
    You do not understand. Hitler claimed the Jews are evil and need to be exterminated for the good of humanity and therefore he and the nazi state had a moral duty to exterminate them. The problem is he didn’t provide any evidence to support his claim that the Jews are a threat to humanity therefore his actions are not morally justified. This is like me accusing you of being a child rapist and getting a mob of thugs to kill and torture you, without evidence this behaviour is not morally justified.
    =======================================================

    Poor Buddhist Stevo….still at it without understanding anything…Nobody (especially me) says that it is right for anybody to exterminate a whole race based on conjecture or belief system. However, to hold a belief is NOT morally wrong, it is ONLY wrong when that belief without evidence is used to eliminate existence of others or torture others. It is wrong for Nazis to do it even when there is evidence, unless it is carried out through proper channels of justice system.

    Steve Says:
    ======================================================
    I had to explain this to the Hindu why about 50 times because he did not understand that it is immoral to believe that people who are suffering are getting “divine justice” – without providing evidence for his doctrine of “past life sins” and “divine justice” through a supernatural version of cause and effect/karma.
    ======================================================

    Now wait there a minute….

    Are you saying that

    (a.) Hitler and Nazis murdering whole lot of Jews because of Nazi belief

    (b.) Hindus believing in Karma or divine justice as God giving justice as per Karma

    as equivalently immoral? I think you should get your head examined from a proper psychologist Buddhist Stevo.

    If you are claiming that God is equivalently wrong like Nazis because you lack knowledge of the past Karmas, then it is merely a logical fallacy.

    Argument from ignorance:

    Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents “a lack of contrary evidence”), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

    true
    false
    unknown between true or false
    being unknowable (among the first three).

  32. The Creationists and the Fundamentalists have been given a lot of space here, so I do hope that my rebuttals will continue to be welcome. That said, here is an interesting video. First I must point out the following: Just because I post a video by Sam Harris does not mean I am lockstep, in total agreement with all of his views. But this video addresses much of what we have been discussing here:

  33. The Creationists and the Fundamentalists have been given a lot of space here, so I do hope that my rebuttals will continue to be welcome. That said, here is an interesting video. First I must point out the following: Just because I post a video by Sam Harris does not mean I am lockstep, in total agreement with all of his views. But this video addresses much of what we have been discussing here:

    https://youtu.be/8zV3vIXZ-1Y

  34. Steve says:

    +Phoenix

    “Primitive morality is an oxymoronic term. If morality is universal then it cannot evolve from a primordial state to an advanced stage. It must be consistent and applicable at all times in all situations.” It has evolved and I gave you examples of where even among humans it is or has been evolving.

    “First, the values you are referring to is not grounded in a naturalism. You have not shown that such a value derived system exists in nature.” It obviously does exist – since In all civilised countries, morality and laws are based on protecting and promoting the well being of their society.
    “Secondly, the terms “superstition and dogma” are used to imply theism when in fact it may also imply Atheism.” Religious morality is largely based on superstition and dogma and less about wellbeing. While in the civilised world morality has moved away from superstition and dogma and more towards wellbeing.
    “Yes, and they are also more objectively healthier than North Korea and China, which have much higher rates of Atheism/Secularism.” Yes that country where the leader and his father and grandfather are believed to be gods.
    “Well, those are the consequences of not needing a shared moral code.” Actually there is a need in a international world, this is why we have organisations like the United Nations – which tries to promote a shared or universal morality among countries which increases peace, trade and cooperation and decreases violence, wars and genocide.” That is THEIR preference and you are obliged to respect that, given your subjective worldview.” Obviously I am not – since I do not share their values.
    “It may not be a crime where we are from but many of those practices we deem immoral and criminal are legal in those nations. ” It doesn’t matter that is legal in those countries. If those countries didn’t have a speed limit and traffic lights – even in busy towns and cities – (with a high death toll to accompany that) would that mean those countries had safe roads? Obviously not and that is not a matter of opinion- despite the fact that traffic laws are a human invention.
    “Likewise, killing babies with defects to free their society from illnesses are also backed by the Atheistic regime of North Korea. They do not appeal to any deities for their immoral acts but use science as their authority.” Oh really? The leader is the ultimate authority in totalitarian regimes and not science, just like God is the ultimate authority in the Abrahamic religions.
    “That meaning is redefined. Choice is then merely an illusion.” It is not redefined, choice means to select from multiple possibilities. Determinism is irrelevant to that.
    “The Nazis much like the North Korean regime used evolutionary biology to justify their slaughter of jews. ” Which was pseudo science and based on their racial dogma and not any scientific theory in evolutionary biology.
    “If it exists in the brain/mind then it can be viewed via fMRI, PET scan or CT scans. But this has never been observed.” Well you can do brain scans which measure the activity in the brain while they are shown stimuli – which correlates which the emotional response the person has.
    “Morality is NOT built into physical reality. That is the point. We do not see it anywhere in nature.” Right except in humans and other social species (at least to a degree).
    “Of course traffic laws are human invention and the opinion of our authorities. They have changed over the years. ” Just like morality.
    “So here you have pushed the problem a step back to society. Morality now derives from the needs of society.” That’s a big part of it yes.
    “That still does not tell us that it is derived from nature or the laws of physics.” The laws of physics are the laws of nature, so if something is the result of laws of physics then it’s natural. Brains are and a social species like human beings are the result of laws of physics therefore it comes from nature, it does not come from big brother.
    “Yes and Harris does that without defining any of those terms. ” Which he does, good are actions which maximise wellbeing and evil actions are those which decrease wellbeing. Do you have a better definition? Is good what big brother commands is good and evil is what big brother forbids? Is that your moral system?
    “Science deals with what is, not what must be. Morals set the standard for human behavior. Science tell us what is happening in nature. It does not prescribe any code of conduct.” It can tell us what actions lead to humans flourishing. Facts about human wellbeing and psychology inform your values. Do you want to live in a state full of horrendous suffering? If not (which if you are a normal human being with a functioning brain) you won’t then science can tell you what you ought to value to live in a society which is healthy and happy and not one which is dysfunctional and full of suffering.

  35. why? says:

    ============================================
    Ron is right. There is a time for everything under the sky, Many Muslims are receiving the love of Jesus and are being transformed. Miracles are happening at an “alarming” rate. Jesus is at work. However, a time for peace and a time for war.
    ==============================================

    ALI,

    There will be always converts from one religion to another based on some kind of supernatural experience. Proves nothing. The fact remains although that for 1400 years Islam has been a menace for christians and rest of the world. What was your JC doing for 1400 years? What was he doing when muhammad was spreading his evil cult? If JC was so interested in converting all muslims into followers of JC, would it be more prudential for him to have acted when muhammad was born and converted him into a JC follower? Why did he not do that? Do you think all of this is logical?

    So this entire stories of people converting because of some alleged NDEs is nothing short of hallucination by people?

  36. @Ali Sina

    Thanks for your testimony. I fully agree with your statement “I believe that God saved me because he found in me sincerity. That is a great quality and it is not very common” There is a supporting verse in the Bible. “For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward him”. (2 chronicles 16:9). If you look for me wholeheartedly, you will find me. (Jeramiah 29:13)

  37. why? says:

    ERIC ALLEN BELL,

    SOMETHING SPECIAL FOR YOU STRAIGHT FROM THE CHRISTIAN FREAK CALLED WALID SHOEBAT.

    http://shoebat.com/2016/05/29/christendom-is-the-only-force-that-will-destroy-islam-secularism-or-conservatism-will-always-fail/

  38. madfijian says:

    Ron you are wrong again. The fastest growing segment of society in the United States are people who are either Atheists ,agnostics or humanists. People are realizing that they can be good without religion and spiritual without faith.

  39. Phoenix says:

    //Actually apes and other social species do have morality or least a primitive form of morality//

    Primitive morality is an oxymoronic term. If morality is universal then it cannot evolve from a primordial state to an advanced stage. It must be consistent and applicable at all times in all situations.

    //This is not what I said this is a straw man. I said laws are informed by values. In countries which value wellbeing over superstition and dogma you will see laws against child abuse for example.//

    First, the values you are referring to is not grounded in a naturalism. You have not shown that such a value derived system exists in nature.
    Secondly, the terms “superstition and dogma” are used to imply theism when in fact it may also imply Atheism.

    //So there it is well defined even according to you. Devolved Countries like United States and Canada are objectively healthier (mentally and physically) than say Syria and Iraq. This is not a matter of opinion.//

    Yes, and they are also more objectively healthier than North Korea and China, which have much higher rates of Atheism/Secularism.

    //Eh no, do I also believe people who betray the Mafia to the authorities should be killed? Obviously not since I not a member of the Mafia and I do not share the values of their criminal sub culture.//

    Well, those are the consequences of not needing a shared moral code. That is THEIR preference and you are obliged to respect that, given your subjective worldview.

    //Nope because in reality wearing a burqa is not a crime. Just like witchcraft and worshipping idols is not a crime – unless you are a religious fanatic who believes the creator of the universe has commanded you to kill people who worship idols.//

    It may not be a crime where we are from but many of those practices we deem immoral and criminal are legal in those nations. Likewise, killing babies with defects to free their society from illnesses are also backed by the Atheistic regime of North Korea. They do not appeal to any deities for their immoral acts but use science as their authority.

    //Obviously they are. As I said before even with determinism the word choice still has meaning.//

    That meaning is redefined. Choice is then merely an illusion.

    //You do not understand. Hitler claimed the Jews are evil and need to be exterminated for the good of humanity and therefore he and the nazi state had a moral duty to exterminate them. The problem is he didn’t provide any evidence to support his claim that the Jews are a threat to humanity therefore his actions are not morally justified. //

    The Nazis much like the North Korean regime used evolutionary biology to justify their slaughter of jews.

    //Neither do I, I believe that morality exists in the mind (and of course it be codified in laws and regulations). So you either agree with me or believe in some third alternative which you need to explain.//

    If it exists in the brain/mind then it can be viewed via fMRI, PET scan or CT scans. But this has never been observed.

    //Unless you can prove that morality is built into reality and is not a human invention this is meaningless and special pleading. Otherwise it’s not different to saying “No, that was an example of man’s understanding of traffic laws has evolved”//

    Morality is NOT built into physical reality. That is the point. We do not see it anywhere in nature.

    //Traffic laws are built into reality or are they human inventions? Unless you honestly do believe that the traffic laws are built into reality and existed before any human minds?//

    Of course traffic laws are human invention and the opinion of our authorities. They have changed over the years.

    // In democratic countries the “moral authority” is the elected representative(s) of the people. The laws are there to reflect the needs of the society – just like traffic laws – which work – have to reflect the needs and situations of the road users.//

    So here you have pushed the problem a step back to society. Morality now derives from the needs of society.

    That still does not tell us that it is derived from nature or the laws of physics.

    //“Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can — and should — be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.”//

    Yes and Harris does that without defining any of those terms. Science deals with what is, not what must be. Morals set the standard for human behavior. Science tell us what is happening in nature. It does not prescribe any code of conduct.

  40. madfijian says:

    Ron you really need to research what you copying from dumb websites that is based in sudo science at best and all its claims have been debunked. Lucy for instance is not 6000 years old. Here is a goggle search result

    “The remains were discovered in 1974 in the Awash Valley of Ethiopia. The early hominid is thought to be around 3.2 million years old. Lucy was the first Australopithecus afarensis skeleton ever uncovered and is probably the world’s most famous early human ancestor.Mar 17, 2014”

    If i gave you a book and said to you Ron this is the worlds most accurate Atlas and you should base your world knowledge of geography on this. When you open the Atlas and the first page has a picture of a flat earth and you know this is factually inaccurate what will you do.The most likely scenario is that the Atlas will end up in the closest bin as the expectation is that the rest of the infor contained in it will be incorrect. Why than would you choose to base your entire life on a book that is factually incorrect from its first chapter. This is not faith Ron this is pure and simple stupidity.

  41. Ali Sina says:

    @EAB

    Ron is right. There is a time for everything under the sky, Many Muslims are receiving the love of Jesus and are being transformed. Miracles are happening at an “alarming” rate. Jesus is at work. However, a time for peace and a time for war.

  42. RON:

    “Belief, faith and love of Christ can change your enemies into allies.”

    Really? Tell that to everyone who is fighting against jihadists in the Middle Easts and having their limbs blown off and being shot in the head – and they believe and have faith in “Christ”.

    Sorry, but – WRONG AGAIN.

  43. RON:

    “You are trying to gather up a coalition of people with common hatred towards Islam and are not hate mongers but you fail to see that atheist activists and liberals do hate Christians more and will cozy up to Islamists to counter Christians.”

    Nope. That is just AM Radio propaganda my friend. Nearly everyone I know, who opposes Islam and is not a Christian, has friends and family who are Christians and whom the love. Sorry to burst your bubble. But Christianity has the biggest market share out there by far and, in America, you are not being persecuted on a scale even worth mentioning.

    In the Islamic world Christians are being persecuted. And I speak out against it. So do many Atheists.

    So, once again – WRONG.

  44. Ron says:

    Eric
    You are trying to gather up a coalition of people with common hatred towards Islam and are not hate mongers but you fail to see that atheist activists and liberals do hate Christians more and will cozy up to Islamists to counter Christians.

    You are suffering from the same disease (hatred) but with a different strain (hatred against Christians/Jews) and now you are trying to provide a cure against Islam (this strain is hatred against all non-Muslims).

    To fight this dangerous strain (Islam -hatred against all non-Muslims) you need love of Christ (Christ loves all sinners and sacrificed his life for them).

    Belief, faith and love of Christ can change your enemies into allies.

    You need to gatherr up a coalition of people unified in love and not unified in hate.

    You cannot win against hate without Christ in you.

    Christ is the way, the truth and life

  45. Ron says:

    Christ did not torture but was tortured.
    You want to spin this one to make Stalin good and Christ bad.

    Stalin left the seminary in between and turned atheist and went to kill many.
    He said that when one person getss killed it is a tragedy and when several are killed it is a statistic.
    Stalin always said that his actions and decisions were for the protection and prosperity of the masses.

    You and some others mistakenly think that God always sends calamities to punish sinners. This is not true. Jesus commented on acts of violence and natural calamities that happened in His day. The Bible says, “There were present at that season some who told Him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, “Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, nay; but unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower of Siloam fell and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all other men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, nay; but unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:1-5).

    These things happened because in a world of sin there are calamities and atrocities that take place that would not happen in a perfect world. It does not mean that everyone who dies in such calamities is a sinner nor does it mean that God causes the calamity. It is often the innocent that suffer the consequences of living in this world of sin.

    In past times, God has brought judgment upon the wicked as He did in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Bible says, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7, NKJV). The destruction of these wicked cities was an example of the judgments that will come upon the whole world at the end of time as a result of sin. In His mercy, God allowed His judgment to fall on Sodom and Gomorrah so that many others might be warned. This does not necessarily mean that when an earthquake or a tornado or a tsunami strikes that God is pouring out His wrath in judgment upon cities like New York, New Orleans, or Port-au-Prince. We live in a sinful world and disasters can strike at any time.

    Some have suggested that natural disasters are perhaps the beginning of God’s final judgments upon the wicked. One should not rule out the possibility that sinners are receiving the consequences of their rebellion against God, but we cannot correlate particular disasters with divine retribution against specific sinners or sins. These horrible events may well be simply the result of living in a world that has fallen so far from God’s ideal. Even if these disasters might be considered early warnings of God’s final judgment, none should conclude that all those who die in them are eternally lost. Jesus said that in the final judgment it would be more tolerable for some of those destroyed in Sodom, than for those who reject His invitation to salvation in cities that were not destroyed (see Luke 10:12-15).

  46. Steve says:

    +Ron

    “Stalin said that people are like animals. There is no difference. Stalin called for an live chicken and then tortured it by unfeathering it by pulling out one feather at a time one until it was devoid of any feathers and then he kept it on the ground.
    The chicken then slowly walked towards him and snuggled between his legs for comfort and warmth and followed him and then ate out the bread crumbs from his hand. Stalin then turned to the observers and said that people are like animals, and even if tortured they will respect you, fear you and follow you if you are able to provide them food.” Ron this is called projection. This is the “moral theory” that Christianity and the other abrahamic religions teach. Jesus is like that chicken, his father had him tortured and killed for other people’s “sins” but still Jesus loved his father and wants to be comforted by him for all eternity. The believers still respect their God, love him and fear him despite any harm he does (natural disasters, moral evil and of course supernatural intervention by God (either through nature or through human beings) to punish the believers for disobeying his commandments as told in the bible).

    “Where Stalin got his morality is another question” Probably from so called divine command theory which is the theory that believers in the Abrahamic religions espouse. “Divine command theory (also known as theological voluntarism) is a meta-ethicaltheory which proposes that an action’s status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined by what God commands, and that for a person to be moral is to follow his commands. Followers of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have often accepted the importance of God’s commands in establishing morality. ‘

    “which Phoenix will be able to elaborate” Obviously your buddy Phoenix will not be able to do that – since he hasn’t even said what his own moral theory is – even though I have asked him several times now.

  47. Ron says:

    The YouTube videos about the animal behaviour posted by Sina are exceptions or aberrations and not the rule or norms of animals specially when they are hungry and or/in the wild.

    In fact, this observation of animals is same as humans was used by Stalin the atheist monster.
    Chingiz Aitmatov a Russian journalist who met Stalin and several of his henchmen stated why the people adored Stalin and followed him.
    Stalin said that people are like animals. There is no difference. Stalin called for an live chicken and then tortured it by unfeathering it by pulling out one feather at a time one until it was devoid of any feathers and then he kept it on the ground.

    The chicken then slowly walked towards him and snuggled between his legs for comfort and warmth and followed him and then ate out the bread crumbs from his hand. Stalin then turned to the observers and said that people are like animals, and even if tortured they will respect you, fear you and follow you if you are able to provide them food.

    (Where Stalin got his morality is another question which Phoenix will be able to elaborate).

  48. Steve says:

    +Phoenix

    “It doesn’t. Apes and ants are social species but they are unable to discern between good and evil. As a matter of fact, those concepts do not apply to their kingdoms.” Actually apes and other social species do have morality or least a primitive form of morality. See this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality “According to Dr. de Waal, human morality has two extra levels of sophistication that are not found in primate societies. Humans enforce their society’s moral codes much more rigorously with rewards, punishments and reputation building. People also apply a degree of judgment and reason not seen in the animal kingdom.”
    //You asked me what kind of laws there would be, based on this moral system and I gave you an example.//
    “I take that as a “yes”. Your morality is defined by what is legal by law. If that’s the case then we are back to moral relativism, as you would change your morals as the legal system changes or per country. Underage marriage of girls is legal in many Islamic states therefore it’s moral. Am I correct?” This is not what I said this is a straw man. I said laws are informed by values. In countries which value wellbeing over superstition and dogma you will see laws against child abuse for example.
    //Saying communism or Hitler is not an argument. ” disprove the claim that a goal which is for the well being of society is morally superior” What the hell is your morality based on then? Why is rape (for example) wrong if not for the negative effect it has on the individual and society?/./
    Now you’re beginning to get the gist of the matter. “Well being of societies” is not an objective benchmark. “Those terms are very vague and differs from individual to individual and nations to nations. ” This is not what you said before. “Physical health is not that hard to define. It typically means to be free from illness or injury.
    Well being = the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy.” So there it is well defined even according to you. Devolved Countries like United States and Canada are objectively healthier (mentally and physically) than say Syria and Iraq. This is not a matter of opinion.
    “Murdering the physically disabled babies, mentally handicap, sick or even foreign babies in North Korea is done to preserve the purity of their people. Under your reasoning, which asserts preference and subjective/relative morals and legality, these acts are perfectly acceptable.” No this is not my view.
    // Really? And if you really do believe that then explain why you think it is immoral then since apparently throwing acid into little girls faces maximises wellbeing?//
    “This is certainly not my view but for many muslims it is done to ensure that those women remain “pure” and does not engage in immoral sex acts. Again, this is fine under your standards of morality, which are not universal.” Eh no, do I also believe people who betray the Mafia to the authorities should be killed? Obviously not since I not a member of the Mafia and I do not share the values of their criminal sub culture.
    //No they are causing needless suffering for an imaginary crime therefore there behaviour is immoral.//
    “Yes, unfortunately transgressors must be punished, even according to your own ideas of preserving the well being of socieities.” Nope because in reality wearing a burqa is not a crime. Just like witchcraft and worshipping idols is not a crime – unless you are a religious fanatic who believes the creator of the universe has commanded you to kill people who worship idols.
    ““Moral choices”, are not possible in a purely Materialistic universe. Determinism must be the necessary axiom for all events including human actions.” Obviously they are. As I said before even with determinism the word choice still has meaning.
    //Give me a moral statement which does not refer to actions and the consequence those actions have on thinking feeling beings? In fact tell me what your moral system is and what it is based if not the wellbeing of conscious creatures? Because so far I have only being defending my view yet you haven’t explained what your alternative is.//
    “You still do not understand. It is not the goal which makes it neccessarily moral but the principles or path leading to the goal. Nazism and Communism all had goals which were for the well being of society yet the results were catastrophic.” You do not understand. Hitler claimed the Jews are evil and need to be exterminated for the good of humanity and therefore he and the nazi state had a moral duty to exterminate them. The problem is he didn’t provide any evidence to support his claim that the Jews are a threat to humanity therefore his actions are not morally justified. This is like me accusing you of being a child rapist and getting a mob of thugs to kill and torture you, without evidence this behaviour is not morally justified. I had to explain this to the Hindu why about 50 times because he did not understand that it is immoral to believe that people who are suffering are getting “divine justice” – without providing evidence for his doctrine of “past life sins” and “divine justice” through a supernatural version of cause and effect/karma.
    //You to prove that morality is not just a human construct but is somehow fundamentally built into the fabric of reality.//
    “Reality, according to Atheists is always equivalent to what our senses can perceive, which is matter. “I do not believe that morality exists in matter.” Neither do I, I believe that morality exists in the mind (and of course it be codified in laws and regulations). So you either agree with me or believe in some third alternative which you need to explain.
    “No, that was an example of man’s understanding of morality has evolved.” Unless you can prove that morality is built into reality and is not a human invention this is meaningless and special pleading. Otherwise it’s not different to saying “No, that was an example of man’s understanding of traffic laws has evolved”
    //That is because the laws of physics are not mind dependent.//
    “Yes, and neither are our moral laws. That’s why theft is wrong even if everyone decides tomorrow it is acceptable for them.” Traffic laws are built into reality or are they human inventions? Unless you honestly do believe that the traffic laws are built into reality and existed before any human minds?
    “Our rules of the road are codified and enforced by our civil authorities. Of course, this continues to change. It has no bearing on morality. Who is the moral authority in your world, who codifies those laws?” In democratic countries the “moral authority” is the elected representative(s) of the people. The laws are there to reflect the needs of the society – just like traffic laws – which work – have to reflect the needs and situations of the road users.

  49. @Phoenix

    If animals do not know the difference between good and evil, can you please explain these.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMUhJi30xJU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfC0gyCbpR4
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTUIfHyHQRs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBW5dfRoG7Q
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqq2rqQA3FQ
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOBNKzNdhwU
    This one will make you cry
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGe2FPYUD30

    There is no difference between humans and animals other than the fact that we are smarter. We have the same soul the same feelings, feel the same pain, love and shame the same emotions. We are all made in the image of God.

  50. Phoenix says:

    //Yes I wonder how principles like the golden rule would exist in a Darwinian world? How could that be, since human beings are a social species?//

    It doesn’t. Apes and ants are social species but they are unable to discern between good and evil. As a matter of fact, those concepts do not apply to their kingdoms.

    //You asked me what kind of laws there would be, based on this moral system and I gave you an example.//

    I take that as a “yes”. Your morality is defined by what is legal by law. If that’s the case then we are back to moral relativism, as you would change your morals as the legal system changes or per country. Underage marriage of girls is legal in many Islamic states therefore it’s moral. Am I correct?

    //Saying communism or Hitler is not an argument. ” disprove the claim that a goal which is for the well being of society is morally superior” What the hell is your morality based on then? Why is rape (for example) wrong if not for the negative effect it has on the individual and society?/./

    Now you’re beginning to get the gist of the matter. “Well being of societies” is not an objective benchmark. Those terms are very vague and differs from individual to individual and nations to nations. Murdering the physically disabled babies, mentally handicap, sick or even foreign babies in North Korea is done to preserve the purity of their people. Under your reasoning, which asserts preference and subjective/relative morals and legality, these acts are perfectly acceptable.

    // Really? And if you really do believe that then explain why you think it is immoral then since apparently throwing acid into little girls faces maximises wellbeing?//

    This is certainly not my view but for many muslims it is done to ensure that those women remain “pure” and does not engage in immoral sex acts. Again, this is fine under your standards of morality, which are not universal.

    //No they are causing needless suffering for an imaginary crime therefore there behaviour is immoral.//

    Yes, unfortunately transgressors must be punished, even according to your own ideas of preserving the well being of socieities.

    //That is because Human beings, unlike other animals, are able to reflect on and make judgements about our own and others’ actions, and as a result we are able to make considered moral choices.//

    “Moral choices”, are not possible in a purely Materialistic universe. Determinism must be the necessary axiom for all events including human actions.

    //Give me a moral statement which does not refer to actions and the consequence those actions have on thinking feeling beings? In fact tell me what your moral system is and what it is based if not the wellbeing of conscious creatures? Because so far I have only being defending my view yet you haven’t explained what your alternative is.//

    You still do not understand. It is not the goal which makes it neccessarily moral but the principles or path leading to the goal. Nazism and Communism all had goals which were for the well being of society yet the results were catastrophic.

    //You to prove that morality is not just a human construct but is somehow fundamentally built into the fabric of reality.//

    Reality, according to Atheists is always equivalent to what our senses can perceive, which is matter. I do not believe that morality exists in matter.

    //I already gave you examples of where morality has been or is evolving. Slavery for example.//

    No, that was an example of man’s understanding of morality has evolved.

    //That is because the laws of physics are not mind dependent.//

    Yes, and neither are our moral laws. That’s why theft is wrong even if everyone decides tomorrow it is acceptable for them.

    //So do you believe the laws of the road are unaffected by opinion and preferences even if everyone decides tomorrow that running over little kids at a crossing is acceptable? If the “state” (or whatever else the ultimate authority in the given collective is) doesn´t recognize them, then even if the traffic laws are somehow built into reality and independent of minds then they are still pragmatically non-existent.//

    Our rules of the road are codified and enforced by our civil authorities. Of course, this continues to change. It has no bearing on morality. Who is the moral authority in your world, who codifies those laws?

  51. ALI SINA:

    You are right that we are not part of any organized movement and that we oppose more than just jihad, we oppose Islam.

    That said, all of us are generally perceived as being part of some kind of hate group. If you are against Islam in America especially, you are seen as being some kind of hatemonger.

    So it does not help our cause to cozy up to actual hatemongers, such as the Shoebats, who are calling for genocide.

    By standing up to the lunatic fringe, of those who oppose Islam, and condemning their actual real hate speech, we make it clear that we are not so easily defined.

    How can we be hatemongers if we don’t tolerate hate? Public perceptions and media perceptions matter, if we are to win the hearts and minds in this battle.

  52. @EAB
    “we need to be willing to stand up to our own lunatic fringe.”
    Theodor Shoebat is not “my own”. I have nothing to do with this crazy dude. This man is a Muslim. He is reading from the Quran and calls it the Bible. I don’t want to give him importance by talking about him. Idiots like him are better ignored.
    Anti Jihad movement is not a party or a religion. We don’t have to agree on anything for disagreeing with Islam. And as such we don’t have to justify the actions and beliefs of others in this fight. As a matter of fact, I am not even part of Anti Jihad movement. I am anti Islam. Saying I am anti Jihad will put me in the same category as Zuhdi Jasser, Tarik Fatah and other liars. jihad is only a teachings of Islam and it is not its only evil teaching. Everything in this religion is evil.

  53. We need to take our own medicine. If we are going to criticize Muslims for not organizing against jihadists (only against Israel) then we need to be willing to stand up to our own lunatic fringe.

    Also, we are losing people and failing to grow at our full potential exactly because of these sort of fanatics in our ranks.

    If someone finds out about Islam from Shoebat Ministries, how quickly will they be turned off and decide it was probably all bullshit?

    Someone needs to stand up and say, “Hey, we are not all like this”. And if our most visible figures are unwilling to do this, that is a problem – a very big problem.

    I will be debating both Theodore and Walid Shoebat, live on the radio, on June 6th. Details to follow.

    Meanwhile Pamela Geller is our most visible figure and her website is still singing their praises. This reflects negatively on ALL OF US.

  54. Steve says:

    +Ali Sina

    “I am not going to tell anyone what to do. Denouncing a nutcase is not part of our fight against Islam.” So do you want to associated to be with the likes of Anders Breivik and neo nazis? You think that is good for your fight against Islam? If not then why the same is not true of this hate monger fanatic Theodore Shoebat and his father?

  55. Ali Sina says:

    @Eric Allen Bell

    “PAMELA GELLER IS A BRAVE WARRIOR AGAINST ISLAMIC BRUTALITY. Please join me in asking her to distance herself from Shoebat Ministries.”

    I am not going to tell anyone what to do. Denouncing a nutcase is not part of our fight against Islam. I deplore that this fellow is promoting Islam and misnomers it as Christianity. Killing homosexual, burning the books of atheists and getting rid of democracy are statements that only a Muslim or a crazed person can make. As for me I ignore him. Anyone with commonsense would do the same. It is not up to me to advise others what to do. Just as I do not take instructions from others I do not give instructions to others. Pamela is a smart woman. She can make wise decisions without my input.

  56. RON:

    Do you just copy this stuff from Creationist websites and then paste it in?

  57. Ali Sina says:

    @Ron

    Actually Lucy is 3.2 million years old.

  58. Ron says:

    The presence of helium in rocks is proof that earth cannot be millions or billions of years old
    (rather it can be 6000 to 8000 years)

    During the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium contained in rocks, lots of helium is produced. Because helium is the second lightest element and a noble gas—meaning it does not combine with other atoms—it readily diffuses (leaks) out and eventually escapes into the atmosphere. Helium diffuses so rapidly that all the helium should have leaked out in less than 100,000 years. So why are these rocks still full of helium atoms?

    While drilling deep Precambrian (pre-Flood) granitic rocks in New Mexico, geologists extracted samples of zircon (zirconium silicate) crystals from different depths. The crystals contained not only uranium but also large amounts of helium.
    1 The hotter the rocks, the faster the helium should escape, so researchers were surprised to find that the deepest, and therefore hottest, zircons (at 387°F or 197°C) contained far more helium than expected. Up to 58% of the helium that the uranium could have ever generated was still present in the crystals.

    The helium leakage rate has been determined in several experiments.

    2 All measurements are in agreement. Helium diffuses so rapidly that all the helium in these zircon crystals should have leaked out in less than 100,000 years. The fact that so much helium is still there means they cannot be 1.5 billion years old, as uranium-lead dating suggests. Indeed, using the measured rate of helium diffusion, these pre-Flood rocks have an average “diffusion age” of only 6,000 (± 2,000) years.

    3 These experimentally determined and repeatable results, based on the well-understood physical process of diffusion, thus emphatically demonstrate that these zircons are only a few thousand years old. The supposed 1.5-billion-year age is based on the unverifiable assumptions of radioisotope dating that are radically wrong.

    4 Another evidence of a young earth is the low amount of helium in the atmosphere. The leakage rate of helium gas into the atmosphere has been measured.

    5 Even though some helium escapes into outer space, the amount still present is not nearly enough if the earth is over 4.5 billion years old.

    6 In fact, if we assume no helium was in the original atmosphere, all the helium would have accumulated in only 1.8 million years even from an evolutionary standpoint.

    7 But when the catastrophic Flood upheaval is factored in, which rapidly released huge amounts of helium into the atmosphere, it could have accumulated in only 6,000 years.

    8 So glaring and devastating is the surprisingly large amount of helium that old-earth advocates have attempted to discredit this evidence.

    One critic suggested the helium didn’t all come from uranium decay in the zircon crystals but a lot diffused into them from the surrounding minerals. But this proposal ignores measurements showing that less helium gas is in the surrounding minerals. Due to the well-established diffusion law of physics, gases always diffuse from areas of higher concentration to surrounding areas of lower concentration.

    9 Another critic suggested the edges of the zircon crystals must have stopped the helium from leaking out, effectively “bottling” the helium within the zircons. However, this postulation has also been easily refuted because the zircon crystals are wedged between flat mica sheets, not wrapped in them, so that helium could easily flow between the sheets unrestricted.

    10 All other critics have been answered.

    11 Thus all available evidence confirms that the true age of these zircons and their host granitic rock is only 6,000 (± 2,000) years.

  59. Ron says:

    I never said the earth is 6000 years old though it probably could be with lots of evidence for it. They have never found a homo-sapien skeleton more than 6000 years old. Lucy the oldest homo-sapien skeleton found is supposed to be 5000 years old.

    There are lot of questions for which we are still searching. There are cave drawings of men fighting dragons (dinosaurs) so also there are ancient Babylonian (not pre-historic but pre-BC) drawings of dinosaurs with present day animals. So when did dinosaurs become pre-historic. Lots of questions.

    Atheists are trying to fit the evidence into their pre-conceived mindset that evolution is true.

    Scientists were surprised to find that DNA was still intact after a supposed 250 million years.

    In 2000, scientists claimed to have “resurrected” bacteria, named Lazarus bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million years old. They were shocked that the bacteria’s DNA was very similar to modern bacterial DNA. If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution, its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates).

    In addition, the scientists were surprised to find that the DNA was still intact after the supposed 250 million years. DNA normally breaks down quickly, even in ideal conditions. Even evolutionists agree that DNA in bacterial spores (a dormant state) should not last more than a million years. Their quandary is quite substantial.

    However, the discovery of Lazarus bacteria is not shocking or surprising when we base our expectations on the Bible accounts. For instance, Noah’s Flood likely deposited the salt beds that were home to the bacteria. If the Lazarus bacteria are only about 4,500 years old (the approximate number of years that have passed since the worldwide flood), their DNA is more likely to be intact and similar to modern bacteria.

    Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn82-eternal-life/

  60. Here is what Thoeodore Shoebat posted on my FB page just now:

    The fat slob Eric Allen Bell, has stated that Robert Spencer no longer wants to be associated with us. This is a message that I received from Robert Spencer, concerning this low life, just now: “I have no connection to Bell. He is just an enemy agent. I never authorized him to make any statement whatsoever on my behalf.” In another message Robert Spencer stated: “Bell is an enemy. I wouldn’t take seriously anything he says.” Eric Allen Bell is just an enemy agent and a plant, as Robert Spencer confirmed, and he is trying very hard to have Christians like myself shut our mouths about our Christian Faith. Its not happening Bell. This is a spiritual war between good and evil, and YOU are on the side of evil.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp4UDasTM1Q

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8XEyeBdEfg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJrk4GOcbBQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2U-jzuC6nY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7v6RPocOmI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbxV3g-rgfc

  61. PAMELA GELLER IS A BRAVE WARRIOR AGAINST ISLAMIC BRUTALITY. Please join me in asking her to distance herself from Shoebat Ministries. Counter Jihad is not a hate group. Shoebat Ministries IS a hate group, calling for execution of homosexuals. Below is a link to articles where Pamela either references, praises or endorses Walid Shoebat and validates Theodore Shoebat as a reliable source of information. ROBERT SPENCER has distanced himself from the Shoebats. You will find nothing about the Shoebats on JihadWatch. Let’s ask Pamela to follow Robert’s lead and do the same:
    https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-9461833676760560:5663855934&ie=UTF-8&q=&sa=Search&ref=#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=shoebat

  62. Ali Sina says:

    @Madfijian,

    I agree with you completely. Blind faith in a book or in materialism is blind faith. These two self righteous groups who each claim to have found the truth and berate others are two sides of the same coin.

    As for the myths and legends of the ancient traditions creeping into Bible, that is an undeniable fact. There are ancient tablets unearthed in the last century that recount very similar tales that are recorded in the Bible, with the exception that they predate the Bible by thousands of years.

