American Atheists Convention 2013 recap: Friday »« Breatharianism is big business

Kirk Cameron, Shithead: “Kill the infidel!”

Okay, we all know that Kirk Cameron is a has-been actor from the ’80s whose minimal intellect has reduced him to partnering with professional joke Ray Comfort, a deal which, in a country full of similarly stupid people, has proven more lucrative than actually pursuing acting work would have been for him. So you’d already expect him to be too unintelligent to understand the legal and Constitutional distinction between decalogue monuments on private property versus public (ie. government-owned) property. That’s a given.

At the same time, this is the first instance I’ve seen of him making smirking, approving comments about how people who fight for church/state separation should be murdered. Of course, if you were to call him on it, I’m sure he’d explain it’s all “a little joke.” Still, you know…what a shithead, huh?

Somewhere, an al Qaeda guy is thinking, "There you go, Christians. That's how you do it!"

Somewhere, an al Qaeda guy is thinking, “There you go, Christians. That’s how you do it!”

Something else amusing: Apparently there was an earlier version of this post (that Kirk has since redacted), where he mistakenly referred to the 9th commandment, the one about bearing false witness, instead of the 6th.

"So you heathen liberals better not tell this hotel owner to take this monument down...'cos some good ol' boy might just decide to TELL YOU THE TRUTH!"

“So you heathen liberals better not tell this hotel owner to take this monument down…’cos some good ol’ boy might just decide to BEAR YOU FALSE WITNESS!”

Did I mention he wasn’t very intelligent?

Comments

  1. says

    For those who can’t see the picture, it’s Kirk Cameron standing in front of a Ten Commandments monument with his thumb up. His post on Facebook reads:

    Check out this huge stone monument at the front door of the hotel I checked into tonight in Odessa. This is the #1 city for jobs in the US (lots of new found oil)! Try to tell this hotel owner in West Texas to remove these commandments and I’m pretty sure a good ol’ boy down here would be willing to make an exception for the 6th commandment just for you… Don’t mess with Texas! Our marriage events were a blast and my son and I are headed home tomorrow. Can’t wait to see my bride and babies…

    The 6th commandment (which you can read right next to his elbow) is of course “Thou shalt not kill.”

      • Tonia Fleming says

        Wow Martin Wagner! I feel extremely sorry for you!!!!! I pray for you that your heart will not be so hard. You can tell that you are very miserable. I hope life gets better for you and that you can experience a happiness that only comes from knowing Jesus Christ!!!! Please let him in so that you will not have to experience an eternity of misery. Because you see, for Christians, this life is as close to hell as we will ever know. For those without Jesus, this life is as close to heaven as they will know. Be blessed and know that no matter what you say. Christians around the world are praying for you. We are praying that you have a great day, that you are healthy, and that you are prosperous.

        • says

          See, Tonia, here’s where you’ve gone off the rails in life. You don’t know me, and rather than know me (or anyone who doesn’t share your beliefs), you’d prefer I conformed to your script of the stereotypical “miserable unbeliever,” so that your own sense of pious self-regard is gratified. You see someone like me expressing disgust and disapproval of a member of your religion cracking jokes about how some “good old boy” ought to murder us, and you think I’m the one with the problem. You might do well to rethink this. Religion has given you, to put it politely, a warped moral perspective.

          Not only is my life not miserable in the least, of course, but it’s more than a little ironic that you would attempt to project that onto me when you freely admit that to you, life is “as close to hell as you’ll ever know.” You’ve confessed your own unhappiness, and yet unable to face it, have attempted to assign it to me. That is something else you really should think hard about.

          I would tell you to save your prayers for yourself, but I think I can give better advice. Rather than cling to a childish belief in imaginary afterlives and magical, invisible divine saviors, take command of your own life and your own happiness. Overcome the hell you’ve made for yourself by applying reason, compassion, and humanity to achieving positive goals and success in the here and now. Realize how fortunate you are for the life you have at all, and (to quote Dawkins) give up your vain and selfish hope for a second one. This is the life and world in which we all have to live and thrive together. And as long as people like you and Kirk Cameron cling to the divisive, primitive tribalism of religion, in which “the other” are people to be simultaneously scorned and “prayed for” (an exercise far more effective in shoring up the believer’s self-righteousness than in actually helping anyone else), that kind of thriving will always escape us.

          Good luck to you. You have a lot of hard work ahead. But I suspect you’ll just fall back on prayer instead.

          • Tim gainor says

            Martin I dont judge you. But you know I will definately pray for you. I dont evevn know you

          • Rick Shirley says

            Martin.Please don’t take this as rude or condescending. That is not my intention at all. But if there is no creator and this is the only life we have, What in your mind is our purpose.It seems to me as common sense that the Bible is a guide to a good and moral life. Even if it is a made up situation , How is it bad? What if it is true, Which I personally belive it is. I had rather be wrong in beliving in the Bible and its telling the truth than be wrong and not belive. If I’m wrong, I’ve lost nothing. If your wrong, wouldn’t you loose everything. My intention is not to turn this into name calling at all, I would just like to know why people belive the way they do.

            Thanks,
            Rick

          • Rick Shirley says

            I will have to check the sites out and maybe continue the conversation at a later time.

            Thanks again.

          • sqlrob says

            Rick: Demonstrate that there is a purpose other than that we make for ourselves.

            Also demonstrate why everything has to have a purpose.

            And Bible is moral? Marrying rapists? Beating slaves? THAT’S your goddamn (pun intended) morality?

          • Rick Shirley says

            Hello again Martin,

            All I’m sharing is my belif. I’m not forcing anything. My whole purpose is for information in which I still haven’t been to those sites and I do intend to. The reason for my belif is simply hope. Its sad to think that this life is all we have. Other than what the Bible tells me, I have no proof. And the whole point of people arguing about this issue is to prove their right. Its not about being wrong or right to me, its about being safe. If God does exist, I’m prepared. If not, I’ve lost nothing. I’m not trying to make an enemy here. I had rather be a friend. Friends can disagree and still exist togather.

            As far as marrying rapists and beating slaves, no thats not moral. And Jesus disciples were pretty shaky people before following him also. Mean people have been in existence since the begining of time as far as I can tell. From my perspective the Bible uses those examples as the way not to be. Look, its nat an argument for me. Simply an opinion. Just as you have yours. I would love to change your mind, but if you are set in your belifs, I respect that. All I want is information to help me understand and be more cordial to others and ask that they be the same to me and my belif. Even if they do think I’ve lost my mind. lol

          • Lord Narf says

            From my perspective the Bible uses those examples as the way not to be.

            Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh, no. Those are things explicitly endorsed in the Bible. Go read your holy book, sometime. You’ll be shocked.

          • trj says

            As far as marrying rapists and beating slaves, no thats not moral. … From my perspective the Bible uses those examples as the way not to be.

            Nice to see you agree it’s immoral. However, it was your own god who explicitly commanded it (eg. see Lev 25:38-46 on slavery).

            So now that you know it was God who commanded these immoral things will you turn around 180 degrees and suddenly claim that they must somehow be moral after all? I’m betting you will, offering vague rationalizations about not understanding God’s ways, and how he must surely have a good reason, and how he is always 100% moral and just.

          • says

            As far as marrying rapists and beating slaves, no thats not moral. … From my perspective the Bible uses those examples as the way not to be.

            What I’ve love to know is – how do you tell the difference between the verses that you aren’t supposed to follow, versus the ones that you are.

            Is there some clef-note in the Bible or something that points these out?

            How do you know that God really did wan’t slaves beaten and you’re mistaken about whether he thinks it’s moral or not?

            How is it you’re making these distinctions?

            What I see you doing is utilizing your innate secular morality and merely plucking out the bits of the Bible that adhere to your morality.

        • says

          @Tonia
          Instead of preaching at us, why don’t you address the actual point of the post? Do you think making references to “making an exception to the 6th amendment” is appropriate behavior? Do you think this is proper Christian conduct?

        • busterggi says

          Test your faith Tonia – stay alive in hell or join Jesus by killing yourself. Every minute you’re alive says your faith is false.

          • says

            That wasn’t his/her point. He/she/it wasn’t calling for the person’s suicide. It was making a point about the person’s doctrine.

            Unfortunately, it’s wrong in that they have loopholes for that anyway… essentially “going to heaven uninvited” invalidates the suicide option.

        • edmond says

          I can’t be sure I’m replying to the correct person, the name seems to keep changing. But, it seems to be one conversation, so I’m hopeful.

          You had asked Martin this question: “But if there is no creator and this is the only life we have, What in your mind is our purpose.”

          My question would be: “If there IS a creator, and this is NOT the only life we get, THEN what is the purpose?”

          I don’t see a “purpose” even WITH a creator and an afterlife. If God is eventually going to just sort us all out into residents of Heaven and Hell, then what purpose does “Life on Earth” serve? Why are we here, if this is not our final destination? What is the purpose of having a temporal eternity, which includes a tiny blip of an aberration period? What is the purpose of the vast, empty universe, where the entirety of God’s focus exists on one tiny little dot? Will chemical events within the Eskimo Nebula play a role in who gets into Heaven?

          It’s a foregone conclusion that, according to the standards of the Bible, MOST of the human beings who ever lived will wind up in Hell rather than Heaven. What was the point of those people’s lives, if eternal torment and suffering was their end result? Did God feel that the universe simply didn’t have ENOUGH torment and suffering in it? Did he feel that it was important to make it permanent for so many people?

          Why does everything NEED a “purpose” anyway? What happens if there IS no purpose? Can’t we enjoy life without a purpose?

          I don’t see that religion offers anyone a “purpose”. Religion speculates on magical causes for the universe, and then insists that punishment awaits those who don’t believe the speculation. There are no satisfactory answers in scripture, these “answers” only beg more questions when they’re examined closely.

          Purpose has never been discovered by anyone, and that’s just fine by me.

          • jacobfromlost says

            Indeed, getting to heaven (or hell) to spend eternity there is by definition a purposeless outcome. You can’t have the purpose for something (say, life on earth) be to achieve something which by its very nature is purposeless (spending forever in place X with no further goal…ever).

            The only thing that gives life a purpose is the fact that life is fragile and easily ended. Our purpose is to survive as long (and well) as possible. After we are dead, the only purpose we have is in influencing others enough that they too might have learned something from us so they can live as long (and as well) as possible…although that “purpose” has little to do with us as an individual and more to do with our group as a whole. Our individual “purpose”, after we are dead, is over–since we can no longer live as long and as well as possible. (And as Spock taught us all, sometimes the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or the one.)

            To talk of purposes is to talk of something to be achieved in the future, over time. If the thing to be achieved in the future is to never achieve anything ever again (ie, get to heaven forever, or hell forever), then you’ve just redefined purpose into purposelessness and meaning into meaninglessness.

            What’s the purpose of BEING in heaven? That’s what I want to know. To stay there? Not to get kicked out? It would seem to me that if it were possible to get kicked out of heaven, and you spent eternity there, everyone would eventually get kicked out. If it ISN’T possible to get kicked out, then isn’t everyone in heaven just like those robots the Christians constantly tell us we are not because god gave us free will? Or is there no free will in heaven? And if not, am I still me without any free will? Just wondering because none of this makes any sense at all.

          • Rick Shirley says

            Hello Jacob,

            Thank you for your response. I’m not sure that I agree that living in Heaven would be a purposeless outcome. I guess we would have to agree to disagree on that point. If this life is all we have , when we are done with it, all we have is a legacy and that wouldn’t mean much to us if we’re dead and gone. We wouldn’t be around to see it. And as far as no other goal when and if we get there, I haven’t been there so I’m no expert there. I am definitely not a scholar and probably not qualified to have this conversatin, but these are just my thoughts so if I come across as insulting, that is not my intention at all. Just trying to explain my position.

            Life is very fragile and I belive that God wants us to live a long and fruitful life also. My problem with what I think I know about your belife, and I could be wrong, But if you are wrong, you would have everything to loose. If I’m wrong, I’ve lost nothing but have lived a decent loving life while I’m here. With that, I’m not implying that you are not a decent person or that you don’t live a loving life. I don’t know you personaly. Martin has directed me to a couple of web sites to check out about atheism and Pascal’s Wager, and I am going to check them out.

            I guess I would say that being a Christian is about having hope in something and at least having something to look forward to after I die. Without it, death is a very scary thought to me. A freind of mine used to tell me the religion is for the needy and he may have something there but at some point we are all in need. I would like to ask you a question and I sincerly want to know the answer. I promise I’m not being smart by this but does it make you mad when someone says they will pray for you? If so why?

            I look forward to your response. Thanks again.

          • says

            does it make you mad when someone says they will pray for you? If so why?

            I’ll just jump in on that one. I find it annoying. If you want to pray for me, go ahead, but don’t tell me about it. It has no relevance to me and when you tell me about it, you’re clearly just trying to push your religion into my life. It also shows a complete lack of interest in me as a person or understanding of my position.
            It’s like going to a person you know is a vegetarian and offering them a cheese burger. It’s passive-aggressive bullshit, plain and simple.

            By the way, you might want to read Matt. 6:5-6 for Jesus’ perspective on making a show of your prayers.

          • Rick Shirley says

            Lol. Point well taken. Never thought of it that way. I guess someone would have to be in a conversation like this for something like that to come up. Thanks.

          • jacobfromlost says

            Rick,

            Rick: If this life is all we have , when we are done with it, all we have is a legacy and that wouldn’t mean much to us if we’re dead and gone.

            Me: Oh well. That’s reality. Besides, it does mean something to me (and you too, if you would take a second to think about it).

            Rick: I am definitely not a scholar and probably not qualified to have this conversatin, but these are just my thoughts so if I come across as insulting, that is not my intention at all. Just trying to explain my position.

            Me: Might I suggest you understand your position before explaining it? It is kind of annoying to have a person explain “their position” while simultaneously admitting they don’t understand it.

            Rick: Life is very fragile and I belive that God wants us to live a long and fruitful life also. My problem with what I think I know about your belife, and I could be wrong, But if you are wrong, you would have everything to loose.

            Me: I don’t have any beliefs regarding gods. “Lose” is spelled this way. Pascal’s wager, if you take a second to think about it, doesn’t work because it applies to all beliefs. If you think it is better to believe “just in case”, then you have to believe in ALL GODS AND BELIEFS, even ones that no one has ever believed in, EVEN ones that are mutually exclusive, “just in case”. Which is impossible. Simply picking ONE and running with it is irrational.

            Rick: If I’m wrong, I’ve lost nothing but have lived a decent loving life while I’m here. With that, I’m not implying that you are not a decent person or that you don’t live a loving life. I don’t know you personaly. Martin has directed me to a couple of web sites to check out about atheism and Pascal’s Wager, and I am going to check them out.

            Me: What are you waiting for? I never understood the theist impulse to make what they must think is a good argument, immediately get a rebuttal…and then say they will look at it later. It’s almost as if you really don’t care to find out what is true and what is not.

            Rick: I guess I would say that being a Christian is about having hope in something and at least having something to look forward to after I die. Without it, death is a very scary thought to me.

            Me: That fear is something you’ll have to get over. If there wasn’t death, there would be no life. You only have things to look forward to when you are ALIVE, and believing you will have time after you are dead to “do stuff” means you will act in ways that lessen your life (and everyone else’s) while you are ACTUALLY alive. That’s an insidious belief, the harm of which can run the gamut from great to small.

            Rick: A freind of mine used to tell me the religion is for the needy and he may have something there but at some point we are all in need.