    The myths associated with Jesus, such as his virgin birth and physical ascension to heaven that are now the corner stone of Christianity also predate Christianity. Clinging to these myths serves only to distance people from Jesus, whom I believe is indeed the son of God.

    Unfortunately, Christians think this was a physical son-father relationship. God is pure spirit not made of matter which is of a much denser and lower frequency. It is the spirit of Jesus that is the son of God. The truth is that we are all sons and daughters of God. Jesus differs with us only in rank and not in substance.

    I believe the NDE phenomenon will eventually bring mankind to recognize Jesus and put an end to all false religions. Christians are also in error and particularly the Catholic church that in my opinion is in cahoots with Satan, openly working to bring about the New World Order and implement the Devil’s plan of one world government where he will rule supreme and humans will have no freedom. European Union is just one example of the Devil’s machination.
    Watch this

  63. madfijian says:

    Ali. I have gone through you arguments with Eric. I have looked at the evidence that Jesus or Yoshua the man may have exited as a person.

    When you put him in the context of the Bible than things turn mostly illogical. The legend of the men to any one with even rudimentary knowledge of history would be obvious that it is mostly a copy of numerous mythological figures in history from Osiris to Hercules. I sincerely believe that if indeed the men not the God Jesus exited than he was a very very mature and enlightened soul who has moved on to the spiritual realm and is assisting people who see him in NDE’s etc.
    My research into spirituality and quantum physics indicates that this is possible. I have read and studied the work of Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Micheal Newton on the evidence for reincarnation. I have studied Dr. Pimm van Lommels work and more recently Dr.Sam Parnias work on NDE’S. Their are many organizations with very credible people who are researching the possibility of an afterlife. The Society for Psychical Research existing since the late 1800 which has had some of the most prominent scientists from past and present as members the Winbridge institute and many others who are not only fascinated by the possibility of an afterlife but have made inroads into finding evidence which is very convincing. If one dares to look at these areas of evidence with an open mind and study the science behind it i think it does become clear that their is something profound going on and it does not have anything to do with the Abrahamic faiths or any other faiths that exist on this planet.

    Where the world is going wrong i believe is when you have the religious nuts like Ron who in spite of the mountains of evidence that for example the planet earth is not 6000 years old continue to hackle and paddle this debunked myth that has its origins in the bible just because it is written in the good book. Closed minded nuts from the Atheists community also fall into the same category as they will dismiss anything that does not fit their materialistic view of this world. This hard nosed my arguments is better than yours BS is destroying this world. We have to dedicate more resources to investigating the many unexplained phenomena and get onto mainstream news what has been discovered so far.

    Eric is right in that one cannot fight fire with fire. You must have water. When going up against the most draconian faith in the world that is Islam you cannot lower yourself to their level which is exactly what the likes of Ron are doing. You fight stupidity with reason and logic not more stupidity.

  64. Ali Sina says:

    @Eric Allen Bell

    Whatever this Theodor Shoebat is saying is Islamic. His thinking is 100% in tune with Islam. He has only changed the name Islam to Christianity.

    I am not going to engage in a fight with anyone who wants to fight against Islam, whether Maryam Namazi who is a hard core communist, something I hate only second to Islam or this nutcase Theodor Shoebat who thinks democracy should be eliminated and gays should be executed. What a sick mind!

    If you read the Gospels just remember that these books are compiled by believers whose understanding was limited and confined by their culture and experience. Just as we see Paul has interjected a lot of his own understanding in his letters, so the four collectors of the Gospels have reported honestly and truthfully their own recollections. For example you may come across a passage that say no one will enter the heavens except through me. There is no further explanation or clarification and this passage taken in isolation may sound that Jesus was condemning all those who did not believe in him to hell. However, this is not so.

    I did not become a Christian because of the Bible. I accepted Jesus through NDE experiences. Only after that I could see the gems of truth in the Bible, unfortunately hidden under much dirt. Now I have no problem finding the gems whereas before this book was not appealing to me.

    I say one has to be spiritually awake and enlightened to find the truth in the Bible. Reading this book literally without that spiritual awareness can lead one to believe in absurdities that Shoebats say. Theodor Shoebat is a Muslim even though he thinks otherwise.

    Atheists and homosexuals are also accepted in heaven. Read the NDE testimony of Nancy Rynes. She was an agnostic scientist since 2014 and she was accepted in heaven.

  65. Steve says:

    @Phoenix

    //Yes and I wonder what your morality is based on then if not the well being of conscious creatures? As you say below even the religious morality is supposed to be about well being.//
    “That’s quite simple, the Golden Rule, an intuitive an non-Darwinian concept.” Yes I wonder how principles like the golden rule would exist in a Darwinian world? How could that be, since human beings are a social species?

    “You are now appealing to civil codes for moral principles, am I correct? Would you go as far as saying that this is where most Atheists do and should drive their values?” You asked me what kind of laws there would be, based on this moral system and I gave you an example.

    ” I could just as easily used Communism as an example, whose goals were also for the well being of society, despite producing a most horrific slaughter of the 20th century. That is enough to disprove the claim that a goal which is for the well being of society is morally superior.” Saying communism or Hitler is not an argument. ” disprove the claim that a goal which is for the well being of society is morally superior” What the hell is your morality based on then? Why is rape (for example) wrong if not for the negative effect it has on the individual and society?

    “But for those societies it does maximise their well being. ” Really? And if you really do believe that then explain why you think it is immoral then since apparently throwing acid into little girls faces maximises wellbeing?

    “This is their preference of punishment for ensuring that their women do not betray their values. Again, it’s all about preference” No they are causing needless suffering for an imaginary crime therefore there behaviour is immoral.

    “It might not work in another society but in theirs, it does.” So then what does throwing acid in little girls faces achieve apart from leaving individuals physically and psychologically damaged for the rest of their lives?

    “Animals are thinking feeling creatures but they have no moral system either.” That is because
    Human beings, unlike other animals, are able to reflect on and make judgements about our own and others’ actions, and as a result we are able to make considered moral choices.

    “Therefore thoughts and feelings does not neccessitate a moral system.” Give me a moral statement which does not refer to actions and the consequence those actions have on thinking feeling beings? In fact tell me what your moral system is and what it is based if not the wellbeing of conscious creatures? Because so far I have only being defending my view yet you haven’t explained what your alternative is.

    “The difference between “morality evolved” and our “understanding of morality has evolved” is huge.” You to prove that morality is not just a human construct but is somehow fundamentally built into the fabric of reality.
    “First, to say morality has evolved is question begging. You must prove that evolution can account for moral principles” I already gave you examples of where morality has been or is evolving. Slavery for example.

    “Second, Our understanding of the laws of physics (from Aristotelian physics to Newtonian physics to Quantum physics) has evolved but we do not say the laws of physics have evolved.”
    That is because the laws of physics are not mind dependent.
    ” Those laws were always in place since the birth of time prior to any human minds and will remian in place even if everyone disagrees with those laws.” Do you believe the traffic laws was always in place since the birth of time prior to any human minds and will remain in place even if everyone disagrees with those laws?

    ” Likewise, morality is universal and unaffacted by opinion and preferences even if everyone decides tomorrow that rape is acceptable” So do you believe the laws of the road are unaffected by opinion and preferences even if everyone decides tomorrow that running over little kids at a crossing is acceptable? If the “state” (or whatever else the ultimate authority in the given collective is) doesn´t recognize them, then even if the traffic laws are somehow built into reality and independent of minds then they are still pragmatically non-existent.

    “Health is merely used to describe perfectly or near perfectly functioning organs and limbs.
    How does morality relate to the human anatomy, since humans are merely their bodies given Materialism.” Morality is about the wellbeing of minds just like health is about the wellbeing of the body.

    “We are not limiting morality to the crimianlly inclined. We are attempting to establish a universal principle. So far, you have given none except to hint at it.” Watch
    Science Can Answer Moral Questions | Sam Harris | TED Talks https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

    “Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can — and should — be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.”

  66. Phoenix says:

    //It applies to all criminal minded people and if you didn’t notice many religious people are also sociopaths/psychopaths.//

    We are not limiting morality to the crimianlly inclined. We are attempting to establish a universal principle. So far, you have given none except to hint at it.

    //Yes and I wonder what your morality is based on then if not the well being of conscious creatures? As you say below even the religious morality is supposed to be about well being.//

    That’s quite simple, the Golden Rule, an intuitive an non-Darwinian concept.

    //The guideline is building a society that maximises well being based on facts about human psychology and not for instance religious dogma. So for instance laws against say child abuse is the kind of law that increases well being.//

    You are now appealing to civil codes for moral principles, am I correct? Would you go as far as saying that this is where most Atheists do and should drive their values?

    //Islam’s claims are completely unfounded and nonsensical therefore killing non believers is immoral considering that Islam and its God and afterlife doesn’t exist.//

    Islam was merely an example, I did not argue for its values. I could just as easily used Communism as an example, whose goals were also for the well being of society, despite producing a most horrific slaughter of the 20th century. That is enough to disprove the claim that a goal which is for the well being of society is morally superior.

    // It does have to with “atheist morality” values which are universal and promote forming bonds and loyalties to other other people and other groups are better than values which are exclusive and encourage violence and hatred. (For the reason I have given which you seem to be agreeing with).//

    That is precisely what you have failed to do this entire time. You have not produced and defined any values for Atheism. You say they exist but do not list them nor the technique used to procure them.

    // Yes it’s true for instance in all cultures that throwing acid in the face of little girls faces for not wearing a burqa is not going to Maximise the well being of that society.//

    But for those societies it does maximise their well being. This is their preference of punishment for ensuring that their women do not betray their values. Again, it’s all about preference. It might not work in another society but in theirs, it does.

    //Are rocks part of any moral system? No. Why? Because rocks are not conscious thinking feeling beings. In a universe full of rocks there is no morality.//

    Animals are thinking feeling creatures but they have no moral system either. Therefore thoughts and feelings does not neccessitate a moral system.

    So morality has evolved but you then say////It applies to all criminal minded people and if you didn’t notice many religious people are also sociopaths/psychopaths.//

    We are not limiting morality to the crimianlly inclined. We are attempting to establish a universal principle. So far, you have given none except to hint at it.

    //Yes and I wonder what your morality is based on then if not the well being of conscious creatures? As you say below even the religious morality is supposed to be about well being.//

    That’s quite simple, the Golden Rule, an intuitive an non-Darwinian concept.

    //The guideline is building a society that maximises well being based on facts about human psychology and not for instance religious dogma. So for instance laws against say child abuse is the kind of law that increases well being.//

    You are now appealing to civil codes for moral principles, am I correct? Would you go as far as saying that this is where most Atheists do and should drive their values?

    //Islam’s claims are completely unfounded and nonsensical therefore killing non believers is immoral considering that Islam and its God and afterlife doesn’t exist.//

    Islam was merely an example, I did not argue for its values. I could just as easily used Communism as an example, whose goals were also for the well being of society, despite producing a most horrific slaughter of the 20th century. That is enough to disprove the claim that a goal which is for the well being of society is morally superior.

    // It does have to with “atheist morality” values which are universal and promote forming bonds and loyalties to other other people and other groups are better than values which are exclusive and encourage violence and hatred. (For the reason I have given which you seem to be agreeing with).//

    That is precisely what you have failed to do this entire time. You have not produced and defined any values for Atheism. You say they exist but do not list them nor the technique used to procure them.

    // Yes it’s true for instance in all cultures that throwing acid in the face of little girls faces for not wearing a burqa is not going to Maximise the well being of that society.//

    But for those societies it does maximise their well being. This is their preference of punishment for ensuring that their women do not betray their values. Again, it’s all about preference. It might not work in another society but in theirs, it does.

    //Are rocks part of any moral system? No. Why? Because rocks are not conscious thinking feeling beings. In a universe full of rocks there is no morality.//

    Animals are thinking feeling creatures but they have no moral system either. Therefore thoughts and feelings does not neccessitate a moral system.

    So morality has evolved but you then say//

    The difference between “morality evolved” and our “understanding of morality has evolved” is huge.

    First, to say morality has evolved is question begging. You must prove that evolution can account for moral principles.
    Second, Our understanding of the laws of physics (from Aristotelian physics to Newtonian physics to Quantum physics) has evolved but we do not say the laws of physics have evolved. Those laws were always in place since the birth of time prior to any human minds and will remian in place even if everyone disagrees with those laws. Likewise, morality is universal and unaffacted by opinion and preferences even if everyone decides tomorrow that rape is acceptable.

    There is no “healthiness particle” either does that mean that “healthiness” is transcendentally derived as well?//

    Health is merely used to describe perfectly or near perfectly functioning organs and limbs.
    How does morality equate to the human anatomy, since humans are merely their bodies given Materialism.

    The difference between “morality evolved” and our “understanding of morality has evolved” is huge.

    First, to say morality has evolved is question begging. You must prove that evolution can account for moral principles.
    Second, Our understanding of the laws of physics (from Aristotelian physics to Newtonian physics to Quantum physics) has evolved but we do not say the laws of physics have evolved. Those laws were always in place since the birth of time prior to any human minds and will remian in place even if everyone disagrees with those laws. Likewise, morality is universal and unaffacted by opinion and preferences even if everyone decides tomorrow that rape is acceptable.

    There is no “healthiness particle” either does that mean that “healthiness” is transcendentally derived as well?//

    Health is merely used to describe perfectly or near perfectly functioning organs and limbs.
    How does morality relate to the human anatomy, since humans are merely their bodies given Materialism.

  67. ALI SINA:

    I find your interpretation of the Jesus story rather intriguing. I will do as you suggest. I will read the Gospels again, rejecting anything illogical, and see what that experience is like.

  68. ALI SINA –

    I had an online chat with both Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat. I kept a transcript of it. Walid Shoebat absolutely stands behind what his son is saying. And his son is a part of Shoebat Ministries. These guys are a liability to the Counter Jihad Movement.

    I will be debating both of them, live on the radio, on June 6th. Details to follow.

  69. Ali Sina says:

    I just watched the videos of this Theodor Shoebat. This guy is nuts. He is a Muslim not a Christian. His views are 100% Islamic. Does his father also think the same way?

  70. Ali Sina says:

    @Eric Allen Bell
    I don’t interpret the sacrifice of Jesus the way most Christians do. I don’t believe God send his son so people can crucify him in order for God to forgive our sins. This doctrine makes no sense to me whatsoever.

    By sacrifice I mean exactly what the word implies and not how Christians interpret it. A mother who wakes up in the middle of the night several times to feed her baby is sacrificing her sleep so that the child can sleep with full stomach. A father who takes a second job and works through the middle of night so he can bring more money home and pay for the education of his children is sacrificing his comfort for his children’s future.

    Jesus did not come to the world to be crucified. But he was crucified for what he stood for and what he stood for gives us eternal life. He sacrificed himself so we can learn to love because love is the way to God.

    The blood of Jesus had not to be shed. This was not ordained by God. Those who crucified him were not fulfilling God’s plan. They sinned.

    Why would Christians come up with this weird interpretation? The answer is that they could not explain how God would allow men murder His son. They thought this would diminish God’s power. So some Christians, like Nestorians claimed that Jesus was not crucified but it appeared so to the people. Jesus ascended to heaven without suffering crucifixion. Muhammad learned this from Nestorians. Other Christians argued that this was all part of the Divine plan because God wanted his son to pay for the sins of others. This is nonsense. It belies God’s justice. How can he sacrifice someone for the crime of others? Since they can’t make and then Paul says we should believe it because it is absurd. Nonsense!

    This Paul, may God bless his soul was a very confused man and confused all the Christians.

    I suggest you read the Gospels again and reject everything you find illogical because God’s teachings cannot be illogical.

  71. ALI SINA:

    I have to admit that what you are submitting is a much different take on Jesus than what I have been exposed to by anyone who claims to be a Christian.

    I think I can wrap my head around nearly all of it. But there is something you said near the end of your post that makes no sense to me at all. You said that Jesus sacrificed his life for you.

    I am of course familiar with the traditional Christian theology around what it means that Jesus sacrificed his life for us. It means he died to basically take the rap for us, essentially. I committed the crime, my “sins” but he accepted the consequence, which is death and somehow by dying on the cross all of my sins are supposed to be erased. This of course continues to strike me as unbelievable.

    That said, I would be interested to know what you mean, when you say that Jesus sacrificed his life for you. I get that you see him as a man, a person, but with a much bigger soul. I get that you see as all as having (if I understand you correctly) a sort of Christ potential. But you sort of lose me with the sacrifice that Jesus made for you. Will you please expand on that? Thanks.

  72. Ali Sina says:

    @Eric Allen Bell
    “Isn’t Jesus a man, one who found God within himself and taught others to do the same?”

    If I put a sealed box in front of you what is the chance that you guess its content? Practically none. The only way to know is to look into it. If you can’t do that, your only choice is to rely on the testimony of those who say they have seen inside it.

    The other world to us is sealed. The only way to know it is to listen to the testimony of those who have been there. These people tell us that they saw Jesus and he was the king in heaven. We can’t prove or disprove this claim. We can only believe these testimonies or reject them. I have seen enough of them and I can not reject them in good faith and remain intellectually honest.

    It is true that we are all divine, but we are different in rank. All humans have intelligence. But not the same quantity. Jesus is certainly no different from us. Unlike Muhammad who put himself in a different class Jesus never did such thing. He performed miracles and said we can do the same and even more.

    Jesus is as much the son of God as we are His children. But Jesus is a bigger soul, much bigger than us. This does not mean we cannot become as big as he is. That door is open to all.

    We are not worshiping Jesus. Our relationship with him is based on love. I love people who love me and specially when they sacrifice their own comfort for me. Jesus sacrificed his life for me. Of course I love him. I know he loves me too. I read so many testimonies of people who say Jesus embraced them and kissed them all over receiving them with such a joy as if meeting the most beloved child or sibling after a long separation. If he loves these people he must also love me. And if he loves me I love him too.

    You don’t have to love Jesus. Love is free. I freely choose to love him. I know he is with me when I call him. I know he helps me and answers my prayers. Love is a two-way street. You have to love him to receive his love. That is a choice you have to make.

  73. RON:

    Here is what happens when people take literally what Paul told the Corinthians about women needing to keep their mouths shut, because this is the word of “god”

  74. Ron says:

    Eric,
    I believe I was probably more far away from Christ than you but when I saw a friend radically changed from an unbeliever (atheist), businessman with lots of money and having the vilest of time to a very compassionate, loving and generous person taking risks and preaching Christ, going on missionary trips, helping the poor, destitute etc. it changed me.
    You are raising an hypothetical question and answering it with a hypothetical answer yourself and then validating your pre-conceived misunderstanding.
    God used the rib and it is a part which re-grows as we know now. We can safely assume that if he had used some other part of the Adam’s body definitely it would have regrown too and there would be evidence about it sooner or later.
    Just because the Muslim argument is not supported by evidence and is untrue does not make every Christian argument untrue.
    The reason I don’t believe in Islam is that there is a great difference between the lives of Jesus and Mohammed.
    Mohammed killed, raped, robbed, kidnapped, pedophiled, lied and did no miracle (apart from Muslim’s claim that he went on a winged horse) and never claimed to do a miracle.
    Jesus never sinned, gave life to the dead, saved the condemned, healed the sick/lepers, delivered people from demons, gave sight to the blind, multiplied food and fed the hungry, died for our sins and rose again and there were plenty of witnesses.
    Even if you call on Jesus’s name he still answers. Try it.
    God made Adam and Eve so the family structure and father/mother as parents was fully established.
    Your thinking is fallacious.

  75. How is the Religious Right scaring people away from the Counter Jihad Movement?

    Shoebat Ministries uses Counter Jihad to recruit people to Shoebat Ministries. Here is just one bit of material they have put out there, which will reflect on all of us who speak out against the Islamic threat. We are judged by the company that we keep:

    https://youtu.be/AZBCmgjqGIo

  76. RON:

    If the Biblical “god” made us in his image then we are all to be single fathers, who will send our son to be hideously tortured, then publicly executed, in order to get around a rule that we actually created in the first place. We would not be powerful enough to rescind this rule, so we would come up with this sadistic idea instead.

    Thankfully, I see no evidence that we are created in such an image. And why is this god a single parent anyway? What kind of example is that for the Religious Right to follow?

  77. Ron says:

    I did not mean that the triune nature in humans is same as that of God.

    I meant that the humans are triune (spirit, body and soul) but animals are not triune (body and soul).

    Salvation is necessary but ultimately an option for all humans. But for animals they don’t need salvation as they don’t sin like humans or make choice like humans. Many Christians say that animals do pray to God (their creator). It is difficult for us to know. Whether they go to heaven or not, I don’t know.

    For humans, Blaise Pascal made it very clear and easy logic with his wager. It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Based on the assumption that the stakes are infinite if God exists and that there is at least a small probability that God in fact exists, Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

    Question: “What happened on each of the days of Creation?”

    Answer: The creation account is found in Genesis 1–2. The language of the Genesis account makes it clear that all of creation was formed from nothing in six literal 24-hour periods with no time periods occurring between the days. This is evident because the context requires a literal 24-hour period. The description specifically describes the event in a manner that a normal, common-sense reading understands as a literal day: “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day” (Genesis 1:5). Further, each sentence in the original language begins with the word “and.” This is good Hebrew grammar and indicates each sentence is built upon the preceding statement, clearly indicating that the days were consecutive and not separated by any period of time. The Genesis account reveals that the Word of God is authoritative and powerful. Most of God’s creative work is done by speaking, another indication of the power and authority of His Word. Let us look at each day of God’s creative work:

    Creation Day 1 (Genesis 1:1-5)
    God created the heavens and the earth. “The heavens” refers to everything beyond the earth, outer space. The earth is made but not formed in any specific way, although water is present. God then speaks light into existence. He then separates the light from the dark and names the light “day” and the dark “night.” This creative work occurs from evening until morning – one day.

    Creation Day 2 (Genesis 1:6-8)
    God creates the sky. The sky forms a barrier between water upon the surface and the moisture in the air. At this point earth would have an atmosphere. This creative work occurs in one day.

    Creation Day 3 (Genesis 1:9-13)
    God creates dry land. Continents and islands are above the water. The large bodies of water are named “seas” and the ground is named “land.” God declares that all this is good.

    God creates all plant life both large and small. He creates this life to be self-sustaining; plants have the ability to reproduce. The plants were created in great diversity (many “kinds”). The earth was green and teeming with plant life. God declares that this work is also good. This creative work takes one day.

    Creation Day 4 (Genesis 1:14-19)
    God creates all the stars and heavenly bodies. The movement of these will help man track time. Two great heavenly bodies are made in relation to the earth. The first is the sun which is the primary source of light and the moon which reflects the light of the sun. The movement of these bodies will distinguish day from night. This work is also declared to be good by God. This creative work takes one day.

    Creation Day 5 (Genesis 1:20-23)
    God creates all life that lives in the water. Any life of any kind that lives in the water is made at this point. God also makes all the birds. The language allows that this may be the time God made flying insects as well (or, if not, they were made on day six). All of these creatures are made with the ability to perpetuate their species by reproduction. The creatures made on Day 5 are the first creatures blessed by God. God declares this work good, and it occurs in one day.

    Creation Day 6 (Genesis 1:24-31)
    God creates all the creatures that live on dry land. This includes every type of creature not included on previous days and man. God declares this work good.

    God then takes counsel with Himself, “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness’” (Genesis 1:26). This is not an explicit revelation of the trinity but is part of the foundation for such, as God reveals an “us” within the Godhead. God makes man, and man is made in the image of God (men and women both bear this image) and is special above all other creatures. To emphasize this, God places man in authority over the earth and over all the other creatures. God blesses man and commands him to reproduce, fill the earth and subdue it (bring it under the rightful stewardship of man as authorized by God). God announces that man and all other creatures are to eat plants alone. God will not rescind this dietary restriction until Genesis 9:3-4.

    God’s creative work is complete at the end of the sixth day. The entire universe in all its beauty and perfection was fully formed in six literal, consecutive, 24-hour days. At the completion of His creation, God announces that it is very good.

    Creation Day 7 (Genesis 2:1-3)
    God rests. This in no way indicates He was weary from His creative efforts, but denotes that the creation is complete. Further, God is establishing a pattern of one day in seven to rest. The keeping of this day will eventually be a distinguishing trait of the God’s chosen people (Exodus 20:8-11).

  78. FOR THE RECORD:

    I have read the entire Bible. I have read the 4 Gospels more than once and have read some of the gospels that did not make it into the Bible. I am convinced that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John probably did not author the Gospels attributed to their names. How could someone remember, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount, verbatim, so many decades later?

    That said: When i open up a Bible and read the words of Jesus in red, I have no problem with any of it. What I take issue with is the mainstream Christian interpretation of those words and how they are organized into a theology, one that relies heavily on superstition and blind faith.

  79. RON:

    You are cleverly dodging my question about the very verse you cited:

    1 Cor. 14:33-35 “…women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission … for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

    Paul’s words are part of the Bible and you (and most Christians) consider the Bible to be the infallible word of “god”. So then, did this “god” change his mind about women (or wives as you say) keeping their mouths shut in church?

    Wives today talk in church. Are they disobeying the word of this “god” or did this “god” change his mind, but not come out with a new edition of his best seller, “The Holy Bible” in which he made some upgrades to suit the times we are living in now, thus making Paul wrong?

    If Christianity 2.0 was released, where are the amendments from “god” letting everyone know that his instructions have changed and that women (or wives) may now be allowed to talk in church? Show me the word of “god” where he has changed this rule please.

  80. RON:

    If the book of Genesis said that God created Eve from Adams nose, would you not scour the internet, looking for some plausible explanation as to why that is not absolutely absurd?

    This is the problem with being dogmatic. Something J. Krishnamurti said that has always stuck with me – is that inquiry is the nature of intelligence. And that when inquiry ceases, intelligence cannot grow. In fact it dies. And when one holds so tightly to their conclusions, this is what happens.

    This is one of the central problems I have with organized religion. It tends to kill off intelligence. That does not mean that everyone who is a member of a religion is an idiot in my mind. Most don’t actually believe as literally as you do – but the leaders of these religions would prefer that the followers believe as you do.

    I have debated with people who believe there is absolute proof that the “prophet” Muhammad rode off into the sky on a winged horse. Nothing that can be said will ever change their minds, even if their are so “educated” as to have letters after their names. What makes them wrong and you right?

  81. ALI SINA:

    If one can get behind loving “god” with all of their heart and soul and loving their neighbor as themselves, I get that. No real problem there. And no problem with acknowledging that when you drink for a well, you remember the man who dug the well, so to speak.

    But I do not see how that gets to Jesus being more divine than everyone else. If God is divine and God is infinite then we are all expressions of the Divine. The part is not separate from the whole. Therefore, to be Christ-like would have to mean acknowledging, quite literally, that no one comes God except by ME. In this case that “me” would be the person saying it. The kingdom of God is within. No one comes to God except through the Self.

    So although much of what you’re saying I can get behind, I do not see how this all adds up to one man, one historical figure, Jesus, being more divine, in fact worthy of worship. To take that a step further, that it is necessary to worship Jesus in order to access God.

    Isn’t Jesus a man, one who found God within himself and taught others to do the same?

  82. @Eric Allen Bell
    Jesus is not saying that those who are born and raised in other faiths will not be saved. None Christians also go to heaven as witnessed by countless near death experiencers.

    When His disciples asked, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law,” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” [Matthew 22:36-40]

    These verses are the condensation of the teachings of Christ. If you want to condense them further to one word that word would be love. No one can go to God except through love. Jesus is the way.

    One does not become a Christian by professing one’s faith in Jesus with their mouth. One must have Christ consciousness and that is love. A Christian is one who embodies the above two great commandments, who loves God and loves all humans. Anyone who loves God and loves others is a Christian even if they have never heard of Jesus.

    The point is, how can one claim to believe in the message, and denounce the messenger? One who rejects Christ either does not know him or does not believe in the above commandment. Without love there is no salvation. Love is the whole purpose of creation and Jesus is the way.

  83. @Ron

    Since you brought up NDE to back up your claim many ND experiencers say they saw animals in heaven and some found their beloved pet. Once man said he met his dog and could telepathically communicate with him in the same way that he communicated with other human spirits and could hear the dog saying I love you, I love you, I love you.

    God made us in His image does not mean we are trinity like him. Yes, humans are spirits incarnate in a physical body and have a mind. But the trinity of God is not of the same kind. God has no physical body.

    God sometimes appears like a human and has hands and feet, etc. But consciousness is formless. When we enter the spiritual realm we become very much like God. We will no longer have this body but we will be pure spirit, formless as God. And like God we can assume human forms even as spirit.

    The claim that animals cannot distinguish between good and evil is a fallacy. There is virtually no difference between humans and animals, except for the fact that we have a more developed brain and can reason and solve mathematical equations.

    Just as three years old children can be altruistic or egotistic, so the animals. This idea that humans are r the scope of the creation is a total fallacy. Animals are just as beloved to God as we are. All living beings are having their spiritual experience. One day we were like them and one day they will be like us. And there are other plains to go after we graduate from the material world.

    You speak with the authority of the Bible that to you is the infallible word of God. I already showed how the Genesis is wrong. There are many books that show the errors of the Bible.

    I don’t claim to have any authority but the information I get from the near death experiencers does not confirm the Bible. While most these people meet Jesus, they often come back with a different understanding of the Bible. They do not reject it but at the same time they do not believe in every word of it literally.

  84. Steve says:

    @Phoenix

    //I was talking about dealing with criminals nothing to do with atheists. Criminals might like stealing or whatever but even criminals do not like living in a cage, so morality helps constrain criminals or criminal minded people as well.//
    “Sure, but this applies equally to Atheists as well, whose bad behavior is constraint by their fear for jail time. That’s why many Atheists claim to adopt our civil laws as their moral laws.” It applies to all criminal minded people and if you didn’t notice many religious people are also sociopaths/psychopaths.
    “You keep repeating this like a mantra. “Well- being of conscious creatures” is the goal. The moral principles are the guidelines for achieving that goal.” Yes and I wonder what your morality is based on then if not the well being of conscious creatures? As you say below even the religious morality is supposed to be about well being.
    “Where are the clear ethical code that allow Atheists to reach their objective?” This is what I am referring to – the guidelines, the law/principles/code of conduct.” The guideline is building a society that maximises well being based on facts about human psychology and not for instance religious dogma. So for instance laws against say child abuse is the kind of law that increases well being.
    “Even Islam’s objective is to attain peace on earth and paradise in the hereafter, which is akin to a materialistic and hedonistic lifestyle, but nonetheless, well being for its brethren. It is the path to these goals which are highly suspect and may contain zero moral virtues.” Islam’s claims are completely unfounded and nonsensical therefore killing non believers is immoral considering that Islam and its God and afterlife doesn’t exist.
    “OK, but this has nothing to do with Atheist morality.” It does have to with “atheist morality” values which are universal and promote forming bonds and loyalties to other other people and other groups are better than values which are exclusive and encourage violence and hatred. (For the reason I have given which you seem to be agreeing with).

    “Universality implies that the concept, be it math or logic for example, is consistent throughout the universe. It must be true in all situations and at all times. ” Yes it’s true for instance in all cultures that throwing acid in the face of little girls faces for not wearing a burqa is not going to Maximise the well being of that society.
    “Math and logic are not mind dependent. They are discovered by the mind. Same applies to morality, it is discovered not invented.” No morality is mind dependent – since it is about states of mind which are preferable. If there are no minds there is no morality. Are rocks part of any moral system? No. Why? Because rocks are not conscious thinking feeling beings. In a universe full of rocks there is no morality.
    “Yes, our concept of physical health has evolved and so did our concept of morality also evolve.” So morality has evolved but you then say.
    “But morality per se did not evolve. Glad you agree there.” No morality has evolved, just like our concept of health has evolved. “Healthiness” is a human concept and is not built into the fabric of the universe and the same is true of morality. But despite this there are still facts – objective facts – about health and there are still diets and life styles which are healthier than others. Do you now understand my position?
    “Well, there are no moral particles found in this material universe, so moralty must be transcendentally derived.” There is no “healthiness particle” either does that mean that “healthiness” is transcendentally derived as well?

  85. Ron says:

    Why God took the rib?

    The Bible says that woman was created from Adam’s rib. Why? It is surprising to know that of all the bones in the body the rib is the one which can regenerate(regrow) if it is cut (severed) of the body and the body is allowed to heal.

    Other bones like Limbs (arms and feet) do not grow back.
    Again Bible is the only Scriptures to mention that.

    Dr. Berlinski an atheist say that many times we do not interpret the Scriptures properly and then give judgement. He says we should look into the possibility of error in our interpretation also.

    Read this article by secular scientists.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2756968/We-regenerate-Researchers-reveal-ribs-regrow-damaged-say-true-entire-skeleton.html

  86. Ron says:

    Exodus 15:20 Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron’s sister, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed her, with tambourines and dancing.

    Judges 4:4 Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time.

    Luke 2:36 There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage,

    Acts 2:18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.*

    Joel 2:29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

    Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    Acts 1:14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

    Acts 17:4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.

    1 Cor. 12:8-11 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
    “Prophesy” means to predict, foretell, declare, discourse, teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort, discharge the prophetic office.

    WIVES (NOT ALL WOMEN) ARE TO KEEP SILENT IN CHURCH
    They were to keep silent in the church and not cause disorder, but to ask their husbands questions at home. The word for “women” is the same as the word for “wife”.

    1 Cor. 14:33-35 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

    Again the context is wives and husbands. Adam was betrothed to Eve by God. Only wives are to have children. An overseer is to have one wife. So Paul is not saying that women cannot teach men, but that wives should not be talking out of turn in church, embarrassing their husbands and showing disrespect to them.

    The main purpose for Paul saying that wives should be silent in the churches was that they were causing disruption and disorder in the churches, which is what Paul had addressed a number of times already.

    So from all the above verses from the Old and New testament it is clear that Paul is addressing wives (not all women) in that specific church which had issues earlier and not a blanket statement against God who allowed women to prophesy and lead also.

  87. PHOENIX:

    Everything in your posts is designed to protect a specific creation myth. You are clever about it, but perhaps not as clever as you think.

  88. Passive Observer:

    Communion or conscious contact with a Higher Power clearly has some value. But in prayer, giving “god” instructions, such as to give us this day our daily bread, or to lead us not into temptation… Would “god” lead you into temptation if you do not pray and ask “him” not to do so?

    Does this god need take requests and wish lists? If this god is all knowing and all powerful, doesn’t this god know better than we do? Does this god really need us to remind it to deliver us from evil?

    Does this god need to hear us stroke it’s ego by telling it that yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever and ever? If we are made in this god’s image, such a human being would be rather insecure to demand that its followers say that to him all the time, right?

    I welcome your thoughts, or anyone else who wants to respond to this one.

  89. RON:

    I see that you are quoting the Apostle Paul as the “Word of God”. So let me ask you this – in the NT Paul writes that in Church women should keep their mouth shut and cover their heads. Did God change his mind on this, like say Christianity 2.0 or are Christian women currently disobeying God right now by not covering their heads in church and not keeping quiet in church?

    Or could it be that this was Paul’s opinion, as a flawed human being, attempting to start a religious movement, and speaking to people according to the traditions of that time? Paul never met Jesus. What gives him the authority to speak on behalf of Jesus and on behalf of God, more than the next guy?

  90. ALI –

    You said that attacking Jesus is not honest. Even if a person does believe in God, is it dishonest to take issue with a man who claims to be the ONLY WAY to God?

  91. A.H.

    For the sake of argument, let’s say that Jesus is in fact the son of God. How does that make the 66 books that humans decided to call the Bible, the word of God? What about the books that were rejected, the gospels that were rejected?

    Why is it necessary, if one is a follower of Jesus, to also believe everything in the Bible and to accept the Church as having any authority whatsoever? Why can we not say that the “body of Christ” is simply those who follow Jesus, rather than several institutions, many of them at odds with each other, all claiming to be “The Church”?

  92. Ron says:

    When it is said that God created man in His own image. It does not mean God has hands and feet like men. But it means that Man is triune and is essentially a spirit being having a body and a soul.
    Animals do not have spirit and are not triune.

    Man was created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26). God is a triune being (consisting of three in one), and man is also a triune being: comprised of spirit, soul, and body. The apostle Paul wrote to the church, “I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23). Notice the order that is given: first spirit, then the soul, then the body. Man is first and foremost a spirit being. This is counter-cultural to all that is extolled in the western world, where man celebrates comfort and materialism, and the physical body is given more focus and esteem than the soul; and certainly more than the spirit.

    Hebrews 4:12 compares the word of God to a double-edged sword, “piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.” So here scripture asserts that we can separate our own thoughts and feelings about things to tune in to what God is saying about them.
    (Incidentally, the Greek word for soul in this passage is transliterated psyche, from which we get our stem word “psych.” Psychology, as we know, is the study of the mind).

    There is certainly an afterlife for humans and this is even proved by NDEs.

    Although all of God’s creation is for His glory and pleasure, human beings alone were created in God’s image. Animals were made from the same dust as humans and have the breath of life in them as we do, but God made men and women in His own image and entrusted them with the responsibility of overseeing, protecting, and enjoying the rest of His creation.

    Because humans can reason, we are able to make intelligent and moral decisions; animals cannot. God did not create animals with the ability to choose right or wrong, to accept or reject salvation. Only humans were given this ability to reason.

    The plan of salvation is designed for human beings, not for animals. Since animals cannot reason and make moral decisions, they are not included in the salvation God has offered to humans. Jesus died to “save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21, NKJV). We are saved through our faith in Him. John 3:16 (KJV) says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should nor perish, but have everlasting life.” In order for one to be saved, one has to believe in Jesus.

  93. @ Passive Observer
    “Eric, do you know why billions of people are still clinging to religion? These simple and humble people get energized through a very easy method. They do not dig deep and tap into an unknown reserve of their own will power and determination.”

    Each person is different. Our brains are structured differently. While now I believe in the tremendous power of prayer I did not accept God for the need to prayer. Many people hit the bottom and raise their hands to God for help and they do receive the answer to their prayers, sometimes in a very dramatic way such as actually meeting with God or with Jesus face to face. Even though the materialists would love to discredit these experiences psychologically, those who experience them know of their reality and are transformed by them.

    This was not how I found God. The truth is that I did not find God. God found me. I am a rationalist and I have been so since childhood. As a Muslim my prayers were never answered. I just prayed to a false God. As an atheist I never prayed. Prayer for me was for the weak people. When I faced difficulties and believe me I have had my share of them, I never prayed. The very thought of asking help from an imaginary entity was ludicrous to me. “Come on Ali” I would say to myself. “Don’t be silly. You should know better. God does not exist and if you really want to pray why not pray to a chair? At least the chair has a physical existence.”

    God created me this way, or perhaps I wanted to experience this life this way — as a rationalist. So if God wanted to reach me He had to do it through reason and that is exactly what He did.

    I was not even searching for God. I became interested in hypnosis as a means of self improvement, this led me to the videos on near death experience. At first I watched them as a matter of curiosity trying to make rational sense of the phenomenon and explain it from the materialistic point of view. Eventually I realized there is something going on that I can’t explain. I then read the explanation of other rationalists and all I saw were pathetic excuses and denials much like what I came to see from Muslims. So I was left with no choice. God checkmate me totally. I did my best to escape the predicament but there was no way to do so. He totally outsmarted me. That is when I sat on my knees and prayed for the first time.

    If you think I prayed thanking God to have saved me you are wrong. I prayed that God delete me totally. I said God, now I know you are real. But the world you created is a screwed up word. I would have done a better job. Now you may be more powerful and more knowledgeable than me but I am wiser than you, I am kinder than you, I am more compassionate than you and hence I do not want to worship you. Now are you so petty to send me in hell for following my conscience? I just don’t want to be part of your world. I don’t like what is going on in this world where cruelty and injustice seem to be the foundation of creation, where one must either kill or die. I also don’t care about your paradise and I don’t want to go to your hell. I have done nothing wrong except following my conscience which tells me this world is full of evil.

    I don’t know whether you call this prayer or what. I just conversed with God all the time. At times, when no one could hear me I shouted. “Answer me, answer me God. What is the point of this life and why injustice and suffering should be the cornerstone of your world?”

    There was silence, a deafening silence. But I did not give up. I kept reading the stories of NDE to make sense of the reality and maybe find an answer to my questions. Gradually, I managed to join the dots and a picture emerged and while it was not totally clear, it made some sense.

    I am not going to go into details in this comment. I have written about it already and maybe one day, when the picture becomes clearer I may even write a book. This was certainly not an easy path. While accepting God was not as traumatic as leaving Islam it was also not without its shock.

    Now I believe in God and in Jesus as the son of God and know that any other belief is a fallacy because this is the only thing that makes sense and is rational. Denying God and denying Jesus cannot be done without denying the evidence. The evidence is compelling and irrefutable.

    I often wonder why God showed me the truth when I had rejected Him 100% and had no desire to search for Him. Most people find God after searching for Him and praying for guidance. This was not my case. I believe that God saved me because he found in me sincerity. That is a great quality and it is not very common.

    I did not believe in Jesus but never bad mouthed him. I did not care about God as I thought if He exists, He is responsible for all the evil going on in the world. He can stop injustice but He doesn’t. Why should all creatures destroy the life of someone else in order to survive? Even plants are living and feel pain. So while I could find faults with God I could not find any fault with Jesus. Sadly, many so called rationalists vilify Jesus and that is not rational or honest. It does not matter whether you look for God or not, but you have to be honest. That is the key. Attacking Jesus is not honest, whether you believe in God or not.

  94. A.H. says:

    Eric,
    “And where in the gospels does Jesus say that you must belong to a church or follow the Bible?”

    Good question!

    The gospel of Mathew 16:18 describes the foundation of the Church, after Peter recognizes Jesus as Son of the living God. In turn Jesus gives Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (it refers to Isaiah 22,22), this means an office with appointed and authorized successors. For an unbroken line of successors up to the present day you will find here:

    http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/spope0.html

    Jesus did not found a church but one Church i.e. the Body of Christ.
    Thirty to fifty years after the death of Jesus gospels were written., they were compiled and canonized by the Church at the end of the 4th century.

    If God is Truth, then his Word is Truth That is why a Christian follows the bible. However, the problem is that the bible itself is a dead thing, it has to be interpreted to make it the living Word. But here begins the problem with the bible, and with any holy book, whose interpretation is correct. You have to look for the living authorative body behind the holy book.

    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/

  95. Phoenix says:

    //I was talking about dealing with criminals nothing to do with atheists. Criminals might like stealing or whatever but even criminals do not like living in a cage, so morality helps constrain criminals or criminal minded people as well.//

    Sure, but this applies equally to Atheists as well, whose bad behavior is constraint by their fear for jail time. That’s why many Atheists claim to adopt our civil laws as their moral laws.

    //Morality is about the well being of conscious creatures ,if there is no conscious creatures – I.e a universe full of rocks there is no morality.//

    You keep repeating this like a mantra. “Well- being of conscious creatures” is the goal. The moral principles are the guidelines for achieving that goal. Where are the clear ethical code that allow Atheists to reach their objective? This is what I am referring to – the guidelines, the law/principles/code of conduct. Even Islam’s objective is to attain peace on earth and paradise in the hereafter, which is akin to a materialistic and hedonistic lifestyle, but nonetheless, well being for its brethren. It is the path to these goals which are highly suspect and may contain zero moral virtues.

    //Communities which are inclusive and open to outsiders on the whole survive and thrive a lot better than sociopathic criminal communities.//

    OK, but this has nothing to do with Atheist morality.

    //The facts about human well being and happiness are universal and objective – despite the fact they are mind dependent facts.//

    Universality implies that the concept, be it math or logic for example, is consistent throughout the universe. It must be true in all situations and at all times. Math and logic are not mind dependent. They are discovered by the mind. Same applies to morality, it is discovered not invented.

    //No morality itself has evolved just like ***our concept of physical health has evolved*** (e.g living to 40 in the past indicated you lived a healthy lifestyle and now many people in the developed world live past 80).//

    Yes, our concept of physical health has evolved and so did our concept of morality also evolve. But morality per se did not evolve. Glad you agree there.

    //Are we able to say our modern societies have a better standard of physical health than past primitive societies? Yes, does that mean there is a standard of perfect physical health which exists in another dimension independent of minds? No obviously not. The same thing is true of morality.//

    Well, there are no moral particles found in this material universe, so moralty must be transcendentally derived.

  96. Steve says:

    @Phoenix

    “That’s correct, Atheists have no moral compunction accept to avoid jail time.” I was talking about dealing with criminals nothing to do with atheists. Criminals might like stealing or whatever but even criminals do not like living in a cage, so morality helps constrain criminals or criminal minded people as well.

    “But aren’t rocks and humans ultimately composed of the same atoms? Matter does not have any moral properties, except physical and chemical properties. I see no reason why, in a purely Materialistic universe, morals can exist in human minds.” Morality is about the well being of conscious creatures ,if there is no conscious creatures – I.e a universe full of rocks there is no morality.
    “This makes no sense. “Strong” does not imply “good”. A stronger community with criminal inclinations is easily able to overpower a weaker community. Muhammad’s community were able to over power affluent jewish socieities. You are appealing to “survival of the fittest”, a concept which does not screen any actions for morality. It is wholly concerned with self first and clan second.” Communities which are inclusive and open to outsiders on the whole survive and thrive a lot better than sociopathic criminal communities.

    // I didn’t say it had no existence I said no existence OTHER THAN being a mental construct.//
    “If it is contingent on minds then it is not universal and objective. For such a concept like logic and math must be neccesarrily true and are able to exist without any sentient beings. Would the mathematical laws of nature cease to exist if there was no human to observe them? Of course not.” The facts about human well being and happiness are universal and objective – despite the fact they are mind dependent facts.

    //No morality evolves here are a few examples where morality is or has been clearly evolving//
    “Nope, it is not morality that evolved but our understanding of morality which has evolved. ” No morality itself has evolved just like our concept of physical health has evolved (e.g living to 40 in the past indicated you lived a healthy lifestyle and now many people in the developed world live past 80).
    “If morality evolved then we are unable to condemn a rape act from antiquity because it was acceptable in its era.” Are we able to say our modern societies have a better standard of physical health than past primitive societies? Yes, does that mean there is a standard of perfect physical health which exists in another dimension independent of minds? No obviously not. The same thing is true of morality.

  97. Eric, do you know why billions of people are still clinging to religion? These simple and humble people get energized through a very easy method. They do not dig deep and tap into an unknown reserve of their own will power and determination. Instead they ask God to give them His energy. They ask Him to supply their strength. If you don’t believe me Dr Alexis Carrel, Medical Scientist Nobel laureate in Medicine explains the power of Prayer.
    “Prayer is the most powerful form of energy one can generate. It is a force as real as terrestrial gravity. As a physician, I have seen men, after all other therapy had failed, lifted out of disease and melancholy by the serene effort of prayer. Prayer like radium, is a source of luminous self-generating energy. In prayer human beings seek to augment their finite energy by addressing themselves to the infinite source of all energy. When we pray that a part of this power being apportioned to our needs. Even in asking, our human deficiencies are filled and we arise strengthened and repaired. Whenever we address God in fervent prayer we change both soul and body for the better. It could not happen” that any man or woman could pray for a single moment without some good result”

  98. Phoenix says:

    I detect an intellectual coward.

    Eric, there is NOTHING in my posts which are Biblical or creationist. What I insist on is that Atheists provide empirical evidence for their beliefs. Why do you insist Atheists have no beliefs, thereby relieving Atheists of the intellectual responsibility?

    Or you can give us a syllogistic argument to discuss, one that supports Atheist precepts.

  99. Phoenix says:

    //Its through basic preferences like this that you can build and enforce morality. E.g virtually everyone doesn’t like having their freedoms taken away and having to live in a cage so to punish and deter criminals we put them in jail.//

    That’s correct, Atheists have no moral compunction accept to avoid jail time.

    //I am saying morality depends on minds no minds no morality. In a universe full time of rocks there is no morality in such a universe.//

    But aren’t rocks and humans ultimately composed of the same atoms? Matter does not have any moral properties, except physical and chemical properties. I see no reason why, in a purely Materialistic universe, morals can exist in human minds.

    //The more universal the morality the more it benefits everyone. For example if am just a individual and don’t cooperate with anyone else am I stronger on my own? No obviously not, everyone is weaker. If my family is a family of super criminals who terrorises and robs everyone else is my family stronger than if they cooperated with everyone else? No obviously not. In nature strong groups outcompete strong individuals so the more people and more inclusive your group is the stronger it will be and it will be stronger than groups which are not inclusive.//

    This makes no sense. “Strong” does not imply “good”. A stronger community with criminal inclinations is easily able to overpower a weaker community. Muhammad’s community were able to over power affluent jewish socieities. You are appealing to “survival of the fittest”, a concept which does not screen any actions for morality. It is wholly concerned with self first and clan second.

    // I didn’t say it had no existence I said no existence OTHER THAN being a mental construct.//

    If it is contingent on minds then it is not universal and objective. For such a concept like logic and math must be neccesarrily true and are able to exist without any sentient beings. Would the mathematical laws of nature cease to exist if there was no human to observe them? Of course not.

    //No morality evolves here are a few examples where morality is or has been clearly evolving//

    Nope, it is not morality that evolved but our understanding of morality which has evolved. If morality evolved then we are unable to condemn a rape act from antiquity because it was acceptable in its era.

  100. Even if we replace the word vault with firmament these passages are still wrong.
    If the sun and the moon are placed in the firmament the firmament must mean the solar system. Is there any water above the firmament? It is a vast empty space.
    16 “And God made two great lights.”
    Is the moon also a source of light?
    21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly,’
    While one can argue that the Bible is right in saying that animal life was created first in the water, wales are mammals. They were not created in the sea but in the land and moved back to the sea.
    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    This passage implies that humans are physically made in the image of God. But humans look very diverse. Is God a Caucasian, or an Indian? Does he look Japanese or African? Is he short or tall, fat or thin and male or female?
    I do believe that we are made in the images of God but not in our physical form. God has no form even though He often appears to people who pass to the other side as like a human. Not only we human are made in the image of God but also animals are made in His image. God is spirit. It is our spirt that resembles God. Our physical being resembles other big apes from whom we descend.
    There are more errors in these few passages you quoted. The verse 3 talks about the creation of light which was separated by night. Then the firmament appears later (verse 6) So where the light was placed if firmaments were not yet created?
    Verse 12-13 says the vegetation was created in the third day and verse 16 again talks about the creation of great light and the lesser light which he placed in the firmament.
    According to the Bible the earth and its vegetation were created first and then the sun and the moon. We know for a fact that the sun is older than the earth. No vegetation could have lived without the sunlight. And there are no two lights in the sky.
    Verse 20 says God created the fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament.
    Note that the firmament as we read in previous verses is where the sun and the moon reside. The highest altitude the birds can fly is a few hundred meters above the surface of the earth.
    Verse 27 says “So God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”’
    A little further it says that God make Adam fall sleep and removed a rib from him from which He made the woman. Why He did not create woman in the same way that he created man? Why all other animals were created make and female at the same time but woman had to come out of the man’s rib? Does this not establish man’s superiority and precedence over woman thus reducing her status forever? Muhammad was influenced by these teachings to create his misogynistic religion.

  101. RON AND PHOENIX:

    Even though the Bible is a library of 66 books, written during the Bronze Age and put together through the political structure of the Church, quite some time later, you are certain this and this alone must be the word of “God”.

    In fact, you are both so dogmatically attached to this conclusion that, no matter what scientific evidence is put in front of you, no matter what common sense, logic or reason – you will do mental gymnastics to force an argument that tries to make the Bible right – even in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary.

    I am quite certain that there is no evidence that could possibly change your minds. Imagine the most absolutely certain new scientific evidence, imagine that became available today. If it were presented to either of you, you’d come up with an argument that twists and turns and bends and does back flips to come back with a story of how the creation myths of the Bible are true.

    I am not attempting to change your minds, because as anyone knows who has argued with a religious fundamentalist, you can never change their minds. Their minds are closed and will remain that way no matter what. Rather, I respond to your lunacy so that it does not go unchallenged here in the comments section – where you hope to dominate and bully and force Jesus on everyone, until all of the nonbelievers are chased away.

    You are the reason why the Counter Jihad Movement frightens off new participants and you are the reason why we are not more successful in getting the message out there, about the dangers of Islam and mobilizing more people, to do their part in fighting against the Islamic agenda.

    You and the enemy are one. It is our our religious lunatics who are holding back the movement that can fight Islam here in America. And you are two sides of the same coin. The Rapture Ready crowd are helping the spread of Islamic influence here in this country. You are helping to advance this evil and therefore you are evil.

  102. Ron says:

    Scientists have found anti-biotic resitant bacteria even in samples before anti-biotics were discovered.

    Back in 1988, explorers frozen in 1845 were autopsied at the University of Alberta, and six strains of bacteria isolated from their colons were revived. According to microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, “Three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used.” 1

    Now researchers have gone a step further. They have isolated bacterial DNA from Ice Age permafrost2 and found genes coding for resistance to several classes of antibiotics, including β-lactams, tetracycline, and glycopeptide antibiotics.3

    Then, focusing on the genes encoding vancomycin resistance, they recreated those gene products in the lab. The three enzymes thus produced worked together to resist vancomycin in the same way as their modern counterparts.4 They conclude, “Antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use.”5

    So how did the bacteria already have suitable weapons years before their enemy was invented? Antibiotics and their antidotes are actually natural substances produced by fungi, algae, and bacteria. Dr. Gerry Wright explains, “Antibiotics are part of the natural ecology of the planet so when we think that we have developed some drug that won’t be susceptible to resistance or some new thing to use in medicine, we are completely kidding ourselves. . . . Microorganisms have figured out a way of how to get around them well before we even figured out how to use them.” He adds, “Antibiotics are remarkable resources that need to be carefully husbanded.”6

    Some of this genetic material is in a form that can be transferred to other microorganisms. Microbiologist Dr. Stuart Levy, who has warned of profligate use of antibiotics for 30 years, explains, “What had been missed in the 1960s and 1970s was the ease with which resistance could appear,” he said. “Bacteria share these genes like baseball cards with each other.”7

    So is antibiotic resistance the poster-child of evolution? No. There was a time when people thought bacteria evolve resistance because they “need” to. But—as demonstrated in this study and in the 1988 one—the variations and mutations that confer resistance are already in the genomes of some bacteria. The “resistance information” does not necessarily develop in response to the antibiotic threat. Natural selection allows resistant bacteria to survive and reproduce, replenishing the bacterial population. And those surviving bacteria are still bacteria—the same kind of bacteria they were all along.

    Antibiotic resistance not only fails to prove the evolution of new kinds of organisms but actually demonstrates our Creator’s wisdom. We believe that God provided many mobile bits of information8 to enable microorganisms to survive and fulfill their complex ecological roles. Changing conditions in the post-Fall world have allowed helpful bacteria to become dangerous (see The Genesis of Pathogenic E. coli). A combination of mutations, horizontally transferred genes, environmental changes, and host changes can transform harmless microorganisms into pathogens. Frankly, from an evolutionary point of view, killing the host is a particularly bad idea! Biblical understanding explains the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance.

  103. Ron says:

    BIble is the only religious scripture that says that the earth is spherical and is suspended.

    In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the Earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]

    A literal translation of Job 26:10 is “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” A spherical Earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22—“the circle of the earth.”

    Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”

    “The Earth a Sphere—Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. The stars appear as if attached to a globe rotating round the Earth once in 24 hours, and this appearance was clearly familiar to the author of the Book of Job, and indeed long before the time of Abraham, since the formation of the constellations could not have been effected without such recognition. But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the Earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the Earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The Earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it: ‘He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the Earth upon nothing’ (Job 26:7).” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)]

    Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round Earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical Earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

    The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical Earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical Earth. [JSM]

    Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the Earth “within 50 miles of the present estimate.” [Encyclopedia Brittanica]

    The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical Earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the Earth as a flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]

    The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth’s spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. [DD]

    The implication of a round Earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, “In that day,” then in verse 34, “In that night.” This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously. [JSM]

    It is also interesting to note that there are 16 scriptures which refer to God stretching out the heavens. These are remarkable confirmations that the Bible is true, as we know today that the heavens are rapidly expanding. [TH]

    “When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.” [DD]

  104. Ron says:

    The KJV BIble is the most scholarly and accurate translation of the Bible. You will not find words like vault there in Genesis.
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

    4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

    5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

    7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

    8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

    9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

    10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

    11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

    14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

    15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

    16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

    18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

    19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

    20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

    23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

    24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

    25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

    30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

    31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

  105. Ron says:

    Diamonds

    Diamond is the hardest substance known, so its interior should be very resistant to contamination. Diamond requires very high pressure to form—pressure found naturally on earth only deep below the surface. Thus they probably formed at a depth of 100–200 km. Geologists believe that the ones we find must have been transported supersonically5 to the surface, in extremely violent eruptions through volcanic pipes. Some are found in these pipes, such as kimberlites, while other diamonds were liberated by water erosion and deposited elsewhere (called alluvial diamonds). According to evolutionists, the diamonds formed about 1–3 billion years ago.5

    The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world, as the Bible records.

    Dating diamonds

    Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,6 investigated 14C in a number of diamonds.7 There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon.

    The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world, as the Bible records.

  106. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    “That does not seem to be much of a preference since the only other alternative is pain. Seems more like a false dilemma. Give me an example of someone who prefers to be in pain because I see no reason why the will to live is not purely instinctive. Even animals have that natural instinct but we don’t say rats are moral exemplars.” You prefer pleasure to pain simple, it doesn’t matter that it’s not a choice. Its through basic preferences like this that you can build and enforce morality. E.g virtually everyone doesn’t like having their freedoms taken away and having to live in a cage so to punish and deter criminals we put them in jail.

    “Once again, you are using very foggy terms. When you say “grounded”, do you mean that morality literally exists inside humans? Given Atheism and its branches of philosophy, that must be the case. Morality must exist as a physical property.” I am saying morality depends on minds no minds no morality. In a universe full time of rocks there is no morality in such a universe.

    “That’s precisely my point, Muhammad’s newly established muslim society saw the victory of muslims over the pagans as a beneficial achievement for their community. Islamic conquests allowed the muslim arabs and their culture to flourish. So did the Russians during the Soviet era.” The more universal the morality the more it benefits everyone. For example if am just a individual and don’t cooperate with anyone else am I stronger on my own? No obviously not, everyone is weaker. If my family is a family of super criminals who terrorises and robs everyone else is my family stronger than if they cooperated with everyone else? No obviously not. In nature strong groups outcompete strong individuals so the more people and more inclusive your group is the stronger it will be and it will be stronger than groups which are not inclusive.

    “How can it be a mental construct AND have no existence? That must be a contradiction in terms, given that Materialism posits that all mental events are reducible to the material. In other words, what is in the brain must exist. Yet you claim it can be constructed by the mind and not exist simultaneously.” I didn’t say it had no existence I said no existence OTHER THAN being a mental construct.

    “Moral truths cannot change. Rape and plunder are always immoral.” No morality evolves here are a few examples where morality is or has been clearly evolving:
    – slavery
    – equal rights for men and women
    – freedom of expression, including blasphemy
    – death penalty
    – freedom of religion.

    Even rape is actually a good example of evolving morality. Because we consider rape to be wrong for COMPLETELY different reasons nowadays compared to the israelites in biblical times. We consider rape to be wrong because we feel empathy for the women who were victimized, we realize that rape is an incredibly traumatizing experience.
    In biblical times, rape was considered to be an act of damaging the “property” of the woman´s father (if she was not yet married – which is why the rapist had to pay 30 silver coins as reimbursement to the father for damaging his “property” and marry the woman he raped).

    Our morality evolved just like our understanding of physical health has evolved. For example in ancient times you was healthy if you lived to the ripe old age of 40, now the life expectancy is about 80 in the developed world. Do you also believe the concept of “healthiness” exists in a realm of perfect forms as well independently of the mind?

    “Organized crime families have rules, so do terror groups. That does not make them moral.” I talked about that above about strong groups vs strong individuals. The morals of organised sociopathic crime families do not apply to outsiders, the outsiders are not considered to be human beings so that is why they believe it is okay to rob, rape, exploit and kill them. However since these values are not universal they will not survive and thrive compared to values which include outsiders. This is easy to understand if your family believes it is okay to steal and kill all other families is your family going to survive and thrive better than all the other families that cooperate with other and form bonds with each other and don’t cheat and use violence against each other? Obviously the other families are going to survive and thrive, your sociopathic crime family is not.

  107. madfijian says:

    Ron. The science that is used to tell the age of organic matter is called carbon dating. The problem with religious folks is that you use science to argue points when it suits you but demonize science when the argument does not suit you. Lets assume that we do not have a tree that is over 5000 years old. I will give you that. First of all have we combed the entire plant looking for a tree that may be older than 5000 years. No we haven’t. So what you are saying is guess work on your part. Second the planet has been ravaged by fires meteor showers and volcanoes for ever. In 5000 years so many catastrophic events must have happened. In our life times we have seen so many events like the Asian tsunami to the Japan Tsunami to cyclone Hyan and countless fires that have destroyed millions of acres of natural forests. This just in the last 20 years or so. Imagine 5000 years. The earth is a living breathing natural phenomenon which creates as well as destroys. Now since you talk about dating. The same carbon dating techniques have been used to date dinosaur bones, human and ape skeletons, shells and rocks and other organic mater which prove that the earth is millions of years old and not 6000 years as per the bible. Why do you conveniently ignore this evidence but go on and on about the 5000 year old trees. Clearly the Bible is incorrect from Chapter 1 and yet you hold on to this belief like a minion.

  108. Phoenix says:

    //It’s a preference, you prefer to live yes and not to be in pain? That is a preference.//

    That does not seem to be much of a preference since the only other alternative is pain. Seems more like a false dilemma. Give me an example of someone who prefers to be in pain because I see no reason why the will to live is not purely instinctive. Even animals have that natural instinct but we don’t say rats are moral exemplars.

    //No since morality is ultimately grounded in the nature of sentient beings. Morality doesn’t exist without sentient beings (given what morality is).//

    Once again, you are using very foggy terms. When you say “grounded”, do you mean that morality literally exists inside humans? Given Atheism and its branches of philosophy, that must be the case. Morality must exist as a physical property.

    //” It is when you realise your wellbeing and happiness depends on other human beings. Where psychopaths/people with antisocial disorders struggle is in linking their wellbeing and happiness to other human beings – since they do not form attachments and bonds to other people.//

    That’s precisely my point, Muhammad’s newly established muslim society saw the victory of muslims over the pagans as a beneficial achievement for their community. Islamic conquests allowed the muslim arabs and their culture to flourish. So did the Russians during the Soviet era.

    //…even if mathematical objects have no existence other than being mental constructs…//

    How can it be a mental construct AND have no existence? That must be a contradiction in terms, given that Materialism posits that all mental events are reducible to the material. In other words, what is in the brain must exist. Yet you claim it can be constructed by the mind and not exist simultaneously.

    //You can make statements about moves is chess which are objectively true. I am talking about human beings on this planet not some alien species somewhere else in the universe that might have a different morality that works for them. (Just like I am not talking about some other hypothetical set of rules for chess).//

    Possible worlds scenarios are part of Modal logic. Your discomfort with modal claims does not invalidate the concept.

    //Answer these questions I´ll give you a specific example: look at the situation in the picture at the top of the page.//

    Chess rules can be changed. In fact it has changed over time. Moral truths cannot change. Rape and plunder are always immoral.
    See link on how the rules of chess has changed.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess#History

    // Morality that increases wellbeing for society is the only morality that works and functions. Just like if chess had no rules you couldn’t play the game. Whether morality is a human invention or exists independently of minds that conceive them (e.g. as some platonic form or stuff like that) is pragmatically irrelevant.//

    Organized crime families have rules, so do terror groups. That does not make them moral.

  109. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    ““Preferences” are indicative of subjectivity not objectivity.” Already answered. “If morality is ultimately grounded in the nature of sentient beings – then there is no morality if there is no sentient being (in other words, morality ceases to exist when every sentient being dies). And if that would be how morality is ultimately grounded, then valid logical reasoning based on these premises must lead to objectively true moral propositions, but those would still be mental constructs – just like some claims about a game of chess can be objectively true despite being mental constructs.
    ““Not wanting to be killed” is not a preference, it is an instinctive response to survival.” It’s a preference, you prefer to live yes and not to be in pain? That is a preference.

    “A universal and objective benchmark for truth must be free from personal opinions, preferences and bias.” No since morality is ultimately grounded in the nature of sentient beings. Morality doesn’t exist without sentient beings (given what morality is).

    “These seem like all noble goals but the path to those goals were catastrophic. Happiness as a yardstick does not guarantee ethical behavior. Muhammad was ecstatic when his arch nemesis was beheaded. Stalin was overjoyed with the brutal killing of Trotsky.” It is when you realise your wellbeing and happiness depends on other human beings. Where psychopaths/people with antisocial disorders struggle is in linking their wellbeing and happiness to other human beings – since they do not form attachments and bonds to other people.

    “It cannot be objectively true if it is a mere mental construct.” Of course it can, humans want to live and be happy and need other other humans to do that. (Objective fact). Based on those objective facts, valid logical reasoning based on these premises must lead to objectively true moral propositions. Also 2+2=5 is still objectively false – even if mathematical objects have no existence other than being mental constructs. 2+2=5 wouldn´t be something that people just “decide” to be true, it is false and it would be false no matter what the nature of mathematical objects is, even if their nature is simply that of a mental construct.The same is true for moral propositions, rights etc.
    “The rules of Chess on the other hand does not qualify as neccessary truths, since it’s possible to envision a different set of rules in a possible world.” You can make statements about moves is chess which are objectively true. I am talking about human beings on this planet not some alien species somewhere else in the universe that might have a different morality that works for them. (Just like I am not talking about some other hypothetical set of rules for chess).
    ” In fact, I believe there are variants of chess games and the game has evolved over the years.” Answer these questions I´ll give you a specific example: look at the situation in the picture at the top of the page.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate
    Now, answer those questions:
    1. Do you agree that the black player saying that he is not in checkmate would be false, black is in checkmate independent of whether the black player realizes and affirms this or not. Yes or no?
    2. Do you agree that the rules of chess are human inventions? Yes or no?
    3a. If you answered “yes” to question 2, do you agree that chess rules being mental constructs / human inventions doesn´t mean that the black player can just “decide” that he is not in checkmate – he objectively is in checkmate according to the rules of chess whether he believes that or not. Yes or no?
    3b. If you answered “no” to question 2, do you honestly claim that there is a platonic realm of ideas (or something comparable) that contains the rules of chess together with the rules of any game that anyone will ever invent, and that our minds interact in some magic ways with this realm of ideas if we think about how to play these games? Yes or no?

    “My previous statements also apply here.” Morality that increases wellbeing for society is the only morality that works and functions. Just like if chess had no rules you couldn’t play the game. Whether morality is a human invention or exists independently of minds that conceive them (e.g. as some platonic form or stuff like that) is pragmatically irrelevant.

  110. RON:

    Ali Sina raises a good point. The Bible is not a book but a library of 66 books. Why is it necessary to believe everything in every one of those 66 books, in order for you to believe in Jesus?

    And where in the gospels does Jesus say that you must belong to a church or follow the Bible?

  111. Phoenix says:

    Eric,

    You are accusing me of employing abductive reasoning but without specifying any instances. Your charge is too broad and must be discarded as an ad hominem fallacy because you continue to attack the arguer and not the argument.

    Your inability to apply Aristotelian deductive procedures exposes your attachment to your position is an emotional need and not because of any rational content.

  112. Phoenix says:

    Steve,

    //Preferences are needed for morality, if people didn’t have preferences then you couldn’t have a moral code. When you have preferences that are universal – like not not wanting to be killed, not wanting to be harmed, not wanting to be cheated etc//

    “Preferences” are indicative of subjectivity not objectivity. “Not wanting to be killed” is not a preference, it is an instinctive response to survival.

    //you can build a functioning society on a moral code that is based on these universal preferences/values.//

    Preferences and values are not synonyms despite your attempt to link the two. 1.Preference = partiality/bias
    2.Values = principles/standards of behavior

    No.1 is clearly a relative and subjective proclivity and No.2 is an objective benchmark for conduct. Your flawed reasoning uses a subjective concept then conflate it with a universal standard.

    A universal and objective benchmark for truth must be free from personal opinions, preferences and bias.

    // If a human being with a functioning nervous system has petrol poured over them and set alight they will be in excruciating pain.//

    This is an example of not wanting to be killed or harmed, an instinctive response. I’m sure even Muhammad avoided excruciating pain despite being a poor excuse for a human being.

    //Actually that’s one of the main purposes of a moral code – to settle disputes and conflicts without violence. Indeed thanks to universal values, violence and wars has rapidly decreased in recent history – compared to our violent past.//

    Maximal well being is a banal and nebulous term. The goal is to have a society with an increase in well-being. However, the path to your goal is left up to the individual to decide based on his/her preferences. So the application of those individuals’ principles are uneven and even contradictory. Remember that even the Nazis sought to establish a race of humans that were free from defects. The Communists also sought a utopia where humanity were free from religious superstition and discrimination. These seem like all noble goals but the path to those goals were catastrophic. Happiness as a yardstick does not guarantee ethical behavior. Muhammad was ecstatic when his arch nemesis was beheaded. Stalin was overjoyed with the brutal killing of Trotsky.

    //If morality is ultimately grounded in the nature of sentient beings – then there is no morality if there is no sentient being (in other words, morality ceases to exist when every sentient being dies). And if that would be how morality is ultimately grounded, then valid logical reasoning based on these premises must lead to objectively true moral propositions, but those would still be mental constructs – just like some claims about a game of chess can be objectively true despite being mental constructs. And this being the nature of morality seems to be infinitely more plausible than an alternative that involves something like platonic forms.//

    It cannot be objectively true if it is a mere mental construct. The moral construct would therefore be contingent as opposed to being neccessarily true. A proposition is neccessarily true IFF it is true in every possible world. For example, there is no possible world where 2+2=5. Therefore mathematical truths are neccessarily true because its contradictions cannot be imagined to be true in any possible world. Objective truths are not dependent on any human constructs, preferences, feelings,biases or opinions.
    The rules of Chess on the other hand does not qualify as neccessary truths, since it’s possible to envision a different set of rules in a possible world. In fact, I believe there are variants of chess games and the game has evolved over the years.

    //Same as above, claims about a game of chess can be objectively true – despite the rules of chess being a human invention.//

    See above why the chess analogy fails.

    //My argument is simple morality is rules humans have made up to govern behaviour – but not just randomly and for no reason. Morality is needed so people and societies can survive and be happy and healthy. If people don’t follow morality then there is no way the “game” of life can function and continue. Like if you don’t play by the rules of chess you defeat the whole purpose of playing and ultimately the game cannot go on if you don’t follow the rules.//

    My previous statements also apply here.

  113. @Ron,
    Evolution does not preclude God. And we don’t have to cling to every word of the Bible to be Christian. There are many absurdities in the Bible that any rational person cannot accept. The story of creation is a patently false story. It predates the Bible which means it is borrowed from earlier traditions.
    Genesis 6 says:
    6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.”
    This is evidently not so. The sky is not a vault and it does not separate the rain water from the waters on earth as this passage implies.
    14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
    This passage implies that the sun and the moon are two great lights and are inside the vault of the sky. Is that true? What to us appears as the vault of the sky is the atmosphere surrounding the earth. Are the sun and the moon set in the earth’s atmosphere? It also says that the stars are set in the vault of the sky.
    I can go on and on. Take the example of when God comes down to the garden of Eden and does not know where Adam and Eve are hiding and when he finds them and see they have covered their nakedness he asks whether they had eaten from the tree of knowledge. Clearly he does not know what this couple had done while he was absent. Is He not all-knowing?
    There are countless absurdities in the Bible. Christians who cling to this book are committing a grave mistake and alienating the thinking people.
    The Bible is like a gold mine. It contains gems of wisdom and much dirt. Not every story in this book is true. We have to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    The belief in Christ is very rational, but the Bible is not. By shoving this book of fairy tales down the throat of people we only push them away from Christ and prevent their salvation.