            Me: Sure. But whatever real things religion offers isn’t offered FROM religion–it’s what religion stole from humanity in the first place. You don’t need religion to fill those needs.

            Rick: I would like to ask you a question and I sincerly want to know the answer. I promise I’m not being smart by this but does it make you mad when someone says they will pray for you? If so why?

            Me: It annoys me for the same reasons LyleX mentioned (but most especially because the person saying it is so oblivious that they have no idea what they are saying).

            And I hope I don’t sound condescending, but there are ways to know things that many believers just don’t apply to their beliefs…because then they’d know their beliefs are nonsense.

          • says

            Hope I am replying to the right person but,

            ” does it make you mad when someone says they will pray for you? If so why?”

            When a Christian says “I will pray for you” or even “Bless you” it is the Christian variant of saying “F-you Heathen” — as one commentor stated, it is passive agressive slap–a way to foist your belief sytem or ideology on a person who does not share it while being smug and condescending about it.

    • CoffeyC says

      They do like to make exceptions to those pesky rules from ‘The Goat Heard’s Handbook,’ don’t they? It seems to be most true with dullards like Kirk, and those who are utterly convinced the good of the Handbook far outweighs the bad, especially when that good may be so conveniently used to justify a bit more bad. Take that silly sophist, Lane Craig with his divine command dreary: ” Yes, we just slaughtered your infants with this gladius; but, we really did them a huge favor, and you can thank us later… You’re welcome.”

      Perhaps an extreme credulity isn’t the only prerequisite to faith. If you were to suffer from some kind of moral myopia or astigmatism such that you couldn’t really tell right from wrong, having a set of rules carved in stone might be just the ticket to heaven.

  2. cgilder says

    People who are visually impaired and use text-reading software online can’t see the text and neither can their software. It can’t parse out words inside images.

  3. Will Boucher says

    Bigots say the darndest things. He violates the 2 principles I live by. 1 “Do No Harm.” 2 “Don’t be an asshole.”

  4. chrinamint says

    He didn’t even get the commandment right in his first post of this. This is his corrected one. He had it as the 9th commandment, which was even funnier!

    Dork.

  5. slc1 says

    Re cgilder @ #2

    In Firefox,turn off the text only zoom under view/zoom. This allows the program to zoom images as well as text. In Chrome, images are automatically zoom as well as text.

  6. jamessweet says

    It’s doubly stupid, because he doesn’t seem to understand the private/public distinction: This is a private hotel, so the owner can put whatever the fuck monument ze wants to in the entryway. The owner could put a giant dick there, too. Sure, some people might be turned off and choose not to stay at that hotel… but nobody is going to demand its removal, because IT DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY.

    What was that about Cameron’s intelligence?

      • Randomfactor says

        Bless you, sir.

        Wonder what Kirk would say if they’d posted the Roman Catholic version of the Ten, instead of the Protestant one. Bet he’s not smart enough to notice the difference, actually.

        • Lord Narf says

          Eh, men aren’t a recognized, oppressed minority. I find nothing wrong with using gendered slurs against them. I do it all the time.

  7. Will Boucher says

    Simplest solution for access issues is using the alt attribute. It is no longer considered as optional in the specification for HTML.

  8. says

    that’s the MCM Elegante in Odessa ..It’s at best a 2 star hotel.. I had to stay there for a week for work. On the bright side they do have a 3 hour happy hour. You’ll need that because the staff will drive you to drinking.

  9. says

    I still find it difficult to wrap my brain around the fact that Kirk Cameron is taken seriously by anyone. The number of excellent child actors that disappear in to the ether and he ends up being important in some circles is astonishing. What I can’t wait for is the downfall, history teaches us nothing if not that the more pious they are the more they have to hide.

    • CoffeyC says

      I think that the kid on Two and a-Half Men is trying to do the same thing. Probably saw the writing on the wall…
      Sorry.

    • Jenora Feuer says

      Though some of them do make it. It’s worth noting that one of Kirk’s co-stars on the last season of Growing Pains, who joined at the age of 17 and was a few years younger than Kirk, was a (then) mostly unknown young man by the name of Leonardo diCaprio.

      Some child stars do make it. They tend to be the more stable to start with, admittedly, and when they do make it they don’t get referred to as ‘child’ stars anymore.

    • Mary2 says

      I can’t look at him without feeling really sorry for him. He’s like the kid who acted in Diff’rent Strokes who ended up in prison or any of the other child actors who end up junkies etc. I just think how lonely and screwed up he must have been, even while he was a heart-throb to every teenager on the planet , to turn to such a cult-like religion.

  10. Matt Gerrans says

    What a moron. It should be “to the” not “for the.” More importantly, you don’t get to “make exceptions” to the Bill of Rights; the correct word would be “violate.”

    It is also really amusing to see these “Jesus loves you” douchebags making “funny” references to violence, belying the real intolerant and coercive nature of their irrational belief system.

  11. Houndentenor says

    No, they don’t understand the difference. Over Christmas one of my relatives told me that “they are banning nativity scenes!” Really? I see them everywhere I go. In fact there’s a store in a nearby town that sells nothing but nativity scenes. Many of them are clever (set in the region) and hand-crafted. it’s a nice story and I like to go in and look around whenever I’m there. (I may not believe the event ever happened but I can appreciate craft and even kitsch!) Plus the endless yard and church displays. So it doesn’t appear anyone is banning any nativity scenes in their area. Oh, they meant on the city property. Well, yes, those belong on church and private property. Then we drove past their church. No nativity scene. In fact, no Christmas decorations at all. What they want is the government to promote their religion because they are obviously too lazy or cheap to do so for themselves.

  12. John Kruger says

    There is a certain irony in suggesting it would be prudent to break one of the commandments in response to being asked not to display them. Am I reading to much into the show of following “god’s word” being more important than actually following it?

    The 9th commandment gaffe also seems kind of Freudian for that guy . . .

    • Tyrant al-Kalām says

      “Am I reading to much into the show of following “god’s word” being more important than actually following it?”

      That’s most of religion in a nutshell, isn’t it.

  13. says

    Kirk Cameron, a typical christian, believe my bullshit without question or suffer death then eternal suffering. Cant wait til he meets Jesus, Im sure they will be homies.

  14. codemonkey says

    Isn’t anyone considering that he really did mean kill, the 6th, but immediately backtracked to a far less offensive one, and that was one of the only available options? What kind of threat is that? You’re going to bear false witness against me? Lol.

  15. says

    Wow its incredible how people will pick out a person who tries to live there life by a moral code and spiritual obligation to something more than there own ego and voila a bunch of angry atheistic turds pop out of there own assholes to troll and pic apart a very ordinary pic and caption. Its amazing the influence a has-been 80′s child actor has on people. Long Live the Kirk!!

    • says

      a person who tries to live there life by a moral code

      I don’t think that term means what you think it means.

      and spiritual obligation to something more than there own ego

      Yeah, you’re right. How mean of us not to respect the humility of someone who thinks anyone who disagrees with him should be killed.

    • says

      Do you think what he said was reasonable? Do you agree that murder is a proper response in this case?

      Don’t dodge the issue. Let us know what you think.

    • Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

      The moral code of threatening murder?
      The moral code of not knowing his commandments or the difference between public and private?
      That code?
      Or the Bible that says slavery is A-OK?

      You can keep that code. I prefer to use reason, empathy and facts to make decisions. So far, it hasn’t led me to to try to make anyone afraid for their lives.
      I’d say I’m streets ahead of Kirk.

  16. Sids says

    In grudging defence of Kirk, I should point out that he never actually endorsed the killing. Only said that it would ‘probably’ happen. If I told a woman that if she walked naked through the streets of [insert islamic sharia country here] that she would probably be killed, it wouldn’t imply that I support that. Simply saying that it is a likely result. “Good ol’ boy” isn’t an endorsement, just a phrase.

    That said, if he doesn’t support it,he worded his post really poorly (you did mention that he isn’t very intelligent).

    • says

      The point is this, Sids: To say something like this at all reveals the inner mind of the person, and what kind of person he is.

      Case in point. I fucking hate, as do all decent human beings, the Westboro Baptist Church. But in every condemnation I’ve written of them, I don’t recall ever saying, “You know, one of these days, somebody might just interrupt one of their funeral protests with a hail of AK-47 fire,” in a tone that is carefully neither endorsing nor condemning such a deed, but leaving little actual ambiguity as to where my own sympathies would lie if it ever happened.

      Why I don’t do this is simple: I may be an asshole, but I’d prefer not to be that big an asshole. The minute you can bring yourself to be glib about the murder of people Not Exactly Like You, you’ve crossed a line into a dark place that you’d have done well to avoid, for the sake of your own humanity, if nothing else.

      • Sids says

        Oh, I agree with that. There are situations where similar wording would be innocuous or positive (such as the example I gave, or where it would be a warning for someone considering an action that might put them in hot water). I don’t believe that to be the case here. As with your example, it seems like a veiled threat (albeit one that he has no intention of following through on) for the sake of a laugh. Which, I think we both agree makes him a dick.

        I was just pointing out that there is quite a bit of room for ambiguity in it, and the title of the post seems a bit of a stretch. Especially with the quotation marks. The first 3 words of it are certainly true though.

    • Tyrant al-Kalām says

      “… grudging defence of Kirk, I should point out that he never actually endorsed the killing. Only said that it would ‘probably’ happen. ”

      Somehow I don’t buy the interpretation that Kirk was actually ad libbing some social criticism against fundamentalist violence in the southern states, using a 10 commandments display as class room material. :D

    • says

      Only said that it would ‘probably’ happen.

      In connection with a picture of him giving a big thumbs up. I also note that he doesn’t bother saying a word against the idea. While it’s true that he doesn’t explicitly endorse murder, it’s not exactly a big leap to think so.

    • Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

      That’s a nice family yous gots there. It would be unfortunate if something was to happen to them. This neighborhood can be rough. All kinds of bad elements do all sorts of nasty things to families like yours. It is a good thing that your friend Don Corleone has offered you protection. You know people who don;t give the Don respect have been known to get hurt. Some of them get hurt to death.
      *grin and a thumbs up*

      But you weren’t threatened.

  17. Jason Rebelato says

    I find it ironic that Aaron Williams would accuse atheists of trolling Kirk’s picture while he himself trolls an atheist site for the purpose of a hit and run post.

  18. NWOISHERE says

    You know what’s funny? Hate-filled atheists on here showing their hate. Isn’t it atheists who go on message boards slamming Christians for being hate-filled? Oh the hypocrisy!

    • says

      Ah, another one of the poor confused flock. I ask you: is it not hateful to joke about murdering those who don’t share your beliefs? Is Kirk’s statement appropriate Christian behavior? What’s worse: joking about murder, or calling someone who jokes about murder (while getting his own scriptures wrong?) names and making fun of him? Is it inherently wrong to feel hatred, or even mild dislike and ridicule, towards someone who thinks you deserve to be killed?

      • NWOISHERE says

        Yep, I’m one of those. I’ll leave you with this. I notice that you love to hate someone who is a Christian (Kirk). Did you know that in Islam, homosexuality is punishable by stoning to death? When was the last time you reared your hate-filled heart toward the Islamic community? Called the Islamic community out publicly for this? Yep, didn’t think so. It’s much “safer” to pick on people who won’t retaliate. Carry on.

        • says

          Your ignorance is showing. We give Islam its fair share of abuse (if you aren’t too new to the Internet, just Google “atheist experience islam” for plenty of results — look, I’ll even help you), so your fatwa envy won’t fly here. And as Leviticus also advocates the murder of homosexuals, your religion cannot exactly claim any moral high ground on that either.

          Thanks for playing, though. Your dodging the question is noted, also.

          • AMC says

            Martin–While you may know much more about these specificities of Old Testament texts than I do, there also exist many practices of the Old Testament that Christians do not practice, including the one you mention above. Keep that in mind, please.

          • says

            Yes, I know this, which always leads me to ask why, if the Scriptures are your moral guide, why Christians still pick and choose which moral precepts to follow and which to ignore, and what basis they have — if not the word of God — to do this at all?

        • teawithbertrand says

          Martin beat me to it, but yeah. Leviticus 20:13. Might I recommend that you actually read the book that forms the basis of your religion?

        • says

          I notice that you love to hate someone who is a Christian (Kirk)

          I notice that you didn’t address anything Martin said.

          When was the last time you reared your hate-filled heart toward the Islamic community?

          When was the last time you bothered to look for information on a question before publicly displaying your ignorance?

        • says

          As pointed out the bible is very clear that gay people should be killed. The Koran makes some not particularly clear references to “abomination” etc. but apart from a description mentioning brimstone raining down on them, being Sodom, there is no direct instruction to kill I know of.

          So of the two “holy” books, the bible is probably worse on this minor detail. Both are pretty disgusting and deserving of all the ridicule they get from atheists, despite fools like the above thinking we are “scared” of the muslims and only go for the wimpy christians.

        • cbrgreg says

          So instead of answering the question Martin asked, because you realized he was right, you shifted the burden to Islam, saying, in essence, “Well, what they do and say is even worse!”

          Newsflash – you still endorse horrible things, and you should be embarrassed about that, not proud that you’re not as horrible as group X. And when someone makes a point, the proper thing to do is acknowledge it or argue why it’s not the case, not go for a red herring to protect yourself.

        • says

          OK, I’ll bite:

          There is no God, not even Allah, and Muhammed is no prophet but a nonce who bummed a nine-year-old. I shit in the kaaba and wipe my arse on the Qur’an.

          Satisfied now?

          • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

            @BecomingJulie :

            I shit in the kaaba and wipe my arse on the Qur’an.

            Gee, I’d love to see the video or positive evidence proving that and have you still alive to comment here!

            Sorry but I somehow find your claim highly dubious.

            Whilst supporting neither religion – agnostic secularist here – when you compare Christianity to Islam I think its very clear which of the two is more violent and intolerant. Just ask Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoonists and the maker(s) of the recent terrible – but not terrible enough to kill people over – anti-Islam film.

            Or compare how the Taliban treats people who disagree with them versus even the very vilest and words of XN groups like the Westboro cult who, for all their disgusting, evil, vile, shit-headed protests never actually directly *physically* harm people or destroy property whereas the Taliban famously execute rape victims and blew up the Bamian (spelling?) Buddhas among so many other such intolerant brutal murderous atrocities.

        • ButchKitties says

          I’ll have to try that “You can’t be mad at the bad thing I did because other people are much worse!” defense in court some time.

          “You can’t fine me for speeding. Maybe I was going 55 in a 45 zone, but why give me a ticket when murder is so much worse than speeding?”

          “Gee, I never thought of it that way. Case dismissed! In fact, all traffic court cases are dismissed. Your traffic violations are all nullified because MURDER.”

          • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

            @ButchKitties : If you were replying to me there as I’m guessing you were, then you’ve misinterpreted my comment and missed my point. Your summary was not what I’m saying or arguing for at all.

            I’m not saying Islams far worse conduct excuses Christianity merely very bad conduct. Nieher religin is acceptable because of their mistreatment of people (among other things)

            But there are degrees of wrongness.

            For example : Preventing women from having abortions as fundamentalist Christians seek to do is wrong.

            Forcing them to also suffer acid attacks, Female Genital Mutilation, be hidden inside burkas, caged in their own homes and executed for being raped after trials where their word is valued at half or less than a males under strict Sharia Law as fundamentalist Islamists seek to do (& in places like Afghanistan, Libya and Saudi Arabia have “achieved”) is worse.

            Isn’t it?