  114. Ron says:

    They have never found a tree more than 5000 years old?
    There could be many reasons:
    1) Somebody planted them just 5-6 millennia before (God created them)
    2) Somebody planted them much before or the existed much before but they got destroyed in a fire or flood or combination of events which happened at one time over all the earth or over a period of time over all the earth.
    (A flood like that of Noah could have done it)
    The biblical account of creation and flood answers both of them.

  115. Madfijian –

    I surely could not have said it better myself. And in the final chapter of the best seller “The Holy Bible” the protagonist “god” is going to come yet AGAIN and destroy everything and judge everyone. Those who basically kiss his ass and fear him will get to hang with him in the VIP section of the Universe and everyone else can quite literally go to Hell.

    Who created this “god”? Because they didn’t do a very good job. From the moment he plants that talking snake the garden to launch incest, it is just total amateur hour.

  116. madfijian says:

    Ron. This is what you really believe. So you have a God/Jesus. At the beginning of the Universe and time as we know it God already existed, how no one knows: Than God decided to create the Universe with about a trillion planets and stars. He than created a habitable planet that we call earth.He than made 2 people Adam and Eve who multiplied and had children who than had incestuous relationships and created more people. Than after many years God decides that the people he created in his own image f-up and he says no no no we cant have this. He than chooses one fella by the name of Noah to save the species and mankind. Noah collects all the animal pairs he gets his hands on builds a boat gets his family note his family only and rides out the storm that destroys the rest of humanity and all the animals. For this post lets not discuss the fact that Noah and his family would have died of methane poisoning from all the crap on the boat as according to the Bible the vessel had only one small window. Than he gets his children to mate with each other because that is the only way that he could restart earths population as the bible does not mention any other survivors. After many moons the earth is repopulated but we have a problem again. for the people God chose to survive and repopulate the earth are at it again. Sin and bad folks every where so what does God do next. He decides to come to earth as his son who really is him wink! wink! just to get his ass crucified by primitive Romans so that his sacrifice can wipe of the sins of the bad people who now populate the earth. This is really what you believe Ron and that is Christianity in a nut shell. If this summary does not sound absurd to you than you really need help.

  117. Steve says:

    @Ron
    ” If we examine the scriptures in Genesis and join them with the fossil and DNA evidence, we can explain this distinct genetic difference between Neanderthal and modern man.” No, Neanderthals became extinct about 40 thousand years ago – 30 thousand years before the earth existed according to the bible. This is ignoring the fact that a global flood which covered the mountains and all living species on earth being descended from one single pair a few thousand years is scientifically impossible.

  118. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    “Your initial take on morality was that it’s about preference, which consists of personal subjective proclivities and fixed traits inherent within each person, for instance, not liking cookies. So there is no assurance of knowing what the strangers preferences are, and such an individual is more likely to generate suspicion than trust. Under your understanding of morality, everyone is moral since we all have preferences.” Preferences are needed for morality, if people didn’t have preferences then you couldn’t have a moral code. When you have preferences that are universal – like not not wanting to be killed, not wanting to be harmed, not wanting to be cheated etc you can build a functioning society on a moral code that is based on these universal preferences/values.
    “Each individual has his own preferences on what would make him happy and comfortable” If a human being with a functioning nervous system has petrol poured over them and set alight they will be in excruciating pain.
    “And since societies consists of individuals, the accumulation and culmination of their morality cannot produce a society of maximal well being because there would be many instances where their principles clash.” Actually that’s one of the main purposes of a moral code – to settle disputes and conflicts without violence. Indeed thanks to universal values, violence and wars has rapidly decreased in recent history – compared to our violent past.

    “There is no objective moral principles in your world, by your admission” If morality is ultimately grounded in the nature of sentient beings – then there is no morality if there is no sentient being (in other words, morality ceases to exist when every sentient being dies). And if that would be how morality is ultimately grounded, then valid logical reasoning based on these premises must lead to objectively true moral propositions, but those would still be mental constructs – just like some claims about a game of chess can be objectively true despite being mental constructs. And this being the nature of morality seems to be infinitely more plausible than an alternative that involves something like platonic forms.

    “Thus no one can objectively be honest and good for example. ” Same as above, claims about a game of chess can be objectively true – despite the rules of chess being a human invention.

    “the path to your conclusion (society’s well being) is fraught with personal proclivities which would make that end result an impossible task.” My argument is simple morality is rules humans have made up to govern behaviour – but not just randomly and for no reason. Morality is needed so people and societies can survive and be happy and healthy. If people don’t follow morality then there is no way the “game” of life can function and continue. Like if you don’t play by the rules of chess you defeat the whole purpose of playing and ultimately the game cannot go on if you don’t follow the rules.

  119. Ron says:

    The Bible is clear: shortly after the creation, man sinned and became extremely wicked, so wicked that God was sorry He had made man. Then, God caused a great flood, destroying all mankind with the exception of Noah and his family. We are not sure how many souls died in this global flood, but suspect that it was many. A common question is, why is there no fossil evidence of those killed in the flood? There is fossil evidence of dinosaurs, mammoths, fish, vegetation, mosquitoes, and even raindrops, so why not evidence of the humans who died in the flood ? The answer to this question is simple and right before us: there is fossil evidence of humans dying in the flood; these humans are what are presently referred to as Neanderthal man; Neanderthal man meets the Biblical criteria for those who died in the flood very nicely.

    There is no question that Neanderthal man lived on earth. Many partial skeletons have been found which have provided the scientific community with credible DNA sequences. These sequences reveal a small, but distinct genetic difference between the Neanderthal and modern man; this difference is approximately 1.3 percent in the mitochondrial DNA. If we examine the scriptures in Genesis and join them with the fossil and DNA evidence, we can explain this distinct genetic difference between Neanderthal and modern man.

    Looking at the Biblical account of the flood, we find that there were sudden major changes to the environment and ecosystems. The entire earth was flooded which resulted in a change to the atmosphere which, in turn, resulted in a new ecosystem, no longer able to support huge dinosaurs with small nostrils and dragonflies with over 2 foot wingspans. Also, concerning humans, we know they lived much shorter lives after the flood as clearly documented in Genesis chapter 11. And, at the disembarkation from the Ark, God announced that He would allow the eating of meat. All of this leads us to realize that these significant changes would require a genetic reset of DNA. This genetic reset, which was executed by God, Himself, explains the distinct genetic differences between modern man and those before the flood, whom we have concluded are Neanderthals. Neanderthal fossils reveal that Neanderthal had larger brains than modern man, better bone structure, stronger teeth, better bites (occlusion), fewer genetic mutations (disease), and longer lifespan. For references and Neanderthal DNA sequences, see Neanderthal’s Identity.

    Accepting Neanderthal man as those living before the flood solves many mysteries such as the following:
    1.How did Neanderthal go extinct?

    Answer: He died in the flood.

    2.Why is there no evidence of pre-flood man?

    Answer: There is much evidence of pre-flood man – Neanderthal.

    3.Why is Neanderthal genetically distinct from modern man?

    Answer: Neanderthal had only the first genetic reset, but Modern man had both the first and second genetic reset. See the technical paper Neanderthal’s Identity for details.

    4.Why do we have his (Neanderthal’s) genetic mutations, but he doesn’t have ours (modern man)?

    Answer: He is our ancestor. Our mutations were developed after the flood, so we have both Neanderthal and modern mutations; he has only the pre-flood mutations.

    5.Why did Neanderthal not interbreed with modern man?

    Answer: He couldn’t; Neanderthal and modern man were separated by the flood.

    6.Why are Neanderthal’s remains found in so many diverse locations?

    Answer: The flood deposited them there.

    7.Why is Neanderthal physiologically and anatomically superior?

    Answer: His DNA was closer to Adam’s.

    8.Where does Neanderthal fit in post-flood Bible genealogy?

    Answer: He doesn’t. We know the DNA from the table of nations people (Genesis Chapter 10) and subsequent generations; none has the Neanderthal genetic signature.

    Source: http://www.genesisandgenetics.org/2013/11/08/177/

  120. Steve / Ron:

    CORRECTION: I think I typed “600 million”. Six million years ago is about when humans and certain apes share a common ancestor. Steve got it right. I was typing too fast.

    And I must agree with Steve here that Ron does not seem to know event the first thing about the theory of Evolution. I would venture to guess that he also does not know what the word “Theory” means in a scientific context either.

    But Steve’s example is a good one: How can one explain how Americans came from Europeans? This illustrates the point very well.

    One of the most obvious, modern day examples of the process of natural selection of course would be the germs that can resist our drugs that used to knock them out. X percent were able to survive and essentially reproduce. And now we will likely have to create stronger drugs. I’m trying to keep this as simple to understand as possible.

  121. PHOENIX:

    Fair enough. You are starting out with certain conclusions you are unwilling to loosen your tight grip on. Therefore your entire process of arguing your point – and presumably your entire thought process – is reverse engineered to arrive at your cozy conclusions.

  122. CORRECTION TO POST BELOW:

    The first wave of migration BECAME Neanderthals.

  123. RON:

    Call this racist if you must, but I don’t see how it is. Human life started in Sub-Saharan Africa. We migrated to the North. The current view is that the first wave were Neanderthals and that it was quite a long time after that the second wave of migration happened.

    With each subsequent wave, some turned back, some went far. Depending on climate conditions, some lost a little bit of pigment in their skin while other lost nearly all of it. Some lived in the snow and some lived in the desert, etc. This, over time, changed faces, body types, etc. and so on.

    It is believed that there was a lot of cross mating with Neanderthals until Neanderthals were no more. The Neanderthal skeleton is very similar to ours and sites where their bones were found often revealed religious artifacts and simple musical instruments.

    It appears that all humans have a certain amount of Neanderthal DNA, with the exception of people who are basically 100 percent Sub-Saharan Africans.

    This information is widely available. Just because the Nazis and other groups have used portions of this information to advance racist ideas does not negate certain facts about how humans came to populate the Earth and take on different physical attributes.

    Check it out or keep your head in the sand. It seems to me clear that you have everything invested in keeping your head in the sand.

  124. RON:

    Humans and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor from about 600 million years ago, or so. How we evolved from there is information that is widely available. Evolutionary Biologists can explain it better than I can. Are you unwilling to at least examine the evidence?

    Are you one of these fundamentalists who asks why we don’t see apes turning into humans, right before our eyes? Do you understand that evolution takes time? For example, people generally speaking are taller than they were say 200 years ago. This is a simple concept to understand and easily provable. Would you disagree with this?

    What do you have invested on not sincerely and deeply inquiring into what Evolution is and is not?

  125. Phoenix says:

    This is clearly flawed, heroin addicts get pleasure from using their drug, but that doesn’t mean using heroin is healthy. (It harms both the individual and the society). Criminals might get pleasure from committing their crimes but it harms everybody else, so criminality decreases overall wellbeing. Show me how morality is not about the wellbeing of individuals and societies? And what else could it possibly be about?

    Your initial take on morality was that it’s about preference, which consists of personal subjective proclivities and fixed traits inherent within each person, for instance, not liking cookies. So there is no assurance of knowing what the strangers preferences are, and such an individual is more likely to generate suspicion than trust. Under your understanding of morality, everyone is moral since we all have preferences.

    Your latest take on morality is completely different (no surprise there), since Atheists are known to change their principles as the moment arises. You have now defined morality as “increasing the well being of individuals and societies.”
    Your definition fails to take into account that well being is a subjective concept. Each individual has his own preferences on what would make him happy and comfortable. And since societies consists of individuals, the accumulation and culmination of their morality cannot produce a society of maximal well being because there would be many instances where their principles clash.
    There is no objective moral principles in your world, by your own admission. Thus no one can objectively be honest and good for example. So even though your intention seems rather noble on the surface, the path to your conclusion (society’s well being) is fraught with personal proclivities which would make that end result an impossible task.

  126. Ron says:

    I want you to discern/learn/know and even others interested also to know what is the difference between the stages in evolution which led to the European race, Negroid and Mongoloid races as espoused by the atheist Nazis and Nazi scientists and those espoused by neo-atheists like you.

    If it is same then you guys are racists.
    If it is not the same then show us how?

  127. Steve says:

    @Ron
    “To all atheists
    Just think and explain the following.
    How did the human races on earth get formed from apes?
    How did nature get to the point that two opposite sexes (in mammals) have to be formed and unless they mated and had a finite gestation they could not reproduce?
    Why can’t scientists create life even in its primitive form?” Ron it is clear you don’t know anything about evolution, so please stop commenting on it until you actually read a scientific textbook and learn exactly what the theory of evolution says and not just parrot ridiculous conceptions of it. For example from your first question it’s clear you don’t know anything. Its like asking how did Americans come from Europeans? Humans share a common ancestor with all other apes and chimpanzees are our closest living relatives. It is believed we split from them about six million years ago and many transitional fossils have been discovered which show organism with look partly human and partly ape like. http://www.livescience.com/3996-humans-chimps-split.html

  128. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    “So the next obvious question to ask is: Is it possible to be evil and to be rich, healthy and happy?
    Sure it is. There are plenty of examples of millionare murderers and rapists. Serial offenders find pleasure in committing their crimes. Thus morality cannot be defined by states of well being since evil people can easily occupy those conditions.” This is clearly flawed, heroin addicts get pleasure from using their drug, but that doesn’t mean using heroin is healthy. (It harms both the individual and the society). Criminals might get pleasure from committing their crimes but it harms everybody else, so criminality decreases overall wellbeing. Show me how morality is not about the wellbeing of individuals and societies? And what else could it possibly be about?

  129. Phoenix says:

    Eric,

    You will have to pin point at which locations my arguments fail but I cannot accept a blanket rejection.

    Analyzing an argument for soundness is quite simple. It could either fail structurally and therefore guilty of a formal fallacy or the structure is valid but at least one of the premises are false, i.e., they are falsified by evidence.

    You have provided no such analysis. Instead, you continue to argue by accusation not by rational rebuttal.

    Perhaps you have encountered that your worldview cannot withstand scrutiny and logical analysis. That could indeed be unsettling.

  130. Ron says:

    To all atheists
    Just think and explain the following.

    How did the human races on earth get formed from apes?
    How did nature get to the point that two opposite sexes (in mammals) have to be formed and unless they mated and had a finite gestation they could not reproduce?
    Why can’t scientists create life even in its primitive form?

  131. RON:

    “stop promoting Evolution/Darwinism because it is an evil, racist, hateful theory and inherently anti-Christian. Don’t alienate Christians with your hate. ”

    You really are living in your own private Idaho.

  132. PHOENIX:

    You know a lot of nine dollar words, but you a really have no critical thinking ability.

    I can accept someone arriving at a different place than I have, in terms of what it all means, is there a god, etc. But your thought process and your process of arguing your point clearly shows that you are out of your league. Again, not because you don’t agree with me.

    I can have a friendly debate with Ali Sina about Jesus and he can use logic and reason and argue his point masterfully and respectfully. You are parroting some of the right words but that’s not the same thing.

    Why not just admit that you are going to believe what you believe, no matter what, that no one is ever going to convince you otherwise? That way you don’t have to pretend to be exercising any critical thinking. You can just be honest in that you are absolutely going to arrive at the same conclusion no matter what, because it gives you emotional comfort and that, without that, you would have an existential crisis?

  133. madfijian says:

    Ron you need help fella.

  134. Ron says:

    Why neo-atheists and anti-Christians, Islamophobes and Christophobes like Eric Alan Bell, Steve, Madfijian etc. should stop promoting Evolution/Darwinism because it is an evil, racist, hateful theory and inherently anti-Christian. Don’t alienate Christians with your hate.

    Godlessness leads to hate, lack of compassion, materialism. You will never find an atheist putting his life at risk and working in conflict zones or sick zones. It is just not there in them because materialism just makes you selfish.
    Please read on…

    Hitler and the Nazi arty established the Third Reich and boldly stated that it will live for a 1000 years. The Nazis prepared the ground work for the so-called superior race of German Aryan to eventually rule over the inferior races. Dr Goebbels the Minister of propaganda (Information) said that if we go and repeating the lie many times the public will later accept it as truth and will not be able to discern that it is a lie. So they set the work in motion and closed all parochial and catholic schools as they would be opposed to evolution, racism and other anti-Christian dictums.

    The bought that idea that man has evolved from apes and the Aryans were the most highly evolved.
    In 1938 the Ministry of Education published an official curriculum handbook for the schools. This handbook mandated teaching evolution, including the evolution of human races, which evolved through “selection and elimination.” It stipulated, “The student must accept as something self-evident this most essential and most important natural law of elimination [of unfit] together with evolution and reproduction.” In the fifth class, teachers were instructed to teach about the “emergence of the primitive human races (in connection with the evolution of animals).” In the eighth class, students were to be taught evolution even more extensively, including lessons on “Lamarckism and Darwinism and their worldview and political implications,” as well as the “origin and evolution of humanity and its races,” which included segments on “prehistoric humanity and its races” and “contemporary human races in view of evolutionary history. (p.542)

    The propaganda material in opening pages explained that the central concepts underlying racial ideology are hard heredity and racial inequality. Then it claimed that racial inequality has come about because evolution proceeds by struggle. Different races simply do not evolve at the same pace, so they are at different levels. The authors then asserted that the three main human races – European, Mongolian, and Negro – were subspecies that branched off from a common ancestor about 100,000 years ago. They argued that races evolved through selection and elimination, and the Nordic race became superior because it had to struggle in especially harsh conditions. Throughout this pamphlet the terms “higher evolution,” “struggle for existence,” and selection are core concepts that occur repeatedly.” (p.550) Source: Richard Weikart: Hitter’s Ethic

    Quotes from Nazis supporting evolution

    Rudolph Hess: National Socialism is nothing but applied biology. ~ Rudolph Hess
    Arthur Keith: The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. National Socialism is nothing but applied biology.
    Ernst Haeckel: These lower races (such as the Veddahs or Australian Aboriginals, Negroes) are psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes or dogs) than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives.

    Other quotes

    Richard Weikart: “Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism… neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the worlds greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.”

    The Nazi regime sought to influence young people via educational programmers and youth movements. The curriculum made connections between what was taught and its social and political implications. Darwinism was explicit, and the textbooks followed suit.

  135. Phoenix says:

    Steve,

    Ok, I’ll drop the rest and take on this one.

    //First, define “well being” from an Atheist standpoint.” “Well being” is difficult to define it like the concept of physical health. What does “healthy” mean?//

    Physical health is not that hard to define. It typically means to be free from illness or injury.

    Well being = the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy.

    So the next obvious question to ask is: Is it possible to be evil and to be rich, healthy and happy?

    Sure it is. There are plenty of examples of millionare murderers and rapists. Serial offenders find pleasure in committing their crimes. Thus morality cannot be defined by states of well being since evil people can easily occupy those conditions.

  136. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    //“a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life”., Nothing “non material” in that definition.//
    What exactly are “powers greater than those of ordinary humans” and “new levels of consciousness beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life”?” This sounds like an appeal to the supernatural.” It doesn’t because a deity doesn’t have to be supernatural (whatever supernatural is). “And can you give me an example of each?” People believe their gods are more powerful than them and interacting with them gives you a new level of consciousness, like Ron claims he is now full of love thanks to Jesus.
    // How do you distinguish between “supernatural abilities” and “having powers greater than those of ordinary humans”? Also an atheist doesn’t even have to be a naturalist.
    “It’s bizzare that you’re asking me that question. As far as I can tell, they imply the same thing. ” How would we distinguish between a powerful alien and a so called supernatural being? “You have to show me which ones are not naturalists.” No I don’t all that matters is that atheists don’t have to be naturalists.
    //This wasn’t your original claim. 2) You haven’t proven that morals are transcendent you just asserted it.//
    “I have not JUST asserted it. I actually provided you with a logically sound deductive syllogism, following the rules of inference. Your charges are completely false.” You have given no such proof. Also you changed your claim from “morals are grounded in God” to “morals are transcendent”.
    “Unlike you, I have not redefined morality to suit my personal preferences.” When you make a moral statement what do think you are doing? “I don’t want to live in a world full of needless random acts of violence and terror”. What do you think that is? It’s you stating how you want or prefer the world to be.
    //Morality = Your opinion as to how people should behave. If you think that morality is inherent to the universe and not the product of minds then the burden of proof is on you to show this.//
    “You shoulder the burden of proof, since you made the positive claim.” I have shown you what a moral statement is, if you think morals are not grounded in mind then YOU need to show this.
    “To summarize your response: Morality = well being of conscious creatures. First, define “well being” from an Atheist standpoint.” “Well being” is difficult to define it like the concept of physical health. What does “healthy” mean? Well, it means not vomiting, not being in excruciating pain and not running a fever. The distinction between a healthy person and a person on there death bed is very clear and not arbitrary. Likewise when talking about morality we are talking mental wellbeing/ health and the health of society. Its clear that a society like Afghanistan under the Taliban which throws acid in the face of little girls for learning to read is less healthy/moral than a society that doesn’t do that. Ok, and notice that no one is ever tempted to attack the philosophical underpinnings of medicine with questions like, “Well, who are you to say that not always vomiting is healthy? What if you meet someone who wants to vomit, and he wants to vomit until he dies, ok? How could you argue that he is not as healthy as you are?”

    “The reason why Atheists insist on defining their position as merely lacking belief is to avoid having to provide any logic and evidence for their worldview, so they claim there exists none, while simultaneously writing many bestsellers promoting this “nothing”.” It’s not a worldwide as has being explained to you many times now. They may be promoting anti theism, secularism and scientific materialism etc but this is NOT atheism. Or if it is then it can be also be said ISIS are promoting theism.

    ” Sounds like a famous sitcom that used to be about nothing.” There books are about something but it’s not atheism, it is debatable whether this word atheism should even exist. As Sam Harris says “In fact, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”

    “Which one of your “anti-theist “leaders is not an Atheist too.Harris, Dawkins, Bennet, Coyne, Greta Christina, Silverman, Mehta, Barker, Myers, Randi, Shermer, Stenger, Pinker, Kurtz, Krauss, Hitchens, Atkins, Hawking, Rosenberg, Singer, etc.” An atheist doesn’t have to be a anti theist – end of story.

  137. Truth Seeker says:

    @Believer

    Why do you believe Bible is given by God? What are rational supportive evidence you put in your claim? I never seen Bible in my life time though I read Quran a lot What are spirituality mentioned in Bible which were not mentioned in other books?

  138. Phoenix says:

    Eric,
    //Really? What percentage of Atheists have written bestsellers? Isn’t that like saying all black people steal?//

    So if I say Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins have written bestsellers then it’s equal to saying all black people steal?
    You should really learn what a false comparison and false analogy fallacy is. Stealing and writing a best seller has ZERO relation. In fact the one is a positive deed while the other is a negative deed.

    //I disagree with Hitchens, for example, on many things. But he does not deny the possibility of a higher power in his bestseller. However, he does provide ample logic and evidence for his view that the Bible is bullshit. Now, you may disagree with his logic and evidence, but you cannot say he does not provide it. That is just a lie.//

    It seem you can’t defend your position without referring to the Bible. Perhaps the Bible should remain an authoritative book since your worldview is dependent on it and you reference it even when it is not the topic of discussion. In logic this is called a red herring. The aim of a red herring is to divert the discussion in order to avoid having to provide evidence and logic for ones worldview. Then claiming not to have a worldview.

    //You have outsmarted yourself because of your emotional need for an imaginary friend. You are suffering from Religious Dependency Disorder (yes, I made that up). //

    Eric, ad hominem abuses are the lowest form of argumentation. You have no idea what I believe in, except that I am a dualist and theist. I have not specified any religious affiliation.

    //Trying to generalize about everyone who rejects the idea that your particular “god” has revealed “his” message to the world, through the Bible and that Jesus is the only way to “him” is ridiculous. I am an Atheist to Christianity just as you are an Atheist to the Hinduism.//

    If you believe in the existence of a deity then you are not an Atheist.
    If I am married to ONE woman does that make me a bachelor to all the other women I am not married to? Even if a man rejects many women, but is married to a single woman, is he a bachelor in relation to those women he rejected? Of course not. All oit it takes to be a husband is to be married to a single woman (or man if that’s your preference). Likewise, all it takes to be a theist is to believe in at least one deity.

    //You are using the words “Atheists” and “Atheism” in an intellectually irresponsible way and you know you are doing this. That is how weak your position is.//

    If we define theist as X and Atheist as its negator ~X then how do we infer X = ~X without redefining both terms and violating the law of non-contradiction?
    X = ~X is not a tautology. You need some serious justification for your redefinitions.

    Now refute the above by appealing to laws of logic or laws of math or else you are merely employing a semantic trick.

    //Not everyone who rejects your imaginary friend is devoid of any sense of spirituality. Not everyone who rejects your imaginary friend is dogmatic about science. Not everyone who rejects your imaginary friend thinks that the Universe came about by chance and that life has no meaning. But it would sure be a lot easier for you, in defending the existence of your imaginary friend if this was so.
    But it’s not.//

    Once again, devoid of any rational content. This is a serial ad hominem attack, it does not even address any related issue.

  139. madfijian says:

    Ron Ron my friend. Judging by the very fact that we are having this discussion in the first place is proof enough that the Aryan race is not smarter than the rest of humanity. You really have a lot to understand about evolution. Some of the best minds in the priest hood of various Christian faiths have after studying evolution and the evidence for it concluded that evolution is real. 10,000 Clergy man signed a letter agreeing that evolution maybe a scientific fact. The project was called the Clergy Letter Project.
    Personally i do feel that their are holes in the theory and Darwinism may not be able to explain all of creation but for now it is the best and most rational explanation we got. Perhaps one day in the near future Darwin maybe proven wrong but hard facts. However i am sure that Adam and Eve were not talking to a freaking snake and the very fact that we are expected by religious nuts to believe that we are somehow mating with our genetic sisters and brothers since we are all derived from the same loins as per the bible is as absurd as it gets.

    I agree with Eric that the truth about our existence is somewhere between religion and science. The only problem is that while some of us are trying to get to the truth the vast majority are still holding on to their irrational beliefs with more fervor that ever. The result of which is the world we see today more divided and suspicious of each others differences than ever before in our history as a species.

  140. PHOENIX:

    “The reason why Atheists insist on defining their position as merely lacking belief is to avoid having to provide any logic and evidence for their worldview, so they claim there exists none, while simultaneously writing many bestsellers ”

    Really? What percentage of Atheists have written bestsellers? Isn’t that like saying all black people steal?

    Yes, it is exactly like that.

    I disagree with Hitchens, for example, on many things. But he does not deny the possibility of a higher power in his bestseller. However, he does provide ample logic and evidence for his view that the Bible is bullshit. Now, you may disagree with his logic and evidence, but you cannot say he does not provide it. That is just a lie.

    You have outsmarted yourself because of your emotional need for an imaginary friend. You are suffering from Religious Dependency Disorder (yes, I made that up).

    Trying to generalize about everyone who rejects the idea that your particular “god” has revealed “his” message to the world, through the Bible and that Jesus is the only way to “him” is ridiculous. I am an Atheist to Christianity just as you are an Atheist to the Hinduism.

    You are using the words “Atheists” and “Atheism” in an intellectually irresponsible way and you know you are doing this. That is how weak your position is.

    Not everyone who rejects your imaginary friend is devoid of any sense of spirituality. Not everyone who rejects your imaginary friend is dogmatic about science. Not everyone who rejects your imaginary friend thinks that the Universe came about by chance and that life has no meaning. But it would sure be a lot easier for you, in defending the existence of your imaginary friend if this was so.

    But it’s not.

  141. RON:

    “Being an Islamophobe and atheist is enough. Please don’t be a Christophobe. Or are you one already?”

    Christophobe? No, I do not have an irrational fear of “Christ”. It would be irrational to fear something that does not exist.

  142. RON:

    Logic is not your strong suit, is it:

    “It is sheer arrogance, ignorance, hatred of Christ, Christianity which makes you think that non living matter can give rise to living matter and then reproduce itself.”

    I would not dispute personally that the Universe IS intelligent and IS conscious. But what does that have to do with Christ or Christianity?

  143. Phoenix says:

    //“a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life”., Nothing “non material” in that definition.//

    What exactly are “powers greater than those of ordinary humans” and “new levels of consciousness beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life”? This sounds like an appeal to the supernatural. And can you give me an example of each?

    // How do you distinguish between “supernatural abilities” and “having powers greater than those of ordinary humans”? Also an atheist doesn’t even have to be a naturalist.//

    That is the question I should be asking you. It’s bizzare that you’re asking me that question. As far as I can tell, they imply the same thing. And yes, all those influential public intellectual Atheists are naturalists as well. I can name at least 50 of them. You have to show me which ones are not naturalists.

    //This wasn’t your original claim. 2) You haven’t proven that morals are transcendent you just asserted it.//

    I have not JUST asserted it. I actually provided you with a logically sound deductive syllogism, following the rules of inference. Your charges are completely false.

    //You mean like your response above?//

    Not at all. Unlike you, I have not redefined morality to suit my personal preferences.

    //Morality = Your opinion as to how people should behave. If you think that morality is inherent to the universe and not the product of minds then the burden of proof is on you to show this.//

    You are asking me to prove a negative. You shoulder the burden of proof, since you made the positive claim.

    //Morality is like the concept of physical health is the concept of physical health redundant because it’s not built into the fabric universe? No. Can we still judge who is healthy and who is sick? Yes. Can we still do things that increase our health and decrease our chances of getting sick? Yes. Do you need an absolute perfect health which is in another dimension and which is independent of human minds to do any of that? No. Can you still say a person who believes someone who is on there death bed is in perfect health is wrong? Yes you can because they have no idea what they are talking about. The same with morality. Morality is well defined as “actions which increase the well being of conscious creatures”. And if you don’t think morality is about the well being of conscious creatures then I don’t think you know what you are talking about.//

    To summarize your response: Morality = well being of conscious creatures. First, define “well being” from an Atheist standpoint.

    //The “leaders” will give you the same definition.//

    The reason why Atheists insist on defining their position as merely lacking belief is to avoid having to provide any logic and evidence for their worldview, so they claim there exists none, while simultaneously writing many bestsellers promoting this “nothing”. Sounds like a famous sitcom that used to be about nothing.

    //That’s what I said, you don’t need to be an atheist to be anti theist.//

    Which one of your “anti-theist “leaders is not an Atheist too.
    Harris, Dawkins, Bennet, Coyne, Greta Christina, Silverman, Mehta, Barker, Myers, Randi, Shermer, Stenger, Pinker, Kurtz, Krauss, Hitchens, Atkins, Hawking, Rosenberg, Singer, etc.

  144. Ron says:

    Animals communicate within their species but with howls, moans and weird noises etc. We don’t understand it doesn’t mean that they don’t communicate albeit with limited sounds. People understand and talk to their dogs and pets and communicate to them.

    Here in the Bible it mentions that it was Satan as a snake who deceived. The first man and woman created were perfectly created and lived a long life in all ways and must have had the knowledge to understand the sounds (language) before the fall of man.

    It is easier to believe a living thing can talk then to believe a non living spec of amino acid formed a unicellular bug and then mutated to become a bigger bug and mutated to becoming a fish and then and then whale and then a cow and then a ape an then a man (African man) then evolved into a brown man and then evolved into a white man.

    That is racist, sickening theory in new packaging with the new atheists trying to force it down our throats saying either believe or you are dumb.

    Being an Islamophobe and atheist is enough. Please don’t be a Christophobe. Or are you one already?

  145. Ron says:

    Eric,
    There is intelligence ( information, data and a code ) in every DNA. This code tells the cell what to do (replicate), how to do, when to do and when to stop doing. This complex formation of codes is intelligence which was deciphered when they mapped the human genome. Dr Francis Collins the director of the human Genome project said this is the language of God. From an atheist he became a theist.

    It is surprising that in all its replication when the finger print is formed (of all the ten fingers of the hand and including the ten of the toes) of a human being they are all different for all human beings, born before and born later.

    When intelligence is involved there is an intelligent being.

    If reproduction was only asexual we can even say that it could be because of evolution as there is not much intelligence involved (though there is intelligence in that also)
    But in sexual reproduction, where new life comes to birth whether it is in humans, animals or humans it cannot be originated without intelligence.

    It is sheer arrogance, ignorance, hatred of Christ, Christianity which makes you think that non living matter can give rise to living matter and then reproduce itself.

  146. RON:

    Using your logic: Does an embryo just “presto chango” turn into a person? How could that be? They don’t even have teeth?

  147. RON:

    If you are going to disagree with Evolution, at least understand it. Life on this planet began small enough that you could not see it with the naked eye. No one waved their hand and created fish, amphibians and land creatures, etc.

    Furthermore, to state that anyone who believe in the process of natural selection, must therefore be lockstep in agreement the Nazis, regarding their warped ideas concerning a superior race – this is just ignorance on a massive scale.

    I find this so often, when discussing Evolution with people who believe in talking snakes. It’s like talking to a child. No wonder you’re gullible enough to think that an angel broke ties with “god” created Hell and is sort of whispering in our ears, tempting us to do bad things.

    You are remarkably and profoundly ignorant. It it truly amazing.

  148. Ron says:

    Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. You’ve got hands and feet because your genes code for it. The same is true for any creature—dogs, camels, you name it.

    The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information.

    Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science—the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results—we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B—at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not—none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still no.

    That first point is devastating enough. But here’s how evolution gets buried even more.

    You’ve probably heard news accounts about how life could have started on earth “gazillions” of years ago in volcanoes, slush pools, crystals, rocks, you name it. Maybe you’ve heard something about “artificial” life or test-tube life or rotten-food-in-the-refrigerator life (okay, maybe not the last one).

    Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law—the Law of Biogenesis, to be exact.

    All these failed experiments, like the Miller-Urey experiment, really show is just how much intelligence is required for life to begin in the first place. (That is, way smarter than us.)

    Source: https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/evolution-impossible/

  149. Ron says:

    @Madfijian
    You are endorsing the view of the racist Nazis who said that Aryans have evolved faster and are higher than the other races with the Jews, Asians, brown below them and the Africans, Amazonians etc. just above the apes.

    The Nazis had eugenics labs and sterilized or killed people as they believed in survival of the fittest.
    It is sickening to know that you can endorse such views. Mao made whole lots of sick people disappear for the better use of available resources as they put this jungle theory of survival of the fittest to practice.

    Without God a mind can get warped. Friedrich Nietzsche a brilliant philosopher left a Christian upbringing and declared that God is dead. He was insane in his last years and was being nursed by his Christian mother.

    The resistant bacteria STILL remains a bacteria and not advance/evolve to become another higher plant species.

    The resistant virus STILL remains a virus and does not advance/evolve to become another higher animal species.

    Micro evolution is possible but never macro evolution. No species has ever changed into another species. Life cannot develop on its own. God is the author of life and He gives it and takes it.

  150. Madfijian:

    On your point about bacteria, it gets even stranger than that of course. “God” gave man dominion over all living things, in his best seller, “The Holy Bible”. When his ghost writer authored this, thousands of years ago, they did not know about bacteria. Oops.

    I’m wondering if “God” will come out with a second edition, making room for all of the scientific discoveries, such as the Earth being round, the Earth not being only 6,000 years old, etc.

    As someone who works in the entertainment field I can tell you that, as a work of fiction, better to keep the talking snake, parting the Red Sea and all of the other special effects in there, because that is how you get a blockbuster.

    Generally speaking, when marketing anything in “Self Help”. The more bullshit you add, the better it will sell. If you tell people the truth, that serious inquiry takes work, you’re not going to sell many copies of anything. The quicker the fix, the more that book is going to fly off the shelves. Get it down to a simple formula, such as believe in Jesus go to Heaven, don’t believe and go to Hell. Period. This is what we call “high concept”. And the church has kept people under their control with this winning formula for a very long time.

  151. Steve says:

    @Phoenix

    “Give me an example of a deity that does not implicate any non-material aspects, ” “a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life”., Nothing “non material” in that definition.

    “Because of its accompanied supernatural abilities, abilities which is beyond the natural realm?” How do you distinguish between “supernatural abilities” and “having powers greater than those of ordinary humans”? Also an atheist doesn’t even have to be a naturalist.

    “C: [Therefore morality is ontologically grounded in transcendence]” 1) This wasn’t your original claim. 2) You haven’t proven that morals are transcendent you just asserted it.

    “Presupposing that morality implies personal preference and opinion is blatant question begging” You mean like your response above?

    “Yes, there does exist many opinions and preferences to what morality entails but it does not logically follow that it must be subjective” Morality = Your opinion as to how people should behave. If you think that morality is inherent to the universe and not the product of minds then the burden of proof is on you to show this.

    “If beauty is subjective then you can’t complain when someone else beholds beauty in an image you consider ugly.” Morality is like the concept of physical health is the concept of physical health redundant because it’s not built into the fabric universe? No. Can we still judge who is healthy and who is sick? Yes. Can we still do things that increase our health and decrease our chances of getting sick? Yes. Do you need an absolute perfect health which is in another dimension and which is independent of human minds to do any of that? No. Can you still say a person who believes someone who is on there death bed is in perfect health is wrong? Yes you can because they have no idea what they are talking about. The same with morality. Morality is well defined as “actions which increase the well being of conscious creatures”. And if you don’t think morality is about the well being of conscious creatures then I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

    ” I’m only interested in your leaders’ version of Atheism, the ones you quote and whose work you cite. Your personal brand of Atheism has no bearing on that.” The “leaders” will give you the same definition.

    “A hindu is still by definition a Theist.” That’s what I said, you don’t need to be an atheist to be anti theist.

  152. madfijian says:

    Any one doubting the theory of evolution need only ask the relatives of the 700,000 people who die each year from bacteria resistance to antibiotics. The entire premise of Evolution is the survival of the fittest. Bacteria developing resistance to our medicines is one of the strongest possible evidence of evolution at work. Over time the strongest of the bacteria in our bodies develop a resistance to the antibiotics that really has not evolved since penicillin was invented but the bacteria have. Their is mounting evidence of natural selection at work right in front of us. Mosquitoes are evolving for instance in many parts of the world and the usual repellents and bugs sprays are not as effective any more.
    Even if the evidence is as clear as black and white most religious people will ignore it simply because it does not fit their ideology and questions their long held beliefs. We agnostics and Atheists are the first to admit that we are wrong and we keep an open mind to things. We make our decisions based on evidence and if the evidence suggest that we are wrong we admit and move on. That is the difference between us and the religious majority. Climate change is one such example. 99% of the worlds scientists agree that it is man made and very real. Islands like Kiribati and Tuvalu are almost sinking and yet dumb religious people even dumb US politicians say that it is a hoax. Even if half of the US west Coast is under water they will say that it is a hoax and Jesus will fix it. This kind of rigid ideology is not only stupid it is down rite dangerous and that is why it needs to be challenged at every level possible.

  153. Phoenix says:

    //Nothing in the definition of “Deity” implies it is necessarily immaterial or supernatural. Wikipedia says.
    “In religious belief a deity is EITHER a natural or supernatural being, who is thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Some religions have one supreme deity, while others have multiple deities. A male deity is a god (though “God” is used in a gender-neutral way in monotheistic religions), while a female deity is a goddess.”//

    Give me an example of a deity that does not implicate any non-material aspects, whether it’s believed to be an avatar who reincarnated or someone with supernatural abilities. Isn’t that precisely why the deity is rejected? Becuase of its accompanied supernatural abilities, abilities which is beyond the natural realm?

    //This is not your claim you claim the source or benchmark of morality is a God being. Unless you are now changing that and instead claim that morality is like Plato’s “perfect forms”. I.e there is a standard of “absolute good” that exists in a realm off it own – independent of the mind and human opinion.//

    As always you are evading your intellectual responsibilty to provide sufficient evidence for your claims. I will go the distance and provide you with a disjunctive syllogism in support of transcendent morality.

    Think of the form thus: (X v Y) , (~X) ∴ (Y)

    P1: [If metaphysical naturalism is true then moral values possess physical/chemical properties OR Theism is true and moral values are transcendent with irreducible normative properties]

    P2: [Physical Laws do no specify any value-laden properties in matter]

    C: [Therefore morality is ontologically grounded in transcendence]

    // If you understood what morality was you would understand why it’s subjective. Morality is based on preferences, morality is an opinion about how human beings should behave. It is by DEFINITION subjective. If you believe there is standard of “objective good” – independent of mind and human opinion- the burden of proof is on you to show this. Also note even if such a thing exists your God is redundant since this “objective good” would exist independent of any mind – including any God beings mind.//

    Nice try but you have defined your way into winning. Presupposing that morality implies personal preference and opinion is blatant question begging. Yes, there does exist many opinions and preferences to what morality entails but it does not logically follow that it must be subjective. Failure to establish an agreement on a concept makes it no less objective.
    Furthermore, you still cannot apply a universal objection against a relative concept. If beauty is subjective then you can’t complain when someone else beholds beauty in an image you consider ugly.

    //My point was 1)Most Arabic speakers are Muslims does not equal that all Arabic speakers are Muslims or that being a Arabic speaker necessitates that you are Muslim. Likewise just because most atheists might be materialists or believers in “scientism” it does not mean all of them are or that being an atheists necessitates that you are a materialist or whatever.//

    Like I told Eric, I’m only interested in your leaders’ version of Atheism, the ones you quote and whose work you cite. Your personal brand of Atheism has no bearing on that.

    // The atheist doesn’t have to say anything beyond there is no convincing evidence or philosophical argument for any deity(s). Any View beyond that is not atheism (even if it might be related to or even dependent on there atheism).//

    Same as above

    // I.e you can be a Hindu and oppose the Christian God – like why who sometimes comments on this site.//

    A hindu is still by definition a Theist.

    //No (secular) anti theists oppose organised religion and belief in any deity, //

    Where in my list is there any non Atheists

  154. Steve says:

    @Ron

    “So it is not unexpected that you would resort to name-calling and persecution of Christ, Christians and Christianity.” Even though I haven’t name called anybody? Also how can a human being “persecute” what you believe is the omnipotent creator of the universe?
    “Mathew Parris saw the noticeable difference of Christian evangelism and relief efforts by missionaries in Africa and thus endorsed it despite his deviant lifestyle.” How can he see that when you claim he is a sociopathic, amoral, hate mongering, God denying, hell bound homosexual? You can’t have it both ways either unbelievers in Christ are evil and immoral in which case you can’t quote them to try to show Christians and Christian teachings are moral or else people are capable of goodness and love etc without believing some guy got tortured and nailed on a cross how he could forgive himself.

    By the way quoting scripture is not proof of anything, people criticising Christianity is not “persecution”.

  155. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    “I thought it was obvious, the term “deity” in the definition “lack of belief in a deity” was in fact a reference to the non-material. You imply that ‘deity’ could be referring to a physical being as well. Seems rather an odd assumption.” Nothing in the definition of “Deity” implies it is necessarily immaterial or supernatural. Wikipedia says.
    “In religious belief a deity is EITHER a natural or supernatural being, who is thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Some religions have one supreme deity, while others have multiple deities. A male deity is a god (though “God” is used in a gender-neutral way in monotheistic religions), while a female deity is a goddess.”

    “C. Scott Littleton’s Gods, Goddesses, and Mythologydefined a deity as “a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life”.,

    “The claim that the moral realm is non-physical, is a negative claim, ” This is not your claim you claim the source or benchmark of morality is a God being. Unless you are now changing that and instead claim that morality is like Plato’s “perfect forms”. I.e there is a standard of “absolute good” that exists in a realm off it own – independent of the mind and human opinion.

    “You shoulder the burden of proof since your positive claim asserts that morality is a physically derived concept which must be proven empirically in conjunction with Atheistic epistemology.” If you understood what morality was you would understand why it’s subjective. Morality is based on preferences, morality is an opinion about how human beings should behave. It is by DEFINITION subjective. If you believe there is standard of “objective good” – independent of mind and human opinion- the burden of proof is on you to show this. Also note even if such a thing exists your God is redundant since this “objective good” would exist independent of any mind – including any God beings mind.

    // Ideas that may espoused by the majority of atheists is NOT the same as atheism. Just like if you are can speak Arabic it does not necessarily follow you are a Muslim.//
    “Theatre of the absurd. There is no connection between language and lack of belief in a deity.” My point was 1)Most Arabic speakers are Muslims does not equal that all Arabic speakers are Muslims or that being a Arabic speaker necessitates that you are Muslim. Likewise just because most atheists might be materialists or believers in “scientism” it does not mean all of them are or that being an atheists necessitates that you are a materialist or whatever.
    //Atheism = Lack of belief in a God(s). This is not what your attacking.//
    “I attack the positive views Atheists hold which allow them to negate theist propositions. You imply, all Atheist views are negative, which is demonstrably false.” The atheist doesn’t have to say anything beyond there is no convincing evidence or philosophical argument for any deity(s). Any View beyond that is not atheism (even if it might be related to or even dependent on there atheism).
    //Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications. In secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.”//
    “Atheism is a requirement for Anti-theism. ” No not necessarily you can be opposed to a certain god or gods and still believe in a different God or gods (as it says above). I.e you can be a Hindu and oppose the Christian God – like why who sometimes comments on this site.
    ” Anti-theism is just a more aggressive version of Atheism.” No (secular) anti theists oppose organised religion and belief in any deity, atheists do not necessarily need to believe that. As Christopher Hitchens said I know some atheists who say they wish it was true but unfortunately there is no evidence to think it is. An anti theist says I am very glad there is no evidence to think that a God exists because the world would be horrific if it was true.

  156. Ron says:

    Hi Steve,
    Jesus said in Matthew 5:11
    “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
    Further he said in John 15:21
    But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.
    1 Peter 4:14
    If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

    So it is not unexpected that you would resort to name-calling and persecution of Christ, Christians and Christianity.

    Mathew Parris saw the noticeable difference of Christian evangelism and relief efforts by missionaries in Africa and thus endorsed it despite his disbelief in a deity and his deviant lifestyle.

    Many atheists like you on the other hand are so much filled with hate that you can’t acknowledge any virtous act done by Christians and believe any report of good work on Christianity even if the source is atheist and thus not biased.
    Phoenix points out your fallacies clearly and you fail to understand it or I would say you even refuse to acknowledge it.

    Christ is the way, the truth and life

  157. Phoenix says:

    Steve,

    I hope you are aware that when I drop a discussion it does not mean I concede the debate but only that you provide no new material or rational reasons to analyze. I will however take another look at your evidence or lack of evidence.

    //Nothing in the definition of atheism mentions anything about any “non material”.//

    I thought it was obvious, the term “deity” in the definition “lack of belief in a deity” was in fact a reference to the non-material. You imply that ‘deity’ could be referring to a physical being as well. Seems rather an odd assumption.

    //Theists CLAIM to derive their morals from a transcendent source, funnily enough none of them have ever shown this and their morals look suspicious like they are derived from human nature and not any supernatural being.//

    The claim that the moral realm is non-physical, is a negative claim, which asserts that something does not exist physically. You shoulder the burden of proof since your positive claim asserts that morality is a physically derived concept which must be proven empirically in conjunction with Atheistic epistemology.

    // Ideas that may espoused by the majority of atheists is NOT the same as atheism. Just like if you are can speak Arabic it does not necessarily follow you are a Muslim.//

    Theatre of the absurd. There is no connection between language and lack of belief in a deity.

    //Atheism = Lack of belief in a God(s). This is not what your attacking.//

    I attack the positive views Atheists hold which allow them to negate theist propositions. You imply, all Atheist views are negative, which is demonstrably false.

    //Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications. In secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.”//

    Atheism is a requirement for Anti-theism. If you disagree then show me which one in my list of Atheist names is a theist. Anti-theism is just a more aggressive version of Atheism.

  158. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    “Atheists have restricted themselves to the material while theists accept the possibility of the non-material.” Nothing in the definition of atheism mentions anything about any “non material”.

    “Theists derive their ethics from a transcendent source while Atheists insist they can be good without God. The Atheist’s moral authority is self-derived and declares himself intellectually superior for elevating himself above the rest of humanity.” Theists CLAIM to derive their morals from a transcendent source, funnily enough none of them have ever shown this and their morals look suspicious like they are derived from human nature and not any supernatural being.
    “Despite your persistent denial in a common class of Atheists, here is what the vast majority of Atheists espouse:” Ideas that may espoused by the majority of atheists is NOT the same as atheism. Just like if you are can speak Arabic it does not necessarily follow you are a Muslim.

    “You may have your own unique take on what Atheism entails but what really matters is the version adopted and advocated by Atheist celebs and intellectuals. This is the brand of Atheism I attack.” Atheism = Lack of belief in a God(s). This is not what your attacking.

    “Now why is that so hard to understand?” Because your not attacking atheism but Anti theism. Please learn the difference as it will help clear your confusion on this.
    Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications. In secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.”
    Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous or destructive. Christopher Hitchens offers an example of this approach in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which he writes: “I’m not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

  159. Steve says:

    @Ron
    “Because in your heart of hearts it is that racist theory of Darwinism, natural selection and the survival of the fittest which is at play.” Don’t pretend that you know anything about those concepts.
    “You badly need Christ then you will get that compassion, love which atheists lack.” If you didn’t believe big brother/daddy is watching you will will start hating, robbing, exploiting and doing whatever else to your fellow human beings? Thanks for telling us what a sociopath you are, and this nonsense is supposed to be the basis of morality.

    “Mathew Parris though an anti-Christian, atheist and gay saw the contributions, love, charity, relief work and the peace brought on by those who profess faith in Christ that he endorses it though he does not believe in it.” Why should I believe him? This guy is a sociopathic hate Monger according to you. I also remember you linking gay people to serial killers yet you have no problem quoting the opinion of a gay man when it supports your view, how dishonest.

  160. Phoenix says:

    Eric,

    You may have your own unique take on what Atheism entails but what really matters is the version adopted and advocated by Atheist celebs and intellectuals. This is the brand of Atheism I attack.

    If you have a problem with that type of Atheism then your beef is not with me but should be aimed at Harris, Dawkins, Bennet, Silverman, Shermer, Stenger, et al. They are the influential Atheists who make an impact on the public. They are not just apathetic to religious issues but fierce activists promoting Atheism.

    Now why is that so hard to understand?

  161. PHOENIX:

    You said, “Atheists have restricted themselves to the material”.

    WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

    Lack of belief in a certain deity does not necessarily mean that one rejects the idea that parts of “reality” are not material.

    You are putting out false information to support your dependency on an imaginary friend. You’re going to have to try a little harder.

  162. Phoenix says:

    Eric,

    There is a clear distinction between atheists and theists. Each is a class of its own with variations between sub groups while retaining their core concepts. Atheists have restricted themselves to the material while theists accept the possibility of the non-material.

    Theists derive their ethics from a transcendent source while Atheists insist they can be good without God. The Atheist’s moral authority is self-derived and declares himself intellectually superior for elevating himself above the rest of humanity.

    Despite your persistent denial in a common class of Atheists, here is what the vast majority of Atheists espouse:

    1) All reality is Material (Materialism)
    2) Science is the ultimate path to knowledge (Scienitism)
    3) Evolution is a necessary premise for Materialism (dehumanizing of our race)
    4) Subjective morals
    5) Universe from nothing or a universe from a multiverse
    6) No free will (Determinism)
    7) Life evolved from dead chemicals
    etc, etc, etc.

  163. RON: Let’s exercise a little common sense. I’m sure you have had the same experience I have on this one. I have known many Christians who are materialistic, mean spirited, bigoted, selfish and lack compassion. And I have known many nonbelievers in Jesus who are very kind and loving and compassionate.

    I’m sure you have encountered the same thing.

    So it’s really just fiction that one can only have love in their heart through “Christ” and that “Atheism” leads to all of these horrible attributes that I’m sure we have both observed in many followers of Jesus.

    My point is this: Humans are going to be humans and will be subject to human nature. In the civilized world in particular, most people do not rape or kill or steal, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Your argument is pure fiction as you live in a fantasy land.

    Belief in an imaginary friend is not the only path towards being a good person, being kind to others, feeling compassion, being willing to forgive or taking care of those less fortunate. It is one path towards finding that within yourself. But it is most certainly not the only way to tap into ones humanity. There are less childish and more rational ways than believing in an imaginary friend, to simply not be a jerk.

  164. Ron says:

    @Steve.
    That is what atheism does to you. It will not remove the hatred, materialism and unseen disregard for fellow humans. Because in your heart of hearts it is that racist theory of Darwinism, natural selection and the survival of the fittest which is at play.

    You badly need Christ then you will get that compassion, love which atheists lack.

    Mathew Parris though an anti-Christian, atheist and gay saw the contributions, love, charity, relief work and the peace brought on by those who profess faith in Christ that he endorses it though he does not believe in it.

  165. Steve says:

    @Ron
    “Salvation is never forced by God and there is no hope for you or her or anyone who rejects Christ.” This is the point you don’t get, we don’t believe your God exists so we cannot *reject* him. Can you *reject* Santa? See what I mean?

    “You can only win Muslims with love, compassion and when you work in their areas (conflict zones) providing relief” Okay atheists lack love and compassion and are full of hatred and also liars that deny that they have hatred. “I do not want to play God.” Sounds like it.

    “Read this from Mathew Parris (an atheist and a gay)” This guy should be stoned to death according to the bible and anti gay bigots like you and Walid Shoebat (and for being an atheist as well of course.) Unless you believe in my imaginary friend Jesus you can’t have love in your heart, got it. Maybe believing in Santa motivates little children to be nice to each other I don’t know but it still doesn’t change the fact that Santa and Jesus are imaginary beings.

  166. RON: Well we agree one thing. If the right percentage of African Muslims converted to Christianity that would be a huge improvement. I think you would still see a fair amount stonings and other forms of brutality, but less of it. More importantly there would be less of a likelihood of any movement gaining power that seeks to spread Islam by force.

    Also, if you look at a world map by IQ, in certain regions this objective would perhaps not require much convincing. Just switch out some of the rituals, the symbols and the leaders.

    But what really helps with getting violent Islamic jihadists to see reason is to bomb them back into the stone ages.

    When the Japanese kept coming at us, with their own form of suicide bombers (the kamikazes) we tried fire bombing all of Tokyo and they still would not back down. Once we nuked a couple of their major cities, this whole idea of world domination and suicide attacks went away in a flash (literally). And now they are very important trading partners with policy of not tolerating Islamic trouble in their country.

    So sure, in some regions hugs and Bibles and clean water will do the job. And in other places, we just need to consider the world financial consequences, be very strategic and then go into the Islamic hot spots and neutralize them. I believe that Donald Trump is probably the right man to do this and I feel he can probably do it without dropping any bombs, but rather seeming like he’s going to. We shall see.

    Bombs not Bibles baby. I live in the real world. You can hold tight to your imaginary friend and let the realists sort this one out.

  167. Ron says:

    If you alienate the Christians with your hate and then add that disclaimer of hate-denial it does not help in your farcical counter-jihad movement.

    You can only win Muslims with love, compassion and when you work in their areas (conflict zones) providing relief. The absence of atheist/secular NGOs in conflict zones is evident that you just don’t care, you lack compassion and only care about advancing a godless, materialistic, hedonistic and immoral and hateful agenda essentially anti-Christian.

    Atheists are always at the forefront when it comes to supporting abortion (calling it pro-choice), euthanasia, legalizing prostitution, divorce, homosexuality, bestiality, common-law or live-in relationships etc. In Korea, China and parts of India we see Christianity growing. These countries will become economic powerhouses in the near future.

    Whereas the West where atheists are promoting their agenda described above are slowly becoming vassal states to Islam or to the powerhouses like China, India, Korea etc.

    Read this from Mathew Parris (an atheist and a gay)

    Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

    I used to avoid this truth by applauding – as you can – the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It’s a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

    But this doesn’t fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

    Christ is the way, the truth and life.

  168. To be clear…

    I am not anti-Christian.

    I am not anti-God.

    I’m just someone who has a thirst for Truth and a low tolerance for bullshit.

  169. madfijian says:

    It seems that the popular point of view coming from the Christian side is that the like of Eric, Steve and myself are christian haters. Let me be categorically clear i hate no one. While i cant speak for Steve and Eric the point of my argument is simple. Religion poisons everything. Do you know that when someone leaves the Jehovah witness church his or her family meaning siblings and other loved ones who are still part of the “program” is not allowed to communicate with them. They can discuses say their fathers will or something mundane like that but not get close to them have a beer and just be family. This from a Christian group who claim that only 144,000 people will make it to heaven. The point is Religion makes people do absurd and some really dumb things. And to top it of the silliest thing is that its all based on pure blind faith and in most cases books written thousands of years ago. What i am saying is that you can hate Islam all you want but do not say that they are like that because they worship the wrong God. Look at your own backyard first before pointing a finger. Where is the violence in Islam originating. Again we are trying too show you logic and reason. I value humanity for what we are. Yes their are lunatics among est us but is it not important that we be humans first before clouding our humaneness with something so archaic and barbaric as religion which has never made sense even to the idiots who wrote the books that religious people follow.

  170. RON:

    So, that’s a “yes”. Anne Frank clearly had heard about Jesus. Everyone living in the Western World has Jesus rammed down our throats constantly. How could she have not heard about Christianity?

    So you are clearly stating that if someone as bad as Hitler were to accept Jesus Christ, even at the last minute before death, they will go to Heaven. But Anne Frank, because she’s a Jew, will burn in a lake of hell fire, for all eternity.

    And people wonder how the Holocaust happened? When you dehumanize a group of people, it’s amazing what can happen.

    Your “merciful god” is a figment of your imagination. Such a “god” is hardly merciful. “Believe me that I sent my son to be hideously tortured and executed, so that I can get around a rule that I created, or else be cast into a lake of hell fire, for all eternity, my child”. What a monster.

    That “god” is a sadistic, immoral, unjust, narcissistic, creep.

    Belief in an evil god creates an evil man. And such an evil man will brainwash children to believe in this brand of bullshit. He will brainwash a child to believe they must submit to his imaginary friend, or else burn in a lake of hell fire for all eternity.

    This is just sick. And you want to tell me that this doctrine is the cornerstone of where we get our morality from?

    Total insanity.

  171. Ron says:

    Hey Eric,
    God is a merciful God and so if she has rejected Christ as an adult and as you are rejecting then she herself or you yourself are responsible for salvation which is free gift on acceptance of Christ.

    Salvation is never forced by God and there is no hope for you or her or anyone who rejects Christ.
    But if she has never been told about Christ and thus never knew Christ then a merciful God would certainly do justice.
    I do not want to play God.

    Oscar Wilde was an atheist and lived a hedonistic lifestyle but when he was on his deathbed he repented and called for a priest. I don’t know whether his repentance was genuine because God alone knows.
    But if he has sincerely repented then he is in heaven.

    I am not God, I am just a humble guy who accepted Christ only after seeing a friend who became a Christian and who changed so radically for the better and became so compassionate and generous to anyone in need irrespective of their faith that I felt I need to be the same also.

    Read the article by Mathew Parris and the book by Peter Hitchens.

    Mathew Parris tells you about the difference between secular NGOs and the Christian NGOs.

    Christ is the truth, the way and life.

  172. RON:

    You are being very slippery, so I’m going to simplify my YES or NO question:

    Does Anne Frank get cast into a lake of hell fire for being a Jew who did not accept Jesus Christ as her personal lord and savior?

    YES or NO?

  173. Ron says:

    @Eric, you are missing the point, I already answered that question in the post below addressed to madfijian et al It is reproduced below.

    Madfijian.
    Let me answer your question.

    Of all the Nazis tried and given the death penalty only Ribbentrop seems to have been repented. None of the Nazi top brass were Christians otherwise they would never have closed parochial schools and catholic schools. Apart from Jews, gypsies the prisoners of conscience were many practicing Christians pastors and priests. Other clergy had been silenced by the brown shirts. Hitler lived with his concubine Eva Braun and married her in a private event without a priest just before he committed suicide.

    God is a merciful God and if you and your supporters in spite of your hatred towards Christ, Christianity, Jews, Muslims and may be other theists have still hope because the door of salvation is open to anyone who sincerely repents AND accepts Jesus.
    To answer your hypothetical question when we say anyone it includes Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. and if they had repented and accepted Christ, yes a merciful God would have accepted them
    But please note that Hitler and Mao never repented. Stalin according to biographers raised his fist in an act of defiance against God before death.

    You have to look at the above in a positive hopeful way that in spite of any sin you may have committed like sins of omission, commission, lies, homosexuality, incest, bribery, fornication, theft, blasphemy and profanity of God’s name etc. you still have hope when you repent and accept Christ.

  174. PHOENIX:

    Zeus is the one true god. If you do not subscribe to that belief then you are an ATHEIST to that particular belief system.

    But that does not mean I get to apply other attributes to you, such as you only accept empirical evidence or that you have a dogmatic relationship to science. Rather, it means that when it comes to believing that Zeus is god, you are an Atheist to that belief.

    Why is this so hard for you to understand?

  175. RON: You are a coward for dodging this question, over and over. So I will ask it again…

    There is no such thing as an “Atheist Doctrine”‘ other than rejecting the belief in a deity. Period.

    Now, TRUE OR FALSE:

    If Hitler had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior before dying, he would go to Heaven. But Anne Frank, because she was a Jew, would be cast into a lake of hell fire, for all eternity.

    TRUE OR FALSE?

    Do not dance around the question. Just answer it. We’ll get to Mao and the others in a moment. True or false please.

  176. PHOENIX:

    Atheism, unlike Christianity or Mormonism, is NOT a belief “system”. You are treating it as such. There is no unified organization and no doctrine.

    For example, a person can be celibate for any number of reasons. It’s not a lifestyle choice. I’m just not in a relationship with a deity. But I do not share a doctrine with Sam Harris for example. I differ with him on many huge points.

    I feel you are being intentionally ignorant on this point. I am not advocating that someone join the club, because there is no club. Although it is self evident to me that there is a higher power, I see no evidence that the Abrahamic god is real. That’s it. Period.

    Why is this so hard for you to understand?

  177. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    “Then evidence is the criteria to believe all things, and Atheists only accept empirical evidence for all claims. Thus empiricism is the standard point of reference against which all claims are measured. I have never met an Atheist who did adhere to this criterion. Therefore, I can state with certainty that science is the universal requirement for all Atheist suppositions. Is a universal appeal to science not a worldview especially when it is invoked into areas which science does not govern?
    Please answer me this.” There is no evidence for Odin how is that a worldview? There is no evidence for any of islam’s claims or Hindus claim of reincarnation and “divine justice” through karma how is that a worldview?
    “For example we know that if a being could exact causation then such a being must be omnipotent, it must be an agent capable of intention (free will), and must exist neccessarily outside matter and space-time. In short, The First cause must be consistent with many of the attributes of classical theism.” Omnipotent does not equal Good it could just as well be evil or indifferent.

    “Moral relativism fails Reductio ad absurdum and objective moral values is the only plausible option.” You can have morality without any “objective morality” indeed the concept of objective doesn’t make any sense. How can there be values independent of subjective feelings and the consequences of the actions?
    “If morals are subjective then you cannot lay an absolute objection against a relative and subjective concept.” What do you mean by “absolute objection”? I can object to things like murder because of the effect they have on individuals and society and don’t need any “objective morality” to do that.

    ” If rape is fine for me but not for you, then you can’t complain when I fulfill my subjective moral duties, since there exists no universal moral code.” Certainly I can 99+% of people don’t like being raped or there female relatives to be raped so if you act on your “subjective moral duty” to rape women you are soon going to end up dead or in a cage.

    “The path from objective moral values and duties lead directly to God and no other source. We do not find particles of morality in nature or outer space.” You need to show how you came to this conclusion.
    “Stop making universal statements. You have no idea what everyone knows. you cannot prove your universal claim.” I know nobody has ever show it, if they have then what morals are these and where is the proof these morals come from a God?
    “God cannot violate his own goodness. Just as God cannot kill himself, make 2+2=3, or violate laws of logic. God cannot contradict his nature.” What God commands is good -according to divine command theory – so if God says to torture, rape and kill little kids you are morally obligated to do it. If you have a problem with it, it is just your own subjective feeling and not Gods absolute goodness and morals.

    “Serial killers do not like being killed either. Muhammad constantly evaded being killed in battle, such as hiding behind his men as shields, wearing 2 coats of mail or just plain making up excuses not to participate in battle. Does that make him a fine moral example?” I already answered this, you might like killing but other people don’t like to be killed. Even if you want to kill everybody else or rape every women and have the power to do it you cannot build a functioning moral system based on that. Or let’s put it this way the goal in this system would be 1) “rape of any and all women that I desire”. 2) However rape results in psychological pain for the women and of course for any children born from it. 3) Society can’t survive if everybody is severely psychological damaged. So this value of “rape” is destructive and can’t flourish and survive therefore you can’t have things like rape as part of a moral code. Do you now understand “my” system for morality and its basis? If so do you disagree with it? And if so why? And what is your alternative?
    “Islam is increasing rapidly. That constitutes as thriving although their huge numbers are mainly due to high birth rates. North Korean regime is not declining in any way. You stated that immoral acts bring about destruction and they won’t be able to survive. But I’ve shown you the contrary is also the case.” How do they survive by producing things which are useful to society or by robbing other people and using violence and terror to sustain themselves? You cannot build a functioning society based on the values of ISIS it is not possible.

    “Well it’s thriving in 3rd world countries nonetheless and Islam is thriving in the West.” Islam is not thriving. There is no Islamic country in existence today – except for IS which is not a functioning society but a gang of thugs, serial killers, thieves and sadists.

  178. Phoenix says:

    Correcting typo:

    I have never met an Atheist who did “NOT” adhere to this criterion.

  179. Phoenix says:

    // No they don’t, all atheists say is that there is no evidence for any God – and that’s it. It is NOT a worldview in itself. Let’s replace the word deity with Odin and the word atheism with Aodinist from your reply to Eric and hopefully you get the point//

    Then evidence is the criteria to believe all things, and Atheists only accept empirical evidence for all claims. Thus empiricism is the standard point of reference against which all claims are measured. I have never met an Atheist who did adhere to this criterion. Therefore, I can state with certainty that science is the universal requirement for all Atheist suppositions. Is a universal appeal to science not a worldview especially when it is invoked into areas which science does not govern?

    Please answer me this.

  180. Phoenix says:

    Steve,

    //Even if these arguments are successful (which they are not) they don’t tell us anything about the character of this creator or indeed creators.//

    God’s character can also be inferred from the KCA. For example we know that if a being could exact causation then such a being must be omnipotent, it must be an agent capable of intention (free will), and must exist neccessarily outside matter and space-time. In short, The First cause must be consistent with many of the attributes of classical theism.

    //1) There is no proof that there is a objective morality.//

    Moral relativism fails Reductio ad absurdum and objective moral values is the only plausible option. If morals are subjective then you cannot lay an absolute objection against a relative and subjective concept. If rape is fine for me but not for you, then you can’t complain when I fulfill my subjective moral duties, since there exists no universal moral code.

    //2)Even if there is a objective morality there is no proof it comes from or somehow depends on a God.//

    The path from objective moral values and duties lead directly to God and no other source. We do not find particles of morality in nature or outer space.

    //3) Nobody knows what Gods morality is. Nobody has ever shown their morality is from a God.//

    Stop making universal statements. You have no idea what everyone knows. you cannot prove your universal claim.

    //4) If God said raping and torturing little kids is good would that make raping and torturing little kids objectively good?//

    God cannot violate his own goodness. Just as God cannot kill himself, make 2+2=3, or violate laws of logic. God cannot contradict his nature.

    //Let’s state 2 facts which form the basis of morality 1) Human beings have feelings, needs and desires. 2) Human beings are a social species and have no choice but to share this planet with other human beings. Whenever you like it or not your behaviour affects other people. 3) Given these facts society has to have a moral code and laws which work and which reflect these needs. So a serial killer may like killing other people but other people do not like to be killed. Values which are destructive and harmful to other people don’t thrive and survive because of this reason. Nor could a society which values random brutal murders survive for obvious reasons.//

    Serial killers do not like being killed either. Muhammad constantly evaded being killed in battle, such as hiding behind his men as shields, wearing 2 coats of mail or just plain making up excuses not to participate in battle. Does that make him a fine moral example?

    //In what way is Islamic countries and North Korea “thriving”? These are rogue psychopathic States. They are like Mafia – a criminal sub culture which preys on everyone else and sustains itself by force and violence (and secrecy also).//

    Islam is increasing rapidly. That constitutes as thriving although their huge numbers are mainly due to high birth rates. North Korean regime is not declining in any way. You stated that immoral acts bring about destruction and they won’t be able to survive. But I’ve shown you the contrary is also the case.

    // It’s hardly “thriving” if it’s reduced to terror attacks in poor third world countries.//

    Well it’s thriving in 3rd world countries nonetheless and Islam is thriving in the West.

  181. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    //If you reject the proposition that big foot exists that is a worldview? Abigfootism is a world view?//
    “Your straw man and false analogy does not detract from the fact that Atheists advocate a very specific worldview, which they claim is supported by logic and science.” No they don’t, all atheists say is that there is no evidence for any God – and that’s it. It is NOT a worldview in itself. Let’s replace the word deity with Odin and the word atheism with Aodinist from your reply to Eric and hopefully you get the point. “With that definition in mind, it is then fair to state that Aodinists may believe any fantasy as long as they do not appeal to Odin. Any act is permissible as long as it does not involve worshiping Odin. The most heinous acts are congruent with Aodinism provided it does not contradict their lack of belief in Odin Period.”

    “Idealism posits that reality is fundamentally a mental construct. This is more likely to be adopted by theists, albeit most theists are dualists (accepting both material and non-material aspects of reality). Phenomenalism is more likely to be adopted by Atheists, since it’s often seen as an extreme form of Empiricism.” This is also what the Phenomenalists believe, they do not believe there is any reality independent of perception and thus is a extremely radical form of empiricism as you say.

  182. Phoenix says:

    Steve,

    //If you reject the proposition that big foot exists that is a worldview? Abigfootism is a world view?//

    Your straw man and false analogy does not detract from the fact that Atheists advocate a very specific worldview, which they claim is supported by logic and science.

    //No this is an philosophy called Phenomenalism,
    Phenomenalism is best thought of as a secular idealism. Like idealism, it holds (roughly) that objects are dependent upon our perceptions of them. Unlike idealism, however, it is not committed to the existence of a God who is constantly perceiving everything.”
    Also note many theists are/were Phenomenalists (or idealists which is essentially the same thing).//

    Idealism posits that reality is fundamentally a mental construct. This is more likely to be adopted by theists, albeit most theists are dualists (accepting both material and non-material aspects of reality). Phenomenalism is more likely to be adopted by Atheists, since it’s often seen as an extreme form of Empiricism.

  183. Steve says:

    @Ron

    Bull, if you accept Jesus and believe in the fairy tale nonsense written in the bible you get a ticket to eternal bliss – even if you are a serial killer or dictator. If you live a moral life and don’t accept Jesus because you have no evidence for any of the bibles claims then you go to hell for all eternity. Even though God could just have created a world without suffering and where everyone would know of his existence and freely choose to have a relationship with him. Your omnipotent and omniscient God couldn’t do that nah better send some prophets to Bronze Age barbarians in the Middle East and then have myself tortured and killed so I can forgive myself.

  184. Phoenix says:

    Eric,

    You’ve done absolutely nothing to disprove any of my statements. You merely charge religion when your paradigm is challenged.

    //There is no such thing as an “Atheist Doctrine”‘ other than rejecting the belief in a deity. Period.//

    With that definition in mind, it is then fair to state that Atheists may believe any fantasy as long as they do not appeal to a deity. Any act is permissible as long as it does not involve worshiping a deity. The most heinous acts are congruent with Atheism, provided it does not contradict their lack of belief in a deity. Period.

  185. Ron says:

    The article is reproduced here

    “AS AN ATHEIST, I TRULY BELIEVE AFRICA NEEDS GOD” by Matthew Parris
    .
    August 11, 2012 at 2:53am

    This article was written by a Times journalist in the UK in December 2008. It highlights the general message from the first section of Stay Free.