            Its the whole relativity of wrong intensity and degree of wrongness thing. No Kirk Cmeron doesn’t get off because Islam is far, far worse. But reality and any reasonable sense of perspective tells us that, yes, Islam is far, far worse. Understand it now?

    • says

      Showing our hate? Because we object to Kirk’s nonchalant chatting about murdering people?

      Isn’t it atheists who go on message boards slamming Christians for being hate-filled?

      Do they go around saying that Christians should be killed for their beliefs? If so, I’ll happily say that those atheists are wrong. But of course, what you really mean is that they don’t agree with you. That’s all it takes to be “hateful” in your book, isn’t it?

    • Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

      You see hate in us pointing out that this man made made light of murder?

      What color is the sky in your world?

        • Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

          People are very protective of their cherished beliefs. They will do mental gymnastics to defend all sorts of horrible things. It isn’t just religion. Even the author of “Why People Believe Weird Things” believes some weird things. It’s almost poetic how selective humans are in what they recognize and understand. Any given fundamentalist Christian can pick the Koran apart easily. But that same Christian may be completely unable to see their own holy book in the same light. It is hard to shake the things we’ve been trained to believe from birth. Just look at how many of the Christians here have no idea what is in their Bibles, but know it must be moral and true. The Cromunist has a post about “common sense” that discusses that sort of phenomenon. You might want to check it out if you haven’t already.

          I think alot of theists think that we don’t give their arguments much credence out of that same protective / knee jerk nature. But that’s usually because while this may be the first instance where they have made a certain argument and it seems fine to them, it may be the 500th time we’ve heard it and rebutted it. Maybe we gave it careful consideration the first time, but by now it’s just the same tiresome dreck and not the pearl of wisdom the theist thinks it is. I think that’s why they so often think we’re rude or hateful. It also has to do with their cultural privilege. They are accustomed to their beliefs getting treated as special and by extension, they are treated as special. It is taboo to speak to them like mere common folks with common beliefs. So, they see hate when we’re really just not kowtowing to them.

          Again, that is not unique to religion. I see it all the time between various power differentials. I’m trying to find some way to get around those kinds of enculturated perceptions in order to have better dialog, but I mostly just end up headdesking, mumbling four letter words and trying to remember that I am bound to make the same sort of mistaken assumptions from time to time myself.

          It doesn’t seem to work like the Milgrim study. Even the people who know how it works can still fall prey to it.

  19. Dana says

    I am always surprised by the fact that an “atheist”, who believes there is NO God, care so much that others do believe. Why do you care that others believe? You are not content to believe in nothing….you will stop at nothing until others join you in your belief of NOTHING. If you truly believe in NO God….why do you work so hard to have others join you in that pursuit of…..well…..NOTHING! Why? Because there is a God and all creation is sinful and fallen and slaves to that sinful behavior! There is freedom in Christ! I have been in bondage and I have been set free! I know what is it to live both as a slave and in freedom! I pray that for each of you!

    • says

      Dana, without realizing it, you have answered your own question in your comment. Here is the salient passage:

      you will stop at nothing until others join you in your belief of NOTHING.

      The way you have written it, this statement is something known as psychological projection. This is when you take a negative character trait that you possess, and, unwilling to admit to it or change it within yourself, apply it to someone you don’t like. Implicit in the act of projection is either hypocrisy, or a simple lack of self-awareness.

      The reason atheists care about theists and religion is that believers, far from being willing to keep their beliefs to themselves (as they insist we do), are in fact the ones who will “stop at nothing” to impose their beliefs on others. Sometimes they try to do this by passing laws, sometimes they do it by acts of violence and terrorism, sometimes they do it by attempting to undermine education and get their personal favorite set of ancient superstitions taught in schools in place of facts. Either way, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out, you can scarcely go a day without hearing in the news of some kind of theocratic incursion upon free society. (By the way, that word “freedom” — your understanding of it is tragically Orwellian [look it up], and I’m afraid that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.)

      So yes, atheists must speak out, because we see people being harmed and entire societies being torn apart by the ignorance and divisiveness and destruction brought about by religion. We see bigotry being paraded under the banner of “morality.” We see violence being used for “righteous” goals. Reason and humanity themselves demand nothing less than that every atheist speaks out whenever he or she can against this scourge of unreason and superstition that has fogged so many minds and hardened so many hearts.

      BTW…you really should start by understanding basic definitions. An atheist is not a person with a “belief in nothing.” We just don’t believe in any gods. You know, kind of like we don’t believe in leprechauns either. Atheists do believe in all kinds of things. Unlike most people, we care enough to make sure that the things we believe in, at the very least, actually exist.

      • Jo says

        @Martin, regarding your comment:
        So yes, atheists must speak out, because we see people being harmed and entire societies being torn apart by the ignorance and divisiveness and destruction brought about by religion. We see bigotry being paraded under the banner of “morality.” We see violence being used for “righteous” goals.

        How can this be when Jesus says:
        Matthew 22:39: “Love your neighbor as yourself”
        Matthew 5:43 “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”.
        Matthew 7:12: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you”

        I will agree with you on one fact, “religions” have created a lot of wars, hate, killings etc…
        But God did not create “religions” He actually hates it because they are “man made”.
        Jesus didn’t die on the cross so we could have a “religion”. He died so we could have a personal relationship with Him. God gave all mankind a “free will” to either accept His plan of salvation which is given ONLY through Jesus or reject it.

        • says

          How can it be, you ask? Apparently, in your universe, religious believers are all totally benign people who are never hypocritical about their own religion’s moral teachings. Must be nice over there.

          But to address your last paragraph, well, to those of us who don’t believe a God exists, it’s not a very helpful explanation and even one that doesn’t address the issue. I think I have a more plausible one. People create gods (including yours) in order to put a human face upon the universe. Their gods are, essentially, idealized images of themselves they have superimposed upon the universe. Gods represent the perfection that their worshipers cannot actually attain. And people use their gods as excuses and justifications for all of their moral failings. A believer will fall short, and fail, and do bad things…but that’s okay, because all they have to do is pray, or go to confession and say X number of Hail Marys, or whatever it is they do when it comes time for atonement…and presto! They are forgiven…to go right back out to “sin” again. Awfully handy, that.

          I cannot count all the times I have seen Christians who’ve been caught in some awful moral predicament, and they go away for a while, and come back…and lo and behold, the Lord has forgiven them! It’s all better now! I have never actually heard a Christian say, “That awful thing I did so many years ago? I pray every day, but to this day God still hasn’t forgiven me. I guess I have a lot more contrition to do.” Nooo, this never happens. Funny, isn’t it?

        • says

          I will agree with you on one fact, “religions” have created a lot of wars, hate, killings etc…
          But God did not create “religions” He actually hates it because they are “man made”.

          Just to be clear, this doesn’t makes you any more reasonable or rational than any other type of believer. You’re still believing something that you can’t back up. It’s a common strategy for people to say “Oh, I’m not religious, I’m spiritual. I’m not like those other irrational people.”
          Unfortunately, you’re wrong. You’re exactly like those other irrational people. The fact that your irrationality denies theirs is no more to the point than the fact that a Muslim will disagree with a Christian on the divinity of Jesus.

        • Lord Narf says

          God didn’t create a damned thing, because as near as we can be sure, he doesn’t exist.

          You’re focusing on the love bits of the bible and ignoring the bits in which God was actually doing stuff. Back when god was a bit more active, he was constantly pushing his people to slaughter and rape everyone around them. He’s not a very loving guy.

    • Lord Narf says

      Dana, why would you speak out against people who are trying to cure people with homeopathy? Why can’t you just shut up and let those people do their good work?

    • CoffeyC says

      Dana, I think it might help to lift your head a little higher and look around.

      What most atheists are speaking out against isn’t some benign belief in Bob the almighty, it’s the damage that those beliefs cause. First, you need to consider the unrelenting annoyance on this issue. It’s everywhere, and it’s never ending, and that’s very wrong, especially when you consider how vicious a large chunk of the faithful become when they are confronted by someone who does not bow to their most precious belief.

      What is worse, that even in a nation who’s highest law specifics a distinct separation of church and state, our legislators are completely willing to ignore their job of caring for our nation and our people, to try and out christian each other. The law is simple. Not in our courtrooms, congress, legislatures, or most of all our Class rooms; however, every session has some clown submitting some legislation to suppress any science and knowledge that might conflict with their favorite myth. We face many critical problems right now, and not only do our state and federal legislators not understand the basic level of math and science needed to understand the problems, they are spending much of their time and resources screwing with education of those few who might actually have a chance of mitigating some of those problems. That’s not nothing, either.

      As for slavery, perhaps you should take a look at your book again. On penalty of infinate torture, you are suppose to love a parody of some psychotic mass murdering girlfriend from a bat TV movie script. If you don’t love him with all your heart, and accept that he loves you, he just tortures you forever. If you believe you are not a slave, and we are, then keep worshiping your monster. But remember, if you have to be a slave, ti’s far better to be a slave to nothing.

      Try and understand that there is nothing compelling to us about the religions that most theist think are so wonderful. It is not that we wish to insult anyone, indeed most would make the case that the only insult is in having other’s theism shoved at you all the time; but, no matter what, it has to be better to believe in the wonder and magnificence of a universe we can see, touch, hear, and feel, than it is to worship the figment of an ancient and twisted imagination.

      If you’d like to know what atheists believe, please just ask. I myself would be happy to explain it to you.

    • ButchKitties says

      I don’t believe in elves or fairies. I don’t spend much time thinking about it, or trying to convince others that elves don’t exist, because people who do believe in elves and fairies are rare, and they aren’t a political bloc. They don’t open city council meetings by having everyone pour a little milk in the city-run fairy snack bowl, and then treat the people who skip this milk donation as suspicious troublemakers. They don’t decide that a highway project must undergo a costly rerouting because the current plans might upset the elves.

      If I lived in Iceland, where public road plans have actually been revised at taxpayer expense to avoid disturbing elf habitats, then I’d be a lot more vocal about my disbelief in elves.

      What others believe impacts their actions, and that is why what others believe is important to me. God isn’t real, but the crap that people do in his name sure is.

    • mike says

      @ Dana Atheists don’t believe in nothing, well maybe “nothing” as a concept, yes, but in the manner you’re implying, no, atheists believe in real things, demonstrable things, things that exist.

      You, on the other hand believe in an unproven, undemonstrable thing you call a deity which amounts technically to nothing! So between the two of us, it is you that is believing in NOTHING

    • Jimmy Jones says

      I pray to Lord Satan for you. Lord Satan, please bring Dana into our gentle fold.

      Nah, just kidding. There is no satan. He’s just as made up as God. And demons. And angels.

      Have a wonderful day.

  20. AMC says

    Not all Christians are unintellectual. Way to stereotype and overgeneralize, which are in themselves fallacies of reasoning and certainly much worse than a simple misunderstanding of policy.

    Sincerely,

    A Christian with Brains and a Master’s degree

    • says

      Where exactly did I or anyone say all Christians are unintellectual? If you wish to establish your intellectual bona fides, it helps to be able to back yourself up when you make claims like this.

      • AMC says

        With regard to your question: The implication is present in the way you have answered the few Christians who have been brave enough to stand the abuse that is certain to come with the admittance that one is a Christian. You have missed the point of Cameron’s post. It is a social protest. It does not matter if the monument is on private or public property. Someday the voices of Christians seen as dissenters to government and popular ideology may be silenced, and I believe that his statement tells us that some of us will fight back to infringement of “rights” (all “rights” are really privileges).

        In addition, many times we hear people use the idiom “I’ll kill ___.” Do they really mean that? No. To take that literally shows a lack of reason and practical wisdom.

        In regard to your latter comment, I have no need to “establish my intellectual bona fides” in a showy or pretentious manner. The fact that I was able to discern a fallacy in the article’s approach to epistemological matters should be evidence enough in itself–but this is beside the point.

        Most liberal voices claim to recognize individuality and diversity, which would be an excellent quality were it actually done. However, it is not. By admitting I am a Christian, I have immediately opened myself to ridicule, which is intolerance at its finest, if that predicate adjective even applies to the concept.

        • says

          The implication is present in the way you have answered the few Christians who have been brave enough to stand the abuse that is certain to come with the admittance that one is a Christian.

          Well, you’ve got your martyr complex set to high, haven’t you? Please, tell me how abused you are in your life, living in a nation where over 80% of the population identify as Christians! It must be so horrible for you. Why, I bet there are even people out there trying to pass laws telling you whom you can and cannot marry! And then think of all the poor Christian youths, disowned and thrown out of their homes for “coming out” to their parents. And then there are the jobs and career opportunities you are denied…gosh, many of you are probably just beaten half to death at random by strangers on the streets, without warning!

          Yeah, the abuse Christians must suffer…it truly, honestly breaks my heart.

          You have missed the point of Cameron’s post. It is a social protest. It does not matter if the monument is on private or public property.

          You have missed the point — let alone the reality — of Constitutional law. The establishment clause makes it abundantly clear that the US government may not endorse any religion or religious practice. This means that while the owner of a cheap hotel can put up all the decalogue monuments he wishes, a government building cannot (though of course, this is violated all the time, because Christians have a habit of thinking that pesky things like laws don’t apply to them). Kirk cannot tell the difference, indicating nothing so special other than that he’s simply dumb. However, how you plan to defend his crack about making an exception to “thou shalt not kill” to people who advocate for church/state separation will be interesting to see.

          Someday the voices of Christians seen as dissenters to government and popular ideology may be silenced

          Uh huh, because you’re so oppressed!

          and I believe that his statement tells us that some of us will fight back to infringement of “rights” (all “rights” are really privileges)

          Uh, except that the detail you’re forgetting is that these “privileges” granted to us by the Constitution are common to all citizens. What we see coming from guys in your camp is this attempt to enjoy actual privilege — that is, rights, immunities, or benefits enjoyed only by those beyond the advantages of most — for Christians, while at the same time attempting to claim the mantle of “oppressed minority.” That is, to put it politely, just a tad disingenuous and sleazy.

          Seriously, against whom does Kirk think he’s mounting a “social protest,” in a podunk Texas town where the overwhelming majority of citizens are right-wing fundamentalists like himself, and a decalogue monument in front of a hotel has the cheering support of them all? The boy’s not exactly putting himself out on a limb here, is he?

          See this guy? Now that's what you call social protest!

          In addition, many times we hear people use the idiom “I’ll kill ___.” Do they really mean that? No. To take that literally shows a lack of reason and practical wisdom.

          And if you’d paid closer attention, you’ll note that I acknowledged Kirk probably meant it as a joke, but that it just showed a lack of character anyway. (As I’ve mentioned in another comment, “jokes” like these do reveal things about the mind underneath.) Sure, some people use “I’ll kill so and so” as an idiom. So…maybe it’d be a good idea if we didn’t do that? Maybe we could find better idioms less reliant on violent fantasy, especially if we’re people who belong to a religion that pompously likes to claim that it invented morality and has an exclusive license to the application of it. In any event, it should be obvious the thrust of my post was “Kirk’s being an idiot again,” and not “Kirk actually seriously means to kill us all!” I was mocking his remarks, particularly in the way they glibly deny the moral rules set by the monument he’s so proud to be pictured with.

          I have no need to “establish my intellectual bona fides” in a showy or pretentious manner. The fact that I was able to discern a fallacy in the article’s approach to epistemological matters should be evidence enough in itself–but this is beside the point.

          Except as we’ve now seen, you’ve discerned no such fallacy, and your subsequent comments have revealed a bias borne of a foolish notion that Christians represent some kind of oppressed niche of the population, as well as a failed understanding (shared by Kirk) of the Constitutional distinction between private and government-sponsored displays of religious monuments.