    AS AN ATHEIST, I TRULY BELIEVE AFRICA NEEDS GOD

    by Matthew Parris (The Times – 27/12/08)

    Reposted from:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece

    “Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it’s Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.

    It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

    Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

    I used to avoid this truth by applauding – as you can – the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It’s a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

    But this doesn’t fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

    First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world – a directness in their dealings with others – that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

    At 24, travelling by land across the continent reinforced this impression. From Algiers to Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, then right through the Congo to Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, four student friends and I drove our old Land Rover to Nairobi.

    We slept under the stars, so it was important as we reached the more populated and lawless parts of the sub-Sahara that every day we find somewhere safe by nightfall. Often near a mission.

    Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers – in some ways less so – but more open.

    This time in Malawi it was the same. I met no missionaries. You do not encounter missionaries in the lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents, as you do with the big NGOs. But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. âPrivatelyâ because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.

    It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man’s place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.

    There’s long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: âtheirsâ and therefore best for âthemâ; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.

    I don’t follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the âbig manâ and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.

    Anxiety – fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things – strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won’t take the initiative, won’t take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.

    How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds – at the very moment of passing into the new – that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? âBecause it’s there,â he said.

    To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It’s… well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary’s further explanation – that nobody else had climbed it – would stand as a second reason for passivity.

    Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I’ve just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

    Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

    And I’m afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.”

  186. Ron says:

    As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

    Matthew Parris is a former MP and now journalist for The Times. In an article written for the newspaper on the 27th December 2008 he wrote:

    Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it’s Malawi….It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

    Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.
    —-
    By the way Mathew Parris is atheist and gay, but he doesn’t blindly hate unlike most atheists on this forum.
    We can only win

    He re-affirms my observation that Christianity makes a positive difference in people’s lives. Atheist/secular NGOs do not have passion (I believe there is no genuine compassion without Christ and the Holy Spirit in you) and will run away from conflict zones or hardships.

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-fuel-project/as-an-atheist-i-truly-believe-africa-needs-god-by-matthew-parris/10151002782127507/

  187. Let’s try this again, shall we? The fundamentalist prefers to dodge this checkmate question about his “merciful god”

    RON:

    There is no such thing as an “Atheist Doctrine”‘ other than rejecting the belief in a deity. Period.

    Now, TRUE OR FALSE:

    If Hitler had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior before dying, he would go to Heaven. But Anne Frank, because she was a Jew, would be cast into a lake of hell fire, for all eternity.

    TRUE OR FALSE?

    Do not dance around the question. Just answer it. We’ll get to Mao and the others in a moment. True or false please.

  188. Ron says:

    My analogy reflects that of a loving human father/mother and God is more loving than a human parent.
    You have given an obtuse and sick analogy

  189. Steve says:

    @Ron
    Your analogy does not accurately represent the Christian beliefs. This analogy correctly represents your belief. Imagine a father who has 2 sons the father dies now one of the sons claims the father returned from the dead and has magic powers. He tells his brother and anyone else who will listen that the father is the best, most perfect father in the world and if you believe in him any crime you have committed is forgiven and you will also be granted immortality and be risen from the grave after you die and live a life of bliss. If you don’t accept the father however you will tortured for all eternity, this is despite the fact the brother never provides any evidence that the father is still alive and has magic powers who can grant immortality. This is true even if you live a moral life the father will torture for all eternity after death while if you are a career criminal you will be given eternal bliss – just because you believed in the invisible magical father.

  190. Ron says:

    Stalin closed churches, closed parochial schools, imprisoned and sent Christian leaders/clergy to the gulag as he said that religion was the stumbling block in the country’s progress.

    Mao did the same thing. Mao said that they had found an effective free treatment for leprosy and rounded up all lepers in China. The homeless lepers were never seen again.

    Atheism justified their approach and actions. They felt that nothing is wrong as long as it serves humanity and advances the cause and comfort of the general population.

    Peter Hitchens, established journalist and author was also an atheist and the brother of your Hero Christopher Hitchens. Peter burnt a Bible when he was 15 and recruited people to the atheist causes.
    He has written a book “The Rage Against God”. He became a Christian again and now is an apologist for Christianity.

    Mathew Parris is a writer, journalist who is atheist and gay. He traveled many times to Africa as he was born there and lived there and he says without hesitation that Africa has survived because of Christianity and if you remove Christ from the equation then most of Africa will not survive. He says that the machete has been stopped only by the cross. He further says as an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God.

    He strongly states “Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa’s biggest problem – the crushing passivity of the people’s mindset.”

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/matthewparris/article2044345.ece

    You may continue to deny and at the same time justify your hate towards Christ, Christianity, Jews and Muslims but it does not advance your cause of stopping, containing or eradicating Islam.

    Try Jesus with a sincere prayer and ask Him to reveal himself to you and He does. You may then ask Him those questions. If He does not reveal Himself then you are always free to follow your path.

  191. Ron says:

    If you have 3 children above 18 whom you love very much out of which one is a challenged kid and other two are normal. The normal kid kills the other normal kid for whatever reason (rage, sibling rivalry, jealousy etc.) which is a capital crime punishable by death.

    Your son then comes to you and is truly sorrowful and sincerely repentant and begs you for mercy to give him another chance and you are convinced that he is really repentant and is willing to take care of your challenged son. As a father/mother you love him a lot. How will you disburse judgement if you are the judge?
    Our God is a righteous judge and merciful father and knows whether your repentance is sincere and his judgement will never be wrong.

    Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

  192. Steve says:

    @Ron
    ” There is no objective moral standard in atheism and that is what Phoenix is saying which I am echoing.” What do you mean by objective morality? If by “objectively morality” you mean that morality exists independent of subjective feelings, interpretations, or prejudice and independent of the consequences of the action, then no, there is no “objective morality”. Also is genocide and enslaving of unbelievers and death penalty for things such as idolatry, witchcraft and homosexuality “objective morality”?

    “Christianity, Jews, Muslims and may be other theists have still hope because the door of salvation is open to anyone who sincerely repents AND accepts Jesus.” This is obviously not true since you cannot choose what you believe. This is easy to demonstrate can you “choose” out of the blue to believe that 1+1=79 or that the moon is made of green cheese? Could you “choose” to believe in evolution despite the fact you believe it is a hoax from atheists and the result of brainwashing? Could you “choose” to believe that Sai baba performed miracles, despite the fact you don’t believe in him and are not convinced by the accounts from eye witnesses who claim he did perform miracles? Clearly you cannot choose what you believe, so even if your religious beliefs was true people like me cannot suddenly choose to believe Jesus is my God and saviour. Which means such people are doomed which means your God is a sadistic asshole.

    “To answer your hypothetical question when we say anyone it includes Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. and if they had repented and accepted Christ, yes a merciful God would have accepted them
    But please note that Hitler and Mao never repented” The sexual predator and serial killer Ted bundy and the cannibal Jefrey Dahmer both accepted Jesus while in prison, so they will go straight to heaven while a person who was descent all their life but never heard of or was not convinced by the fairy tales in the bible goes to hell all for all eternity. Your beliefs have nothing to do with morality – all that counts is whether one believes in ridiculously stupid fairy tales or not.

  193. RON:

    There is no such thing as an “Atheist Doctrine”‘ other than rejecting the belief in a deity. Period.

    Now, TRUE OR FALSE:

    If Hitler had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior before dying, he would go to Heaven. But Anne Frank, because she was a Jew, would be cast into a lake of hell fire, for all eternity.

    TRUE OR FALSE?

    Do not dance around the question. Just answer it. We’ll get to Mao and the others in a moment. True or false please.

  194. Ron says:

    So Mao and Stalin who murdered 100 million will never face judgement even in afterlife then according to your atheist doctrine then what Kim Jong is doing is justified because it is according to the law of natural selection, the survival of the fittest.
    Don’t you get it. There is no objective moral standard in atheism and that is what Phoenix is saying which I am echoing.

  195. RON:

    A hypothetical man works in the Nazi death camps. He participates in sending thousands of Jews to the gas chambers. He escapes to let’s say Brazil. There he accepts Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior and soon dies. He is forgiven and goes to Heaven.

    Anne Frank is cast into a lake of hell fire, for all eternity.

    Your “merciful god” is an asshole.

  196. Ron says:

    Madfijian.
    Let me answer your question.

    Of all the Nazis tried and given the death penalty only Ribbentrop seems to have been repented. None of the Nazi top brass were Christians otherwise they would never have closed parochial schools and catholic schools. Apart from Jews, gypsies the prisoners of conscience were many practicing Christians pastors and priests. Other clergy had been silenced by the brown shirts. Hitler lived with his concubine Eva Braun and married her in a private event without a priest just before he committed suicide.

    God is a merciful God and if you and your supporters in spite of your hatred towards Christ, Christianity, Jews, Muslims and may be other theists have still hope because the door of salvation is open to anyone who sincerely repents AND accepts Jesus.
    To answer your hypothetical question when we say anyone it includes Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. and if they had repented and accepted Christ, yes a merciful God would have accepted them
    But please note that Hitler and Mao never repented. Stalin according to biographers raised his fist in an act of defiance against God before death.

    You have to look at the above in a positive hopeful way that in spite of any sin you may have committed like sins of omission, commission, lies, homosexuality, incest, bribery, fornication, theft, blasphemy and profanity of God’s name etc. you still have hope when you repent and accept Christ.

  197. MADFIJIAN: Agreed, Satya Sai Baba has far more living followers who have claimed to be a witness to his “miracles”. This pedophile guru is very popular and the accounts of his sayings and miracles did not take 100 years or so to be written down. So, why not have faith in him? Why someone from 2,000 years ago, where the evidence of his existence is rather weak, he authored no books and the witnesses to his spectacles are not even as strong as those who have seen Elvis still alive?

  198. Indeed. According to Christianity, Hitler and his henchmen go to Heaven (most were either Protestant or Catholic) and Anne Frank is cast into a lake of hell fire, for all eternity, for not accepting Jesus Christ as her personal lord and savior.

  199. madfijian says:

    Eric to add to your post. Satya Sai Baba supposedly performed many many miracles some very similar to that of Jesus. Thousands upon thousands have sworn that they have witnessed these and yet these so called miracles have not warranted one 30 minute program on mainstream TV. Why the miracles of 3000 years is so important to Christians beats me. .

  200. A.H. says:

    Ron can speak for himself.

    “Christianity teaches that only in the arms of Jesus is salvation fact 1.”

    For a Christian salvation comes from the Jews.

    Fact 2 “if one repents his or her sins than the blood of Jesus will wipe your slate clean and thus you join Jesus in heaven.”
    The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is not a single event in one`s life, but a lifelong process. Only God knows the outcome.

    Fact 3 “Hitler was a baptized Catholic.”
    Correct, but it is no licence for heaven.

    Fact 4 “Jews are not Christians by virtue of their disbelief in the Messiah. So if Hitler repented before he died would he be forgiven or not according to the Gospels.”

    Only God forgives sins, there is no certainty after repentance but the gospels tell about a merciful Father.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following about repentance:

    1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).24

  201. What would a reasonable person do today, if they came into contact with a charismatic person who claims to be the ONLY WAY to “god”?

    What if a Nigerian tabloid said he performed miracles?

    What if some teenage female groupies of his said they say him after he had died and he spoke to them?

    Perhaps we could exercise some common sense here? Although I expect either no response, or some long responses attempting to rationalize some historical accuracy to his miracles and resurrection.

    So, let’s assume that the miracles and resurrection were real, just for fun. Does that mean that this man is the ONLY WAY to “god”? The only way?

    Well there is only one way to get behind such a far fetched idea and that is FAITH.

  202. PHOENIX: Perhaps we can cut through all of your wordy nonsense and mental mazes. In a Universe that has billions and possibly a trillion planets, one blue speck in all of that is where “god” revealed HIMself, to ignorant Bronze Age people in a very cryptic way. Then he sent his son (yes, he is a single parent) to be hideously tortured and then executed, in order to get a around a rule that he himself created.

    Now, why would I reject such an idea? Is it because I just haven’t given it a chance? Is it because I’m brainwashed by Atheists or that college professors brainwashed me with Evolution? Or, could it possibly be that the proposition is so clearly bullshit?

  203. Steve says:

    @Phoenix

    “Now, why would an Atheist reject the proposition? Simply because he has an already established view of reality and the theist’s proposition conflicts with his views. ” If you reject the proposition that big foot exists that is a worldview? Abigfootism is a world view?

    “The Atheist believes that all knowledge starts with the 5 senses and must be verified scientifically before it can pass off as factual. It seems quite reasonable on the surface but it is a path that NO Atheist can sustain rationally. Atheists have neither logic nor evidence in support of the worldview. I have debated quite a few and you’d be surprised how alike they seem to think.” No this is an philosophy called Phenomenalism,http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/theories-of-perception/phenomenalism/ “Phenomenalism is best thought of as a secular idealism. Like idealism, it holds (roughly) that objects are dependent upon our perceptions of them. Unlike idealism, however, it is not committed to the existence of a God who is constantly perceiving everything.”
    Also note many theists are/were Phenomenalists (or idealists which is essentially the same thing).

  204. Steve says:

    @Phoenix

    “Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument are at least two demonstrations for transcendent causes of the universe.” Even if these arguments are successful (which they are not) they don’t tell us anything about the character of this creator or indeed creators.

    “The moral argument demonstrates that if objective moral values exist then God exists.” 1) There is no proof that there is a objective morality. 2)Even if there is a objective morality there is no proof it comes from or somehow depends on a God. 3) Nobody knows what Gods morality is. Nobody has ever shown their morality is from a God. 4) If God said raping and
    torturing little kids is good would that make raping and torturing little kids objectively good?

    “Not wanting to be killed” does in no manner, shape or form imply “don’t go around killing other people.” Serial kIllers cheerfully take innocent lives but they themselves do not wish to be murder victims.” Let’s state 2 facts which form the basis of morality 1) Human beings have feelings, needs and desires. 2) Human beings are a social species and have no choice but to share this planet with other human beings. Whenever you like it or not your behaviour affects other people. 3) Given these facts society has to have a moral code and laws which work and which reflect these needs. So a serial killer may like killing other people but other people do not like to be killed. Values which are destructive and harmful to other people don’t thrive and survive because of this reason. Nor could a society which values random brutal murders survive for obvious reasons.

    “The Kim dynasty is a very successful tyrant lineage with no signs of slowing down. Islamic arabs have annhiliated countless cultures and their reign of terror continue to thrive across oceans. In fact, it seems Europe could be the next Dar al Islam.” In what way is Islamic countries and North Korea “thriving”? These are rogue psychopathic States. They are like Mafia – a criminal sub culture which preys on everyone else and sustains itself by force and violence (and secrecy also).
    “Marxist terror is still alive and thriving, mainly in third world countries such as the Indian sub continent and Latin America” It’s hardly “thriving” if it’s reduced to terror attacks in poor third world countries.

    “That is not what religions claim at all. You have provided a caricature which religious followers will easily dismiss as foolishness Most religions accept the limitations of human understanding and accept their shortcomings and pitfalls” This is absolutely what they believe. This is what the Christian Ron believes. He has made this clear. If you don’t believe daddy is watching you, you won’t be be constrained by “fear of God and judgement” as he puts it. In other words human beings are like predatory animals according to this theory, driven by the most beastly instincts and are inherently evil while the only thing restraining them is the fear of punishment from an authority which of course is there big brother or big daddy in the sky. And without this belief humans will start killing, raping, torturing, enslaving, robbing and exploiting each other with no restraint whatsoever. All the abrahamic religions teach this baloney, indeed this is what the whole concept of prophethood and divine revelation/command theory is based on.

  205. Phoenix says:

    @Eric

    Let me try again before you respond. My last response to you was typed very hastily.

    You said: Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are not all singing off the same sheet of music. And these are just the “New Atheists”.//

    These “New Atheists” are the public intellectuals that Atheist bloggers and commenters are so fond of quoting. Naturally, there are many deviations to Atheism but the core principles remain the same, only matter exists any extrapolation beyond the material plane are dubbed superstitious and deserves ridicule.

    //Just like Liberals tend to confuse our opposition to Islam with hating Muslims. Do you see that you are suffering from the same perceptual disability?//

    Your analogy does not seem to fit. I attack Atheism, nowhere have I stated that I hate Atheists. Neither have I charged you with hating muslims.

    ////AtheISM is simply not believing in a deity. PERIOD. Let us not confuse that with the personalities and opinions of certain Atheists. These are not one in the same.//

    Let me clarify this for you. There are several reasons why people may not believe in a deity:
    a) Have not heard of the proposition and is therefore unable to establish any opinion on the matter (Apathy)
    b) Have heard of the proposition but need more information before establishing an opinion. (Agnostic)
    c) Have heard of the proposition and rejects it (Atheism)
    d) Have heard of the proposition and accept it (Theist)

    Now, why would an Atheist reject the proposition? Simply because he has an already established view of reality and the theist’s proposition conflicts with his views. The Atheist believes that all knowledge starts with the 5 senses and must be verified scientifically before it can pass off as factual. It seems quite reasonable on the surface but it is a path that NO Atheist can sustain rationally. Atheists have neither logic nor evidence in support of the worldview. I have debated quite a few and you’d be surprised how alike they seem to think.

  206. Phoenix says:

    Eric,

    //Just like Liberals tend to confuse our opposition to Islam with hating Muslims. Do you see that you are suffering from the same perceptual disability?//

    False comparison. I attacked Atheism not Atheists ,yet you inists their is no such ideology.

    //AtheISM is simply not believing in a deity. PERIOD. Let us not confuse that with the personalities and opinions of certain Atheists. These are not one in the same.//

    Then why do you quote, cite or share their videoss?

  207. Phoenix says:

    Steve,

    //1) How do you know there is any God?//

    Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument are at least two demonstrations for transcendent causes of the universe.

    //How do you know this God is good? And how do you know what his morality is? And makes his morals binding?//

    The moral argument demonstrates that if objective moral values exist then God exists.

    //What type of proof do you have or claim to have? If you claim revelation or personal experience then obviously that is not proof, there have been many charlatans, so called prophets who claim to be a spokesman of a God none of them have given any proof for their claims.//

    I don’t have physical evidence for a non-physical entity if that is what you’re suggesting.

    //Not wanting to be killed is universal. These universal facts about humans form the basis of morality.//

    OK but evil people also do not want to be killed, does that make them good moral citizens?

    //Desires and wants form the basis of values, morality is what makes those values function. For example virtually everybody doesn’t want to be killed, to reduce that possibility you don’t go around killing other people.//

    “Not wanting to be killed” does in no manner, shape or form imply “don’t go around killing other people.” Serial kIllers cheerfully take innocent lives but they themselves do not wish to be murder victims.

    //Other people don’t want to be terrorised and other societies don’t respond kindly to being terrorised, societies that use violence and terror and are predator nations are not going to be around for long. (Just like criminal individuals and criminal gangs are not going to thrive and survive).//

    The Kim dynasty is a very successful tyrant lineage with no signs of slowing down. Islamic arabs have annhiliated countless cultures and their reign of terror continue to thrive across oceans. In fact, it seems Europe could be the next Dar al Islam.

    //That’s why they was wasn’t around very long? And resulted in millions of deaths and wars?//

    Marxist terror is still alive and thriving, mainly in third world countries such as the Indian sub continent and Latin America.

    Marxist murder Hindus
    https://www.hindujagruti.org/news/4371.html

    Marxists murder 11 farmers
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11736774

    Atheist murder Hindu professor
    http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=480

    The list is even longer, and still longer in Latin America.

    //Religions claim human beings are helpless, mischievous little children and if we think there is no camera in the sky watching us we will be totally unrestrained and commit the most heinous crimes without a thought. What is more degrading and insulting to humanity than this belief?//

    That is not what religions claim at all. You have provided a caricature which religious followers will easily dismiss as foolishness Most religions accept the limitations of human understanding and accept their shortcomings and pitfalls.

  208. madfijian says:

    Ron as usual you dodge the questions. Christianity teaches that only in the arms of Jesus is salvation fact 1.
    Fact 2 if one repents his or her sins than the blood of Jesus will wipe your slate clean and thus you join Jesus in heaven. Fact 3 Hitler was a baptized Catholic. Fact 4 Jews are not Christians by virtue of their disbelief in the Messiah. So if Hitler repented before he died would he be forgiven or not according to the Gospels. Easy question please answer.My question about Hitler is a hypothetical one intending to show the absurdity of your belief. Of course i do not know if he did repent. But humor me with an answer please.

    Also answer this, are Jews and i mean all Jews going to hell as they simply do not believe in your God Jesus.

    I asked you what Morals do rapist and pedophile Christian priests use you dodge the question.

    Look i am an agnostic. I do think their maybe a creator or some sort of energy source that we are all part of and i will agree with you and Phoenix that science does not know everything and cannot explain everything.
    I do not believe however in the Abrahamic God and i think you Christians,Muslims and Jews are made from the same cloth and that is why you simply cant live in peace. Its like the same sides of a magnate you cannot stick.

    However to categorize what we do not understand into the woo woo category is simplistic and very closed minded. All those questions that you have asked Eric to explain which you derived from the young earth website has been debunked many times over. their is but a handful of Christian scientists who hold on to this young earth BS. Perhaps Satan put the dinosaur bones into the soil to confuse the world. Arguing with you religious types makes me feel retarded sometimes.phew.

  209. Ron says:

    Eric if you feel that evolution is a fact then please answer these questions:
    1.How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
    2.How did the DNA code originate?
    3.How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
    4.Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
    5.How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
    6.Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
    7.How did multi-cellular life originate?
    8.How did sex originate?
    9.Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
    10.How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
    11.How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
    12.Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?
    13.Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
    14.Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?
    15.Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

  210. Ron says:

    Radiometric dating and the age of the earth

    51.Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.

    52.Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.

    53.Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.

    54.Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections.

    55.Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.

    56.Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).

    57.Demonstrably non-radiogenic ‘isochrons’ of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron ‘dating’ that gives billions of years. ‘False’ isochrons are common.

    58.Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different ‘ages’ undermine all ‘dates’ obtained from zircons.

    59.Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.

    60.The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, Chapter 2 (pages 25–100) in: Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Volume II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.

    61.Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).

    62.Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time and a vast age of the earth. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes, Creation 28(2):46–50, 2006.

    63.Squashed pleochroic halos (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical ‘young’ earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these
    events.

    64.Australia’s ‘Burning Mountain’ speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system (according to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible).

    source: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

  211. Ron says:

    The debate whether the earth is old or young is still not settled. Even if we assume that the earth is zillions of years old we have no evidence that human life began more than 10,000 years ago.

    Biological evidence for a young age of the earth

    1.DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

    2.Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.

    3.The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.

    4.The data for ‘mitochondrial Eve’ are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.

    5.Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.

    6.Many fossil bones ‘dated’ at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really? Tubes of marine worms, ‘dated’ at 550 million years old, that are soft and flexible and apparently composed of the original organic compounds hold the record (original paper).

    7.Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen, histones) and DNA are not consistent with their supposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most).
    Cells and connective tissue can be clearly seen in dinosaur remains.
    The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists

    8.Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils ‘dated’ at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.

    9.Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.

    10.Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various ‘index’ fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The ‘Lazarus effect’: rodent ‘resurrection’!

    11.The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years. No tree has been found which can be traced to more than 5000 years old.

    source: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

  212. RON: So you are assuming I was brainwashed into believing in evolution in college? Interesting.

    What’s happening here is quite simple. Your emotional thinking has hijacked your intellectual thinking. You find comfort in your religious point of view. So, you employ your intellect to defend and develop that religious point of view.

    It’s like an addiction. It’s like having someone with a college degree rationalize how they are not addicted to Cocaine because they believe they can quit anytime they want and the way they smoke it is not the same as smoking crack.

    You are using a lot of nine dollar words to defend an impossibly ludicrous point of view. Evolution is a fact. Unlike the myth of a talking snake, this fact has evidence, mountains of it (literally).

    This does not mean there is no source and it does not negate Mysticism necessarily, but it does mean that the Earth was not created in a week about 6,000 years ago.

    Whatever character flaws Darwin had, or whatever the Nazis tried to twist Evolution into does not mean that we must therefore reject entirely Evolution. That is a very weak argument.

    By the way, all indoctrinated people insist they are not indoctrinated. You are clearly drinking the Kool Aide.

  213. PHOENIX: You are confusing Atheists with Atheism.

    Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are not all singing off the same sheet of music. And these are just the “New Atheists”.

    Just like Liberals tend to confuse our opposition to Islam with hating Muslims. Do you see that you are suffering from the same perceptual disability?

    AtheISM is simply not believing in a deity. PERIOD. Let us not confuse that with the personalities and opinions of certain Atheists. These are not one in the same.

  214. Ron says:

    @madfijian. The Nazi brass were hard core atheists. The only Nazi top brass who seemed to have repented (he denied he took part in holocaust or war crimes but asked God for forgiveness just minutes before the hanging) at Nuremberg was Ribbentrop who was the German ambassador to UK before the war.

    So your imaginative thinking that if Hitler had repented he would be in heaven is preposterous to say the least.

    The Nazi concentration camps did not have much atheists for sure. Have you ever heard of atheists doing atheist-mission work or even volunteer work in active conflict zones. Answer: zilch.

    You will find them (atheists) attacking Christianity in the free world because Christians are a soft target and they don’t have to fear retribution which can happen when you attack Islam.

    Watch this interesting video
    8 Dead People Come Back to Life!

  215. Steve says:

    @Phoenix

    “I can’t, I do not understand the question.” These are my questions. 1) How do you know there is any God? How do you know this God is good? And how do you know what his morality is? And makes his morals binding?
    // Where is your proof this God is good? And how do you know he is good? How do you know what his morals are?//
    “What type of proof would satisfy you?” What type of proof do you have or claim to have? If you claim revelation or personal experience then obviously that is not proof, there have been many charlatans, so called prophets who claim to be a spokesman of a God none of them have given any proof for their claims.
    //Empathy and rationality. Morality is about how human beings should treat each other and how societies should function. For example virtually everyone does not want to be brutally murdered, and if every one was killing each other all the time the society would die out. This is how morality works. Values that function and benefit society thrive and survive while destructive values die out. This is the Atheist’s system of morality, so can you show us what yours is?//
    This is patently false for the following reasons:
    1) There exists no universal standard of Atheist morals.” Not wanting to be killed is universal. These universal facts about humans form the basis of morality.

    2) Everyone’s “wants” or “desires” is not equivalent to moral principles. Many people want to be rich and famous, does that make “rich and famous” a moral principle?” Desires and wants form the basis of values, morality is what makes those values function. For example virtually everybody doesn’t want to be killed, to reduce that possibility you don’t go around killing other people.

    3) “Some Atheists want to instill terror and establish totalitarian regimes as history has proven.”
    Other people don’t want to be terrorised and other societies don’t respond kindly to being terrorised, societies that use violence and terror and are predator nations are not going to be around for long. (Just like criminal individuals and criminal gangs are not going to thrive and survive).

    “4) Under Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. Atheist societies thrived. Does that make their values “moral”? Even your own Christopher Hitchens praised Lenin for his achievements and destruction of Christianity.” That’s why they was wasn’t around very long? And resulted in millions of deaths and wars?

    “You have given me no reason why human psychology is the benchmark for Atheist morals, except to assert that it must be so.” What else is then, since morality is about how human beings should treat each other?

    “As far as I’m aware, Atheist morality is Consequentialism, i.e., good and bad depends on the consequences of ones actions. For example, if your goal is to rid the world of Christians, then any tactic that might produce that result is acceptable, such as mass slaughter a la communism.” No if you want to rid the world of what you consider to be bad ideas then mass slaughter is not generally the best and easiest way to achieve that. Christians want everyone to believe in their God, does that mean that they want to slaughter everyone else? Obviously not and the same is true of atheists/anti theists.
    //Homosexuality is not a moral issue because it doesn’t harm society. If something harms society then those people have to be removed from society – regardless of whether it is genetic or anything else.//
    “And here you prove me correct. You intend to impose your own proclivities on society, without taking into consideration any of their concerns and inputs. Your society is a vague abstraction which has no human rights.” Society acts to protect itself and its interest. For example do you have a right to drive a car (so long as you have a license)? For sure no problem with that. But do you have a “right” to drink drive? No you do not because that harms the society and the society will respond against you to protect itself.
    “Atheism is always accompanied by Materialism/Physicalism and Evolution, which reduces humans to accidental biological machines akin to animals and minerals and nothing more.” Religions claim human beings are helpless, mischievous little children and if we think there is no camera in the sky watching us we will be totally unrestrained and commit the most heinous crimes without a thought. What is more degrading and insulting to humanity than this belief?

  216. Ron says:

    I am not indoctrinated. I was on the left during my years at University studies and did not like organized religion and bought into Marxist claim that religion is the opium of the masses. I was not brought up in church and felt that religion was a crutch and that many of the clergy irrespective of their religion were conmen fleecing the people. That is what indoctrination does to us studying in the present day Universities.

    They say when you are 25 and you have a heart you will vote Democrat/liberal and when you are 35 and have a brain you will vote Republican/conservative.

    It’s true because you are so indoctrinated by the academia that they teach you Darwinism as if it is the fact. The counter-perspective of intelligent design was/is never taught.

    They will never tell you that Darwinism failed to gain traction in the early years because it was considered racist.
    The atheist Nazis promoted eugenics. In fact, the Nazis used skull/body/ear/nose etc. measurements to convince that Aryans are superior and the Jews and the blacks, and other races were inferior.

    It was direct result of replacing the Christian doctrine that we are all made in the image of God with the atheist doctrine that we are all evolved from apes. The Nazi corollary to this atheist doctrine was that Aryans evolved faster/higher and are at the top of humanity with the inferior Jews, Asians a few steps behind and lastly with the African, aboriginal and Amazonian tribes who are way much behind just above the apes.

    Darwinian theory was repackaged by the atheist scientists from the latter half of the 20th century to now to make it more palatable in academia. Anyone agreeing with it was considered intelligent and anyone opposing it was considered dumb.

    Any challenge to Darwinism or atheism as Berlinski and even Lennox has observed was met with cynical laughter, demonising the person as brainless.

    Even in this forum, I see Phoenix is laying out his logic with great coherence but the atheists and agnostics here just can’t fathom it or even try to understand and accept your fallacies. Passive observer gave historical evidence for Christ outside the gospels but atheists don’t want to buy it.

    I stand corrected now as I am beginning to feel that this counter-jihad though directed against Islam is actually against Christianity with other theistic religions as collateral damage.

  217. Phoenix says:

    Eric

    //Atheism is lack of belief in a deity. PERIOD.//

    The “lack of” implies apathy towards the deity and religious issues. By that definition rocks, trees and cars are Atheists. But that is not exactly the case, is it? We can’t say Atheist leaders and intellectuals such as Harris, Dawkins, Bennet, Silverman, Maher, et al are apathetic towards theism. They are militantly opposed to such issues. They have books and conferences promoting their godless worldviews, there are award ceremonies and monuments celebrating Atheism.

    If you insist that Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a deity then Atheists get their morals from outside their Materialist worldview and Atheism is impotent to provide any sort of intellectual and moral base for Atheists. In other words, it’s a void.

  218. Phoenix says:

    Steve
    //Translation – I have no idea. Also answer my question where is your there is any God?//

    I can’t, I do not understand the question.

    // Where is your proof this God is good? And how do you know he is good? How do you know what his morals are?//

    What type of proof would satisfy you?

    //Empathy and rationality. Morality is about how human beings should treat each other and how societies should function. For example virtually everyone does not want to be brutally murdered, and if every one was killing each other all the time the society would die out. This is how morality works. Values that function and benefit society thrive and survive while destructive values die out. This is the Atheist’s system of morality, so can you show us what yours is?//

    This is patently false for the following reasons:
    1) There exists no universal standard of Atheist morals.
    2) Everyone’s “wants” or “desires” is not equivalent to moral principles. Many people want to be rich and famous, does that make “rich and famous” a moral principle?
    3) Some Atheists want to instill terror and establish totalitarian regimes as history has proven.
    4) Under Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. Atheist societies thrived. Does that make their values “moral”? Even your own Christopher Hitchens praised Lenin for his achievements and destruction of Christianity.

    Hitchens-“One of Lenin’s great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it.”

    //No, the “benchmark” is human psychology or nature based on these facts – like not wanting to be brutally murdered – you build a moral system that works and allows society to function.//

    You have given me no reason why human psychology is the benchmark for Atheist morals, except to assert that it must be so. As far as I’m aware, Atheist morality is Consequentialism, i.e., good and bad depends on the consequences of ones actions. For example, if your goal is to rid the world of Christians, then any tactic that might produce that result is acceptable, such as mass slaughter a la communism.

    //Homosexuality is not a moral issue because it doesn’t harm society. If something harms society then those people have to be removed from society – regardless of whether it is genetic or anything else.//

    And here you prove me correct. You intend to impose your own proclivities on society, without taking into consideration any of their concerns and inputs. Your society is a vague abstraction which has no human rights.

    Atheism is always accompanied by Materialism/Physicalism and Evolution, which reduces humans to accidental biological machines akin to animals and minerals and nothing more. Animals and minerals have little to zero rights and their illusive freedom may be seized at any moment by those in power. I however do appreciate your efforts to elucidate Atheist morality or the lack thereof.

  219. The question of so-called “evidence” must be looked at. Clearly science has limitations, which the scientific world freely admits. And there are Atheists who are every bit as dogmatic as an Evangelical who speaks in tongues and believes that Jesus will return in his lifetime.

    FAITH in what we can perceive through our sense organs is still faith. And if we are perceiving through a scientific instrument, we are still relying on our sense organs.

    It is a mainstream accepted scientific idea that most of so-called “reality” is not being perceived by our sense organs, even with all of the incredible scientific instruments out there. Even looking at sub atomic particles, there is so much that is not seen and not understood, or probably misunderstood.

    To be free of dogma requires a certain humility.

    In the world of Psychics one tries to understand the physical world. What seems to be happening more and more in the world of Quantum Physics is that one questions who it is that is perceiving in the first place. Who is the “Observer”?

    Both the observer and the observed are still very much a mystery. It takes courage to gaze into the void and realize that you do not have all of the answers. And, it takes humility.

    Any serious inquiry into the nature of reality, whether one uses science or spirituality, really must begin by asking “Who am I?” What is it that looks out through your eyes? Isn’t it the same state of being that existed before you started reading this? Is it not the same state of being you had last year, ten years ago?

    Are you just a brain-body organism? Is the Universe really just a serious of chance accidents? Are you your thoughts? Or, is there more to the picture?

    Notice the temptation to fill in the blanks with magical thinking or cynicism. Two sides of the same coin.

  220. RON: Riiight. Atheists use infants for entertainment. Okay. I don’t even know how to respond to something like that. If I see an Atheist J walking, does that mean that Atheists J walk?

    As for your argument about Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. What was the objective these men had which lead to so much bloodshed? Could it possibly be what every tyrant seems to after – power?

    The 20th Century was the first time humans were able to to use machines to kill each other in large numbers, quickly. And there was an attempted expansion of Communism / Socialism.

    These far Left tyrants were devoid of religion it seems, although some would argue that point when it comes to Hitler. But should we take away from this that it was Atheism that caused them to do what other tyrants have done, throughout history?

    It’s amazing how the indoctrinated mind can twist anything to make it fit with their view of reality. How will we explain the religious tyrants, prior to the 20th Century, who did not have machines to kill people in large numbers? Can we blame that on Atheism? Would it be fair or reasonable to say that all religious people support what these men had done? Of course not.

    As I type these words, I am fully aware that none of this will get through to you at all. You are deeply indoctrinated and nothing will get you to stop fixating on your imaginary friend and actually think. But I’ll post it anyway.

  221. Atheism is lack of belief in a deity. PERIOD.

  222. Phoenix says:

    @Eric

    //You are rationalizing quite a bit. There is not really a belief system called “Atheism”. This is a general term for someone who does not believe. I do not believe what the Abrahamic religions teach. This does not mean I deny the existence of a Higher Power and I’m fine with calling that “God”.//

    This is somewhat of a very naive understanding of Atheism. It is much much more serious in its implications than Atheists would admit. The belief system of Atheists are called Materialism or Physicalism. It is the thesis that all reality is material, cause/effect is the operative axiom for all beliefs, determinism is a universal law, humans are animals per Darwinian reductionism, life was born from minerals and the universe was immaculately conceived, i.e., born from nothing. All are unproven Atheist beliefs and therefore superstitious.

    //How is it possible that I have morality then? The society is a mess. On the one hand the Western religious establishment wants to take credit for giving society it’s morals. On the other hand that same establishment condemns the society for being so corrupt. There is a circular argument there. All arguments with deeply indoctrinated people, including some Atheists, tend to be circular. //

    You are guilty of the very thing you despise in others. Circularity occurs when the arguer refers to itself as the authority for its arguments. You have declared yourself to be the authority in your moral conclusions.

    If your argument is not grounded in intuitive principles then they are either circular or amounts to an infinite regress. Your moral decisions seem to be based on personal preference, therefore they revert to the individual for confirmation as opposed to an external/higher source, thus fallaciously circular.

    //Why not think for oneself? Why not look within? Why not deeply inquire, even beyond the comfortable conclusions that are already prepared for us by the religious establishment of our culture? What are you so afraid of?//

    I don’t follow you here. When have I indicated fear? My worldview is analyzed and confirmed by Aristotle deductive reasoning, even if the conclusions are uncomfortable, I will accept them if they are sound.

    //“Who am I?”
    Every direction you turn, that question is waiting for you. You can duck and dodge it and throw the Bible at it, but there it is. It sees you coming a mile away and it waits for you: “Who am I?”//

    Your hatred for Christianity aside for a moment. Your question seems to be irrelevant. I believe every individual who is on a spiritual quest will confirm that the discovery of oneself is a lifelong journey where many layers are peeled off in time and new insights are revealed.

    Here are relevant questions you should ask yourself. What is truth and does it exist? If so, what is the path(s) for acquiring truth?

    Atheists will tell you a) there is no absolute truth or b) science is the sole arbiter of truth. Both is false under scrutiny.

    Science can only produce provisional factoids but never truth. Then there is Aristotle logic which leads to neccessary true conclusions, as well as intuition which bypasses rational deliberation. And of course many theists accept the above coupled with divine revelation which includes scriptural sources or personal revelations.

  223. madfijian says:

    Ron please enlighten us as to which moral compass the priests use when they use kids for their sexual pleasure as has been highlighted in hundreds of cases in recent months and years. These are the Managers of Gods law and hence his moral police on this earth. Please do tell what motivates these men to force a child to have sex with them.
    True all those barbaric so called atheists did kill a lot of people and yes religious apologists find it a convenient argument. If you care to study these events and individuals you will find the absence of God in these people’s lives had nothing or very little to do with what they did. Their were many different factors that caused this men to do what they did. In Pol Pots case for instance he was trying to create a “mythical agrarian society. Stalin was a paranoid maniac. They did not kill you just because they wanted you to become and atheist. But religions have. The same metal illness that plaques the priests who rape children also infects people like Stalin and Mao. Their is a reasonable scientific estimate that 1 in 10 of us has the DNA of a raving lunatic. All it needs is activation and the right environment and wallah you have the next Hitler. So your religion is a moral compass theory is BS.

    I will ask you a very interesting question. Hitler if you know was a baptized Catholic although he was never a practicing one so by default he was a Christian. Jews on the other hand do not believe in Christ. Now if on his last days he actually realized the error of his ways and repented with all his heart and excepted Jesus as his savior Hitler would be sipping Lattes in heaven with Jesus while 6million Jews he murdered are now burning in hell ( as per the bible) for eternity because they never excepted Jesus as their lord. If this is the God you worship and love so much than you can have him Ron i would rather be in hell with the 6m Jews than with the sadist demonic narcissistic and cruel God of the bible.

  224. Steve says:

    @Phoenix

    “Where does God get his morality from is the same as where does God come from? It’s a misnomer. God IS morality, his nature is the basis for our moral worldview and whatever God is must be universal and objective.” Translation – I have no idea. Also answer my question where is your there is any God? Where is your proof this God is good? And how do you know he is good? How do you know what his morals are?
    “Lastly, you have dodged the ACTUAL issue, which is: what is the source of Atheist morals. What makes them moral and why should I trust Steve?” Empathy and rationality. Morality is about how human beings should treat each other and how societies should function. For example virtually everyone does not want to be brutally murdered, and if every one was killing each other all the time the society would die out. This is how morality works. Values that function and benefit society thrive and survive while destructive values die out. This is the atheists system of morality, so can you show us what yours is?
    “Is animal behavior the benchmark for Atheist morality as demonstrated by madjifan’s appeal to homosexuality in nature or the Darwinian” No, the “benchmark” is human psychology or nature based on these facts – like not wanting to be brutally murdered – you build a moral system that works and allows society to function. Homosexuality is not a moral issue because it doesn’t harm society. If something harms society then those people have to be removed from society – regardless of whether it is genetic or anything else.

    @Ron

    ” That is the sickness which an atheist mindset can have. There is no fear of God and judgement.” Ron, what was the last words of the 9-11 hijackers?

  225. Ron says:

    In Taiwan a Buddhist country, in a place called Snake Alley the Atheist/Buddhist run bars offer you drinks and also infants for entertainment. That is the sickness which an atheist mindset can have. There is no fear of God and judgement.

    The Nazis closed all parochial schools including catholic schools and had only public schools wherein they could indoctrinate the young minds with race-supremacy using Darwinian theories. Most of the Nazi top brass were atheists .

    Joseph Stalin left the seminary, embraced atheism, closed churches and killed 25-40 million.
    Mao embraced atheism and killed 40-60 million people.
    Pol Pot enforced atheism and killed 2 million people in less than 4 years.
    Mussolini the atheist was responsible for killing less than a million in his Africa and Yugoslavia campaign.

    Atheism has killed more people in the 20th century than those by other religions combined.

    Phoenix has been very coherent in his views and atheism is dangerous because there is no objective morality.

  226. Phoenix – You are rationalizing quite a bit. There is not really a belief system called “Atheism”. This is a general term for someone who does not believe. I do not believe what the Abrahamic religions teach. This does not mean I deny the existence of a Higher Power and I’m fine with calling that “God”.

    There are some passages of value in the Bible. I find even more in the teachings of the Buddha, but I am not a Buddhist. The Tao Te Ching strikes me as even more clear, yet I am not a Taoist. The Bhagavad Gita, to me, illustrates through metaphor ideas that resonate for me, but I am not a Hindu.

    How is it possible that I have morality then? The society is a mess. On the one hand the Western religious establishment wants to take credit for giving society it’s morals. On the other hand that same establishment condemns the society for being so corrupt. There is a circular argument there. All arguments with deeply indoctrinated people, including some Atheists, tend to be circular.

    Why not think for oneself? Why not look within? Why not deeply inquire, even beyond the comfortable conclusions that are already prepared for us by the religious establishment of our culture? What are you so afraid of?

    There is one question which matters most on the spiritual path, in my personal experience. That question has nothing to do with an imaginary friend, although I must admit that I sometimes envy those who are able to hijack their own intellects in such a way as to find comfort there. There is one question you must ask yourself – truly, honestly, bravely, thoroughly, deeply.

    “Who am I?”

    Every direction you turn, that question is waiting for you. You can duck and dodge it and throw the Bible at it, but there it is. It sees you coming a mile away and it waits for you: “Who am I?”

  227. Phoenix says:

    @Eric

    //I’d like to say something about morality and God. Perhaps we could substitute the word “god” for the word “Source” as they mean the same thing and seem to speak both the language of science and of religion.
    Clearly we get everything from Source, including our morality.//

    OK, I see no disagreement there

    //That said, the idea that in a Universe with possible a trillion planets, on one small blue speck in the back woods of that Universe, possibly one of many Universes, a deity would reveal to us a top 10 list of things not to do – and reveal that to Bronze Age men in one language – AND wait so long to do it, after mankind has already suffered so much already – well this is just obviously absurd.//

    I don’t recall appealing to any Bronze Age men, and isn’t Vedic philosophy “Bronze Age?”

    //So I am an “Atheist” to this idea, just like a Christian is an Atheist to the idea that “god” revealed his final message through Muhammad in the Quran. Let’s be clear about what the word Atheist really means here.//

    False! A Christian is not an Atheist to the god of Muhammad, no more than a Jew is an Atheist to the gods of Hinduism. They remain theists, albeit rival theists. You have redefined Atheist, which requires justification or your proposition remains absurd.

    //Do I “believe” in Source? No. It’s self evident that there is a Source, that it is a Higher Power and thus one need not believe what is obvious to see anymore than you need to believe that there is day and night.//

    There is no correlation between “truth” and “obvious”. It also seems obvious the sunrises in the east and sets in the west.

    //So does this make me devoid of any sense of morality? I am a human being, living in a civilized society. Some of my morality was taught to my by that society and some of it seems to come naturally.//

    So your morality was taught to you by society but that does still not explain the source of morality, it only pushes the problem back a few steps. Where did your society derive their principles from?

    //A person without a conscience is a Sociopath. By some estimates that is 1 in every 25 people. Are they all Atheists? Studies show they are not. Nor are Atheists typically Sociopaths.//

    Where did you get your data from? Mine seem to suggest the contrary.
    Here’s an extract:

    http://blog.case.edu/think/2016/03/23/the_conflict_between_science_and_religion_lies_in_our_brains

    ““Our studies confirmed that statistical relationship, but at the same time showed that people with faith are more prosocial and empathic,” he said.
    In a series of eight experiments, the researchers found the more empathetic the person, the more likely he or she is religious.

    That finding offers a new explanation for past research showing women tend to hold more religious or spiritual worldviews than men. The gap may be because women have a stronger tendency toward empathetic concern than men.

    Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths—not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others. ”

    //We find our sense of morality within ourselves. It might be a function of biology, so that we can live together. And yet countless immoral acts have taken place in the name of religion as well as under leaders who oppose religion.//

    This sub paragraph could refute the proposition that theists cannot commit immoral acts but since no one made that claim, your argument could simply be chalked up to a straw man

    //The idea that religion, or one religion in particular, has a monopoly on morality is incredibly naive and thick headed. One has to be severely indoctrinated into a certain dogma to believe something so clearly out of touch with reality.//

    This is exactly why I attack Atheism. Because Atheists are under the impression they are morally and intellectually superior.

    //Consider that many religious people commit adultery. In fact pornography is especially popular online in parts of the world that are the most religious and that includes the Bible Belt. And yet these same people know not to steal or kill.//

    If this is true, which I doubt but let’s agree it is for arguments sake. Why should this be a surprise when pornography is shoved down our throats daily by our media? Sex sells, period.

  228. Phoenix says:

    @Steve

    //Theist principles” what principles are these? That a raped women should marry her rapist? Slavery is permitted? genital mutilation? Killing of of polytheists and atheists? Slavery, and genocide, the children to be smashed with rocks till they are dead? Human sacrifice of an innocent man on a cross for other people’s sins? Are these the principles you are talking about?//

    Firstly, you should learn the difference between theism and religion. Religion, like Christianity is a more specific subset of theism. I did not appeal to the Bible, so why must I defend it? If I focused my attack on the subset Materialist doctrines of Marxism or LaVayen Satansim, would that refute Atheism in its entirety? Or are there much more stronger arguments for Atheism?

    //Christopher Hitchens had a challenge; Name me one moral statement that a believer can make that a atheist cannot? Now name me one wicked statement that only be uttered by a believer? Nobody has come up with an answer to the former but you can think of plenty for the later. //

    This is a straw man argument. No one said that Atheists cannot be moral. The crux of the matter is that without God objective moral values do not exist. I could for example use a radio without knowing or believing that Marconi invented it, but without Marconi such entertainment would not be possible.

    //By the way where does God get his morality from? What is it? How do you know what it is? And what makes it binding?//

    Where does God get his morality from is the same as where does God come from? It’s a misnomer. God IS morality, his nature is the basis for our moral worldview and whatever God is must be universal and objective.

    Lastly, you have dodged the ACTUAL issue, which is: what is the source of Atheist morals. What makes them moral and why should I trust Steve?

    Is animal behavior the benchmark for Atheist morality as demonstrated by madjifan’s appeal to homosexuality in nature or the Darwinian survival of the fittest concept?

  229. madfijian says:

    Phoenix On that issue of the correlation between religion and morality. Well let me bring you to Fiji. A nation of about 900k people. About 500k are devout Christians from all denominations . We have all of them here the 7 days, LDS, AG,BAPTISTS,METHODISTS,CATHOLICS,JEHOVAH’S the whole freaking lot of it and growing. In terms of population density we have more churches in Fiji than probably any where in the world.You will walk into a village and you will find at least 5 churches in a village of 100 or so people. Churches are given relative impunity and native Fijians are regarded as one of the most religious in the world. Hell even our rugby team has bible versus written on their hand straps. Despite the supposed moral strength of their faith native Fijians (Christians) are about 99% of our jail population. Fiji was recently given the honor of one of the top 10 “porn” watchers in the world by Google (and you can google this). Rape, incest, robberies teenage pregnancies is the non existent in all other faiths in Fiji but rampant in the Christian faiths. These are all verifiable facts and i am living it every day as part of this so called religious nation. The ascertain that religion is the source of moral grounding is the most absurd and clearly nonsensical statement that can be made. I can point to so many religious countries from Mexico to the Philippines to Saudi Arabia where the old testament rules of an eye for an eye is used and crime is still committed. Morality is biological and also a product of the environment. My daughter has been raised free of religion from the day she was born. Her moral convictions are stronger than mine and she will readily correct me when i am making a bad call. How is this possible when she knows no religion. Religion as the grounds of moral authority just does not stack up anymore.

  230. madfijian says:

    Passive Observer and Phoenix

    This is an articles that was printed in the Washington Post written by a lecturer of religious studies Raphael Lataster and i quote:

    Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

    Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

    The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

    The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

    The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

    Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).

    Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.

    Agnosticism over the matter is already seemingly appropriate, and support for this position comes from independent historian Richard Carrier’s recent defense of another theory — namely, that the belief in Jesus started as the belief in a purely celestial being (who was killed by demons in an upper realm), who became historicized over time. To summarize Carrier’s 800-page tome, this theory and the traditional theory – that Jesus was a historical figure who became mythicized over time – both align well with the Gospels, which are later mixtures of obvious myth and what at least sounds historical.

    The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the “celestial Jesus” theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). Humans – the murderers according to the Gospels – of course would still have killed Jesus, knowing full well that his death results in their salvation, and the defeat of the evil spirits.

    So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

    Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.”

    I guess this kinda sums up the argument. If the evidence is as clear as you perceive it to be why is their s much disagreement even amongest religious scholars as to the existence of this man. No one seems to disagree that Cleopatra was a real person or Alexandra the Great was real or for that matter even Mohammad was a figure in history. Its because their is actual archaeological and direct contact accounts of these people having existed and therefore no disagreement. But of a ‘God’ who walked amongest us and since than has become the most revered figure in history well almost no evidence. Kinda strange one would think. The bigger question would be why would a GOD not leave more believable and credible evidence behind. Why is he ready to punish people for eternity for not accepting him as their savior when he has left virtually no evidence of his own existence. You know folks this can all be settled in seconds and we the Agnostics and Atheists will eat humble pie if the big guy in the sky just drops by and says Hello i am here. He is after all God and he should be able to do that. Well you tell me why does he not just come settle the argument once and for all.
    Were people 3000 years ago somehow more special. I cant say they were more gullible because that has not changed much after 3000 years. So what is it?

  231. I’d like to say something about morality and God. Perhaps we could substitute the word “god” for the word “Source” as they mean the same thing and seem to speak both the language of science and of religion.

    Clearly we get everything from Source, including our morality.

    That said, the idea that in a Universe with possible a trillion planets, on one small blue speck in the back woods of that Universe, possibly one of many Universes, a deity would reveal to us a top 10 list of things not to do – and reveal that to Bronze Age men in one language – AND wait so long to do it, after mankind has already suffered so much already – well this is just obviously absurd.

    So I am an “Atheist” to this idea, just like a Christian is an Atheist to the idea that “god” revealed his final message through Muhammad in the Quran. Let’s be clear about what the word Atheist really means here.

    Do I “believe” in Source? No. It’s self evident that there is a Source, that it is a Higher Power and thus one need not believe what is obvious to see anymore than you need to believe that there is day and night.

    So does this make me devoid of any sense of morality? I am a human being, living in a civilized society. Some of my morality was taught to my by that society and some of it seems to come naturally. A person without a conscience is a Sociopath. By some estimates that is 1 in every 25 people. Are they all Atheists? Studies show they are not. Nor are Atheists typically Sociopaths.

    We find our sense of morality within ourselves. It might be a function of biology, so that we can live together. And yet countless immoral acts have taken place in the name of religion as well as under leaders who oppose religion.

    The idea that religion, or one religion in particular, has a monopoly on morality is incredibly naive and thick headed. One has to be severely indoctrinated into a certain dogma to believe something so clearly out of touch with reality.

    Consider that many religious people commit adultery. In fact pornography is especially popular online in parts of the world that are the most religious and that includes the Bible Belt. And yet these same people know not to steal or kill.

  232. Steve says:

    @Phoenix
    “The actual point is that due to Atheists not having specific and fixed moral principles makes them just as much trustworthy as a child molester. Unless of course they co-opt theistic principles.” “Theist principles” what principles are these? That a raped women should marry her rapist? Slavery is permitted? genital mutilation? Killing of of polytheists and atheists? Slavery, and genocide, the children to be smashed with rocks till they are dead? Human sacrifice of an innocent man on a cross for other people’s sins? Are these the principles you are talking about? Christopher Hitchens had a challenge name me one moral statement that a believer can make that a atheist cannot? Now name me one wicked statement that only be uttered by a believer? Nobody has come up with an answer to the former but you can think of plenty for the later. By the way where does God get his morality from? What is it? How do you know what it is? And what makes it binding?

  233. Phoenix says:

    @Steve

    //Yeah well 40% of Americans still believe the earth is less than 10 thousand years old. And 40% also believe Jesus Christ is going to return to Earth in the next 40 years.//

    And 0,5% of Americans are vegans and 3,2% are vegetarians. And 85% of Americans get to work by car.

    The actual point is that due to Atheists not having specific and fixed moral principles makes them just as much trustworthy as a child molester. Unless of course they co-opt theistic principles.

  234. Phoenix says:

    @Madjifan

    To add to your comment…sexual slavery is currently at its most high in the US and so are STDS. Faithful monogamous relationships via marriage is nearly a thing of the past. There are more terminations of pregnancies to date than any other period in history. The list is quite long but nonetheless it demonstrates a nation which has become a moral wasteland, precisely due to adopting moral relativistic ethics which does not recognize any moral authority other than ones own mind.

  235. Madfijian
    “Can you point to one credible bit of historical evidence that a men called Jesus ever existed outside of Christian texts”

    Jewish historian Josephus has written in his book that Pontius Pilot decreed Jesus to crucifixion. A senate member of the Roman Empire and historian Tacitus has mentioned that during the reign of Tiberius Jesus was given the highest punishment. Roman philosopher, politician and Lawyer Marcus Cicero has registered that the death of Jesus was the most cruel and pathetic.

  236. madfijian says:

    To add to Steve’s comments i think 40% of Americans also think that the world is America and that global warming is a hoax while we in the Pacific are loosing our coastine everyday. America also had a presidential candidate Ben Carson a brain surgeon at that who believes that evolution is Satans doing to confuse Gods people and he actually got votes while running in the primaries. I recently saw a food program hosted by Jamie Oliver where college level students in the US were asked questions about where their food cane from and the answers were just shocking. Dumb as 2 short planks is all i can say.

    America is both probably the smartest country on the planet and also the dumbest.

  237. Steve says:

    @Phoenix

    Yeah well 40% of Americans still believe the earth is less than 10 thousand years old. And 40% also believe Jesus Christ is going to return to Earth in the next 40 years.

  238. Phoenix says:

    How non-Atheists view Atheists:

    Did you know atheists are as much trusted as rapists by the general universal religious population?

    The numbers are in: America still distrusts atheists and Muslims

  239. Can the future and Islam coexist?

  240. What is the relationship between consciousness and God?

  241. madfijian says:

    Hi Steve. Great response. Why is it that secularists like us are branded as haters just because we question the logic of a belief system that has no evidence whatsoever. It gets me all the time.

  242. Steve says:

    @Ron

    “If you post one testimony of a Muslim becoming atheist, I can post you ten testimonies of Muslims becoming Christians. You have never watched even one video of the testimonies I have posted of Muslims becoming Christians. That is why there is still this cynical disbelief in you.” I can post testimonies of Christians who converted to Islam what’s that proof of?

    “If you see the video clearly answer your doubt why more Muslims chose Christianity and less chose atheism. This is an established and documented fact which even Muslims admit.” It’s not an established fact, what Islamic country has become Christian? What Islamic terrorists have converted to Christian? Christian crusaders was in the so called holy land for centuries, why they are still Muslims there? Also do you think preaching the gospel to somebody like Bin Laden is going to stop him or do you think a bullet in his brain will?

    “You have not even seen the video of Dr Berlinski which calls your atheistic Darwinian views bull shit.” Yes that’s all he did, he didn’t give any argument for God or any argument or evidence against evolution.

    “Christianity does not talk of an immaterial soul but souls which will go to eternal Hell or eternal Heaven as Dr Reggie Anderson describes it and which even Ali Sina believes in.” Yes they do go to this eternal hell or heaven when they are PHYSICALLY resurrected on the day of judgement. Until this time the dead are not conscious. This is not what Ali Sina and NDE people believe they claim the soul is separate from the body and goes straight to heaven or hell, – immediately after physical death. Also the bible says people who claim to have contact from the dead should be killed, so clearly the bible does not support this concept.

    “There have been eyewitnesses who have recorded Jesus’s resurrection in the Gospels and other parts of the New Testament. ” This is the facts about these accounts of the resurrection. They was written by
    1. by unknown people
    2. at unknown dates
    3. at unknown times
    4. by non-eyewtnesses
    5. decades after the event
    6. by people from a pro-Jesus point of view (after the fact) freely admitting to being evangelisers
    7. without reference to A SINGLE SOURCE

    So let´s summarize the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus,
    1. Second hand accounts of eyewitnesses.
    2. Whatever else you provided as evidence (i.e. nothing whatsoever).
    Sounds convincing.

    “Even if you search or reach out to Jesus through that prayer, He will answer you. Christ will further confirm his answers through third parties known.)” Except for all the millions that he doesn’t and even the Christians who are suffering and ask for help and get no response. And then this is put down to “Gods mysterious ways”.

    “Your anti-Semitic, anti-Christian diatribe, hatred and gay agenda is evident in your several posts. ” You are lying again, I do not hate Jews or Christians. Criticising Judaism or Christianity doesn’t mean you hate Jews and Christians. You criticise Islam, Hinduism and atheism does it logically follow that you hate Muslims, Hindus and atheists? No that does not follow.

    “In spite of all this Christ still loves you. Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin. He saved the woman caught in adultery and told her not to sin again.” Except he also said the law still stands. Which means 1) capital punishment for adultery, believing in other gods or no God. Slavery, rape and genocide of non believers is also permitted in the bible. According to Theodore Shoebat Jesus would have whipped the gays if there was any in the temple, so according to him he certainly does hate the sinner, if you don’t agree with him you should call him up on it.

    “When I see the exchanges between you and Phoenix, I or for that matter any third person can see the logical fallacies in your statement but I sometimes wonder why an intelligent person like you cannot see it.” Phoenix has no scientific or logical arguments against evolution. I doubt he even understands what evolution is or studied it in any depth. His whole “argument” is “I don’t understand how evolution could have happened, therefore it can’t possibly have happened.”

    “I have seen you and several others resorting to name-calling on the forum, but I would never do that because you are made in the image of God and Christ said when he said “Love thy neighbour as thy self.”” You are lying *again* I have not name called anybody else on this forum.

  243. madfijian says:

    Ron i will give you the benefit of the doubt here. Can you point to one credible bit of historical evidence that a men called Jesus ever existed outside of Christian texts. Please don’t refer to the shroud of Turin as that has been proven as a hoax. An actual eye witness account by someone other than his disciples.

  244. Ron says:

    @Steve If you post one testimony of a Muslim becoming atheist, I can post you ten testimonies of Muslims becoming Christians. You have never watched even one video of the testimonies I have posted of Muslims becoming Christians. That is why there is still this cynical disbelief in you.

    If you see the video clearly answer your doubt why more Muslims chose Christianity and less chose atheism. This is an established and documented fact which even Muslims admit.

    You have not even seen the video of Dr Berlinski which calls your atheistic Darwinian views bull shit.
    Christianity does not talk of an immaterial soul but souls which will go to eternal Hell or eternal Heaven as Dr Reggie Anderson describes it and which even Ali Sina believes in.

    There have been eyewitnesses who have recorded Jesus’s resurrection in the Gospels and other parts of the New Testament. Now why do Muslims still convert to Christianity because their hunger for God is real and when they sincerely search Jesus answers. (Even if you search or reach out to Jesus through that prayer, He will answer you. Christ will further confirm his answers through third parties known.)

    Your anti-Semitic, anti-Christian diatribe, hatred and gay agenda is evident in your several posts. In spite of all this Christ still loves you. Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin. He saved the woman caught in adultery and told her not to sin again.

    If you become Christian it does not give me any material benefit or promotion in any social ladder but I am preaching it because I was in your shoes once and I spurned several invitations from Christian business clients to come to church. I was perhaps more leftist and materialistic than you when studying at University because our educational system is left-leaning and secular.

    When I see the exchanges between you and Phoenix, I or for that matter any third person can see the logical fallacies in your statement but I sometimes wonder why an intelligent person like you cannot see it.

    The love of Christ and sincere acceptance of Christ can change you and at first it will convict you of anything wrong you do. When I passed by a pan-handler before becoming a Christian it never bothered me to help him. But when you have Christ (not just having a Christian name and going to church) in you and you have accepted him as your personal Saviour, you will never be the same and feel compelling compassion to help a fellow human being irrespective of his race, religion, orientation, social standing, appearance etc.

    When I saw the dramatic change in a friend who accepted Christ, it changed me. It has changed Ali Sina too and it will change you also.

    I have seen you and several others resorting to name-calling on the forum, but I would never do that because you are made in the image of God and Christ said when he said “Love thy neighbour as thy self.”

    Now watch the earlier videos if you haven’t and watch this one..

    This lady 81 years old has preached in mosque. She goes frequently to Pakistan and other Muslim countries preaches and this is effective counter jihad rather than attacking soft targets like true Christians who you know will generally turn the other cheek.

    Marilyn Hickey (81 years) Goes into a MOSQUE to proclaim Jesus (It’s Supernatural)

  245. Steve says:

    @Ron

    “Anyways, I will search further.” I doubt that you will but if your are genuine then you can see this from Richard Dawkins
    Darwin Day 2015 Questions: #4 How does evolution explain homosexuality?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IDmQns78FR8

    “Centuries before 9/11 happened we had Christian missionaries/ NGOs working in Islamic territories being routinely kidnapped, tortured, persecuted and killed. ” So did Christians convert Muslims or was they all kidnapped, tortured, persecuted and killed?

    “I believe the West are losing because you can pour out zillions of dollars in arms and reconstruction but you cannot usher in or sustain democracy in Islamic territory because the Islamic mindset cannot change to democracy/secular thinking unless you get them converted to Christianity” What Islamic country has been converted to Christianity? How many Islamic psychopathic terrorists have been converted to Christianity?

    “Both the right extremes of gay slaughter (which is rare and not preached in the pulpit)” Gay people are being beaten and discriminated against in Russia and many Eastern European countries, it is punishable by death in Uganda and idiots like shoebat and his son preach this bullshit and well.

    ” left extremes of gay celebration, pushing the gay agenda, entitlement and social engineering are not conducive to a healthy family-structured society.” There is no “gay agenda” you are a liar and hate Monger and you then come along talking about “love and compassion” to try to get people into your cult.

    “Only the love for and of Christ can defeat the hate of Islam and not atheism.” If atheists can’t convince Muslims then how on earth are Christians going to? Can you prove the doctrine of trinity? Can you prove Jesus was the son of God? Can you prove Jesus died and then rose again? No Muslims do not believe in any of those doctrines so how you going to convert Muslims?

    “This is an absolute must to anyone who has questions /doubts about NDE or God.” Ron you do know that Christ never taught the doctrine of immaterial soul right and instead believed in the concept of resurrection of the dead? The belief in a “immaterial soul” actually comes from pagan religions and not Judaism and was not believed in by the early Christians. So you should learn your own religion since you are preaching a false – pagan – doctrine.

  246. Ron says:

    This is an absolute must to anyone who has questions /doubts about NDE or God.

    From an atheist award winning medical Dr Reggie Anderson.
    He recorded what happens to people at the moment of death and his observations…..are here in this video…

    ATHEIST Sees Jesus and Heaven – Dr. Reggie Anderson

  247. Sam Harris: how Christianity appears to non believers

  248. Phoenix says:

    @Ron

    Thumbs up for that Dr. Berlinski clip. Somehow it always sounds so much better when a polymath say those things.

  249. Ron says:

    The video by madfijian did not show any committed or sustained homosexual activity in the animals depicted. It looks more like gay agenda marketing material with no established scientist behind it. Anyways, I will search further.

    Show me one atheist organization / NGO dedicated to spreading atheism working in the conflict zones or in sharia dominated countries? Answer: zilch. You will find none.

    So there is no formal movement on counter jihad. Centuries before 9/11 happened we had Christian missionaries/ NGOs working in Islamic territories being routinely kidnapped, tortured, persecuted and killed. They were the pioneers of the counter jihad movement if you call it. The seculars only stepped in after 9/11 and they want more of the limelight but are not willing to enter the battlefield. I think attempted hijacking of the counter jihad movement if there is any loose alliance as such is from the liberal/secular/atheist left.

    I have met Afghans who supported the Taliban. Many of them proudly feel and say that they defeated the atheist Russians and now they will ultimately be defeating the half-men (eunuchs/gay) army of the West.

    I believe the West are losing because you can pour out zillions of dollars in arms and reconstruction but you cannot usher in or sustain democracy in Islamic territory because the Islamic mindset cannot change to democracy/secular thinking unless you get them converted to Christianity.

    Secularism may sustain for a small period of time (may be decades) but then they will revert back to Islamic/mindset. Case examples are Chechnya, Uighurs, Algeria, Iraq, Yemen etc. In the erstwhile Soviet territories of Chechnya, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan we find Islam is re-establishing vigorously even after the soviet pogroms of destroying religion at every level. There was no call to Islamic prayer during the time of Stalin’s rise and purges against religion till the dissolution of the Soviet Union and an entire two generations of people grew up not knowing Islam. China is facing the same issue with the Uighurs.

    If they had only allowed Christianity in those regions, they would not be restive as they are now.

    Learn from history. We are living in a global era and you cannot quarantine or isolate any society whether it is your democratic society or Islam. Islam is growing and thriving in the West.

    Islam is filling a spiritual vacuum created by liberals, atheistic academia, leftist media which set out to contain or destroy Christ, Christianity and Christian values and replace it with materialism, entitlement, atheism and secularism.

    Both the right extremes of gay slaughter (which is rare and not preached in the pulpit) and left extremes of gay celebration, pushing the gay agenda, entitlement and social engineering are not conducive to a healthy family-structured society.

    Only the love for and of Christ can defeat the hate of Islam and not atheism.

    Millions of Muslims turn to Jesus / Yeshua in just one night. You wont believe this is possible

  250. madfijian says:

    Ron you might want to view this you tube video on natural homosexuality in animals.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYdcvRe7ox8

    Steve is right. You really should stick to topics you know about.

    You were right about Australia though . They are debating it but have not passed gay marriage laws yet.

  251. Steve says:

    @Ron
    “To counter it with atheism you have to use a mixed bag of truth and lies. i.e. As an atheist you have to say that don’t follow Islam as there is no such thing as God (which is false) and that Mohammed is evil (which is true.). This DOES not work with majority of Muslims.” This is what you don’t seem to understand, this is not about God or Islam vs Christianity, this is about protecting democratic countries from Islam and Islamic terrorists. As this article said “Unfortunately, the Counter Jihad movement in America is dominated by the Religious Right. And this scares other people away. Many of the Christian people who are engaged in fighting Islam do so simply to protect our freedom and human rights. And I don’t want to paint all of the religious people in American Counter Jihad with the same brush. However, that said, there are also those Evangelicals who are simply engaged in a contest of religions. This obsession, with Christianity being superior to Islam, unfortunately seems to dominate too much of the culture around Counter Jihad in this country”.

    So all this “my God is better than your God” or “My God is real and atheists are fools” talk, is just irrelevant nonsense which actually harms the movement which seeks to protect democracy and freedom from Islam and Islamic terrorists. All it does is alienate people Ron and no most people are not interested in fundamentalist religion or hearing “end of times” bullshit being preached and how gay people are supposedly a menace to society and need to be slaughtered and all this other nonsense.

  252. RON: People will read my article, then read all of the religious fanaticism you have posted at the bottom, thus proving my point about Counter Jihad being hijacked by the Rapture Ready crowd.

  253. Ron says:

    Dr David Berlinski received his PhD in philosophy from Princeton University
    Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford University, Rutgers University, The City University of New York, the University of Washington, the University of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and taught mathematics at the Université de Paris.
    Hear his talk on Darwinian theory and God

    Dr. David Berlinski: The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

  254. Ron says:

    @ Steve Islam consists of belief saying that there is only one God i.e. Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.
    To counter it with atheism you have to use a mixed bag of truth and lies. i.e. As an atheist you have to say that don’t follow Islam as there is no such thing as God (which is false) and that Mohammed is evil (which is true.). This DOES not work with majority of Muslims.

    90% of Muslims who leave Islam, leave it because they are touched by Christ, or find Christianity true when they closely examine and compare the lives and teachings of Mohammed and Jesus. A small miniscule of Muslims leave Islam to become atheists or another non-Christian faith.

    Majority of Muslims are never convinced by atheism. They are very intelligent and will just point out to the observable evidence around them specially in the diversity in nature and complexity in the human brain or eye or even in an single cell, DNA structure, metamorphosis of insects, lifecycle of a frog or the uniqueness of the fingerprint and say that this cannot happen by random chances, mutation and natural selection.

    They will consider you stupid, brainless, evil, wicked and a Satan’s agent if you push atheism down their throat.

    Truth only prevails and you can convince them with truth saying that there is one God but he is not Allah of the Quran as mentioned by Mohammed. Moreover they can see your sincerity and are moved to love Jesus when they know more about the love of Jesus who was sinless and had a lot of attributes of God like raising people from dead, healing the sick, giving eyes to the blind, delivering the possessed etc. Muslims respect Jesus as a great prophet.

    When they compare the lives and miraculous deeds of Christ with the evil life and evil deeds of Mohammed, they reason out and they ask God to reveal himself and Jesus never fails to reveal himself to anyone who asks.

    You want conversion in large numbers then use truth of the love of Christ. It always works. Jesus always answers if you reach out to them.

    Atheism as a lie will never give you traction in preaching to the Muslim community.

    Watch this intelligent Muslim scientist converts to Christianity

  255. Steve says:

    @Ron

    “Homosexuality is not rampant as you think or want it to be in the animal world. There may be courtship but there is no evidence of mating (penetration of the anus by the male organ). You are being fed a bunch of lies by vested interests to promote their brand of social engineering. ” Ron can I give you a tip? Only speak about things you know about, which it seems is nothing, you do not even know much about the bible – by your own admission.

    “It is evident that it is sublime hatred which make you spit out such vitriol against Jesus.” Do you condemn Thedore Shoebat who said if gays was in the temple Jesus would have whipped them?

    “When you are without Christ, you are still left filled with sin, hatred, depravity, no compassion and will stoop to any level of maligning Christ to promote disbelief in God, promote atheism, a hedonistic lifestyle.” Translation – all non Christians are evil. This is what you mean when you say the likes of the Canaanites was “evil” by that you mean “non believers” and non-believers can be slaughtered, raped and enslaved – according to the bible. This is also what the likes of ISIS and bin laden mean when they say America and the west is “evil”.