          By admitting I am a Christian, I have immediately opened myself to ridicule, which is intolerance at its finest, if that predicate adjective even applies to the concept.

          And before I snap the strings on my World’s Smallest Violin, I can assure you that while I cannot speak for anyone else, I will only ridicule you if you present ridiculous arguments. You’ll have to find someone else to martyr yourself to.

        • says

          I believe that his statement tells us that some of us will fight back to infringement of “rights” (all “rights” are really privileges).

          And the very next sentence:

          In addition, many times we hear people use the idiom “I’ll kill ___.” Do they really mean that? No. To take that literally shows a lack of reason and practical wisdom.

          Wait, what? Is he making a statement that some will fight, or is he kidding? Can’t have it both ways.

          In regard to your latter comment, I have no need to “establish my intellectual bona fides” in a showy or pretentious manner.

          Then what was the purpose of signing your original comment with “A Christian with Brains and a Master’s degree”?

          • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

            Wait, what? Is he making a statement that some will fight, or is he kidding? Can’t have it both ways.

            Pedantry but actually, yes, he can.

            It is quite possible to make a statement eg. “the moon is made of green cheese! / We’ll have to fight! over X! / Well, you go jump in a lake then!” without having a serious intention for person X to literally do or think precisely that.

            Context matters and many things are said jokingly or jovially and not intended to be taken literally.

            For instance, I recall in a past thread on one of the FTB blogs someone suggested that Newt Gingrinch be sent alone on a rocket into our Sun on a one -way trip with the implication that his horrible demise would then be celebrated.

            This is a similar sort of thing isn’t it?

            Now Newt Gingrich is a disgusting person and deserves ridicule as does Kirk Cameron.

            I do NOT agree with Kirk Cameron and what he said and think it was a bad taste unfunny joke.

            But let’s apply some consistency here eh?

            Yes people -all and any people – can and do all the time make statements that are not intended to be taken literally and are at least intended as some low form of humour even if other folks don’t see the funny side in what they say.

            Kirk Cameron was (& is) wrong about a lot of things specifically his comment quoted here. His unfunny joke was stupid and nasty, but it is not totally clear that that was a direct threat of violence and / or advocating bashing those who disagree. It could be taken that way but it doesn’t necessarily have to be interpreted that way.

        • AMC says

          I do, indeed, care about the Constitution, but apparently you have also missed the point of my reply. Cameron’s disregard of the difference in policy regarding public and private property assumes the *future* removal of rights to make religious statements on one’s private property.

          • says

            Oh, I see. So he’s just a paranoid. That makes me so much less worried about his casual references to violence.

          • AMC says

            Following the same type of reasoning, anyone with any kind of foresight would be labeled “paranoid.” And again, what constitutes a “casual reference to violence” in our society is not usually dangerous. Please be logical and reasonable. It is not a stretch to imagine Christians’ free speech being taken away. See comments above for evidence of those who might wish such a thing to occur. Notice I say “might”–not certainly, but “might.” And does Cameron look particularly vicious? I really don’t think so, to be honest.

          • says

            It is not a stretch to imagine Christians’ free speech being taken away.

            It is for me, unless we find ourselves in an America where the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been rendered null and void — in which case, we’d be neck-deep in some dystopian anarchy, and pretty much everyone’s free speech rights are gone. When I hear guys like you say this, I’m always given to wonder what you’re thinking of when you think of “Christians’ free speech”? From other believers, I have been given examples of things that don’t really qualify…such as using the power of the government to impose Christian beliefs on the population at large, or at least gaining privileged legal status as Christians that places them above non-Christians.

        • says

          It is not a stretch to imagine Christians’ free speech being taken away.

          Yes, it is. For Christ’s sake, you’re the dominant religion in the world. In America, it’s next to impossible to get elected unless you at least pay lip-service to Christianity. Starting off town meetings with a prayer is practically routine. You have a “national prayer breakfast” where the president is preached at every spring. It’s been running for over 60 years.

          Remember, other people disagreeing with you is not a violation of your rights. Telling you to follow the same laws as everyone else, is not a violation of your rights. Telling you that you’re full of shit, is not a violation of your rights.

        • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

          @ LykeX :

          It does if you care about the constitution.

          Hell yes! There is the pivotal distinction – what the private individual can do and what the govt can do are separate things indeed.

          Which is where Kirk Cameron got it totally wrong.

    • says

      Not all Christians are unintellectual

      But you are all in favor of making veiled threats. At least, none of you have yet distanced yourselves from Kirk’s words with regard to “exceptions to the 6th commandment.”

      • AMC says

        Again, are levity and sarcasm completely lost on many people here? I wonder what would happen if you had lived in the 18th C., the “Age of Irony.” It is a common rhetorical practice to say such things and has been for many years. Besides, the contents of the ten commandments, themselves, should be proof enough that a true Christian would never “kill” anyone for an infringement of property. Look back at the abuse Christians have historically taken for their beliefs without any retaliation whatsoever (and please don’t mention the Crusades–that was led by those masquerading under the name “Christian”).

        Please don’t tell me you haven’t jokingly told a friend, “Agh! I’ll kill you” with a smile on your face and no thought of ill intent.

        • Sids says

          Ah, but all of those Christians that you think were abused for their beliefs, the instigators were only “masquerading” as people opposed to Christians so they don’t count.

          Isn’t it fun to ignore evidence that disagrees with you.

          In fact they were Christians masquerading as non-Christians attacking non-Christians masquerading as Christians.

          See how just making stuff up is easy but is also easy to dismiss? That’s why your argument is laughable.

        • Sids says

          Besides, the contents of the ten commandments, themselves, should be proof enough that a true Christian would never “kill” anyone for an infringement of property.

          I’m curious if you hold the standard of evidence for other groups, or is it just special pleading for your own institution. So a group saying that they won’t do something, is proof that they will never do it? Would you equally say that because America has a law against killing, then no true American would ever kill? When it comes to religious beliefs it’s easy to quickly shun someone and say that they were never a part of the ‘in group’, but when the same evidence is applied to a category that isn’t so easy to weasel out of, it becomes clear how weak that “proof” was.

      • says

        To be clear, I don’t actually think Kirk is about to grab a shotgun and go on a killing spree. I don’t consider it a genuine threat. That’s not my point. My point is that I consider it hypocritical, given his strong Christian stance, that he so casually throws out this pseudo-threat with all appearance of condoning this behavior and then you people come in here and pile on, with none of you distancing yourself from it.

        And take your No True Christian bullshit and shove it. Unless you can provide some method of distinguishing the real Christians from the fakes (before they start killing people), then it makes no differences. People who call themselves Christians have been extremely violent, both historically and up to this day.
        Are you a True Christian or not? How would I know? It’s a distinction that makes no difference.

        Incidentally, since we’ve established that there are these fake Christians around, who will use violence in the name of Christianity, how do you know Kirk isn’t one? Can you guarantee that he wasn’t serious?

        • AMC says

          Since I’ve determined you are too angry to be logical or reasonable, this conversation has become pointless. And telling me to “shove it” proves your inability to separate emotion from rational thought. And if it is hypocritical to use common rhetorical devices and sarcasm, well, I’d say you just labeled yourself and most others “hypocrites.”

          A true Christian is known by his or her acts–this is clearly observable and quantifiable. I’m done refuting your ad hominem attacks–they do not further the discussion and quite frankly, this entire conversation is a waste of time.

          • Lord Narf says

            How the hell do you quantify something that even “true” Christians can’t agree upon? Damned near every Christian claims he’s a true Christian, no matter how hateful, bigoted, and anti-science his beliefs are.

          • Alverant says

            How do you figure that? He asked some pretty reasonable questions. If you think he is too angry, how about me?

            How do you know who is a “true christian” or not before they do something that embarsses the religion?

        • says

          And telling me to “shove it” proves your inability to separate emotion from rational thought.

          Really? You missed the part where I’m pointing out that your argument is fallacious? Yeah, let’s not focus to hard on that.

          I’m done refuting your ad hominem attacks

          Show me one example. If you can show me a case of me making an ad hominem, I’ll withdraw it immediately.

          • AMC says

            How is my argument “fallacious?”

            And if we are unable to keep grade-school level name-calling out of the picture, I guess that qualifies as a sort of ad-hominem attack, doesn’t it? Since I hope to count myself with “true Christians,” calling my beliefs “BS” doesn’t exactly sound complimentary. Telling me to “shove it” implies that I have said nothing of worth or value, and that my viewpoints are in no way valid because of my religious beliefs. I hope this explains it sufficiently for you.

            And for the record, in academic discussion, emotion is generally thought to be an enemy of rational thought. See your college philosophy notes for explanation.

            And I meant what I said about this being a waste of time. I sincerely hope that you are just angry and only appear to be incapable of a balanced, academic discussion, which is all that I was seeking. I now know that this was unwise, seeing the comments listed above. I am not backing away because I am unable to answer your arguments (that’s part of my profession), but when a discussion no longer adds to the general development and furthering of human knowledge and progress, I have no time to waste in it. Having made this clear, please don’t bother calling me a “coward” for ceasing to reply, although I doubt, judging from your previous comments, that you will have the decency and courtesy to do so. I sincerely hope that you will someday understand the nature of argument for knowledge’s sake and will acquire the ability to argue fairly, rationally and courteously.

          • says

            Just to interject quickly:

            And if we are unable to keep grade-school level name-calling out of the picture, I guess that qualifies as a sort of ad-hominem attack, doesn’t it?

            No, actually. An ad hominem is a particular kind of fallacy in which a person’s arguments are dismissed based on personal characteristics about him that have nothing to do with the argument. For example:

            Ad hominem: “Well, of course my opponent says such and such, but that’s just what you’d expect some egghead east coast liberal to say!”
            Not ad hominem: “Hey, it was kind of dumb to say such and such.”

            Back over to you guys.

          • says

            How is my argument “fallacious?”

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

            And if we are unable to keep grade-school level name-calling out of the picture, I guess that qualifies as a sort of ad-hominem attack, doesn’t it?

            Only if you don’t know what “ad hominem” means.

            Telling me to “shove it” implies that I have said nothing of worth or value, and that my viewpoints are in no way valid because of my religious beliefs.

            And that, kids, is what we call a strawman.
            Certainly, I told you to shove it because I thought you were talking crap. From there and unto “because of [your] religious beliefs” is a long way. My problem is not that you’re a Christian; your no true Christian/Scotsman fallacy is wrong, regardless of subject.

            And for the record, in academic discussion, emotion is generally thought to be an enemy of rational thought.

            We’re having an academic discussion? That’s news to me.
            Besides, emotional engagement is not, in and of itself, a problem for rational thought. emotions provide us with motivation to even bother arguing about something. If you felt nothing about this subject, you wouldn’t be here.

            I sincerely hope that you are just angry and only appear to be incapable of a balanced, academic discussion, which is all that I was seeking.

            Then you should be happy that I’m pointing out your fallacies. Now, go read up on them and improve your ability to be rational.

            Having made this clear, please don’t bother calling me a “coward” for ceasing to reply, although I doubt, judging from your previous comments, that you will have the decency and courtesy to do so.

            I admit, it is tempting. Oh, you’re such a tease.

          • Lord Narf says

            Martin:

            “Well, of course my opponent says such and such, but that’s just what you’d expect some egghead east coast liberal to say!”

            I’ve always wondered about that. I’ve heard Faux News idiots say that sort of thing. Are they not aware that the east coast includes Florida, South Carolina, and freakin’ GEORGIA?

    • sqlrob says

      Not all Christians are unintellectual.

      No, but all the intellectual ones seriously compartmentalize.

      How do you justify your belief given all the internal contradictions in the Bible, never mind all the times it contradicts reality?

    • Raymond says

      I really enjoyed the video. Well done. The only thing I fear for well constructed videos like that is that they may be “preaching to the choir” so to speak. The people who can benefit most from those, are the very people least likely to watch anything that disputes their currently held fantasy.

  21. John Kruger says

    Wow, did we get a link from Kirk’s blog or something? Where did all the “oppressed” Christians come from?

    Seriously though, if you can’t tell the important difference between private money spent willingly to promote your religion and spending money that comes from taxes that people must pay to avoid jail time, I don’t know what to say.

    The logical fallacy shooting gallery can be fun, though. Way to peg the privilege meter, asserting that “intolerance at its finest” is being ridiculed for bad arguments. I wish I could have government money spent to promote ideas I agree with and be “oppressed” when it might be taken away. Give me a break.

    • says

      Your question prompted me to check today’s stats, but it appears that, as usual, Facebook has been our biggest referrer. So I suspect some Christians have simply glommed the link to this post that appeared on our FB page, that in turn ended up on their news feeds for whatever reason.

  22. John says

    Atheists, realize most Christians are to hung on the fear of hell and their sadist god who is not real, they are to hung on the idea by having faith and so on that eternal life will be granted to them, they’re to hung up that they can be just forgiven by having faith even if they really feel guilty, they’re to hung that to be wrong is to mean you been deceived and lived a lie……all emotional, this is why no amount of logic and and reason can be used to show the gods people tell you about can possibly exist…..there is logic or reason to use.

    Many of them are good people, but they are wrong still, Christianity is a cult at it’s roots and over all a horrible religion if you do not modernize it like many do, so is Islam, so are all religions I know of, but some are worse then others, for they never give real explanations to anything, all done by via magical powers, that explains much…not.

    Keep up the good work everyone who works on the atheist experience show.

    Peace.

  23. Chaplain1 says

    Wagner has all the answers. Reasoning with him is an exercise in futility. He has “made” Cameron say what he wants him to say, and to represent what he wants him to represent. Wagner may not (will not) change his mind until he meets the God of the Universe. But, sadly, then it will be too late. Until then, my support and encouragement goes to Cameron. My prayers, however, go up for Wagner and all those like him who engage in vitriolic criticism against Christians. God is not willing that any perish, but that all have eternal life…

    • says

      I wasn’t aware I had all the answers! Thanks for the heads-up…now perhaps I can find my car keys.

      But you know, good on you for supporting and encouraging the smirking theocrat who makes murder jokes. I bet that’s some of that “Christian love” we keep hearing about.

    • says

      Though, to be totally serious for a moment – he’s right.

      When we’re all standing before Allah after we die, we will then know, too late, that Islam was the correct choice.

        • Dave Carlisle says

          Sad series of posts! I remember the old quote, ‘Those who stand for nothing, fall for anything’, Those here who have rejected Christ, may think they are standing for free thinking and self determination, while actually they are becoming the minions of Satan! How proud he must be of his conquests.

          Pray for forgiveness and start asking, “Could all this really be an accident?” The obvious answer-NO! That realization will lead you to……..the Creator!!

          • sqlrob says

            Stand for nothing? We stand for truth.

            Provide evidence for your god and associated minions. Put up or shut up.

          • lordofsporks says

            Pray for forgiveness? Forgiveness for what? For using our brains, that your creator supposedly gave us?

          • says

            I’m continually amazed by you people. You honestly think that babbling about your delusions is going to have any impact whatsoever on us?

          • Scott Whitley says

            sqlrob- Prove He doesn’t…

            All the proof that would be provided to you would be rejected by you because you choose to believe it so.
            So then the more intelligent way for you would be to prove your arguement that He does not exist.

          • sqlrob says

            @Scott – Burden of proof, what is it?

            You’re making the positive claim, you provide the proof. I’m holding to the Null Hypothesis, nothing more.

    • Murgatroyd says

      “Pray, v.: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.” -Ambrose Bierce

  24. Cholmondely Haberdash says

    There was an episode of The Simpsons where it turned out
    that the Mormons were right all along. A lot of methodists & Presbyterians
    felt the scorn of the angel Moroni that day, I can tell you.

  25. Scott Whitley says

    I have been seeing post from athiest once again attacking Christians for what we believe.
    I have been very curious to the motives of an atheist.
    By that I mean I will tell you about Jesus the Christ and that the only way you can be saved is through Him because I don’t want to see you die and go to hell. I will tell you about Jesus because He loves you regardless of whether you want to believe or not.
    But why does an atheist work so hard to argue and fight anyone who believes in God? For example; If you told me you believed in the tooth fairy, I would think you were terribly misguided. But in the end, it has no bearing on me or any threat to me because I don’t. So if you want to believe in the tooth fairy, that is your business. I might think you’re stupid or crazy but I won’t fight you on that belief. But the atheist, who if true to what they claim to believe and are secure in what they believe, one would think they would have the same approach to Christians. But that is not the case. The atheist will go out of their way to argue and fight and debate with great urgency until they feel they win the argument against the Christian or that they convince the Christian that the atheist is right and the Christian is wrong.
    My theory is that somewhere, deep inside the atheist, they are not ok with what they believe. As a matter of fact, I believe the reason they consistently argue and debate is that they need constant affirmation in their mind that what they believe is correct. Is it something deep within them that keeps bothering them about God? That voice that keeps saying, “I am real and I love you.” My theory is that the fighting and arguing is used to mask that voice and anyone who speaks about God or that He is real, makes it where that voice is so loud that they can’t mask it. So the only thing left is to fight, shout louder and above all, shut up the Christian.
    But He is real, and He loves you. He took the punishment meant for you. Stop shutting out the voice of the Holy Spirit.

    • sqlrob says

      Prove god exists. Then you won’t have scorn of atheists.

      No platitudes, good, hard evidence. Put up or shut up.

      • Scott Whitley says

        sqlrob- Prove He doesn’t…

        All the proof that would be provided to you would be rejected by you because you choose to believe it so.
        So then the more intelligent way for you would be to prove your arguement that He does not exist.

        • sqlrob says

          There is no evidence of an elephant behind me. Can’t see it, can’t smell it, can’t hear it, can’t feel it. Therefore, there is an elephant behind me.

          That is your position. Think it through.

          • Scott Whitley says

            Prove the wind- You can’t. You can show me the results of the wind. You can show me the workings of the wind. You can even claim to feel the wind but you cannot show me wind. Yet you know it exist.
            I can show you the results of God. I can tell you how the is absolutely no chance life could exist without a creator. I could quote statistics and tell you how it is astonomically more probable to have to universe come together and create a working car engine than it would to have life “happen”. I could quote scientific data that shows that evolution and the earth age is a hoax and a known hoax in the scientific world because depending on what you use a a baseline changes the age. I could tell you Jesus is real and that He did all in scripture. I could point out secular authors and writers who were vehematly opposed to Christianity who witnessed what he did and their affirmation of it all while they tried to deny Him. I could even appeal to your intellect and say that no one dies for a known lie. All the Apostles who walked with Him and attested to Him being God all died horrific deaths for Christ except for John who after they tried to kill him by boiling him in oil could not kill him so they banished him to the isle of Patmos until the day he died. These men would have known the Jesus was not who He claimed. Yet these men died for Him. Die if the knew it was a lie and all it took to save your life was to deny Him? I don’t think so.
            No, I could tell you all that stuff, but if you are not interested in really listening it does me no good. If all you choose it to argue you side and reject all that opposes your presupposition, then it is a useless discussion. You have only one claim, to ask me to prove a negative which we all know is not scientifically possible just as you cannot prove He doesn’t exist.
            But think on this; You can live in a cave and deny that the sky and grass exist. You can go to your grave claiming you have never seen it nor is it proven. Yet ultimately, it does exist and whether you believe it or not has no bearing on that.
            Likewise, your denial of God has no bearing on the reality that He is real. The terrible fear that you won’t admit is that if you are wrong and He does exist, then what He said is also true. And that means you are dead in your sins without Him.

          • says

            Prove the wind- You can’t.

            Oh really? I guess it was invisible pixies that knocked my lawn chair over.

            Better tell all those meteorologists they better pack up and get new jobs, too.

            You can show me the results of the wind.

            Uh, yeah…which means there was a wind.

            Seriously, if your arguments are going to be this moronic out of the gate, do I even need to read past the first two sentences?

          • says

            Fuck. So much wrong with this, I’ll have to be selective.

            Prove the wind- You can’t. You can show me the results of the wind. You can show me the workings of the wind. You can even claim to feel the wind but you cannot show me wind. Yet you know it exist.

            Because we can feel it, observe the results and understand the workings. We can test it and demonstrate that there’s a phenomenon going on and that it fits the thing we call wind.

            I can show you the results of God…

            Then do so. Don’t tell us about all the things you could do. Actually do it. Show us the evidence. Lay it out and let’s discuss it. Until you do that, you’re just spouting hot air.
            I’m going to ignore much of the rest because it’s unsupported assertions, most of them horribly distorted, if not outright wrong. E.g.

            I could tell you Jesus is real and that He did all in scripture

            That’s an assertion.

            I could point out secular authors and writers who were vehematly opposed to Christianity who witnessed what he did and their affirmation of it all while they tried to deny Him

            No, you can’t. Go ahead and try. I’ll be happy to make a fool of you.

            No, I could tell you all that stuff, but if you are not interested in really listening it does me no good.

            Translation: if we’re not interested in just accepting whatever you claim with no critical thought, then your arguments will fall flat.

            The terrible fear that you won’t admit…

            And finally the truth comes out. Christianity is all about fear. You people rarely want to admit it, but when you’re trying to convert us, it always comes out sooner or later; the not-so-subtle threats.
            Run along now. Go shiver in a corner, scared that you might have done or said or thought something that’ll get you tortured for eternity. If at any point you want to know what it’s like to live without being shit-scared all the time, you’re welcome to join us.

          • sqlrob says

            You can show me the results of the wind.

            Congratulations, you just proved wind.

            Now, demonstrate god by showing results where that is the primary possibility.

            I could quote scientific data that shows that evolution and the earth age is a hoax and a known hoax in the scientific world because depending on what you use a a baseline changes the age

            Really? Cite it. Valid, peer reviewed, still standing data. Put up or shut up.

            I could point out secular authors and writers who were vehematly opposed to Christianity who witnessed

            Really? Cite it. Jesus has left remarkably few concurring accounts for someone so important.

            All the Apostles who walked with Him and attested to Him being God all died horrific deaths for Christ

            And Harry’s parents died so he could live. You owe your life to him, otherwise Voldemort would still be around.

            I could even appeal to your intellect and say that no one dies for a known lie.

            Dying for something you believe to be true ≠ it being true.

            You have only one claim, to ask me to prove a negative

            Projection, what is it? I’m asking you to prove a POSITIVE. Prove something exists. There is no evidence, yet you claim it exists. Put up or shut up.

            You can live in a cave and deny that the sky and grass exist.

            And someone can bring in grass trivially. Where’s that grass?

          • sqlrob says

            I could even appeal to your intellect and say that no one dies for a known lie.

            So, Scott, when are you going to convert to Islam?

          • says

            Prove the wind- You can’t. You can show me the results of the wind. You can show me the workings of the wind. You can even claim to feel the wind but you cannot show me wind. Yet you know it exist.

            Because we can feel it, observe the results and understand the workings. We can test it and demonstrate that there’s a phenomenon going on and that it fits the thing we call wind.

            You fool! Airplanes don’t operate on “aerodynamics”! They use magic!

    • lordofsporks says

      And MY theory is that Christians only believe in Jesus so they don’t have to feel accountable for their actions – because he’s paid the bribe for you.

      You think that’s insulting? Then don’t come here claiming to know that we REALLY agree with you, we’re just pretending not to. Moron.

      • sqlrob says

        Given the selling of indulgences and such, I don’t think you’re wrong. Maybe incomplete, but not wrong.

      • Scott Whitley says

        Proof of Christ from secular sources who were opposed to Christianity. Notice that the miracles the He performed were called magic.

        CELSUS (~ 178 A.D.) Celsus was a second century Roman author and avid opponent of Christianity. He went to
        great lengths to disprove the divinity of Jesus yet never denied His actual existence. Unfortunately for Celsus, he
        sets himself up for criticism by mimicking the exact accusations brought against Jesus by the pharisees which
        had already been addressed and refuted in the New Testament. There are two very important facts regarding
        Celsus which make him one of the most important witnesses in this discussion:
        • Though most secular passages are accused of being Christian interpolations, we can accept with certainty
        this is not the case with Celsus! The sheer volume of his writings (specifically designed to discredit
        Christianity) coupled with the hostile accusations presented in his work dismiss this chance immediately.
        • The idea of Celsus getting his information entirely from Christian sources (another recurring accusation
        against secular evidence) is wholly absurd. Though he is obviously aware of his opponents’ beliefs (as
        anyone who is engaging in a debate should be), Celsus wrote his exposition in the form of a dialogue
        between a “Jewish Critic” and himself. This gives us cause to believe he used non-Christian (probably
        Jewish) sources.

        On Jesus’ Miracles: “Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired
        certain [magical] powers… He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of
        them gave himself out to be a god… It was by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders
        which He performed… Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a
        few loaves… These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers… It is by the names of certain demons, and by
        the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of [miraculous] power…”

        Not only does Celsus confirm Jesus’ existence, he also tries to debate the source of Jesus’ miracles. Like the
        pharisees of Jesus’ day, Celsus tries to dismiss these miracles as both demonic possession and cheap parlor
        tricks. However, he is clearly grasping at straws: On one hand Celsus accuses Jesus of performing magic learned
        in Egypt, then later states it is by the power of possession, then states the miracles were not really miracles at all
        but were illusionary tricks performed by a deceiver, then finally states the miracles never occurred!

        On the Virgin Birth: “Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her
        living by the work of her hands. His mother had been turned out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade,
        on being convicted of adultery [with a Roman soldier named Panthera]. Being thus driven away by her husband,
        and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard.”

        Celsus acknowledges Jesus’ birth and existence but does not accept the concept of a virgin conception. He tries
        to dismiss Mary’s premarital pregnancy as the result of an affair she had with a Roman soldier. Strangely
        enough, there is a very similar passage in the Jewish Talmud which makes the same accusation. This gives us
        reason to believe Celsus might have referenced Jewish sources for some of his arguments.

        On the Apostles: “Jesus gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious character… tax-collectors,
        sailors, and fishermen… [He was] deserted and delivered up by those who had been his associates, who had him
        for their teacher, and who believed he was the savior and son of the greatest God… Those who were his
        associates while alive, who listened to his voice, and enjoyed his instructions as their teacher, on seeing him
        subjected to punishment and death, neither died with nor for him… but denied that they were even his disciples,
        lest they die along with Him.”

        Celsus’ intentions were to argue that if the disciples really believed Jesus was the Son of God, they would not
        have forsaken Him at His arrest. Instead, he only ends up confirming the Biblical account! The Bible tells us when
        Jesus was arrested, the apostles denied being His followers. It was only upon Jesus’ resurrection they understood
        the spiritual principles concerning Jesus’ crucifixion and boldly went out to preach the Gospel. Celsus is also
        wrong with his statement, [they] neither died with nor for him. We are told by early historians all but one of the
        remaining apostles were killed for their faith.

        On Jesus’ Divinity: “One who was a God could neither flee nor be led away a prisoner… What great deeds did
        Jesus perform as God? Did he put his enemies to shame or bring to an end what was designed against him? No
        calamity happened even to him who condemned him… Why does he not give some manifestation of his divinity,
        and free himself from this reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult both him and his Father?”

        Celsus ridicules Jesus for the exact same reasons the pharisees of His time ridiculed Him- if Jesus was the Son of
        God, why didn’t He save Himself from the cross? Neither Celsus nor the pharisees understood the spiritual
        implications of Jesus’ death to atone for sin. Celsus also asks why no judgment came upon the Jews but history
        shows shortly after His death Jerusalem was invaded by the Romans, the Jewish temple was destroyed, and the
        Jewish people were dispersed for almost 2,000 years!

        John the Baptist “If any one predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit mankind, he was one of our
        prophets, and the prophet of our God? John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew.”

        Celsus confirms Jesus’ baptism by John but asserts that John was the only one who actually prophesied His
        coming- not the Old Testament Messianic prophecies.

        On the Crucifixion: “Jesus accordingly exhibited after His death only the appearance of wounds received on the
        cross, and was not in reality so wounded as He is described to have been.”

        In this statement, Celsus confirms Jesus’ death by crucifixion although he claims the only wounds Jesus received
        were those inflicted by the crucifixion (thus denying any previous torture had taken place). But not even history
        offers Celsus the benefit of a doubt as floggings were the standard form of torture given to victims prior to
        crucifixion (See here). Celsus contradicts himself yet again when he later states Jesus was probably never even
        crucified but instead had an impostor die in His place!

        Skeptic Interjection: Celsus also states, “It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that
        your fables are not well enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction.” How do we know Celsus is
        referring to a historical Jesus and not just debating myth?
        Answer: Evidence which shows Celsus to be refuting aspects of a historical Jesus is as follows:
        1. Our answer can be found in Celsus’ own words: He was therefore a man, and of such a nature, as the
        truth itself proves, and reason demonstrates him to be. Satisfied with his presentation of evidence, Celsus
        offers his conclusion that Jesus was only a man- not a myth (or a God, as the apostles had claimed).
        2. Instead of denying the alleged events, Celsus offers alternative theories to the early Christian claims (like
        the virgin birth being a cover-up for an illegitimate pregnancy and the miracles actually being works of
        sorcery). If he was discussing a mythical character, he would not have needed to go to such lengths but
        merely to have dismissed Jesus as a myth. After all, there is no easier way to discredit a religion than to
        assert its founder never existed! Of course, this is an argument Celsus never makes.
        3. The “fables” Celsus refers to is his belief that the claims such as a virgin birth and resurrection were
        embellishments created by early Christians- not that Jesus was Himself a myth. Celsus was debating the
        claims of Jesus’ divinity, not His existence.

        LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (120 – ~180 A.D.) Lucian was a second century Greek satirist and rhetorician who
        scornfully describes his views of early Christianity. Though he ridicules the Christians and their Christ, his
        writings confirm Jesus was executed via crucifixion and that He was the founder of Christianity.

        “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel
        rites, and was crucified on that account… It was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all
        brothers from the moment they are converted and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and
        live after his laws…” The Death of Peregrinus 11-13

        What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account:
        • Jesus did exist
        • Jesus was the founder of Christianity
        • Jesus was worshiped by His followers
        • Jesus suffered death by crucifixion

        Skeptic Interjection: Can we consider Lucian’s testimony reliable due to the source being a literary work?
        Answer: Lucian’s commentary revolved around historical events. In Lucian’s work The Way to Write History, he
        openly criticises his contemporaries who distort history to flatter their masters or those who fill in the historical
        gaps with personal conjecture:
        “The historian’s one task is to tell the thing as it happened… He may nurse some private dislikes, but he
        will attach far more importance to the public good, and set the truth high above his hate… For history, I
        say again, has this and only this for its own. If a man will start upon it, he must sacrifice to no God but
        Truth. He must neglect all else.” The Way to Write History

        Skeptic Interjection: Is it possible Lucian received his knowledge from Christian sources or that this passage
        is an interpolation?
        Answer: Seeing how adamant Lucian was in regards to historical accuracy and critical investigation, our answer
        is an emphatic no. As to the passage being a Christian interpolation, chances are the reference to Jesus would be
        far more favorable if this were so. Lucian refers to Jesus only as a man, a lawgiver, and a sage (human- not
        divine- descriptions). He never once refers to Jesus as a God. Furthermore, there isn’t anything in the above
        statement that reveals what wasn’t already known- it merely asserts that Jesus lived, preached, and died.
        Remember, at this time Christians were trying to prove Jesus’ divinity- not His existence.

        MARA BAR-SERAPION (Post 70 A.D) Mara Bar-Serapion of Syria penned this letter from prison to his son.
        Though it is obvious he does not acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God, he does mention aspects of Jesus’ life.
        There is some criticism regarding this passage but it must be noted nothing in Serapion’s letter contradicts what
        we know about Jesus.

        “What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as
        a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment
        their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just
        after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: The Athenians died of hunger.
        The Samians were overwhelmed by the sea. The Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete
        dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good. He lived on in the teachings of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for
        good. He lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good. He lived on in the teaching which He
        had given.” Source

        Skeptic Interjection: How do we know this passage is a reference to Jesus?
        Answer: There are several references in this passage which imply Serapion is referring to Jesus:
        • He was a wise King (Jesus was mocked by the Romans as The King of the Jews, the messianic prophecies
        fulfilled by Jesus referred to the coming Messiah as a king, Christian believers believed Jesus was their
        promised spiritual king, and Jesus was born from the royal line of King David).
        • He was Jewish (Jesus was a Galilean Jew).
        • He was executed (Jesus was crucified after the Jews appealed to Pilate to have Him crucified).
        • After His death Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed (This occurred in 70 A.D., after Jesus’ death).
        • The Jews were dispersed after His death (The Jews abandoned Judea after the Roman attack of 70 A.D.).
        • He was a teacher (Jesus was a rabbi/teacher).
        • He lived on after death in His teachings (Jesus and His teachings founded the Christian faith).

        Skeptic Interjection: Is it possible Serapion was referring to another person?
        Answer: Though critics mention other possible candidates, the timing is off as Serapion specifically states just
        after that their kingdom was abolished. Only Jesus fits into the appropriate timeline as Titus destroyed Jerusalem
        a mere 36 years after Jesus’ crucifixion. The others lived approximately 170-250 years prior to the desolation.

        Skeptic Interjection: Didn’t the Romans technically kill Jesus, though?
        Answer: As I mention towards the bottom of this page, The Jews were under Roman domination which restricted
        their ability to execute capital punishment. The Jews rallied the Roman government to crucify Jesus for the crime
        of blasphemy as they did not have the legal power to do so. Even the Bible mentions Pilate’s reluctance to punish
        an innocent man but that he allowed it to take place to prevent a Jewish revolt in an already hostile environment.

        FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (37 – 100 A.D.) Josephus was a first century pharisee and historian of both priestly and
        royal ancestry who provided important insight into first-century Judaism. Josephus was born only three years
        after the crucifixion of Jesus, making him a credible witness to the historicity of Jesus.

        “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of
        wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of
        the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men
        among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he
        appeared to them alive again the third day. As the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other
        wonderful things concerning him. And the tribes of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”
        Antiquities XVIII, 3:2

        Skeptic Interjection: Could this passage have been altered or interpolated by early Christian authors?
        Answer: Some think this passage is a complete interpolation while some believe the passage is authentic.
        However, the general consensus among scholars is that Josephus most likely made some sort of mention to
        Jesus but that the original text became distorted over time. Because this passage is a source of great debate, we
        will touch on a few of the arguments presented by both sides:
        _________________________________________________________________________________
        ARGUMENTS FOR AUTHENTICITY

        1: The vocabulary found in the Testimonium is
        consistent with the vocabulary used in other
        passages in Antiquities. The phrase Now about this
        time is used at the beginning of this passage as well
        dozens of other passages. It’s also doubtful a
        Christian forger would have referred to Jesus as
        simply a wise man but then go on to assert claims
        of His divinity. Yet, Josephus uses this word to refer
        to many other notable (and purely human) figures.
        Josephus also uses the description of Jesus’
        miracles as wonderful [astonishing, surprising]
        works. Lastly, Josephus refers to Christianity as a
        tribe- just like he does many other times in
        reference to both major and minor sects.

        2: Once the disputed words (printed in regular font
        in the above passage) are removed, Josephus’
        though process flows just as well. This lends
        credence to the possibility the passage wasn’t
        wholly interpolated but perhaps altered. When we
        omit the disputed words, the passage seems
        consistent with what an orthodox Jew would say
        concerning Jesus:

        “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man,
        for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of
        such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He
        drew over to him both many of the Jews and many
        of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion
        of the principal men among us, had condemned him
        to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not
        forsake him. And the tribes of Christians so named
        from him are not extinct at this day.”

        3: Greek and Arabic translations of the
        Testimonium contain disclaimers preceding the
        suspicious declarations such as “Jesus who was
        believed to be the Christ” and “It has been
        reported that He appeared to them alive again on
        the third day.” If anything, this could lead to the
        speculation that Christian authors did not add to the
        text but edited it by deleting the disclaimers!

        4: The earliest versions of Antiquities contain the
        passage as it is presented above. Objection: The
        earliest surviving copy dates from 10th century
        A.D. (plenty of time from the publication of
        Antiquities to alter or interpolate the passage).
        Answer: This is true. We do not have an extant
        copy of Antiquities dating from before 10th century
        A.D. What we do have however, is several citations
        of this passage by other authors prior to the 10th
        century).

        5: Many defenders of the Testimonium’s
        authenticity speculate that if it had been wholly
        interpolated by a Christian, they most likely would
        have inserted the passage next to the John the
        Baptist references. Though I understand their
        reasoning, I feel this argument is based on
        conjecture instead of evidence. The alleged
        Christian forger could have had just as much
        reason to insert this passage next to the John
        passage, the Pilate passage, or the James passage.

        ARGUMENTS AGAINST AUTHENTICITY

        1: This passage seems to interrupt the continuity of
        Josephus’ thought process in the previous and
        subsequent verses. Answer: Interruptions are
        frequently found in Josephus’ works since he
        composed his histories during different sittings.
        Furthermore, Josephus was known to use the
        assistance of scribes during his writings which could
        easily resolve this issue.

        2: The passage contains proclamations an orthodox
        Jew would not make such as Jesus being the Christ.
        Answer: In other translations (Greek and Arabic)
        the suspicious statements contain disclaimers such
        as “Jesus who was believed to be the Christ” and
        “It has been reported…” This presents the theory
        Josephus was recording the beliefs regarding Jesus
        and not necessarily his personal opinion (as a
        responsible historian should do).

        3: Early Christian authors like Origen and Justin
        Martyr do not mention this passage in their writings.
        Answer: I’m not sure what the motive is behind this
        objection because Origen does reference the other
        passage by Josephus yet critics claim the reference
        is “too late” to be reliable! But, for argument’s sake
        if we assume this passage did exist in the form most
        scholars believe it did, the early church fathers
        might not have felt the need to refer to it. The
        [original?] passage serves as evidence for the
        historicity of Jesus- a topic not hotly debated at this
        point as the burden of proof revolved around His
        divinity. Objection: Origen attests to the historicity
        of John the Baptist in his work Contra Celsus when it
        wasn’t even being debated. He could have cited this
        passage too. Answer: In Origen’s Contra Celsus the
        divinity of Jesus was being debated- not his
        existence. Though Josephus allegedly admits to
        Jesus performing miracles, he does not state how. It
        would have made no sense for Origen to cite the
        Testimonium since it doesn’t either dispute or
        confirm Celsus’ claims. Furthermore, even if the
        original Antiquities still existed in Josephus’ own
        handwriting, critics would say he either drew his
        information from Christian sources or was to late to
        be considered reliable!

        4: Josephus’ Jewish Wars also contains this passage
        so it must be a forgery. Answer: This is false- the
        Testimonium is not found in the Jewish Wars. To the
        contrary- Skeptics criticize that the Testimonium is
        not found in The Wars but should have been!

        5: Josephus should have written more regarding
        Jesus if the passage was genuine. Answer: What
        topic or how much an author writes about a topic is
        their prerogative. Also, since Josephus believed
        Jesus was just another messianic pretender and
        false prophet, it would have made little sense for
        Josephus to have written volumes concerning His
        life and actions. It would be similar to a modern a
        Christian author exhaustively recording the life of
        Jim Jones or David Koresh. Josephus most likely
        held Jesus in the same regard and felt he warranted
        little mention.

        After weighing the evidence for myself, I personally agree with the consensus of scholars that Josephus did make
        some mention of Jesus in this passage but that the text was later altered. Because opinions differ so greatly, I
        will leave the final conclusion up to the reader. For a more in-depth discussion on this topic, I suggest reading
        this non-biased article which details both sides of the on-going debate (although this author believes the passage
        was wholly interpolated).

        We’ll now examine the second passage given to us by Josephus. Fortunately, it is not surrounded in as much
        controversy!

        “So [Ananus] assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ,
        whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered
        them over to be stoned.” Antiquities XX 9:1

        Skeptic Interjection: Is it possible this passage was interpolated by early Christians?
        Answer: It must be noted that no copy of Antiquities has ever surfaced without the above text quoted as it is
        above. Critics are suspicious of the so-called Christ statement yet this reference (rather than the Christ) shows
        Josephus was not condoning the belief but simply documenting it. Also, this passage concerns the actions of
        the priest Ananus- Jesus and James were not even the primary focus of this verse! Lastly, this passage is cited in
        other early works which attests to its authenticity.

        Even if we dismiss the disputed words in Josephus’ Testimonium, we still see he testifies to a number of things in
        the above two passages:
        • Jesus lived in the first century
        • He performed wonderful works (miracles)
        • Some believed Jesus to be the Christ
        • He was a teacher
        • He had many followers
        • He was tried by Pilate
        • He was crucified
        • He was the founder of Christianity
        • James was the brother of Jesus

        THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD The Babylonian Talmud is an ancient record of Jewish history, laws, and rabbinic
        teachings compiled throughout the centuries. Though it does not accept the divinity of Jesus, it confirms the belief
        He was hanged (an idiom for crucifixion) on the eve of the Passover.

        “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (Jesus) [Some texts: Yeshu/Jesus the Nazarene] was hanged [crucified].
        Forty days before the execution, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has
        practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come
        forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of
        the Passover.”

        Skeptic Interjection: How can we know the Talmud is documenting Jesus’ existence and not only stating the
        rumor surrounding a myth?
        Answer: In the above excerpt the Talmud mentions Jesus’ ability to perform miracles but tries to dismiss it as
        sorcery. If the writers were simply refuting myth, they would most likely have dismissed the tale as a rumor- not
        assign alternative theories to defend their position.

        Skeptic Interjection: How can we know this passage is a reference to Jesus and not another individual with the
        name Yeshu?
        Answer: Though it is possible this passage could refer to another individual, we know Jesus was killed during the
        Passover, we know He was crucified (a Jewish idiom for hanged), we know He was accused of practicing sorcery
        by the pharisees (for His miracles), and He was ultimately arrested for the sin of blasphemy (enticing Israel to
        apostasy). Furthermore, there are other translations which read Yeshu the Nazarene which give us even more
        reason to believe this passage pertains to Jesus. On the other hand, a very thorough article which debates the
        Talmudic passages believed to refer to Jesus may be read here

        • says

          You could have just posted a link: http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html
          Or at least, you could have edited the text, so it doesn’t look horrible and unreadable like that. Finally, it’s generally good practice to acknowledge when you’re copy-pasting from other sources. If you don’t, you open yourself up to accusations of plagiarism and dishonesty.

        • says

          Not only does Celsus confirm Jesus’ existence…

          Celsus was not a contemporary. He can’t function as a source for anything other than what Christians were claiming. Nobody is denying that Christians existed or that they were spreading their stories to anyone who would listen.

          This is a general problem with sources used to argue for Christianity, They’re all later sources. There’s nothing written at the time Jesus was supposedly doing all these miracles.
          E.g. the whole big debate on Josephus is irrelevant. Josephus wasn’t even born at the time of these events and he never makes any reference to where he gets his information. I think the passage in question is quite definitely an interpolation, but even if it wasn’t, it would make no difference.

          Even if we dismiss the disputed words in Josephus’ Testimonium, we still see he testifies to a number of things…

          No, just like Celsus, he testifies to the fact that people were telling stories about these things, not that they actually occurred.
          Basically, most of your post can be dismissed as simply irrelevant.

          To explain this is terms you might more easily understand: I’m sure I can find some sources that would talk about how the Prophet Muhammad perform great miracles. Would you accept such sources at face value? Would they cause you to convert to Islam? If not, why do you take these sources seriously?

        • Lord Narf says

          Did you even read the bullshit you copied and pasted, Scott?

          Josephus was born only three years after the crucifixion of Jesus, making him a credible witness to the historicity of Jesus.

          Someone born three years after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus makes him a credible witness? Seriously? Do you even realize how stupid that sounds?

          You even included all of the information about the lack of quotation by early church leaders, the break in the narrative flow, and the other stuff that demonstrates that the whole thing is a much later forgery. What kind of buffoon are you?

        • says

          Even if we had 500 eye witnesses we could talk to today, it doesn’t mean that Jesus existed, or that he had supernatural powers.

          We frequently have gatherings where people are convinced some person can do magic. They’re called “professional magicians”, most of whom are atheists.

          • says

            Actually, if we had 500 people who could be verified to have lived for over 2000 years, that would be pretty impressive :)

        • Raymond says

          Wow. Should I even bother destroying this entire wall of text, or just sum it up. Hmm. Well off we go to gather up all the requisite citations needed to destroy every single line of this abomination. **Sigh** You Christians make things so hard on us.

          • Lord Narf says

            Not really worth it, no. It’s the usual assortment of textual “evidence” that has been brought up on the show before and has been ripped to pieces.

            After all, a brief (forged) mention by a Jewish historian who also mentioned one of the Roman emperors ascending bodily into heaven is solid evidence that Jesus existed and performed all of the miracles in the Bible.

    • Sids says

      By that I mean I will tell you about Jesus the Christ

      You’re welcome to. But first your going to need to demonstrate his existance. Without that detail, all your doing is telling us about a story book character. And my response will be “nice story, so what?”.

      But why does an atheist work so hard to argue and fight anyone who believes in God? For example; If you told me you believed in the tooth fairy, I would think you were terribly misguided. But in the end, it has no bearing on me or any threat to me because I don’t.

      And if that was an accurate analogy to the behaviour of Christians, then I would gladly act that way too. But let’s say I didn’t just say I believed in the Tooth Fairy. Let’s say I managed to convince enough people, and get them serious enough about it that one of the most important requirements for political office was to believe in the Tooth Fairy. Such that non-believers were unrepresented. Let’s say I then used that power to start limiting your rights. You may no longer get married because the Tooth Fairy doesn’t like you. Let’s say people lose their jobs, get kicked out of their homes, or just have them vandalised, all because they don’t believe. Let’s say Tooth Fairy worshippers flood the media with vilification of you saying that you cannot be a decent person. You’re hard earned tax money, is no longer going to be spent on giving our children a good education, it will instead go to telling your kids that if they don’t accept the Tooth Fairy into their hearts and allow it to run their lives, they are nothing but abominations. Let’s say some of the kids in those classes aren’t convinced, but the ones who are use it as an excuse to punish the unbelievers physically, while the school staff ignore it. Christianity does have an effect on non-believers. Not in some spiritual, magical way, but in the real world. The one that exists. The one that matters.

      If in this hypothetical world, you decided to do something to change these things, would that mean that the Tooth Fairy must exist and is tugging on your heart strings? If you dared to say, “you know what, maybe we shouldn’t just allow these things to happen until it can be shown that their is an actual reason for it”, would that show that you must be desperately trying to convince yourself? Or does it just mean that your a person who doesn’t want their world destroyed by an irrational belief in the Tooth Fairy?

      Oh, and it’s great that you developed that theory. I suggest you search for evidence to see if its actually supported by reality before you convince yourself that its a fact though.

    • Paddy says

      “If you told me you believed in the tooth fairy, I would think you were terribly misguided. But in the end, it has no bearing on me or any threat to me because I don’t.”

      Atheists wouldn’t be pushing back so much if your belief didn’t have any bearing on them. Atheists don’t actually care about what you believe.

      What atheists are concerned about is the push by Christians to change our laws and legislate morality according to their beliefs, in direct opposition to our constitution. What atheists are concerned about is the push by Christians to change what is taught in our schools in direct violation of the constitution. What atheists are concerned about is Christian use of public places or government money to promote their beliefs in direct violation of the constitution. These things DO have a bearing on our lives.

      The reason your tooth fairy reference is completely worthless, is because no one (that I know of) is trying to insert the tooth fairy as the intelligent designer of all life into our school textbooks.

    • Jackie, Ms. Paper if ya nasty says

      I just want to tell you about the closet monster so that he won’t creep out in the night and steal your toes!

      To save your toes you just have to accept that the closet monster is real. (I feel him in my left kidney, so I know he’s there!) Lot’s of people believe in him. (Most under the age of 6…) There have been books written by R.L. Stine and Steven King about monsters in closets. Do you know how many books they’ve sold?

      Now, let me tell you about the civil liberties that must be repressed in order to appease the closet monster.

      No?

      Why won’t you save your toes!1?1!! You just don’t want me to repress the rights of others and spread the word of the closet monster because you know the monster is real.

      Seriously, that’s how you sound.

  26. Hailey says

    Have you ever said something that just came out wrong? Or was taken not as you meant? That is why it’s important to know a person before you can make any judgement…we really shouldn’t be making any anyways….but if you knew even a little about Kirk or what his intentions are or the kind of man he is, you would know that he wasn’t saying that murder was ok. It was obviously meant as a joke. Do I need to break it down?

    Maybe I do…..he was making a point that the owner of the hotel wants those 10 commandments there, that nothing and no one can make him that take down.

    Sometimes we exaggerate to make a point. Would you agree with that?

    Have you ever joked? even about something that isn’t that funny? I am sure you have. We all have.

    Stop throwing stones as if you have never sinned…as if you have never said anything that came out wrong or accidentally offended someone.

    I am sure Kirk Cameron’s post just made you so happy….”something ELSE I can use against that man.”

    What is your goal? Do you think by persecuting this Christian you will turn others away from the faith? I am sorry to burst your bubble and maybe even your life’s dream, but those who truly follow Christ will not be lead astray by any of your attempts to turn there eyes else where.

    Man is not perfect, no Christian is perfect, we will all make mistakes, say something that is take wrong or say something that isn’t true, etc….

    That is why Christian choose to follow Christ and rely on Him and not ourselves…he is perfect, and we are not. We know we make mistakes….so by you highlighting one things that bothered you….well, it’s not rocking our world or our faith.

    • says

      Yes, and I’ve addressed the old “it’s just a joke” defense many times already. Fine, he was joking. Whatever.

      Jokes like these reveal a lot about the person beneath — not necessarily that they literally want to see people killed, but because they have enough distaste for people unlike them that they feel such jokes are in acceptable taste. I joke around myself, but as much as I might loathe some horrible person or another, I try not to be someone who goes around saying “Man, it’d be hilarious if Rush Limbaugh’s heart exploded!” or “The only thing that would make this week brighter would be news that Ann Coulter had gotten mauled by tigers!” I think it’s good, on general principles, to hold myself to a higher standard and not hypocritically indulge in behaviors I criticize in others.

      “It’s just a joke” is also an all-purpose excuse people use simply to say the reprehensible things that common decency tells them they shouldn’t, but cannot resist all the same. “Man, I hope that stupid feminazi whore gets raped in the face…heyyy, simmer down! It was just a joke!” Yeah, whatever, troll. Sure, we all do and say tasteless and stupid things at time. The point is, maybe we should all be better than that, whether theist or atheist. Not perfect, just better.

      And it’s kind of a tell that you use a word like “persecuted” when “mocked” or “criticized” would be perfectly adequate. As much as you lot love playing the martyr for the faith, come on, it cannot really bother you that much when a golden opportunity like this presents itself.

    • sqlrob says

      The only point you’ve managed to demonstrate is the one on top of your head. You provide what you consider evidence, we provide counter. Everything you’ve presented is nothing new to us and has been refuted a thousand ties over previously. Give us something new or go away.

    • says

      Proved your point? Pointing out that a person can’t be an eye witness to something that happened before he was born is really that unreasonable?

  27. sqlrob says

    So what’s the over / under on Scott saying “There’s more evidence for Jesus than Caesar / Alexander the Great / <insert name here >” next?

  28. Scott Whitley says

    Bless your heart. I see that what I said was true.
    The Lord said He would confound the wise and make useless the intellect of the intelligent.
    You are some willfully blind you have yet to see you proved my point.
    I will pray for you.
    On a last note, all have sinned and fallen short. You don’t realize it but you are alread dead in sin. We all were that way. But, Jesus paid the penalty for your sin so you don’t have to suffer the just penalty for it. Accepting Him and what He did is the only way to be saved. It is not joke, no debatable issue. We all die, we all will be judged on accepting of rejecting Jesus. You can deny, scream, say whatever you will. It still does not change the truth. When you are dead, you have no more choices and suffer the consequences in a place that was never designed for man. You scream you know that He is not real and fight anyone who disagrees. Yet in you, you are afraid. Because you know, if you are wrong…..

    I pray that you all have your eyes opened. Not to escape hell but to see just how much He loved you.

    • sqlrob says

      Because you know, if you are wrong…..

      You deny Ra. Because, you know, if you are wrong…

      Pascal’s Wager? GMAFB.

    • says

      You really don’t get it? You threatening us with judgment and hell has no more effect than f I told you that Spiderman was going to come and kick your ass.

      I do appreciate how you’re making it absolutely clear that your motivation is the stark terror that has been drilled into you; the constant, never-ending fear that your capricious deity might suddenly decide that you’re not good enough; the horrible thought that you’re inherently worthless and evil and only the amazing compassion of Jesus could possibly allow you to be saved.

      I feel sad for you. I don’t really want to beat on you, because I can see how hard you’ve been screwed over. I genuinely hope that you’ll realize that all those fears that haunt you aren’t real. You’re not perfect, but you’re not the wicked sinner you’ve been told you are.

      You don’t have to be afraid for the rest of your life. You can stop any time you wish.

    • says

      The Lord said He would confound the wise and make useless the intellect of the intelligent.
      You are some willfully blind you have yet to see you proved my point.
      I will pray for you.

      said no scientist ever.

    • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

      @ 34. Scott Whitley :

      I pray that you all have your eyes opened. Not to escape hell but to see just how much He loved you.

      Um, so, you don’t want us to actually escape Hell? (Not the lunar crater or one of several towns with that name but, I presume, that but the mythical place of endless torment set up by a loving and forgiving all powerful deity.) No, we should in your view stay in Hell but also have our eyes open to how wonderfully much we are loved by the diety that supposedly created Hell* and created us and pre-ordained / knew we would spend an eternity (‘cept for, y’know, right now) suffering hellfire and torture for whatever and who refsues to release us from that same Hell despite being all powerful? That about right?

      Forgive me if I find this other than charming and other than a convincing argument.

      * Isaac Asimov summed the notion of Hell up perfectly for me here :

      I would also want a God who would not allow a Hell. Infinite torture can only be a punishment for infinite evil, and I don’t believe that infinite evil can be said to exist even in the case of a Hitler. Besides if most human governments are civilised enough to try to eliminate torture and outlaw cruel and unusual punishments, can we expect anything less of an all-merciful God?

      I feel that if there were an afterlife, punishment for evil would be reasonable and of a fixed term. And I feel that the longest and worst punishment would be reserved for those who slandered God by inventing Hell.

      Source : Pages 337-338 “Life After Death” chapter in ‘I Asimov : A memoir’ (Asimov, Bantam, 1995.)

      BTW. Notice one good way for citing sources at the end there Scott?

    • says

      I’ve worked as a mail carrier and I’ve never done anything like that. Whether Christian churches, mosques or the friggin Church of Scientology, I always delivered everything to the best of my ability because that’s my fucking job. When you’re paid to do a job, you leave your personal feelings behind. If you can’t do that, you shouldn’t take the job to begin with.

      I wonder if they’ll try to argue that expecting Christian postal workers to deliver atheist packages is a violation of their religious rights.

      • Lord Narf says

        I’ve heard more insane things about Christians going nuts about what they think are their religious rights. It’s the classic bullshit, that preventing them from harassing and tormenting others is an infringement upon their religious rights.

      • says

        And then there are all those Christian pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for legal and necessary medications, because “morals.”

        But they’re so persecuted!

    • Raymond says

      Sadly, I remain unconvinced of your case. I have seen many situations where packages were shipped at the same time from the same place and arrived up to a week apart. The ratio in the article was incorrect. If 1 christian package turned up missing, and 9 atheist packages turned up missing, the number of atheist packages missing was not 10 times the christian count. It was 9 times. It may seem like a small thing, but we must be incredibly sensitive to the way something is perceived. If there is a small lie like that, then I begin to wonder if this isn’t some scam like the breathians (sp?) try to pull. Don’t get me wrong, Martin, I generally love your responses, but in this case I need more to convince me than what is, unfortunately, a single questionable study.

      • says

        I don’t think Atheist Berlin is pushing their findings as any kind of hard science, only that this was a little experiment they tried, which gave them results they found suspicious.

        • Raymond says

          It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation. I wonder if there is any way to do a standardized test that wouldn’t skew the results?

          • Raymond says

            @Jackie

            As my initial post said, I find the article to be questionable. The problem I have with their method, though, is that there is no way to differentiate between actual bias and just plain bad processing.

          • Lord Narf says

            Well, you’d have to push a huge amount of mail through the system, with the markings you’re testing for. I imagine it would cost more than anyone is willing to spend to get a good statistical sampling.

  29. Max Entropy says

    It appears that The Atheist Experience blog has some new readers. I hope they will continue to read it, and other Free Thought Blogs, and maybe even watch the TV show. They just might learn something.

    • Lord Narf says

      Could be fun if some of them called in, too.

      I was thinking the same thing. We get a Christian or two, from time to time, but we’ve had so freaking many on just this one blog post.
      They’re the old-school, ignorant sort, too. They’re not even trying to push logical arguments, just preaching based upon fear-of-hell, Jesus-loves-you, and other emotional appeals.

      • Raymond says

        Wait just a minute. You aren’t seriously suggesting that that emotional appeals aren’t evidence that god exists, are you? **shakes head** You just don’t understand the way the world works.

      • Raymond says

        You know, after thinking about this for a long time, I came to the conclusion I agree with you. I don’t think it would be difficult to get them here, though. The tough part would be to get them to stay long enough to have a decent discussion. Sadly most theists run quickly when confronted with inconsistencies in their fairy tale. Maybe we could take this on the road and organize a meeting of two blogs. One christian and one Atheist and see what kind of fun ensues.

    • Paddy says

      Just as long as they don’t post enormous, jumbled, nonsensical walls of text, like Scott did.

      In addition to being annoying and confusing, it’s quite rude I might add.

  30. kasi1985 says

    I live in Odessa – and yes, the MCM Elegante is the best hotel in town. Make of that what you will. It’s been nauseating watching everyone on Facebook share and like and recommend this stupid post of Kirk Cameron’s. I’ve had so many people tell me it was just a joke and to get a sense of humor – including the MCM Elegante on Facebook when I complained. Obviously, I just don’t get it.

      • kasi1985 says

        I’m sorry, I should have been more clear – they shared his photo and said they were thrilled he was a guest. I asked if they were thrilled that he had implied they would make an exception to the 6th commandment, and they replied that it was a joke and I should lighten up. I didn’t exactly complain, just wondered what the hotel thought about his comments.

  31. John says

    For the love of the gods, Christians are getting more desperate, it’s more then some Christians are taken others free rights away and opposing their beliefs onto others, for I’m perplexed that I once believed in a all seeing necromancer that can wave his hands and then make stuff happen…..just like a wizard does, god himself could not explain a lot of what he does…..how can god be truly all knowing….I do not know. he just says I can just do it because I just can….this is what vastly intelligent people believe in when you get to the root of of their god belief…it’s all magic.

    I pity people who think they can magically pray for things to happen and violate the integrity of all of existence. man! mankind has to get it’s act together, for as I say else where, working together is key, no gods are going to help us.

    If a god exists and if he’s going to torture even one person for all eternity for finite crimes let alone billions and billions then this god is worthy of eternal contempt and hate….why is god always a he and not a she or it? I guess most gods are male…..makes sense for those times, there are very few female gods…or what people call goddesses.

    If higher forces exist, whatever you want to call them or it, they are nothing what the abrahamic religions describe or any of the other religions for that matter as well.

    The idea of hell is the most vomit educing doctrine ever created by man……have people seen people being set on fire before? the gods of Islam and Christianity are sadist and evil, but they where created in a time when man knew almost nothing and lived in such a harsh reality that this generation cannot fathom it.

    Peace.

  32. John says

    I do not hate religious people, but I cannot say the say thing for religions of any kind or that I can respect prayer when it does not do anything demonstrable real…. like materialize food into existence so we can feed the hungry….do that, you got my attention.

    Peace.

  33. Sue says

    To the atheists’
    I have to say, if you people had HALF the intelegence of Kirk Cameron you would NOT feel the need to have such hatred towards him!

    I am writing this at YOUR level of intelegence, only without the HATRED!

    First of all, you don’t have to be very smart to be able to tell who the intelectual one is!
    It is rather obvious that you people know very little about the bible, or you would know that it teaches us to LOVE THE SINNER BUT NOT THE SIN! That being said, it does not give us Christians the right to judge you. But you don’t seem to see the difference beetween your hatred for us and our love for you but hatred towards sin. With that, I am not saying that us Christians don’t sin but rather that we know the amazing grace of God, know that we are forgiven and don’t expect everone else to accept our sin.

    When reading something like this, you can clearly see where the HATRED lies. As Christians we don’t feel the need to use such abusive hate filled laguage. We can have that PEACE in knowing what our future holds. And clearly we need to pray for you, and by saying we will, DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE DOING IT IN PUBLIC OR FOR YOU TO EVEN SEE!!! You can write back and atack me with your hatred, just letting you know that I will not be reading it. Not because I don’t want to (knowing full well the hatred it will display) but because i will not have access to the net for a while. Only our group co-ordinater will have access and I can tell you right now, he will not be reading this!

        • Lord Narf says

          It always amazes me when I see posts with so many blatant misspellings. I mean sure, to/too/two and wear/where/we’re errors will get through, if the person isn’t very good at English grammar, but don’t pretty much all browsers come with built-in spell-checkers, now? What possible excuse can there be for something like that? Do they just ignore all of the red lines and assume the spell-checker doesn’t know what it’s doing?

    • says

      I have to say, if you people had HALF the intelegence of Kirk Cameron you would NOT feel the need to have such hatred towards him!

      Remind me, who was making jokes about killing who, again?

      And clearly we need to pray for you, and by saying we will, DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE DOING IT IN PUBLIC OR FOR YOU TO EVEN SEE!!!

      Somebody clearly wants to have their cake and eat it, too. But fine, go ahead. It’s your holy book. If you want to be hyper-literal in order to ignore the plain and obvious point, you can do that. After all, reinterpreting scripture to make it more convenient is hardly a new phenomenon.

      Btw, you might want to tone down the “you all hate me” rhetoric. I don’t hate you, I just think you’re kinda silly.

    • jdoran says

      You can write back and atack me with your hatred, just letting you know that I will not be reading it.

      Thanks for letting us know you had no intention of engaging in honest discussion and just wanted to post your polemic.

    • Lord Narf says

      Only our group co-ordinater will have access and I can tell you right now, he will not be reading this!

      Actually, no. The moderators have certainly read your post. They kind of have to, in order to approve it … as they do for pretty much all theists who post, assuming that they post something more than just a string of curse words and personal attacks. Hell, they’ll often let those through, too, if they’re funny.

      No one (or almost no one) who is a regular on this blog is going to attack you from the first post. We’ll attack your ideas, certainly, but you have to go quite a way down the spiral, several posts in, demonstrating either dishonesty or a complete lack of reasoning skill, before we’ll attack you personally.
      It doesn’t look good, judging from your first post, but we’ll wait to see if you come back.

      Oh, and no, Martin’s initial response was not a personal attack against you. He was pointing out a beautiful bit of irony. When someone does something that classically ironic and funny, you’ve got to point it out and enjoy it.

      As for your opinion of Kirk? I’m sure the guy isn’t actually stupid. He’s probably of about average intelligence. What he does lack is any sort of logical education and a set of deeper thinking skills.
      I’ve watched a lot of his work with Ray Comfort. Kirk’s arguments are the weakest, most pathetic emotional appeals, not grounded in any sort of real thought. He always goes for the basest fear reaction, in those he’s speaking to, and I’m sure that’s the big driver in his own religiosity. I don’t think the guy could put together and defend a logical syllogism, without a great deal of further education.

  34. Lord Narf says

    It is rather obvious that you people know very little about the bible, or you would know that it teaches us to LOVE THE SINNER BUT NOT THE SIN!

    Actually, many of us know the Bible better than your average Christian. We know that there’s a great deal more in there than the warm, fuzzy platitudes that your preacher feeds you.

    Several of the people in my local atheist group are ex-preachers.
    Personally, I never actually believed. My 5 or 6 year-old mind listened to the stories in church and Sunday-school and rejected them as silly and illogical. But I’ve read the whole Bible, cover-to-cover. Have you?

    • Lord Narf says

      Heh, yeah. People should learn some basic formatting tags. It makes them look a lot less like a 14 year-old screaming things online.

  35. says

    Since we have so many Christians dropping by, maybe you could give me some feedback about this:
    If an atheist made a reference to dropping Christians into the lion pit at the zoo, would you also find that amusing? Or would you cry and scream about how persecuted you are?

  36. DelSolar says

    I’m always amused by all this praying thing. In my day-to-day I meet tons of Christians (yes more than 80% of the population is Christian, a “persecuted majority”) praying for this and for that, and always adding to their praying lists the new subjects that pop up in random conversations. Now they bumped into a facebook link to Martin’s post, and, on top of disagreeing strongly and presenting poor and lousy arguments, they are already praying for Martin and the rest of the crew and commenters.
    What do you pray for?
    For Martin’s health and prosperity? But, if that is “granted”, him and all these healthy and happy atheists are going to continue in a quest for reason and the spreading of sound arguments that inevitably are going to cause some deconvertions (yes, the movement is in that direction).
    Or perhaps, what you pray God for is to magically change the minds of this bunch of atheist so they start to believe in him? But, wouldn’t that be a flagrant violation of the much vaunted “free will”?
    Or are you praying God to give us the evidence we require of his existence, so we can start believing? But if this is the case, why not asking him to give that evidence to the whole world -including you, by the way, who only have fuzzy feelings “in your heart”- so Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and millions of other believers throw away their religions (and fuzzy feelings), and every human on Earth turns to the “real religion”, the one you have the fortune to have been born into? (aren’t you so lucky?).
    But it’s also possible that you are such a compassionate Christian that all you are asking is for us to be forgiven and to be spared from Hell. Thank you, but don’t you think it would be better to ask for the general amnesty in Hell? To pray for the end of that ridiculous, nonsensical, cruel and childish system of infinite reward and punishment of the finite and insignificant faults committed during an infinitesimal (by comparison with eternity) spec of time with no information available?
    Are you serious? Do you really believe you are going to be rewarded for your good luck of having been born in the “real religion”, and most of humanity is going to be punished for the bad luck of having been born in a “false religion”?
    By the way, what is the name of the game God is playing? Why is he hiding from us? And why is he deciding the eternal fate of his creatures over the gambling on his existence? Why does the creator and ruler of the universe behave like a jealous and insecure little king from the bronze age? Why does he need to be worshiped and prayed? To whom is he bragging? …. Hello!! He is the only one in charge! (according to you). He has no reason for insecurity. Being the only master of everything there is has to be a very humbling experience (think about it).
    Don’t pray for us. Pray for you. Pray for overcoming the arrogance of thinking the universe has been made for YOU and that YOU have a direct telepathic line to the big boss. Pray for the humility and intellectual integrity needed to recognize that you don’t have the absolute truth.
    Do your homework and read your bible… READ YOUR BIBLE! … See with your own eyes what is in your “book of love”. Go to Exodus 21; Leviticus 12, 25 and 26; Numbers 15 and 31; Deuteronomy 13, 21 and 22; Joshua 5 and 6; II Kings 2; Isaiah 37; I Corinthians 11 and 14; I Timothy 2. Just for a start. And don’t forget Mathew 6:5-6 !!! (ha ha).
    Pray less and think more. : )

    • Lord Narf says

      Many interesting questions in there, Del. The funny thing is, I doubt they have answers for you. I think the “I’ll pray for you,” thing is just a reflexive, “I have no good response that will win over your mind, so I’m going to give the response I’ve been conditioned to give.”

      It would be very nice if they would actually sit down and think through their intentions. I think a lot of Christians remain reflexive, platitude-dispensing machines because they’re not very introspective. They never actually think that much about their religion, beyond the occasional cry out to God for something, which hopefully remains unanswered in their heads.

      Maybe if Christians asked more why questions, they would realize that most of their religion and behavior doesn’t make any sense.

    • says

      I can’t tell if this is a joke or if it’s some stupid attempt to defend the historicity of Jesus, a la “if you don’t believe in Jesus, you shouldn’t believe in Lincoln either”.

      In case of the latter, I’ll just point out that, unlike with Jesus, we have sources from the time of Abe himself and we even have letters that he personally wrote. Compare that with Jesus where the closest and most reliable source we have are letters written 20 year after his supposed death, by a person who never actually met him and give next to no real details about the guy.

      However, there’s an interesting point in there about how myths can attach themselves to a real person. I certainly can’t rule out that the might have been some historical basis for the Jesus myths, but just because one part of the story is true, doesn’t mean the whole thing is.
      That’s another thing that apologists are crazy about: they work hard to try and prove one little detail (say, the existence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus) and if they manage that, they immediately jump to “that means the bible is a reliable source of information and we should trust everything it says.”
      This is actually a subject full of opportunities to point out the differences between Christian apologetics and proper history.

      • Lord Narf says

        Yeah, I’ve heard people say that we have more historical evidence for Jesus than we do for Julius Caesar. It’s kind of amazing the kind of shit that Christians will repeat, because their preacher said it, without ever stopping to think if the statement is true. Hell, if they stopped to think to themselves, “Is this completely fucking stupid?” they would never pass it on. The claim is ludicrous, before you even go looking for evidence for the claim.

        I’ve heard the same thing for Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Hopefully, this guy was joking, but it’s hard to tell, sometimes.

      • says

        Indeed. Here’s a great, thorough take-down of one of those claims. Although young, it’s a great blog in general, so I’m pimping it whenever it’s relevant.
        I can also recommend the podcasts of Robert Price; The Bible Geek and the Human Bible. Both awesome sources for anyone interested in bible history and the origins of Christianity; available on iTunes.

        To Christians: Go on. Check them out. If you’re right, you’ve got nothing to fear.

    • says

      It’s actually not a bad case study for discussing the standards of evidence in regards to history.

      For instance, how much uncontaminated independent contemporary evidence validates Lincoln versus Jesus?

      What claims are made about each? One was a president, and the other was the SON OF GOD WHO CAN BREAK THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND LOGIC TO PERFORM MIRACLES… not even remotely on the same level of spectacular claims.

      What about the time difference? It’s a lot harder to validate claims made 2000 years ago than 150.

      Not to mention, it’s not an all-or-nothing package. We can accept that Lincoln existed but not that he fought vampires. There might have been some person the Jesus character was based upon, like many works of fiction are. Jesus may have existed, but was just a lunatic philosopher of his time, and his “resume” has since been enlarging like a fishing story, every time it’s told.

      If a person is not considering these issues, of course the “We’d also have to reject that Lincoln existed” argument would appear to be salient.

  37. John says

    This is how I feel about people who believe in god and gods. I cannot help how I feel on this anymore.

    O, piteous humans who cling to your god and gods for aid, I cry for for you, I pity you from a distance, I laugh from afar, for your gods are in the realm of magic where they can never can be touched. your god and gods are preposterous, nonsensical, ridiculous, wacky, and nutty once you open your mouth about them.

    Your prayers are never heard nor will they ever be answered, for you spend your time living in a mass delusion, you have given yourself a false sense of hope and peace not based on reality, for your gods are never held responsible for anything, for galaxies collide with other galaxies, stars explode daily, meteors hit moons and planets with no life on them, all the billions of moons and planets in which no life exist, etc and etc, yet your think an infinite all seeing necromancer created this all and governs this chaotic plane of existence, O, thou art foolish ignoramus for believing in the most absolute absurd things one could otter out of thy mouths.

    Your gods have never been here nor will they ever be here, their man made constructions, created in the time were mankind was vastly more flawed and barbaric and ignorant then anyone in this generation can fathom, for your holy books are still crystallized and frozen in time, for no superior moral agent would use books in ancient times to communicate a message nor would they relay a revelation through a few select to pass it through words, such beings who can convey their message would do it more efficiently if they have the powers you claim they do, yet they do not, for I expect no less from gods who are the work of fiction and come from human imagination.

    It’s time you wake from your dream, see reality as it is, when death comes for thine, your god nor gods will not be there for you, you will die as all biological creatures do, faced with death’s hands in till someone can show me that science can conquer such a horrible concept or that science can demonstrable prove there is a soul, for us non-soul believers are totally justified in are stance to not believe in a soul of some sort….time to face reality as it’s known it till someone can show us with real reasons to say other wise.

  38. Mark Aaron Reitinger says

    Wow, all the bonehead comments from believers. And I notice a lot of them get answered. I think I’d find it tiring. And depressing. I get depressed when I see for the ba-jillionth time an argument I saw through years ago. Obviously they aren’t decently familiar with the relevant polemics and counter-apologetics. Sad.

    I’m not a genius btw, I’m actually quite ignorant in significant ways.

    Is what one commenter said true? That atheists go on believer blogs and make dissenting comments?

    • jacobfromlost says

      It has actually never occurred to me to do that. Crashing Christian blogs would seem obnoxious to me, and otherwise boring.

      I’m not saying it doesn’t happen (because I don’t read Christian blogs, much less comments on Christian blogs), but it would seem that complaints about it would have trickled down to me by now considering all the atheist shows, blogs, etc I end up watching/listening to/reading. This is the first time I’ve ever heard it suggested.

      And actually, this is the first time in my memory that so many crashed the AE blog at once. I remember a handful where ONE dude started an argument, then disappeared. It seems several started arguments here…and then just disappeared. I can’t say I’m surprised. The first couple posts seem sincere and they claim to want a dialogue. Then, after you rip apart the first two arguments they have…that’s it. They just disappear. It’s the blog version of this:

      • erik333 says

        I hung around #Jesus on freenode (IRC) for a while, mostly evesdropping and sometimes asking questions about dogma. Really scary place, some batshit crazies there for sure.

        So, hanging around a christian blog is probably not unheard of for assholes similar to me.

    • says

      I think I’d find it tiring

      It is. That’s why sites like this are great: When one needs a break, another can step in.

      Is what one commenter said true? That atheists go on believer blogs and make dissenting comments?

      I don’t really know. I don’t frequent any explicitly Christian sites, so it’s not anything I do. I wouldn’t be too surprised if it happened on occasion; atheists can be assholes too, but I wouldn’t think it was a big problem. Maybe I’m wrong, but since the Christians who make such claims rarely get around to giving examples, it’s hard to judge.

      • hypatiasdaughter says

        Remember that for many of these people, anyone who isn’t the “right” flavor of xtian is often considered an atheist. A Presbyterian or Catholic denying the literal truth of the Bible on a fundie or charismatic website would be considered , at best, “not a real xtian” and, at worst, an atheist.
        Indeed, much of the persecution, both historic and current, that xtians complain about has come from other xtians and their fellow Abrahamic religions, not from outright atheists.

      • erik333 says

        Of course it happens, it’s most likely very entertaining.

        Christians preaching where uninvited is hardly surprising either, if they believe in hell – proselytizing becomes a moral obligation.

  39. Brittany says

    Please read the original texts of the Bible when you find errors in the translations, the original texts do not contradict themselves if you study them and understand what they say.

    As for following the Old Testament laws such as stoning your child for disobedience and such, please understand Christians are under the New Testament laws which differ from the Old. The two primary laws of the New Testament are loving God with all our heart and loving our neighbors as ourselves.

    Love you guys, and for those who wish to accept the blessing: God bless and peace guys! <3

    • says

      the original texts do not contradict themselves if you study them and understand what they say.

      Translation: I can find ways of reinterpreting the text, so that I no longer have to face the contradictions. Well, I’m sure you can. I don’t see why you’d think that’s a convincing argument for anything. All you’ve demonstrated is your own ingenuity and flexibility of thought.

      Indeed, why has god written a book so prone to misinterpretation that only people who have studied several ancient languages even stand a chance of understanding it at all? That’s not very helpful is it?

      please understand Christians are under the New Testament laws which differ from the Old

      So, are you saying that what’s moral has changed? There’s no absolute morality? If not, are you saying that the laws of the Old Testament were immoral even back then? God commanded people to do things that were wrong?
      Please explain.

    • Lord Narf says

      Brittany, what you suggest is impossible. We don’t have the original autographs. No one does.

      I always laugh at churches who claim to believe in the infallibility of the original autographs of the Gospels. How the hell could you make a claim like that? You’ve never read them. No one in the freaking Catholic church has read them. They’re lost, and we know there’s corruption in the copying of them.

    • says

      Brittany, the New testament doesn’t undo the old…otherwise, why do Christians laud the Ten commandments? And since god is the morality giver–why would he ever decree that it was okay to stone kids and get away with rape? And bye the by, the New Testmanent has some pretty awful stuff in it–like Christ telling people to hate thier own families in order to love him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>