    “You can only defeat Islam with the love of Christ and not by quarantining Muslims and hating them. These large conversions can happen only through Christianity and not atheism.” Bullshit, assuming a significant number of Muslims can be convinced Islam is not true, why not leave it to them if they want to believe in a God/religion or not? Why you have to force your religious bullshit down their throats? Why not let them do their own research and “soul searching” and let them come to their own conclusions on these matters?

  256. Ron says:

    @madfijian. You and ISIS are on the same side —i.e. against Christ and Christians!!! That is very obvious.
    You are part of the unholy alliance against Christ and Christianity.

    I am for the salvation of you and ISIS elements and all non-saved people.. I am for the salvation of unbelievers, agnostics and anti-Christians. I am not for ostracising, quarantining or alienating anybody.

    You need to relinquish hate and try that prayer. I know its very very difficult for you to even try saying that prayer. It is extremely difficult to reach out to Christ. But please note that without Christ one can only be goody but not good.
    One can have little compassion on the homeless and hungry and destitute, but have more greed.

    Try that prayer and note that it is not a prayer for conversion. It is prayer asking Jesus to reveal himself to you otherwise you will continue on your path of unbelief.

    You don’t measure success with the money you earn but with what you do with the money you earn. Watch this video.
    Atheist Finds Jesus Trough His Born Again and Totally Changed Son!!

  257. madfijian says:

    Ron seriously dude. Here you go now your true colors really show.
    What is the difference between you and ISIS. Almost none. You think that killing a gay men is OK as per the Bible just because they enjoy the pleasures of the flesh. Gee Ron guess what ISIS does they throw gays off multi story buildings. I make my point again. Islam is cut from the same virus that is Christianity. It is mutated but it is still the same damn virus and you my friend just proved it.

    Steve my depopulation theory via gays was meant to be sarcastic. I am a huge fan of DAWKINS and have watched almost all his debates and theories. I don’t agree with everything that he says as i tend to be a bit like Eric in that i do think their maybe a universal energy that we may all be a part of but on the whole i agree with his take on the Abrahamic religions. .

  258. Ron says:

    I just checked up the web and it says only the following countries have recognized gay marriage Same-sex marriage became legal nationwide in Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010), Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013), Luxembourg (2015), Ireland (2015) and Colombia (2016). It also became legal in parts of Denmark (2012), Mexico (2010) the Netherlands (2001), New Zealand (2013), the United Kingdom (2014), and the United States (2015). The law in Finland is expected to take effect on 1 March 2017. So Australia is not there yet.

    Homosexuality is not rampant as you think or want it to be in the animal world. There may be courtship but there is no evidence of mating (penetration of the anus by the male organ). You are being fed a bunch of lies by vested interests to promote their brand of social engineering.

    It is evident that it is sublime hatred which make you spit out such vitriol against Jesus.

    The Bible condemns gay sex, even as it condemns fornication, prostitution, theft, lying etc.

    Jesus gave life to the dead, healed the sick, gave eyes to the blind, made the mute speak, made deaf to hear, did a lot of miracles and deliverances. He died for our sins and rose up on the third day. He did not hurt or kill anyone, in fact he saved the condemned.

    But it should be noted that people of Sodom and Gomorrah were very evil and did commit sins of the flesh specially homosexuality and God did reign judgement upon them. I don’t know much about the Bible and am relatively a new believer but I do know that Christ is the only way.

    Christ is our Savior and the King in heaven. Most NDEs have testified to Christ ruling heaven. Also there are so many testimonies of people, many who hated and did not believe in Christ, met Him and changed forever.

    When you are without Christ, you are still left filled with sin, hatred, depravity, no compassion and will stoop to any level of maligning Christ to promote disbelief in God, promote atheism, a hedonistic lifestyle.

    You can only defeat Islam with the love of Christ and not by quarantining Muslims and hating them. These large conversions can happen only through Christianity and not atheism.

    2 Million Indonesian Muslims converting to Christianity every year – Muslim leaders are panicking

  259. Steve says:

    @Madfijian

    “You can find numerous articles on this and you tube videos if you care to look.” Yep this is the best one I have come across
    Dawkins explains homosexuality from a evolutionary view

    Darwin Day 2015 Questions: #4 How does evolution explain homosexuality?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IDmQns78FR8

    “Considering the world is in dire straights via global warming and over population etc perhaps its God working in mysterious ways as the more people become gays the less reproduction.” Evolution doesn’t work like that, Dawkins explains in the video linked below.

    Darwin Day 2015 Questions: #1 Is Homosexuality Nature’s Population Control?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQlw4PpDs4o

  260. Steve says:

    @Ron

    Walid Shoebat is coming from a Muslim background, so I believe that his views on it being punishable by death may have a cultural bias.” This is not what Shoebat says, he says it commanded in the bible and by Jesus himself. “Brown like the others concluded that executing sodomites “does not represent the spirit or letter of the New Testament”.
    Really?

    It was the Holy Spirit who spoke through Paul in Romans 1 which taught that sodomites are “worthy of death” and Paul was basing this on what we discussed so far when the Theophany of Christ rained fire and brimstone from His”

    For example, what happens to: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13)

    “CARM, an Evangelical website gives the typical argument one hears in the American brand of Evangelical Christianity which sounds like this:

    “There can be no doubt that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality as a detestable act worthy of death and that God has deemed it to be an “abomination” to Him. Of course, the Old Testament Law is no longer in effect in this area because the Messiah has come, and we are not under a theocratic governmental system. Therefore, we are not to execute homosexuals. We are to pray for them and their repentance, so they might find salvation in Christ.

    Yet such modern Christians always argue for the death penalty, but only for murder.

    But arguing for the death penalty as “a life for a life” could be argued as “an eye for an eye”. This would debunk the notion that all Levitical laws are obsolete. How could these re-explain “vengeance is mine” along with their support of the death penalty and that we should not uproot the tares lest we also uproot the wheat?”

    “With the explosion of homosexuality in America, the Evangelical response have two extremes where some call for putting all gays in concentration camps while the “Jesus is love” side says that Jesus forbade capital punishment for sodomites. This is also anotherextreme.

    Did Jesus kill gays? Nothing was ever said in this silly half-baked article that in the Bible it is as clear as the sun, Jesus killed the sodomites. Yet these intentionally overlook and refuse to disclose that some of the best passages of scripture ever used regarding the Trinity and the Theophany is within the context when Christ completely annihilated the sodomites.

    Anyone who denies this ask them: was it Christ Who met with Abraham and announced the destruction of Sodom? In Genesis Abraham is visited by three figures, one of whom he refers to as “My Lord” (Genesis 18:3), and Who Scripture calls “the LORD” (Genesis 18:17).

    No sane theologian would argue that this person wasn’t Christ. After much feasting, Christ and the other two men left Abraham to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 18:21-22). Christ even referred to His meeting with Abraham in the New Testament when He said:“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56, also see St. Gregory as recorded by St. Aquinas, Catena Aurea). It was so clear in scripture that it was Christ Who killed ‘the gays’:

    “Then the LORD [the Son] rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD [the Father] out of heaven (Genesis 19:24)”

    (Source http://shoebat.com/2016/02/19/no-michael-brown-jesus-has-killed-gays/ )

    So “meek and mild” jesus did kill gays and in the bible it is punishable by death – along with imaginary crimes like “idolatry” and “witchcraft” – so much for “Christian compassion”.

  261. madfijian says:

    Hi Ron. I reference your last post in regards to homosexuality. you describe the act to be considered unnatural in some countries. I do think you got at least one of the countries wrong as in Australia it is now legal to get married if you are gay so in fact i think more people have no problem with it than those who don’t. My post though is not about that. When one looks at things through the prism of all the draconian Abrahamic faiths than homosexuality is considered an unnatural act. Again religion get this wrong. Over 2000 animals have been observed practicing homosexuality from Chimps, to Dolphins to Sheep. It is as rampant in nature as it can be. IT IS NATURAL contrary to your ascertain. You can find numerous articles on this and you tube videos if you care to look.

    Considering the world is in dire straights via global warming and over population etc perhaps its God working in mysterious ways as the more people become gays the less reproduction.

    Also consider this.Jesus of the Bible hung around with 12 men all the time he never married even at an age when people of his time got married young. Perhaps this says something about his sexuality. I do not mean this as insult but as an observation based on what the bible says. Of course their is contrary beliefs even amongest Christians that he was indeed married and perhaps even had kids. That is Yoshua the men (sage, holy men) not the God legend that has been created.

  262. Ron says:

    There are different views on homosexuality.
    In majority of the countries it is considered unnatural (including Germany, Australia, Japan, China, India, many parts of Europe, almost whole of Eastern Europe, All of Asia, Arabia, Africa (except South Africa) and most of Latin America)
    In many countries specially the Muslim countries it is unnatural and criminal act.
    In some countries where we buy our oil from it is unnatural, criminal act punishable by death.
    In few countries it is perfectly natural and is to be celebrated (Netherlands, Spain, Canada, US, France etc).
    Walid Shoebat is coming from a Muslim background, so I believe that his views on it being punishable by death may have a cultural bias.
    Christians believe it is a sin of the flesh, like Adultery, Fornication Uncleanness, Idolatry, Witchcraft, Hatred etc.

  263. Here is an alternative view of God, from Dr. Amit Goswami, an expert in Quantum Physics. This view is from the perspective of a Science of Consciousness. From this view “Non-Local Consciousness” is the ground of Being – not matter – Consciousness is the ground of Being (for me personally, this seems self-evident):

  264. FOOD FOR THOUGHT: To be clear, Richard Dawkins, as an Atheist, is NOT saying that he knows and can prove there is no God. BTW: I do feel there is a Higher Power, just not what is described by Abrahamic religions. And by posting this, it does not mean I agree with 100 percent of what Dawkins has to say. Rather, here are a few ideas to consider:

  265. Steve says:

    @Ron

    If becoming a Christian makes people more loving, compassionate and understanding etc then how come the likes of Walid Shoebat and his son think homosexuals should be killed (to take one example)? I noticed even other Christians on Shoebats site who believe homosexuality is a “disease”, was shocked and disgusted at Shoebat for saying that.

  266. Ron says:

    It can also be construed that counter jihad by atheists and agnostics is actually a front against Christianity with Islam being the collateral damage. Your writings also affirm that unholy alliance of atheists, agnostics, secularists and non-Christians against Christianity is true.

    It is not unnoticeable how fast madfijian jumped into the anti-Christian bandwagon. If you are skeptical of Christianity, you will check out and see the videos but if you are cynical then you would not. Nevertheless, the point to be noted is that the people in the videos were not believers in Christ but became believers because of incidents bordering the miraculous if not miraculous.

    Counter jihad movement is not any formal alliance and there is no unifying force unless you want to call the common purpose of defeating Islam as a unifying force. So there is no hijacking of this informal movement.

    I wish to reiterate that Christianity has prevailed over Islam historically and the fastest growing religion in Islamic countries whether it is Iran, Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim nations is evangelical Christianity.

    Ninety percent of the apostates become Christians. There are so many Muslims who are covert Christians. It is foolish and naive to think that you can win against Islam with an atheist or agnostic mindset or framework.

    FYI the old testament shows history about man and the law was prescriptive to the Jews who were liberated out of bondage from Egypt and many of the laws were pertaining to building and functioning of the temple. When moving into the promised land the Israelites were commanded to kill and defeat the pagan tribes who were very vicious, cruel, doing child and human sacrifices etc. perhaps more worse than the present day ISIS. But God also allowed the Israelites to suffer under foreign rulers when they consistently broke the law.

    The old testament clearly tells about the coming of the Messiah who would give them salvation which is fulfilled in the New Testament. I am not an expert in the Bible but when Christ touches you, you will change.

    If you want to check out whether Jesus is true is to say this simple prayer.

    “Jesus, if you are true, then come into my life and reveal yourself to me personally or through dreams and visions. Also to confirm that salvation is only through you and your revelations are true please touch me or reveal yourself through other unexpected ways. If you Jesus do not reveal yourself to me then I will continue on my present path, which I believe is true.”

    He will answer your prayer as he answered this guy.

    Your disbelief, dislike or hatred of Christ, Christians and Jews may only be relegated to internet blogs and forums and may not be exhibitive in public life and in that respect you are much better than this guy who hated Christians and Jews and went out to kill them and used guns, bombs etc to achieve his objectives.

    Hear his story (its not a dumb video). Also try the prayer above. Jesus ALWAYS answers.

    Lebanese Muslim Who Hated Christians and Jews Met Jesus / From Jihad to Jesus – Jerry Rassamni

  267. madfijian says:

    Eric. Yes i agree with everything you are saying. Evangelical nut jobs posing as Gods managers on earth is making our job harder. When you start working faith against faith the people involved dig in deeper instead of confronting the truth with logic and sensibility. I also agree that Christians are not literally following the Bible and practicing the brutality that the good book prescribes. The question than is are they Christians?. If you do not follow the rules of your own holy book than are you really a Christian. This is the reason why ISIS kills more Muslims than anyone else. You see they follow the literal meaning of the Quran while so called moderate Muslims don’t and hence they are not considered Muslims by ISIS. By ignoring the violent verses in the Bible it does not go away. It is still there.It is also obvious that the early Arab writers used the Bible as the basics of the new Islamic faith. What i am simply saying is that while demonizing the Islamic faith (quite rightly so) so we should point out where its barbarism comes from despite the fact that most Christians are not being as Christian as the Bible commands them. It is still the source of the Islams ideology.

  268. madfijian – I have indeed read the entire Bible. Rather I listened to it on tape, when I was a teenager, over the course of many months, I believe read by Efram Zimblast, Jr. if I recall. I agree that there is a lot of violence, especially in the Old Testament. But I cannot ignore the glaring fact that Christians typically do not practice any of this stuff, as compared with devout Muslims and their relationship to Hadith and the Quran.

    A cruel god creates a cruel man, as they say. A god with a “chosen people” was obviously invented by those chosen people, whether they be Jewish or Muslim or Christian.

    The contradiction in Christianity is that the Bible is a book and it is the word of “God”. But when you point out the horribly violent passages, there are excuses. Same goes for Biblical passages that have been disproved by science. For instance, in Genesis, if “God” put man above all living things, then wouldn’t we have dominion over germs? Clearly we do not. And the list goes on, but with it goes a never ending list of excuses, rationalizations and superstitious nonsense about the age of the Earth.

    What I often say about the Abrahamic religions is this: If religion is a sickness, then Christianity is the common cold and Islam is a flesh eating virus.

    Whatever happened with Christianity historically is overshadowed by what is happening today, now, with Islam. Islam is the biggest threat we face. Ideally religious and non-religious people would join together to fight Islam. But when foaming at the mouth Evangelicals insist on using the comments sections, on blogs, Facebook, etc. to hard sell Jesus, the whole thing starts to loose its momentum. And thus our movement is slow to pick up recruits because the religious fanatics are quick to scare them away.

    Just like certain members of the Republican Party seem to be indirectly helping Hilary to get elected, certain members of the Counter Jihad Movement are undermining our efforts and helping CAIR to paint us all with the same brush – “Islamophobes” engaged in nothing more than a contest of religions.

  269. madfijian says:

    Eric Hi! First of all great article or should i say interview. I have read Rons usual Christ filled arguments with you and want to add my 2 bits. I am a former believer in Islam. Left the faith many moons ago and despise the very fact that i was even a part of this lunacy albeit in a far more moderate way then the loons we usually see on CNN. While i despise Islam i also despise the origins of Islam which is really Christianity. Fundamentalist Christians like Ron are very quick to point a finger at Islam. Here are the facts. Almost every draconian Islamic belief and law in Islam is copied from the Bible. Mohammed was an illiterate blood thirsty monster but not dumb. He used 80% if the Bible to form his own religion of course with his own glorified persona added to the mix. A lot has been sad about apostasy in Islam. This is what Christianity says:

    1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

    6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

    12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, 13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 14 Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. 17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; 18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

    Now people like Ron will be quick to say that this is from the old testament. You see a Christian once corrected me in saying that there is but 1 bible not 2. You cannot be a Christian if you do not believe in Moses and all the prophets mentioned in the Old book.

    Since you have read the Quran i am also assuming that you have read the Bible. Did you not see the parallels with Christianity. Their are over 800 violent verses in the Bible and 300 or so in the Quran. You tell me which is more violent. The last thing i want to do is defend Islam. The gist of my argument is simple. If the son is Violent (Islam) you got to look at its origins and call a spade a spade.
    Islam is an offshoot of Christianity and for me the sooner both of these faiths are rid of this planet the better.

    If secularism and basic humanitarian principals of right and wrong had not affected the thinking in the western world most Christians would still be following the literal teachings of the Bible and hence they would also be stoning adulterers, killing apostates and “God” knows what else.

    I have challenged Ron to prove me wrong but all he does is post this dumb videos from you tube.
    Of course he cant logically argue against what is printed in the bible for all to read.

  270. livingengine says:

    Eric Allen Bell defrauded the Counter Jihad Movement in 2012. see the story here — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Jai6gr09g

  271. Well these comments have entirely proven my point. The Counter Jihad Movement in North America has been hijacked by Christian fundamentalists, thus scaring off anyone else who might consider participating. The fight against Islam is being used merely to advance Christianity and protect “The Chosen People”. And anyone who has a voice outside of that agenda is alone in the wilderness. Therefore, the Counter Jihad Movement in this part of the world repels outsiders and mostly preaches to the choir.

  272. Ron says:

    When you come to Christ, you can come in any state you are. You don’t need to get right before coming to him. He responds when you earnestly seek him. You will automatically shun evil when you accept him as your personal Saviour.

    God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and so nothing is infinite to God as he is the Creator.

    Counter jihad without you being in Christ is an exercise in futility. History proves that. The Afghans Mujahedeen/Taliban drove the Russians and the NATO forces away.

    Even as you read the posts the writ of the Taliban reigns supreme in villages and areas away from Kabul. Libya without Gadhafi is now a cesspool of Al Qaeda, ISIS, GIA elements. In Iraq and Syria despite continuous aerial bombings since 3 years the ISIS and other Islamic militants are holding to power and roughly control more area than they began with.

    There is a lot of evidence of creation around you and it is difficult to convince a Muslim that there is no God. It is relatively less difficult to convince a Muslim that Jesus is greater than Mohammed.
    A devout Muslim will generally not accept an anti-Christ agenda. For counter jihad to succeed you have use the redeeming power of the Christ and the Holy Spirit which will fill you with love, concern and compassion.

    Without Christ you have latent, undeclared or undiscovered hate.

    There are millions of Muslims all over the world that are coming to Christ as they see visions and dreams of Christ.

    In Saudi Arabia, you cannot get a business/visit visa saying you are an atheist or Jew on the visa form. You will never have the guts to go and preach atheism there but when you have Christ you will get that boldness and preach in spite of the clear and present dangers.

    Watch this
    Vision of Jesus – Tortured Man Has Vision of Jesus

  273. Blue Fairy says:

    How unfortunate that the comments are mostly from people pushing their own religious agenda. One does not need Christ to see the evil in Islam and fight it. It’s nice to know that so many Christians will help with counterjihad but many non religious people have been very turned off by this. Hopefully, more secular Counterjihadists will gain popularity.
    I do not favor turning counterjihad into a holy war between Christians and Muslims because both sides will welcome the end of the Earth. Those of us who do not believe in religion would kindly like to have our planet survive thank you. Maybe when you’ve all been raptured, we can finally have some peace on Earth.
    Eric has shown great patience with all of the commentators far more than I could have.
    Meanwhile, Shoebat stretches the truth most of the time and outright lies the rest of the time. His son is a very sick man who desperately needs psychiatric help.

  274. RON: Hardselling to me that I need to get right with your messiah figure is pushy, arrogant, offensive and delusional. “God” can be loved in any number of ways. If “God” is Infinite, then a religious or non-religious person is loving an aspect of “God” when they love someone or something. It is the height of arrogance for anyone to say that they are the ONLY WAY to “God”. And it is incredibly gullible to believe such a person.

  275. Ron says:

    Hi Eric,

    I have travelled extensively in South Asia and the Far East and you will be surprised to know that most if not all of the leprosy homes are run by Christian NGOs wherein most of the patients are Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists, animists etc. Majority of the destitute and orphanages are run by Christian NGOs. Again where most of the patients/inmates/orphans are non-Christians.

    I believe that if you cannot love God then it cannot translate into love for fellow humans. You may have empathy or sympathy but no strong overbearing compassion that will make you feed the hungry or homeless and the destitute. This feeling of compassion is only ignited within you when you have Christ within you.

    When you do not have Christ in you then this spiritual vacuum is filled with hatred and denial of the hatred.

    You claim that you are striving to stop Islamization but without Christ it is an exercise in failure.
    Watch this video on how Christ responds and transforms when you reach out to him.
    Converts to Christianity – Encounter with Jesus

  276. RON: Finally I would like to respond to your comment, “You knowingly or unknowingly are part of the unholy alliance against Christ because you despise Christ and Christians.” I hate Islam, not Muslims. If you can comprehend that then you will understand that I oppose Christianity but I do not hate Christians. Many of my friends are Christians. In fact, some of my very close friends are Christians. We happen to disagree about Christianity.

  277. RON: With regard to your other naive assumption, that I despise Muslims:

  278. RON: How very naive and narrow-minded. We are in America. In India, for example, which faith would be responsible for the most adoptions? I’m not a Hindu and not advocating for Hinduism, rather just making a point.

  279. Ron says:

    Eric,
    Just go to any adoption agency and check out which faith does the most amount of second adoptions (i.e. after having a first child by natural means or through adoption than adopting another child as addition to the family). It is mostly Christians.
    (Least adoptions of any type are done by Muslims as it is against the teachings of Mohammed).

    Who doe the most amount of fostering. Again its Christians.

    If you go to Haiti & Nepal now also you will find that Christian NGOs are still working there but the secular NGOs are almost AWOL. There are no Buddhist NGOs. Even in Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan/Yemen there are Christian missionaries still working at the danger to their lives for the spiritual as well as physical liberation and salvation of the locals whereas our Western governments have turned tail and are afraid to put boots on the ground and have let the bloodshed continue.

    You knowingly or unknowingly are part of the unholy alliance against Christ because you despise Christ and Christians. You certainly despise Muslims too.
    Muslims are not bad but are the victims of Mohammed. You need to love Muslims and pray to Christ for their salvation.

    It is surprising that an educated guy like you who must have learnt history even doubts that Jesus existed.

    Watch this video and it may change your views unless you are not willing to relinquish hatred.

    Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus.

  280. STANLEY: I wanted to comment on another delusional statement that you have made:
    “Hey even if Jesus is not god, as a man he did what no other so called god or divinity did, displayed love like no other by laying down his life for sinners…if true love be the greatest test of character, then the greatest display of such love is seen in the sacrifice made, and this was done by Jesus.”

    During the time of Jesus, if a historical Jesus existed at all, many people were crucified. This occurred before his time and after his time and still goes on today. Is Jesus the only person who have sacrificed his life for the good of others? Of course not? Ever soldier who died liberating the Jews from Concentration Camps during WWII gave their life to remove the suffering of others.

    You said, “Even if Jesus is not god”. If he is not god then what did he actually accomplish by being crucified?

    And if he was “god” then what kind of god would make up a rule and then, to give us a pass from the consequences of that rule, turn himself into a person and have himself killed – what?

    Let me summarize the Bible for you: In the beginning “god” creates everything and everyone and sees that it is good (***SPOILER ALTERT***) Then if you skip to the end “god” is so disappointed with his creating that he is going to destroy it all. Those who kiss his ass will live forever, eternally kissing his ass. And those who do not, they will be cast into a lake of hell fire for all eternity. The end.

    This “god” is the invention of ignorant Bronze Age men. The Information Age might not destroy religion, but it is sure to expose the absurdity of the Abrahmic religions and perhaps allow us to advance something less ridiculous to believe in.

  281. STANLEY: There is no doubt that the Christian world has adopted many wonderful moral values, including compassion and loving your neighbor as yourself. But they did not invent these values. In Vedic teachings we can find a more more clear, less convoluted teaching of these ideas in the Tao Te Ching and the teachings of the Buddha. No one culture or theology can lay claim to inventing morality – although some can take credit for advancing moral values. But to say that Christianity has the market cornered on this is delusional and arrogant.

  282. stanley says:

    Hi, Eric…so many like you have trodden down that path….liberalism without the greatest liberator- Jesus. Far be it from me to debate with you on the issues of God/Jesus as I’m sure that Ali Sina has perfected that journey from atheism to a semblance of theistic acceptance.
    Hey even if Jesus is not god, as a man he did what no other so called god or divinity did, displayed love like no other by laying down his life for sinners…if true love be the greatest test of character, then the greatest display of such love is seen in the sacrifice made, and this was done by Jesus. The greatest sacrifice deserves the greatest adoration…this is called common sense religion….

    Please take a good look at your own journey, the ideas you once hated as Islamophobic now you cherish and promote…It is possible a year from now you will change your views on Jesus, heaven , hell, etc…
    I believe that you are intelligent enough to do that

    May I remind you that your western civilization foundation beliefs were won by those whom you label as fanatic Christians…
    It’s amazing that neo liberals will use the freedoms that Christians fought for and will then label Christians as right wing and bigoted!!
    Stan

  283. Ron says:

    During my travels to many countries I did meet unexpectedly missionaries. Sometimes I wondered why they left the physical comfort, freedom and safety we have here in the West to toil for the evangelization of unknown people in faraway lands and work to provide them education, healthcare, water, food, sanitization etc. with great risk to their lives and their families lives in terms of persecution, disease etc.

    Voltaire an atheist said that “One hundred years from today the Bible would be a forgotten book”.
    Today, everyone has forgotten that quote — not the Bible! After Voltaire died, for nearly 100 years, his homestead was used as the book depository for the French Bible Society. They sold Bibles out of his house! It’s now a museum. People have forgotten Voltaire. Nobody forgets the Bible. It is the most translated book in the entire world. It is the only religious scripture available in multiple languages in Braille, in audio, in video and had parts of it even read in space and the moon.

    There is a continuous translation of the Gospels happening in thousands of languages/dialects even as you read this post.

    Fiction does not survive. Leave alone grow. God’s word will always survive “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”(Matthew 24:35 NIV)

    It is extremely difficult to convince a Muslim with a mixed bag of truth and lies saying there is no God (which is a lie) and Mohammed was a bad man (which is the truth).

    It is easier to convince a Muslim with only the whole truth that there is a God (our Creator) and Jesus was more than a prophet and greater than Mohammed and Jesus never sinned and He did a lot of miracles including raising people from the dead and healing the sick and giving eyes and ears and tongue to the blind and deaf and mute respectively. 90 percent of the Muslims apostates become Christians and apostate because Jesus is real and reveals/answers when you genuinely seek him.

    The God of the Gospels worshipped by Christians is not the Allah the god of the Quran

  284. RON: There is also the Religious Left in America. Your perception that Liberalism is destroying Christianity is just more indoctrination, very likely from a religious radio show.

    As for the Bible being a best seller, well you nailed it there. It is a great work of fiction, almost as addictive as Harry Potter.

    Finally, you asked when I was forced to submit to Jesus. That would be my entire childhood. Believe in this specific messiah figure or else be cast into a lake of hell fire for all eternity. The fear of that kept me up late many nights. I also cried often when I though of my Jewish friends burning in Hell for all eternity. The god of Abraham is an asshole.

  285. RON: “Without Christ you have no boldness or courage”? Really. I believe Christ only exists in the imagination and I risk my life to speak the truth about the Islamic threat.

  286. Ron says:

    Christianity (mainly evangelical) has always grown when persecuted and is now the fastest growing religion in Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, India, Korea, Arabia, Middle-East, Africa and Asia.

    Of the Muslims who practice Islam and then leave Islam you will find 90% of them converting to or accepting Christianity. About 9 % become atheists, agnostics etc. It’s a very small percentage that is less than 1% who leave Islam to become Buddhists, Hindu etc.

    The solution is Christianity and nothing else. Of the fractions who leave Islam to become atheists, only a fraction of that have the courage to openly speak/work against Islam because without Christ you generally have no boldness/courage.

    Christianity did not solve the problem because liberalism, secularism, humanism, atheism, socialism and progressives have choked evangelism in the West as well as not supported it else where. It is difficult to say Merry Christmas in workplaces (govt, public or private) except at home/church . It is even difficult to give out a Bible at Universities because you are labelled a fanatic or bible thumper and many times not allowed. The funny thing is that it is allowed to preach and give out Bibles/Christian literature in some prisons and that’s where many conversions happens. The ACLU has filed more suits against Christian beliefs/practices/issues than against any other religion here in the US.

    In spite of the onslaught on Christ and Christianity by the liberals, leftists, atheists, secularists, humanists, environmentalists and other non-Christians still the Bible is the largest selling best-seller in the whole world right since printing presses began in fourteenth century. Christianity is still the largest religion in the world and the evangelical Christianity is the fastest growing.

    Tell me where and when did they force you to accept Jesus or ram it down your throat? You are using Goebellian tactics of telling a lie (against Christianity) many times so that ultimately it will be accepted as the truth.

  287. RON: Obviously Christianity did not solve the Islam problem because it’s still here. If you want to convert Muslims to Christianity that’s your business. But be advised that a significant number of Muslims are leaving religion in general. And this is also a legitimate alternative to Islam.

  288. RON: The latest bit of propaganda coming out of the church is that Jesus is under attack. Who in history has been more widely accepted, more popular, more of a rock star, even now, even today. Unbelievers have the fantasy of this messiah figure rammed down our throats on a daily basis and you want to tell me we are not being accepting enough of your imaginary friend?

  289. Walter Sieruk says:

    There are different kinds of “jihad” in Islam. Just to focus on two types of jihad are explain in the following. One is the militant jihad which is also called “The jihad of the sword.” This is the violence ,brutal and deadly jihad for the advancement of Islam that gets in the news. As in ,for example, those vicious and murderous Islamic terror attacks that occurred in the city of Paris last November. Then the other month this year those malicious and murdering Islamic terror attacks in the city of Brussels. The other kind of jihad is known as the stealth jihad. Which is also called “Islamic Gradualism.” This kind of jihad is the subtle and sly as well as insidious type of jihad that is engage in for the advancement of Islam. This Islamic scheme is a Muslim strategy uses disingenuous words and outright lies along the speaking of total falsehood to gain political and social power for Islam. In other words, putting up a smokescreen as putting up a false face to hide the actual Islamic agenda to obtain good social standing and gain political power for Islam is preformed by Islamic gradualism. This stealth jihad in practiced my some Muslims in American, Canada and in the other countries of Europe. This Stealth jihad employs the Islamic doctrine called Taqiyya. Which is the Islamic teaching that lying and deception is a good thing to do as long as it’s done to gain influence and power for Islam. Moreover,this sly subtle and insidious method of jihad is ,in some ways, similar to the war strategy taught by Sun Tzu in THE ART OF WAR. Which teaches “At first, then exhibit the coyness of a maiden , until the enemy gives you an opening; afterwards emulate the rapidity of a running hare, and it will be too late for the enemy to opposes you.”

  290. Ron says:

    I do not support or endorse all of Theodore Shoebats views but I stated that he is courageous to speak out just like you and Ali Sina are courageous to speak out.

    You cannot defeat Islam using your secularism, socialism, atheism, agnosticism, new-ageism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, communism etc. Historically Islam has defeated and subjugated these world views.

    Only Christianity has defeated and colonised the Islamic countries.

    Atheism, communism, democratic socialism tried in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen etc and have failed and just bloodied their noses and turned tail.

    The Imperialist Christian countries managed to defeat and subjugate the Muslims in the Arabia, Africa, Indian subcontinent and the far East also for decades if not centuries.

    The Ottoman, Arabian, Muslim, Afghan, Persian and Mughal empires were Islamic hordes who easily defeated and subjugated the paganists, idol- worshippers. ancestors-worshippers animists, nature-worshippers and animal & reptile worshippers in Arabia, Africa, Indian sub-continent, Asia and Far-East.

    In fact because the Europeans colonial empires like the British, French, Dutch, Italians, Belgians, Germans, Portuguese, Spaniards defeated the Islamists in Asia, Africa and Arabia and Far-East and colonised the region the growth of Islam was arrested. Otherwise all countries in these regions specially the Indian subcontinent which is the most densely populated would have been majority Muslim by now.

    You need to support the evangelization (not by war) of these Islamic strongholds by prayers, preaching and practising Christianity not only in Muslim lands but also in our own backyards here in the West.

  291. Ron says:

    Hi Eric,

    If you say you believe in Zeuss, Thor, Crocodile or an Elephant God or your ancestor was God still the unholy alliance comprising of what I have mentioned below will tolerate you and not smack you down. But they will not tolerate you when you speak for Jesus. You are labelled a fanatic, racist.

  292. RON: Regarding your perception that people are against “Christ”. Could we not also use that logic to say that people are also not in support of Zeuss or that there has been a decline in the belief in Santa Claus as the result of the internet?

    As for your support of Shoebat’s son… wow. Just… wow. Amazing. Scary.

  293. Ron: Here is an excellent website that is a good jumping off point. You can find the Islamic scripture references, then check them for yourself against Islamic scripture:

    https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

  294. Ron says:

    The below is mentioned in your article. If you engage Muslims with the below rhetoric they say that it is all lies. Can someone give credible references from Islamic sources like, the hadith or Quran etc. so that we can verify that it is historically true and well documented.
    “I really needed Robert Spencer to be wrong. But everything he said about Muhammad, when I checked it against Islamic scripture, it checked out.
    1. Muhammad really did say that he had become victorious by using terror.
    2. He really did marry a six-year-old girl and consummate the marriage when she was only nine years old.
    3. Muhammad really did “marry” his wife, Safiyya, after killing all of the men in her tribe, the men in her family, taking the women as sex slaves, torturing her father and then raping her that night.
    4. Muhammad really did have his critics killed and really did behead a tribe of Jews.
    5. Muhammad really did refer to the Jews as apes and pigs.
    And I got all of this from the Quran, the Hadith and the life of Muhammad – all of the source material Robert Spencer was using was Islamic scripture exclusively!
    You also state that ‘’there was an unholy alliance, between the far Left and Islam”.
    I would say that there is an unholy alliance of non-Christian forces against Christ which not only comprises of the far Left, Islam but also of all leftists, atheists, agnostics, secularists, humanists, liberals, progressives, environmentalists, paganists, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Sikhs etc.
    The recent win of Sadiq Khan in London’s mayoralty election is a simple example.
    Walid Shoebat, his son, Bell, Spencer, Ali Sina are courageous people speaking out in this politically correct anti-Christian atmosphere.

  295. Theodore Shoebat is applying an Islamic form of supremacy to Christianity. This is not true to Christianity. I may be critical of Christianity, but I will say that tolerance, compassion and love for our neighbor are central to Christian doctrine and NOT what Theodore Shoebat is saying. He is merely trying to fit Christianity into the fascism that is Islam.

  296. By the way, how I came to meet this creepy Walid Shoebat: In the Summer of 2012 Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer hosted a panel and Shoebat was invited to sit on that panel and spin the story of how he used to be an Islamic terrorist – something that has been hotly disputed by those who have investigated the specifics of his story of bombing a bank in Israel. That said, at the dinner table I was invited to sit at afterwards, nearly everyone was a hardcore religious fanatic. Walid Shoebat sort of held court while Jamie Glazov picked his brain about Bible verses having to do with the “end times”. I was there with a friend and wee kept looking at each other in dismay, as if we had accidentally joined a cult. The superstitious lunacy was unbelievable.

  297. I have met Walid Shoebat, had dinner with him and spoken to him long enough to realize that he is a snake oil salesman. Then I looked into his religious teachings. Unfortunately, he is using the Counter Jihad to as a hook to promote his “end times” lunacy and the products and services associated with it.

  298. darkfire316 says:

    Yes, Walid Shoebat is a lunatic. He openly endorses and shares his son’s views in writing on Shoebat.com. He’s just quiet about it when he’s on video. His son doesn’t share the same tact.

    Theodore Shoebat calling for the destruction of democracy, the imposition of a Christian Monarchy, and a global inquisition on gays

  299. WestCoaster says:

    I agree with most of this except for his assesment of Walid Shoebat. That man is for real.

%d bloggers like this: