Pascal’s Wager … again


P.S. @ Matt Dillahunty._ You are going to die sooner or later_That is a natural fact. What you assert is there is no God; the God of Bible because He cannot be proven_ Is a fact. You are “Gambling” that there is no God; the Christian God of the Bible_Is a fact. By your own admission the Christian God of the Bible does not exist, therefore you would reject that you possess a soul that is eternal, that will either go to heaven or hell._Is a fact.
FACT_you are going to die someday; are you willing to take that GAMBLE that you do-not have a soul that will live forever either in heaven or hell?
P.S. _ I really believe that Matt Dillahunty is Demon possessed, and anyone that would argue with a Demon will get no-where because it is a slippery slope because Demons are masters of deviation

We get e-mails like this all the time. Matt has answered more than his fair share of these, so I’ll take one for the team. This person singled out Matt, but he (she?) might as well have written it to any AE host, or any atheist for that matter. I’ll refrain from commenting about writing style as that’s just too easy. The e-mail above is unedited.

First, atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. Check the front page of the ACA’s web site. Mankind has invented tens of thousands of gods and there is no reason to believe that any of them are real. Christians are atheists, too, with respect to most gods, but they think their god is special. Is it? I can’t think of a reason. Is it because there are a lot of Christians? There are a lot of Buddhists too, does that make their religion true? Is it because there’s more evidence in support of Christianity? Nope. I don’t know of any solid evidence for the claims of Christianity. Is it because they believe passionately? Would anyone say there’s a Muslim afterlife with 72 virgins just because the 9/11 attackers believed so passionately enough to kill themselves for martyrdom? Of course not.

In nearly all forums where I interact with believers, I ask for good evidence for the claims the believers are making. I’m usually disappointed in what I get. Let me be clear on what I’m looking for. There are lots of bald assertions that believers give, usually claiming this or that about their god. If you don’t have evidence to back up those claims, then please forgive me if I just ignore them. “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens) Beyond bald assertions, I’ll also disregard falsehoods, deception, logical fallacies, and emotional manipulation. These seem to be the primary tools of apologists. If you have to lie to me, trick me, or manipulate me to believe something, what does that say about that thing you’d like me to believe? It says that even the theist can’t think of a good reason to believe in their god, so what’s left are bad reasons.

I’m pleasantly surprised that you admit that your god can’t be proven. Starting from there, the conversation should go like this:

  • Atheist: Do you have any good reason to believe in your god?
  • Theist: No.
  • Atheist: Thank you for your honesty. Please understand if I don’t believe.

End of story. But in their desire to market their religion, theists go on to give bad reasons.

Yes, we are all going to die. And we’ve heard “Pascal’s Wager” a million times. It’s a really bad argument with at least a dozen flaws. I’ll answer it, though in my own words. I personally have no fear of your god, or any god for that matter. As near as I can tell, the god of the Bible is fictional and I can think of no reason to fear fictional characters. But let’s pretend for a minute that gods are real. Is the goal to choose the one that offers the best afterlife, or perhaps save you from the worst hell? Isn’t that exactly like being a hedonistic toady, or perhaps sucking up to a monster so that you will be spared eternal torments. Maybe it’s both: you can even get to watch the torments of others while basking in eternal bliss. This seems rather sick to me, yet it seems to be what Christianity is promising.

Do you follow the most noble god? The god of the Bible blames Adam and Eve, indeed the entirety of humanity for his mistakes. Later, Yahweh orders Abraham to kill his own son. That story reads to me like a gang initiation ritual. In New Testament mythology, the same god kills his own son because there had to be a blood sacrifice due to a rule he either made up or given to him by some other more powerful god. Appeased, by his actions, he then allows the Jews to take the blame for his alleged sacrifice? Every story about the god of the Bible paints him as a monster. Even if he were real, I wouldn’t follow him.

I’ve made the decision to live my life as if there are no gods. I’ve looked at god claims, and I find them all to be without merit and most likely derived from human imagination. So how will I respond if, after my death I find out there’s some god that wants to torture me? I may not be happy, but I will have a lot of things (assuming “I” continue to exist) that will never be taken away. I’ll have the satisfaction of having lived my life in a sensible and kind manner. I will have the solace of knowing I’ve taken responsibility for my actions and that I will forever be more moral than the monster who is torturing me. In short, I will have my integrity. My integrity is not something I’m going to bargain away for vague promises from an invisible monster.

What will be your legacy when you die? From my perspective, perhaps the biggest claim you could make is that you tried your hardest to be a vector for a disease that has stifled progress, caused untold human misery, and murdered millions. From my perspective, you have hitched your wagon to a delusion. You’ve already pissed away your integrity. How sad.

I wonder, too, if you really believe your afterlife claims. If you’re going to go on to some perpetual orgasm, why hang around only to make the world a worse place? Please don’t let me stop you. I suspect you too have your doubts. If you don’t believe in Jesus why should I?

As for demons, atheists think demons are at least as silly (and unlikely) as gods. Be sure and check for monsters under your bed and sleep with your lights on. Boo! Maybe your invisible friend will protect you.

Now let me respond to the subtext of your letter. If you actually had good reason to believe in your god, you would have presented that. Since you didn’t present a good reason, it seems clear you have none. We both know prayer is a failure or you could have prayed for one ahead of time before writing. Next, if Christianity had any positive value, you could have pitched that. Again, it seems there is no positive benefit. You did offer threats (emotional manipulation). While Islam’s main tactic is murdering those who disagree with them, Christianity relies on lies and thuggery. Death threats are a common Christian tactic to get their way. Lies, like the “Christian Nation” propaganda only show how much a fraud the religion is. With threats of hell, there is usually caveat by the threat giving Christian that he has nothing to do with the threat; they’re just passing it along from on high. Yet I have yet to meet two Christians who can agree on the nature of their god, and as you admit, there is no good evidence to believe in such a good. People like you choose to believe in a clearly evil god. I can only imagine you do so because you identify with that aspect of his storied nature. Ultimately the threats are coming from Christians who believe themselves to be good. This is part and parcel of an evil delusion.

Years ago, Christians actually tortured non-believers, with the idea that coercing them to “believe” was a kind of mercy. Converting them here through torture was thought preferable to the “loving” justice of eternal torment. Fortunately, secular morality has made torturing heretics an anachronism. Christian torture and holy wars have just made more atheists. Regardless, the subtext of your note tells me that Christianity has no merit (you seem to admit that) and you still want me to join you. You want me to shut off my brain, give up my integrity, and become a wannabe thug that excuses the atrocity of the Bible and the murderous fruits of Christian belief. Yet the only think you’re offering is some idea you have in your head that I might get to look down from heaven in a blissful amoral stupor and enjoy watching the torments of my fellow human beings in hell. Wow. What a steaming pile of shit.

I want nothing to do with your religion.

Comments

  1. Ed says

    Maybe there’s no particular evidence that vampires exist, but what if they somehow do!? Is it worth taking the terrible risk of you and maybe your entire family drained of your blood?

    Isn’t it wise to hang fresh garlic from all the doors and windows of your house after dark just in case? And I’d get a sun lamp, too, and silver plated daggers. If I’m wrong, I’m just worrying about a silly thing and taking on a little extra effort and expense. But if you’re wrong, you’re getting bitten by a vampire.

    Seriously, though, is there ANY idea this “logic” couldn’t be used to defend? Buy my anti-lycanthropy pills, too. How can your conscience let you take the slightest chance that you might suddenly turn into a ravenous monster and eat your friends and relatives?

  2. my2cents says

    I think if I was to take the wager I’d go with Hindi on my death bed. They have lots of gods which seems cool, great food, comfortable clothing, etc… Plus when I’m born into a privileged class I won’t have to speak out against it I can point to Karma and reincarnation to tell you I deserve it. That sounds like a lot more fun than sitting up somewhere with an oppressive hypocritical deity who’s many rules are designed to demonize enjoyment in life all the while knowing many of my friends and family are burning in hell for eternity.

  3. Jerry Herrera says

    “The Mafia Boss Scenario” does not hold water: It is in Total Contrast to G-D

    “THE TEN UNHOLY INFRINGEMENTS” (of a Mafia Boss)
    #1 A Mafia Boss behaves like a Vampire, sucking the life out of you.
    #2 A Mafia Boss would never die to save your life.
    #3 A Mafia Boss does not love you.
    #4 A Mafia Boss does not give you any option’s for his protection, pay or die, and then, pay for your own funeral expenses.
    #5 A Mafia Boss is a cruel master, always taking from your hard labor in order to line his own pockets by making merchandise of you.
    #6 A Mafia Boss will kill your family, if you get behind on your payments.
    #7 A Mafia Boss is greedy.
    #8 A Mafia Boss has no scruples.
    #9 A Mafia Boss is a crook and a liar.
    #10 A Mafia Boss will use you, until you’re all used up.

  4. Daniel Schealler says

    For Pascal’s Wager, I’ve just started linking to Betting on Infinity.

    IMHO it’s one of the best resources for addressing Pascal’s Wager out there because it avoids the pitfalls of being lectured to by a bobbing head AND the pitfalls of hitting the viewer with an insurmountable wall of text.

  5. StonedRanger says

    “What a steaming pile of shit.

    I want nothing to do with your religion.”

    Well said, and I agree. There isn’t much else to say about it.

  6. says

    The killer argument against Pascal’s Wager, in my book, is that it is an up-front admission of inadequate evidence. Anyone making that argument is essentially conceding that he or she doesn’t really have anything that will convince you, so you should buy this spiritual lottery ticket.

    As if belief is volitional. As if an all-knowing deity wouldn’t be able to see through the artifice of some clown claiming to believe what he doesn’t really believe.

    Pascal’s Wager is, quite simply, an “argument” for ignorant fuckpigs.

  7. Mr. Dave says

    It’s asking way too much to expect what is likely a first time theist e-mail, to contain an original and thoughtful (or at least creative) argument in support of a religious belief. We’re dealing with people who are largely discouraged from asking questions or challenging what they have been taught to believe in, and it shows in what they think may be challenging to us. Posing a serious challenge may be a skill that has so atrophied amongst many theists, that it just isn’t there when they finally sit down in front of a keyboard to write that “pithy and unanswerable” question. The question, like in this case, often turns out to be one that is worn out from overuse, but because they couldn’t think of anything new, they use a recycled question that other theists have told them is a sure-fire win. If they don’t get an answer because nobody wants to waste time on the question, they think its a win. The whole thing is very lazy and with the rampant Dunning-Kruger amongst them, theists will keep doing the same thing again and again.

  8. Kenny says

    ‘Demons are masters in deviation’

    Great, I always had trouble with statistics. Now I know who to ask.

  9. Jerry Herrera says

    To all: (Pascals Wager) _ the fact is: Atheist’s hate this question, because it’s like putting a Cross in the face of a Vampire.
    Most Atheist’s were former Church goers, and that is why they will dodge around the question, by giving an answer that dodge’s the question, from a simple yes or no answer.
    Atheist’s will not answer a simple yes or no, because they’re really not sure of the after life, therefore they seem to think by dodging the question, that it will somehow get them off the hook when they die and find out that they were wrong.
    Here is how Bible addresses this conjecture:
    ◄ Romans 1:20 ►
    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    I pray that practicing Atheist’s will come to the knowledge and ‘Truth’ that is in Jesus Christ.

  10. Narf says

    @6 – Mr. Dave
    It isn’t so much that we expect better from them. It’s the way that the lame-ass argument comes at us accompanied by the most belligerent hell-fire preaching imaginable, most of the time.

    There’s a certain degree of theater involved in responding to theists. When you get one who sends a lob ball over the net, then starts prancing around like he’s Andre Agassi, it’s worth slamming the thing back down his throat to make a point, even if you’re not really that annoyed about it.

  11. Jo says

    Bald assertion? Were you thinking of Matt when you wrote that? 🙂 I think you meant bold assertion.

  12. L.Long says

    As your post and the comments show Pascal’s Wager is a cowardly copout that has repeated been shown to be BS. And it is a terrible thing for xtians to use as we all know that the FSM is the on true gawd!!! Yet the xtians refuse to believe so they will be going to hell.
    And what will happen when I die?? That’s easy to answer as I will be going to heaven as my gawd values intelligence and thought, as IT requires our help to think of a way to end ITS existence as IT IS BORED TO TEARS!!!!!!!

  13. says

    Heh – I guess I should be clear that my resounding ‘no’ is in response to ‘is it more sensible to believe’, rather than ‘am I willing to take the gamble’…

  14. pwuk says

    Mafia?

    It is in Total Contrast to G-D

    Pretty dubious list.

    A couple more :
    Once you die the Mafia boss will leave you alone, forever!
    Oh yeah, unfortunately the Mafia boss(es) exists.

  15. Andres Villarreal says

    @9 – Jerry Herrera

    Quick answer: NO. No, it is not sensible to hedge your bets as Pascal wants you to. No, there is no good statistical analysis of the risks and benefits, so NO, the benefits do not infinitely outweigh the risks.

    And also, there is an almost infinitely small probability that The Devil made Pascal post his wager, for the specific intention of luring greedy and unintelligent souls into a trap. Those stupid souls think they are choosing Heaven by accepting the wager, but instead they are showing un-pure intentions (trying to fool Him), angering The God, and falling to the lowest circles of Hell.

    Now that I think of it, Pascal makes you become greedy, giving you the supposed formula to go to Heaven by becoming a selfish soul. He tells you to be faithful for selfish reasons, and you become a living logical contradiction. Every time you help an old woman to cross the street your selfish soul fills itself with grandiose images and makes you a better candidate for HELL!!!!

  16. says

    @11 Jo

    I could see it either way, actually. It’s sort of similar to the phase “bald-faced lie”, where someone with a beard could obscure cues from their facial expression (in the same sense that poker players would like to obscure their faces so they could bluff), so being able to lie with a bald face takes an extra level of con-artistry.

    So talking about “bald assertions” could be a loose way of saying the above.

  17. says

    In response to #9 – I’ll answer yes or no depending on how the tired old wager is phrased. There’s no gambling involved and the monster you worship only loves you if you lick its spittle.

  18. Monocle Smile says

    @Jerry
    Because this is easy and fun:

    #1 A Mafia Boss behaves like a Vampire, sucking the life out of you

    That’s a bit dramatic. It’s more like he gives you an offer you can’t refuse.

    #2 A Mafia Boss would never die to save your life

    Neither did your god. What does this have to do with anything? Plus, the smarter Mafia bosses will act like they’re doing you a favor at their own expense to play the guilt angle.

    #3 A Mafia Boss does not love you

    Neither does your god, unless your definition of “love” involves the oppressive party in a relationship built on Stockholm Syndrome.

    #4 A Mafia Boss does not give you any option’s for his protection, pay or die, and then, pay for your own funeral expenses.

    “Pay or die” is exactly what your god demands. Apostasy is the one unforgivable sin, so it’s “believe or burn forever.”

    #5 A Mafia Boss is a cruel master, always taking from your hard labor in order to line his own pockets by making merchandise of you.

    According to the bible, the purpose of our entire existence is to please your god, so this one translates fully.

    #6 A Mafia Boss will kill your family, if you get behind on your payments.

    Eh, most will just break your legs. You should read Luke 12:51.

    #7 A Mafia Boss is greedy.

    See my response to #5.

    #8 A Mafia Boss has no scruples.
    #9 A Mafia Boss is a crook and a liar.

    These are pretty much the same, and so is your god. He lies in the bible and manipulates people.

    #10 A Mafia Boss will use you, until you’re all used up.

    This is exactly what the bible says god demands of people.
    Someone hasn’t read their bible.
    I mean, I know you’re just here to preach and troll, but a little effort might be nice.

  19. says

    @3 Jerry

    When I was reading through the list, my thoughts were “so what?” It’d be liking saying that the comparison doesn’t hold because God is 6’4″, and the Mafia boss is only 5’11” tall. It’s that silly error where, if you can find any differences at all between the two points of comparison, the comparison fails… even if specific trait difference is utterly irrelevant.

    We’re talking about key characteristics.

    The Bible describes a system where the god figure has rigged the system against the people, and then sets up a protection racket against them, requiring “payment”, before he’ll save them from the very system he rigged against them.

    For the only sense that the comparison between God and a mafia boss actually matters, this comparison nails it, regardless of nitpick irrelevant differences.

    If the mafia boss loves you, or wouldn’t die for you, that doesn’t make the protection racket non-existent. Whether the god-mafia-boss uses a different payment system, with different consequences, doesn’t make it not a protection racket. I’d argue that the god-mafia-boss is even worse, because he might not take from you and line his pockets… but he’s asking for stuff from you without actually needing a single bit of it, for things like paying personal bills, or putting food on the table. At least the human mafia boss actually has objective needs to be met.

  20. anbheal says

    @9 — well, if your daughter had leukemia, would you wager on:

    1) Treatment designed by your local Catholic parish or Baptist congretation? Or,
    2) Just good old-fashioned prayer? Or,
    2) Treatment developed by lots of atheist scientists and atheist doctors and atheist engineers?

    All the ayatollahs and imams and Saudi princes ignore the piss out of Allah and Muhammed, and go with number 3, every damn time. They send their sick family members to the Abysses of Apostasy, Boston and New York, for medical care. They buy their jet fighters from Lockheed Martin, rather than consulting theologians for how best to have Allah bestow a miracle jet fighter outside the mosque.

    So your daughter has a terminal disease: how you gonna bet, atheist science or Christian prayer? You can only choose one. You can’t get the top level godless healthcare and then claim it was your prayer that made the difference. One or the other: what’s your wager, smart guy?

  21. Jerry Herrera says

    “@Monocle” TY, to answer your rely;
    “NOT” Because this is easy and fun:
    #1 A Mafia Boss behaves like a Vampire, sucking the life out of you
    That’s a bit dramatic. It’s more like he gives you an offer you can’t refuse. (No-G-D Does Not Force you to Believe In Him -It’s called “free will” has G-D forced you to Believe In Him?)
    #2 A Mafia Boss would never die to save your life.
    Neither did your god. What does this have to do with anything? Plus, the smarter Mafia bosses will act like they’re doing you a favor at their own expense to play the guilt angle. (G-D/Jesus Died For My Sins and Yours. G-D Is A Just G-D and Is No respecter of persons) “Read Your Bible” (If you don’t have one I strongly urge you get one.) Ref: John 3:16
    #3 A Mafia Boss does not love you.
    Neither does your god, unless your definition of “love” involves the oppressive party in a relationship built on Stockholm Syndrome. (For G-D so Loved, That He Gave- John 3:16-19)
    #4 A Mafia Boss does not give you any option’s for his protection, pay or die, and then, pay for your own funeral expenses.
    “Pay or die” is exactly what your god demands. Apostasy is the one unforgivable sin, so it’s “believe or burn forever.” (again it’s a “CHOICE” Choose Life in Heaven with G-D; or Choose Eternal separation from G-D in Hell. (I choose Heaven with
    G-D)
    #5 A Mafia Boss is a cruel master, always taking from your hard labor in order to line his own pockets by making merchandise of you.
    According to the bible, the purpose of our entire existence is to please your god, so this one translates fully. (NOT true: “The thief (SATAN) does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” – John 10:10)
    #6 A Mafia Boss will kill your family, if you get behind on your payments.
    Eh, most will just break your legs. You should read Luke 12:51=”the “Truth” in Jesus Christ will divide families, and friends, because they choose to reject the Gospel. Read John 15:19. [You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. “Al Capone”]
    #7 A Mafia Boss is greedy.
    See my response to #5. ( See my response to # 5)
    #8 A Mafia Boss has no scruples.
    #9 A Mafia Boss is a crook and a liar.
    These are pretty much the same, and so is your god. He lies in the bible and manipulates people. (◄ Numbers 23:19 ►God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: has he said, and shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good?)

    #10 A Mafia Boss will use you, until you’re all used up.
    This is exactly what the bible says god demands of people.
    Someone hasn’t read their bible. = (YOU)
    I mean, I know you’re just here to preach and troll, but a little effort might be nice.
    ◄ Luke 14:23 ►
    And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
    FIN:
    G-D Bless You Monocle, for your response, I Hope that you will study G-D’s Word more carefully, and I pray that the Holy Spirit will touch your life. Selah
    ◄ 2 Timothy 2:15 ►
    Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

  22. Narf says

    @9 – Jerry Herrera

    To all: (Pascals Wager) _ the fact is: Atheist’s hate this question, because it’s like putting a Cross in the face of a Vampire.

    No. No, we don’t. I know that your preacher has told you this, because he’s preaching to people who don’t know any better. When you come into a forum of atheists and say things like this, though, it just makes you look grossly ignorant. We know it’s not true, because we’re atheists and we know how we feel about it.

    Most Atheist’s were former Church goers, and that is why they will dodge around the question, by giving an answer that dodge’s the question, from a simple yes or no answer.

    Actually, Pascal’s Wager is not a yes/no question. It’s a formal argument that proposes that it’s better to bet on something being true, because of the potential consequences, if the odds of it being true are 50/50.

    That’s the first big hole in the argument. You’ll sometimes see Christians try to dodge around this problem with something weak like, “Well, either God exists or he doesn’t. 50/50.”

    No. That isn’t how it works. I’ve examined the “evidence” and the claims of Christianity. I’d put the likelihood of the existence of Yahweh, as described in the Bible, at effectively zero percent, because there’s just too much in there that we know is flat-out wrong and not the product of an omniscient, omnipotent creator being.

    And check me on this. You’re admitting that something like this can get emotional hooks into someone who was indoctrinated into a religion from childhood. Where is the surprise? We know how cults brainwash people in ways that leave permanent emotional scars. Seems to me that the proper solution would be to stop people from brainwashing their children with fantasy stories.

    Atheist’s will not answer a simple yes or no, because they’re really not sure of the after life, therefore they seem to think by dodging the question, that it will somehow get them off the hook when they die and find out that they were wrong.

    You have to ask a clear yes/no question first, and you need to not load it down with half-a-dozen unjustified assumptions.

    “X is true. Now, based upon the truth of X, do you agree with Y?”

    Until you’ve given us a reason to actually think that X is true, the consideration of Y is irrelevant. Now, would you like to ask us a yes/no question that isn’t loaded down with half-a-dozen unjustified assumptions?

    Here is how Bible addresses this conjecture:
    ◄ Romans 1:20 ► *snip*

    Don’t care. Until you demonstrate why we should accept anything that a bunch of superstitious people wrote down almost 2,000 years ago, quoting the Bible at us gets you nowhere.

    I pray that practicing Atheist’s will come to the knowledge and ‘Truth’ that is in Jesus Christ.

    Oh for Christ’s sake …
    This is some of Ray Comfort’s bullshit, isn’t it? “Practicing” atheists? What are you trying to get at here, that we all really know that God is real, and we’re just denying him?

    Let me ask you a yes/no question. Are you actually interested in trying to reach us, or are you just preaching to hear yourself speak read your own words in this comment section? We know that we aren’t “practicing” atheists, because we know that the line in the Bible about everyone knowing your god is real is a lie. Because, we’re us, and we know no such thing.

    And your whole top ten list in comment #3 is just all kinds of irrelevant. The mafia boss analogy is addressing how Yahweh is actually depicted in your holy book. The list of the characteristics of Yahweh which you’ve put together is the warm, fuzzy list of characteristics that modern, feel-good Christians have put on Yahweh, like a woman with battered-wife syndrome might do for her husband.

    Half of the items on the list are just ludicrous on their face:

    #4 A Mafia Boss does not give you any option’s for his protection, pay or die, and then, pay for your own funeral expenses.

    And Yahweh gives you an option, if you don’t want to accept his son as your personal savior? If you don’t want to deal with Jesus, you can go and have Nirvana or the Muslim heaven or something? #4 is perfectly analogous to what Yahweh does, and the fact that you can’t see it blows my freaking mind.

    #6 A Mafia Boss will kill your family, if you get behind on your payments.

    Exodus 20
    5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
    6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

    Dude, it’s in your own freaking Ten Commandments! Are you going to tell me that those don’t count anymore, like you do with everything else in the Old Testament which makes you uncomfortable?

  23. Narf says

    @20 – Jerry Herrera
    Good lord, man. Are you actually capable of engaging, rather than simply spitting out meaningless Bible verses?

    (No-G-D Does Not Force you to Believe In Him -It’s called “free will” has G-D forced you to Believe In Him?)

    And there aren’t any … threats? Any punishment in store for you, if you chose not to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior? Do you not understand what coercion is?

    You’re free to not obey the mafia boss, too, if you don’t mind the loss of your knee-caps and those of your family and close associates, before he fits you with come cement overshoes.

    #3 A Mafia Boss does not love you.
    Neither does your god, unless your definition of “love” involves the oppressive party in a relationship built on Stockholm Syndrome. (For G-D so Loved, That He Gave- John 3:16-19)

    That’s not a response. Have you read everything that Yahweh supposedly did in the Old Testament, which contradicts that statement?

    “No, no, baby. I only beat you because I love you, and it’s for your own good.”

  24. Jerry Herrera says

    “@Monocle” “@Narf TY, to answer your rely;
    “NOT” Because this is easy and fun:
    #1 A Mafia Boss behaves like a Vampire, sucking the life out of you
    That’s a bit dramatic. It’s more like he gives you an offer you can’t refuse. (No-G-D Does Not Force you to Believe In Him -It’s called “free will” has G-D forced you to Believe In Him?)
    #2 A Mafia Boss would never die to save your life.
    Neither did your god. What does this have to do with anything? Plus, the smarter Mafia bosses will act like they’re doing you a favor at their own expense to play the guilt angle. (G-D/Jesus Died For My Sins and Yours. G-D Is A Just G-D and Is No respecter of persons) “Read Your Bible” (If you don’t have one I strongly urge you get one.) Ref: John 3:16
    #3 A Mafia Boss does not love you.
    Neither does your god, unless your definition of “love” involves the oppressive party in a relationship built on Stockholm Syndrome. (For G-D so Loved, That He Gave- John 3:16-19)
    #4 A Mafia Boss does not give you any option’s for his protection, pay or die, and then, pay for your own funeral expenses.
    “Pay or die” is exactly what your god demands. Apostasy is the one unforgivable sin, so it’s “believe or burn forever.” (again it’s a “CHOICE” Choose Life in Heaven with G-D; or Choose Eternal separation from G-D in Hell. (I choose Heaven with
    G-D)
    #5 A Mafia Boss is a cruel master, always taking from your hard labor in order to line his own pockets by making merchandise of you.
    According to the bible, the purpose of our entire existence is to please your god, so this one translates fully. (NOT true: “The thief (SATAN) does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” – John 10:10)
    #6 A Mafia Boss will kill your family, if you get behind on your payments.
    Eh, most will just break your legs. You should read Luke 12:51=”the “Truth” in Jesus Christ will divide families, and friends, because they choose to reject the Gospel. Read John 15:19. [You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. “Al Capone”]
    #7 A Mafia Boss is greedy.
    See my response to #5. ( See my response to # 5)
    #8 A Mafia Boss has no scruples.
    #9 A Mafia Boss is a crook and a liar.
    These are pretty much the same, and so is your god. He lies in the bible and manipulates people. (◄ Numbers 23:19 ►God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: has he said, and shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good?)

    #10 A Mafia Boss will use you, until you’re all used up.
    This is exactly what the bible says god demands of people.
    Someone hasn’t read their bible. = (YOU)
    I mean, I know you’re just here to preach and troll, but a little effort might be nice.
    ◄ Luke 14:23 ►
    And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
    FIN:
    G-D Bless You Monocle, for your response, I Hope that you will study G-D’s Word more carefully, and I pray that the Holy Spirit will touch your life. Selah
    ◄ 2 Timothy 2:15 ►
    Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

  25. Narf says

    @14 – Simon Firth

    Heh – I guess I should be clear that my resounding ‘no’ is in response to ‘is it more sensible to believe’, rather than ‘am I willing to take the gamble’…

    That’s part of the issue with Jerry’s little ramble. He states that he asked a simple yes/no question, when there are at least 4 stated or implied yes/no questions strewn throughout the proposal. I might answer yes to a couple of them. I might answer no to a couple of them. Others are nonsensical questions for which there isn’t really an answer. Then, there’s a lot of crap packed into the stuff between the questions, which needs unpacking.

    “Am I willing to take the gamble?”

    Which gamble? What Christians are describing isn’t a gamble. They’re just flat-out wrong. For a gamble, you need two probable outcomes.

  26. says

    @Jerry Herrera

    There is only one deity and Her name is Ma’at–as was written more than a millennium before any mention of your god can be found. When you die your heart will be weighed against Her feather and if it is found heavy with crimes against Truth and Justice, it will be fed to the demon Ammit and your soul will restlessly wander the underworld forever. It doesn’t matter if you believe this or not. This *will* happen. The thing is, all the “practising atheists” you’re condemning will be okay and their souls will be admitted to paradise because they denounce the injustice of your god and expose his fictional nature and the deceits you and your kind go to try and convince people otherwise. Are you worried? I would be if I were you.

  27. Narf says

    @16 – Andres Villarreal
    Hmm, I like that particular reversal. I’ll have to remember it.

    I’ve used a vaguely similar tack, pointing out that Christians want me to try to con their god, since I don’t believe he really exists. Yeah, I’m sure that will go over really well, when that being told us not to lie to each other. Maybe he won’t mind me breaking that commandment as much, when it’s him that I’m trying to lie to. You think?

  28. wsierichs says

    As a historical note, Pascal did not invent his “Wager.” It was in a notebook of his “Thoughts” (Pensees) that he kept and was published after his death. The same argument appears earlier in a work by Thomas More. The earliest Christian version I know is in “The Case Against the Pagans,” by Arnobius of Sicca in the 3rd century. However, a statement in a Roman-era pagan work, “On Superstition,” appears to represent the same argument. Educated Romans (educated by Greek philosophers, who developed a system of critical analysis and, in some schools, skepticism that was destructive of the traditional beliefs in the gods and the stories about them) generally rejected both atheism and “superstition.” True religion was taken as a middle ground between the two. Superstition was considered excessive fear and veneration of the gods. The work says a superstitious man is “afraid not to be believe” in the gods, which is the core of the Pascal’s Wager argument.

  29. Narf says

    @23 – Jerry Herrera
    Errrr, did you actually even respond to anything new, in that comment? I got bored, after scanning about halfway through the message and didn’t even see anything new to respond to.

    You know that no one is clicking on those YouTube videos, right? Why would we want to go watch some brainwashing tool that you’re linking us to?

    If you aren’t going to make an effort why should we?

  30. Jerry Herrera says

    Matt and Drew claimed to have been Christians at one time; that’s like saying, I used to be a Lion, and now I’m a Giraffe. (Their filthy mouths exposes them; Jesus said: By their Fruits you shall know them. Matthew 7:15-20) – not everyone likes to hear “Vulgar, Insulting, Abusive Foul Language” (I wonder if they talk to their wives’ that way?)

    A_Neither one has ever REPENTED of their SINS. (Required to be a Christian)
    B_Neither one has ever made Jesus Christ Lord of their lives’ (Required to be a Christian)
    C_ Neither one has ever been “Born Again” (Required to be a Christian)

    ◄ Luke 23:34 ►
    Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
    [Matthew 5:44]
    But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

    “I pray for Matt and Drew, that the Holy Spirit open their eyes of understanding and Save them” Selah

  31. Narf says

    And I ask again, Jerry, what is this simple yes/no question that you want us to answer? I’m not going to comb through a massive clump of text, most of which is just something you copied and pasted from Monocle Smile, with your own additions almost completely un-indicated with any kind of clear formatting. It’s an unintelligible mess, and I can’t pry out what you’re actually trying to say.

    And it better not be a leading, loaded question, packed with invalid assumptions. What is your yes/no question?

  32. says

    @ Joseph Herrara

    A_Neither one has ever REPENTED of their SINS. (Required to be a Christian)
    B_Neither one has ever made Jesus Christ Lord of their lives’ (Required to be a Christian)
    C_ Neither one has ever been “Born Again” (Required to be a Christian)

    These statements are patently false. Matt did all of these things. Why are you LYING? You are showing your disdain for the Truth, a sin against Ma’at. Be assured, your heart will be devoured.

  33. Narf says

    @28 – Jerry Herrera
    You sound like a robot, you know, when you post something like that. There was nothing in that comment which is even worth responding to, except maybe this:

    A_Neither one has ever REPENTED of their SINS. (Required to be a Christian)
    B_Neither one has ever made Jesus Christ Lord of their lives’ (Required to be a Christian)
    C_ Neither one has ever been “Born Again” (Required to be a Christian)

    You’re wrong on all three counts, at least in regards to Matt. He was a born-again christian, before he examined his religious beliefs logically and realized that they were nonsense. Once again, just as with your claim about us being terrified of being presented with Pascal’s Wager, you look either grossly ignorant or dishonest, when you say things like this. You can get away with it, amongst your uneducated brethren who don’t know any better, but when you say something like that in a forum of atheists, you lose credibility.

    And maybe this:

    “Vulgar, Insulting, Abusive Foul Language” (I wonder if they talk to their wives’ that way?)

    You’ve never seen or heard Matt’s wife, have you? She gets just as vulgar, insulting, and foul, when talking about the conservative religious zealots who are trying to oppress women in this country and worldwide.

  34. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Narf_ PLEASE GIVE ME a simple yes or no answer: (No scenic route answer evading the question) Here it is: “When/If you die and have rejected G-D-Bible-Jesus Christ and His plan of Salvation for your life, and found out that you were wrong; will you be guilty or innocent before G-D on judgment day?
    Guilty? Yes or No
    Innocent? Yes or No
    According to the Bible:
    [Romans 1:19-20] – Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.
    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 

  35. Narf says

    “When/If you die and have rejected G-D-Bible-Jesus Christ and His plan of Salvation for your life, and found out that you were wrong; will you be guilty or innocent before G-D on judgment day?
    Guilty? Yes or No
    Innocent? Yes or No

    Guilty or innocent of what? Your question is incoherent. I can’t accurately answer an malformed question. Try that again, only properly constructed this time.

    Romans 1:19-20 – Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.
    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

    And that’s exactly what I was talking about, when I said, “And it better not be a leading, loaded question, packed with invalid assumptions.” You suck at following directions.

    This is what I was talking about, how stupid of you it is to read the Bible at us. I know what that section says. I’ve quoted it several times, myself. It’s wrong. Yahweh hasn’t shown me anything of the sort, as claimed in those verses.

    Why should I believe something just because some ancient religious zealot wrote it down? Your holy book is full of lies and other varieties of the many ways that something can be untrue.

  36. says

    @34

    The problem is, it cannot be boiled down to a yes/no response, because they’re incredibly loaded.

    It’d be like asking you, “Have you stopped beating your wife? YES OR NO

    You could ask the same yes/no questions about mutually exclusive gods or religions. You were the one making a point of distinguishing between “true” Christians or not. We could be found “guilty” (not that it has anything necessarily to do with justice), by either mutually exclusive god (and theology), and be screwed either way. It becomes an impossible wager to win.

    That’s why we’re not playing your stupid game. You’re making a plethora of assumptions that wreck the validity of the argument.

  37. Jerry Herrera says

    How Do You Know This For Fact? Did you ask Matt and Drew these questions?
    If they will answer honestly according to the Bible, the answer would be No.
    Matt and Drew claimed to have been Christians at one time; that’s like saying, I used to be a Lion, and now I’m a Giraffe. (Their filthy mouths exposes them; Jesus said: By their Fruits you shall know them. Matthew 7:15-20) – not everyone likes to hear “Vulgar, Insulting, Abusive Foul Language” (I wonder if they talk to their wives’ that way?)

    A_Neither one has ever REPENTED of their SINS. (Required to be a Christian)
    B_Neither one has ever made Jesus Christ Lord of their lives’ (Required to be a Christian)
    C_ Neither one has ever been “Born Again” (Required to be a Christian)

    ◄ Luke 23:34 ►
    Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
    [Matthew 5:44]
    But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

    “I pray for Matt and Drew, that the Holy Spirit open their eyes of understanding and Save them” Selah

    I Believe – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhOTxK7m8Q8

  38. Narf says

    How Do You Know This For Fact? Did you ask Matt and Drew these questions?

    Matt has told the story many times, yes. That’s why I responded in regards to Matt. Who the hell is Drew? I don’t know who you’re referring to. Do you mean Don?

    If they will answer honestly according to the Bible, the answer would be No.

    I doubt Matt is paying any attention to this comment section, so let me respond in a manner that I think he would approve of:

    Fuck you, for calling Matt a liar. You don’t even have the courtesy to say it to his face.

  39. Narf says

    @38

    Narf_ you just answered your own question.

    Dude, how many freaking times do I have to tell you? We’re not clicking on your stupid YouTube videos. If you have a point to make, make it.

    Now I know you’re just here to spray YouTube videos and listen to yourself. You didn’t even attach that to anything I said, in any indicative way, so I don’t even know which question of mine you meant … and your pathetic reply would be meaningless even if I did know what it was attached to.

    Make yourself clear or go away.

  40. Jerry Herrera says

    Narf_ #1 prove to me that Matt and Drew were “Born Again”
    #2 Does Matt and his wife “talk to each other” in Vulgar, Insulting, Abusive, Foul Language? (If they do, boy do they need help.) [Ephesians 5:25 and Galatians 5:22-24] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, “self-control.” Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
    #3 quoting you: (Fuck you, for calling Matt a liar. You don’t even have the courtesy to say it to his face.) If I ever met Matt face to face I would say the same thing to him; And go through the scriptures with him and show him that he was never “Born Again” Selah (you asked who is Drew, I’m surprised! don’t you watch any of Matt and Drew Video’s on youtube? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smPEplUcPgY&list=PL0313F40F6A698C24&index=126

  41. Monocle Smile says

    @God-botherer
    It’s Matt and Jeff, you loony fuckwit, and if you plan on telling Jeff Dee any of this shit to his face, please inform me immediately, as I’ll bring popcorn.

  42. Narf says

    @41 – Jerry Herrera

    Narf_ #1 prove to me that Matt and Drew were “Born Again”

    Sure, I’ll do that … right after you prove to me that anyone is born again. You could also explain to me what the phrase means, in precise terms that aren’t specifically constructed to allow you to make a no-true-Scotsman fallacy any time you feel like it.

    For that matter, are Catholics Christians?

    @42 – Jasper of Maine

    Well, this conversation is as fruitful as was expected.

    Heh, more or less, yeah. I think I’m about done here. It’s been … well, not fun exactly. He became incoherent too quickly, as soon as we got him out of Bible-verse-spitting mode. If he can’t even construct a coherent question for me to answer, how am I supposed to continue engaging him?

  43. Narf says

    @43 – Monocle Smile
    Holy shit, he was talking about Jeff Dee? Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh. Wow. 😀

    Wasn’t Jeff a Presbyterian or something, before he came to his senses? I think I vaguely recall something about his parents becoming Presbyterian ministers, after they retired from having real jobs, on some episode of the Non Prophets. I could be remembering that wrong.

    Presbyterians don’t do the whole born-again thing, do they?

  44. says

    @Joseph Herrera

    If they will answer honestly according to the Bible, the answer would be No.

    How do you know this for fact? Did you ask Matt these questions? (I too have no idea who Drew is.) I know the answer is “no” since Matt has spoken of his formerly mistaken beliefs many times on the show and in that testimony has confirmed many times that the answer is “yes”.

    When you die and have refused to honour Ma’at by living a virtuous and honest life, and found out that you were wrong, will your heart be too heavy or will it be lighter than Her feather on Ma’at’s scale on your day of judgement?
    Eaten by Ammit? Yes or No

    “Ma’at has not been disturbed since the day of Her beginning, whereas he who transgresses Her ordinances is punished. Ma’at lies as a path in front even of him who knows nothing.” – The Instruction of Ptahhotep

  45. Narf says

    @46 – Ibis3
    Who’s Joseph Herrera? It sounds like you’re making some joke, comparing Jerry to a public figure of some sort, but if so, I don’t get it.

  46. Narf says

    @48 – Ibis3
    Ah, okay. Thought I was missing something.

    @49
    Wait, you’re a woman? TL:DR I can’t hear you!!! La la la la la. Back in the kitchen, wench! Get back to researching that pie!

    😀

    With any luck, maybe he’ll stop reading mine. He clearly isn’t able to parse them, anyway.

  47. Narf says

    Hey Jerry, you probably don’t want to keep talking to me. Never mind the beard. I’m really one of those scandalous Jezebels whose master husband makes the chain too long, allowing me to get out of the kitchen far enough to reach the computer.

  48. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Man, I missed this interesting thread as it happened.

    Damn. Judging by the first post, it seems like Jerry will only be marginally coherent, rather than interesting and engaging.

    The IMHO most important fundamental flaw of Pascal’s wager is that it frames the question as a choice between 2 alternatives. Whereas, there are plenty of alternatives besides “no god” and “Christian god”. The reference class of purported gods is rather large, and absent evidence specific to any, using standard Bayesian reasoning, the (epistemic) probability of any one god existing is equal to 1 / (the size of the reference set of purported gods + 1).

    IMHO, when you add in available evidence, the probably of the Christian god actually drops. We know how various religions came to be, and they came to be through non-god means, which means gods in this reference class of “popular purported gods” are even less likely to exist when we take these facts into account.

    Offhand: This evidence of origins allows us to reasonably conclude that the Christian god is no more likely to exist than any god hypothesis I can pull out of my ass. This vastly expanded reference class is at least as large as 1 mutually inconsistent god hypothesis for every star in the observable universe, which means my epistemic probability of the existence of the Christian god of Earth and Sol is rather low. Of course, in a more formal analysis, I would have to add on many caveats, but that’s a rough outline of my response.

    PS: There’s plenty of other problems, but this is IMHO the interesting one because I get to bring in Bayesian reasoning and show how it’s simply not rational to conclude 50-50 odds for the existence of the Christian god.

    When/If you die and have rejected G-D-Bible-Jesus Christ and His plan of Salvation for your life, and found out that you were wrong; will you be guilty or innocent before G-D on judgment day?

    In this context, I will be innocent. I lived my life well. I was good to my neighbors. I tried to make the world a better place. Yahweh might proclaim that I am ‘guilty’, but that is because it is a moral thug, and I generally don’t give a damn what a moral thug says.

    If Stargate SG-1 has taught me anything, it is that the proper response to an evil god is not to bow down and worship, but to destroy it. Nuke god! What’s that you say? Nuking god is impossible? The goa’uld and the Ori said the same thing, but they were lying, and we managed to blow them up. We’ll never know if we can blow up your evil god until we try. Nuke god!

  49. Jerry Herrera says

    What does your long hair and beard have to do with anything?
    Narf_ I thought I answered your question, when I said you answered yourself.
    Yes or No question. Your long answer short, by your own admission was that you would be (Guilty-Yes) of G-D’s Judgment = Hell, and I gave you Scripture reference according to the Bible. here it is again:
    [Romans 1:19-20] – Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for GOD HAS SHOWED IT TO THEM.
    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE:
    Ref:
    http://www.atgrace.com/information/general/how-know-god

  50. Narf says

    @53 – EnlightenmentLiberal

    Damn. Judging by the first post, it seems like Jerry will only be marginally coherent, rather than interesting and engaging.

    Yeah, not so much. Comment #9 was his high point, and that one was pretty inane.

    Once we got him (somewhat) off of Bible-verse, Bible-verse, Bible-verse, it got pretty incoherent, pretty quickly. You can see that sort of stuff in #29, #34, and #35. I think #38 might have been his response to #35, but I can’t be sure because he sucks so badly at making himself understood … as evidenced by comments #20 and #23.

  51. deesse23 says

    @Jerry
    I have been following this blog for something like 2 years now and had to (read) quite some stuff during this time.
    One of the few things i NEVER understood …..or at least i am not quite sure is:

    Do you really, REALLY, i mean HONESTLY believe that nonsense?
    Please spare me bible verses, i am not interested at all.

    I mean, we are in the 21st century, a probe will arrive @ Pluto in a few months, another one has just left the spere of influence of our sun, a 3rd one will arrive at a major asteroid, we have investigated comets, we have understood the beginning of this (visible to us) universe up to a fraction of a second. We can send messages with latencies of milliseconds where your ancestors would have been happy if the ship carrying your letter to me across the pond would not sink at all. We can heal diseases our ancestors werent even aware of existing. We have mastered electronics, physics, medicine, biology etc, to a degree almost incomprehensible.
    We can fly to any spot on this planet within 2 days at most, including arctica and antarctica if we wish.

    ….and you REALLY do believe any of what you are saying here?….and you arent embarassed at all?

  52. Narf says

    #54 – Jerry Herrera

    What does your long hair and beard have to do with anything?

    I don’t have long hair, nor did I when I took that picture. The beard reference is mockery, playing off of comments #49 and #50. I’ve resorted to mockery, since you don’t seem to be capable of giving straight answers more complex than spitting Bible verses at us.

    Narf_ I thought I answered your question, when I said you answered yourself.

    Nope. You didn’t answer a thing. Assuming an answer because I asked for a clarification in an attempt to make sense of your fragmentary question is not honest.

    Yes or No question. Your long answer short, by your own admission was that you would be (Guilty-Yes) of G-D’s Judgment = Hell, and I gave you Scripture reference according to the Bible.

    I said nothing of the sort, and that’s incredibly dishonest of you to try to shove words in my mouth. I don’t think your god is going to be amused by your breach of the 8th commandment (by the Catholic numbering system).

    Now would you like to try the question again and tell me what you’re asking if I’m guilty of, or should I just write you off as dishonest, as well as incoherent?

    here it is again:
    [Romans 1:19-20]

    I already told you. That is one of the many verses in the Bible that is flat-out wrong. Yahweh hasn’t revealed shit to me, and I have no reason to believe that such a being exists.

    Now would you like to quote the Q’ran next? The Book of Mormon? The Vedas? Those are just as meaningful in this discussion as the Bible is.

  53. Hoosier X says

    I’ll pray for you, Jerry!

    I can see that the devil has taken over thy mouth and enstupided thy words.

    It is part of his eternal mission to make Christians look incoherent and irrational.

    But he shall not succeed!

  54. says

    @Jerry Herrara

    “Ma’at lies as a path in front even of him who knows nothing. Wrongdoing has never yet brought its venture to port. It is true that evil may gain wealth but the strength of Truth is that it lasts” – The Instruction of Ptahhotep

    You cannot hide from Ma’at, You HAVE NO EXCUSE for continuing your dishonesty. This will be the sacred sound Ammit will make as she devours your LYING heart:

  55. Jerry Herrera says

    Narf_You know we’re speaking from the Christian G-d Bible not the Qumran of the Muslim god. (Quoting you) – I said nothing of the sort, and that’s incredibly dishonest of you to try to shove words in my mouth. I don’t think your god is going to be amused by your breach of the 8th commandment (by the Catholic numbering system).
    Now would you like to try the question again and tell me what you’re asking if I’m guilty of, or should I just write you off as dishonest, as well as incoherent?
    Me Jerry_(here we go again, more plainly I hope)
    Will you go to Heaven or Hell when you die? If you say you that don’t believe in neither, then according to The Christian G-D of the Bible when you DIE, you will go to Hell, because you rejected G-D’s plan of Salvation for your life.. (straight-out dude) Here Is What Salvation Looks Like: http://www.atgrace.com/information/general/how-know-god

  56. says

    @Jerry Herrera

    Your afterlife ideas are fictions. Heaven and Hell as you understand them are MYTHS. The question is, will you go to Aaru or will your soul wander restlessly forever in Duat? According to thousands of years of Egyptian scriptures, you will remain in Duat because you refuse to act with honour. You will not be Ma’at Kheru. No paradise for you.

  57. Narf says

    @60, 61, & 62 – Jerry Herrera
    Errrr, why would I want to listen to you preach for 2 hours? I’ve occasionally gone to Pentecostal churches, because they’re freaking hilarious, in a disturbing sort of way. You have to be there, though. It’s the atmosphere that’s so over-the-top and creepy, like a bad horror movie.

    Sitting and listening to something on the radio sounds like it would just be painfully dull, and I would want to turn it off after 5 or 10 minutes.

  58. says

    @Jerry Herrera

    Jesus spread falsehoods about himself and about the world. If he existed as described, his heart will have tipped the scale of Ma’at and Ammit will have gobbled it up; and yes, he’d have died for nothing. The only way to Aaru is to practise justice and to love an honest exploration of Truth–in other words, to align oneself with the principle of Ma’at.

  59. Narf says

    @64 – Jerry Herrera

    You can not go to Heaven on your own good works, otherwise Jesus died on the cross for nothing if that were the case;

    Jerry, I have no good reason to think that the Christian heaven exists. I have no reason to think that you’re going to heaven, either. You’re going to rot in the ground, the same as I am, after you die. That’s assuming you don’t get yourself cremated or die in a horrible accident at sea.

    You have reasons to think otherwise, but they’re really bad reasons, which are a product of your brainwashing into the Christian faith. I get by just fine without having some magical fantasy story of living forever. I wish you could learn to do the same. Accept reality.

    I happen to think that Jesus probably died on the cross for a very good reason, assuming he existed at all. There are compelling arguments to think that Jesus never existed at all and is an entirely fictional character. I don’t necessarily buy them completely, but either way, the stories about him were written down decades after the supposed person died. If he actually existed and died as described, he was probably a political agitator, and was executed by the Romans for being a trouble-maker. A few decades of mythological embellishment of their martyred leader, by the survivors of his group, would take care of the rest.

    Sociologists actually study how cults and religions form, you know. You can learn about this stuff, if you really care that much.

    @66

    If you want to know what Salvation looks like here it is:

    And how do they know how salvation works? They prayed really hard and got a warm tingly feeling that told them that what they dreamed up was correct? That’s not a pathway to truth. How do you know that Fred Phelps’s little cult isn’t correct in their theology, and you’re going to hell for not following him, when he warned you otherwise?

  60. Jerry Herrera says

    Hi Narf_Believe me when I say, yes, I totally agree with you, and I’ve been to Pentecostal Churches myself as you described; Totally out of order according (1 Corinthians 14:39-40) I was born and raised Catholic for 27 years, catechism as youngster etc. went to confessions many many time’s esp. in my teens when I discovered girls. Long story short, I met Jesus, and my whole life changed. I really can’t go into a whole lot right now cause my show is coming up, please consider tuning in, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. Take care, Jerry Herrera P.S sorry with the long hair and beard comment, I probably got you mixed up with someone else.

    Please Tune-in:
    The Dusty Roads Show 5-7:PM-PST
    Music-News-Teaching ~ “Tonight Live”
    http://indiegospelradio.org/Jerry_Herrera.html\

  61. Narf says

    Hi Narf_Believe me when I say, yes, I totally agree with you, and I’ve been to Pentecostal Churches myself as you described; Totally out of order according (1 Corinthians 14:39-40)

    You misunderstand me. The insanity of the Pentecostal churches is a point in their favor. At least it’s entertaining.

    After 18 years of weekly Catholic mass, I’ll take whatever craziness can liven up a religious service. Not that I’ve actually had to go to a religious service, since I was old enough to tell my parents I wasn’t going anymore, except for funerals. One thing the Catholics get right, at least relative to other religions, is that they make the funeral about the dead person. I’ve seen and heard of religious funerals that the preacher turned into an excuse to preach about his favorite bugaboo, barely mentioning the body over there.

    I was born and raised Catholic for 27 years, catechism as youngster etc. went to confessions many many time’s esp. in my teens when I discovered girls. Long story short, I met Jesus, and my whole life changed. I really can’t go into a whole lot right now cause my show is coming up, please consider tuning in, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

    I’m pretty certain that I would be disappointed. But I don’t imagine I’ll be tuning in, so we’re good.

    Take care, Jerry Herrera P.S sorry with the long hair and beard comment, I probably got you mixed up with someone else.

    More likely the almost-black background in a monochrome image. One of my friends screwed around with it a bit, in Photoshop.

  62. StonedRanger says

    Im pretty sure that this guy called the show many years back and told the hosts that they could find god in Eugene Oregon. If this isn’t the same loon I apologize. I was going to respond back at post #9 but figured I would read what is already posted so I wouldn’t have to be redundant in what I posted. Seems like its been pretty much covered. The only question I have is how stupid is the god of the bible if I can pretend to believe just in case, yanno, its real? god cant figure that out? Weak.
    And jerry, please stop spamming your link, cause no one is going to listen to your batshit crazy rantings on the radio. Not from this site anyway.

  63. Mr. Dave says

    @10 Narf, perhaps it would be more accurate to state that I have higher expectations of a theist who claims that he/she has something to say that will be so profound, that I would be a fool not to convert. Then I get hit with cliches and platitudes. I have a natural auto-filter that kicks in when I detect an argument clone, so by the time the preaching starts, I’m no longer listening.

    It would definitely be accurate to say that I don’t care much about the theater of an argument, I’ll leave that up to people like you, who seems to actually enjoy it. It’s ironically funny that Jerry showed up as if on cue to spout the usual drivel. It looks like you’re having your fun with him, so enjoy. I know that by just what I’ve skimmed over, you’re handing his ass to him. 🙂

  64. Narf says

    @74 – Jerry Herrera
    I dunno, man. Do you have an archive of past episodes on your site? I could potentially find myself in an odd mood when I would want to check out what you’re talking about. You never know. I strongly doubt that I would ever make it through a full two hours, though.

  65. Narf says

    @73 – Mr. Dave

    Narf, perhaps it would be more accurate to state that I have higher expectations of a theist who claims that he/she has something to say that will be so profound, that I would be a fool not to convert. Then I get hit with cliches and platitudes.

    Ah, I think I follow you. So, you were at least expecting an argument, rather than the unsupported verse- and video-bomb that we got?

    I must say I’m a little underwhelmed, myself. I at least expected something more than what we got. I wasn’t expecting a lot, after the weak introduction, but I got even less than that.

    I know that by just what I’ve skimmed over, you’re handing his ass to him.

    Well, clearly someone had to be able to find his ass. He has two hands, but he wasn’t getting the job done.

  66. frankgturner says

    @Narf
    With reference to

    Narf_You know we’re speaking from the Christian G-d Bible not the Qumran of the Muslim god.

    from the evangelist version of Jerry Springer here.
    .
    Do you think this is one of these weirdos who does not realize that the god of the Muslims and the Jews is the SAME DEITY as the Xtian god?
    .
    Do you think that he is like Dixon and while he may have the King James Bible memorized, he think that it was originally written in english?
    .
    I tell you what Jerry, why don’t you try reading something intellectually stimulating (instead of emotionally stimulating and manipulative like what you seem to want us to listen to) like, oh I don’t know, some Talmudic critique of the Old Testament? Or maybe some archeological discussion on how the Gospel were written years, MANY years AFTER Jesus lived?
    .
    It may surprise you but many an atheist got to where they are by STUDYING the Bible, reading it for content and coming to their own conclusions instead of just being brainwashed by it like you seem to have been. They know it BETTER THAN YOU DO. And while I am at it, stop repeating the same shit over and over. You might know someone famous who did that, repeating the same bullshit over and over again, Hitler. Come up with an original idea. Or can you not do that because of scripture? Is there some passage in scripture that says, “Thou art blessed who does not have ideas of his own”?
    .
    If you are actually reading this, you are not drawing anyone towards your way of thinking, you are driving them AWAY from it, particularly by not reading what we are saying or responding to it with anything but the same repetitious bullshit.
    .
    Please though, go ahead and make my case for me as you probably will do it.

  67. Narf says

    @59 – Jerry Herrera

    Narf_You know we’re speaking from the Christian G-d Bible not the Qumran of the Muslim god.

    Why are we speaking about the Bible? The Q’ran and the Vedas are just as pertinent in a discussion of mythology/theology. If you aren’t considering the Norse and Greek gods in the equation, you’re going about this whole thing in a very myopic manner. What about the Chinese and Japanese myths?

    What are you going to tell Allah when you show up before him, and he asks why you’ve disregarded the word of his greatest prophet?

    Give me your answer for that, because it’s quite possible that I can find some sort of bridge through that, for you to be able to understand us. Clearly, there’s nothing interesting I have to learn from you. I’ve thought about this stuff far more than you have.

    Will you go to Heaven or Hell when you die? If you say you that don’t believe in neither, then according to The Christian G-D of the Bible when you DIE, you will go to Hell, because you rejected G-D’s plan of Salvation for your life.. (straight-out dude)

    Okay, that’s a little better. It wasn’t the yes/no question you promised, but I can work with an either/or question.

    Of course you should know that the answer is neither. I’m rational. Why should I care what the Bible says about Yahweh’s supposed plan for salvation? The Bible is mythology.

    This is why Pascal’s Wager is so stupid. Why do you disregard the gamble you’re taking in ignoring the promise/threat of the other religions, yet you expect me to take your book of myths seriously? You are utterly logically inconsistent, and that isn’t a trait that inspires me to look to someone as any kind of authority on … well, anything, really.

    Tell me why you disregard the Vedas, when you’re risking being reincarnated as something horrible, by not becoming sufficiently enlightened, as Krishna taught us to be. Somewhere in there is the answer you actually need, even if it isn’t the answer to the question you asked.

  68. Narf says

    @77 – frankgturner

    Do you think this is one of these weirdos who does not realize that the god of the Muslims and the Jews is the SAME DEITY as the Xtian god?

    That depends how you look at the question. They’re different gods, in some respects, if you consider them as their current incarnations. Muhammad did a bit of work under the hood.

    They of course have the same origin. It’s just a little difficult for the religious to see this sort of thing, since they’re working within the delusion that we didn’t make all of this crap up. I know there are lots of Christians who don’t realize that Islam is Judaism 3.1.027.44 build 3n17. Then, you get to the truly insane, like Jack Chick, who is going with the bizarre moon-god conspiracy. I guess that if you don’t realize that Allah is just Arabic for god, you might get all sorts of insane ideas reading through ancient Arabian mythology.

    I can’t guess where Jerry is, on the spectrum … pun intended.

    Do you think that he is like Dixon and while he may have the King James Bible memorized, he think that it was originally written in english?

    Eh, probably not that far gone. I don’t think he’s anywhere near that ignorant, just a bit myopic when it comes to anything non-Christian. His critical thinking skills also seem more or less nonexistent.

    You might know someone famous who did that, repeating the same bullshit over and over again, Hitler.

    *cough*Godwin!*cough*

    Should’a gone with Joseph Goebbels, man. 😀

  69. Narf says

    Why is there no archive for the Dusty Roads show, Jerry? There are three other shows with archives, on the site.

  70. Jerry Herrera says

    @Narf and @77 – frankgturner
    DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALLAH AND JEHOVAH (The Muslim god allah and the G-D of the Bible are Not the Same. Here is why:
    As shown below, Allah claims to be the same as Jehovah, the God of the Bible, but turns out to have different characteristics. Hence, Allah is self-contradictory, and thus false. Is the problem present because the Bible has been corrupted?

    There is a misconception that Allah is the Arabic word for God. Allah is a contraction of Al-Illah, meaning the chief god. During Muhammad’s time, there were many gods worshipped in the kaba, the shrine that the Quarish tribe (to whom Muhammad belonged) guarded. Allah was originally the chief of the idols in the ancient Kaaba. The generic Arabic word for god is “illah”. In the Koran we read: “La ilaha I’Allah”. That is, “There is no god [Illah] but Allah”. (Surah 5:73)
    So keep that in mind: Allah is not a generic term but a specific god.

    Allah claims to be the same as Jehovah
    Historically, Allah was the name of the chief idol in kaaba. However, in the Koran, Allah is described as follows:

    He claims to be the creator who created the universe in six days (10:3)
    He is the only God (5:73, 4:87)
    He claims to be sovereign (9:70)
    He is knower of all things (2:29)
    He created Adam and Eve (2:31, 7:190)
    He was Abraham’s God (2:125)
    He was the God who sent Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh to liberate the people of Israel (7:103)
    He was the God who sent Jesus to earth: (3: 49-51)
    He gave man the Torah (the Old Testament), the Gospel (the New Testament) and then the Koran (3:3).
    All these features are the same as that of Jehovah, the God of the Bible. So then, is the God of Islam the same as the God of the Bible? Before you say “Yes”, hang on. Consider the following differences between Jehovah and Allah

    Difference # 1: The Name
    The Koran mentions Bible characters such as Adam (4000 BC), Noah (2500 BC), Abraham (2000 BC), Moses (1500 BC), Samuel (1000 BC) and Jonah (800 BC) as worshiping Allah. However, the word “Allah” is absent in the Bible. The generic Hebrew word for God is El or Elohim, which is similar to the Arabic Illah – of course, this has nothing to do with the identities of the respective Gods in the Bible and Koran. In connection with all these above-mentioned characters, the name for God in the Bible is JEHOVAH. Here is a sample:

    “Jehovah-God called to the man [Adam] and said to him, Where are you?” – Genesis 3: 9
    “Jehovah said to Noah…” – Genesis 7:1
    “Jehovah had said to Abram [Abraham]” – Genesis 12: 1
    “[To Moses:] You shall do My judgments and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am Jehovah your God. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am Jehovah. None of you shall approach the flesh of anyone who is kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am Jehovah.” – Leviticus 18: 4-6
    “Jehovah called Samuel…” – 1 Samuel 3:8
    “Jonah said to them: I [am] a Hebrew. And I revere Jehovah the God of Heaven, who has made the sea and the dry land.” – Jonah 1:9
    Jonah was talking to a group of sailors, perhaps Phoenicians and Spaniards. Why couldn’t he claim allegiance to Allah? Everywhere, the Old Testament rings with the name JEHOVAH.

    It follows then, that the Gods of the Bible and Islam are not the same! One of them is Jehovah, the other is Allah. By appropriating the deeds and qualities of Jehovah, Allah claims to be the same as Jehovah, but the very fact that he has a different name shows that he’s not the same as Jehovah, the God of the Bible.

    “Wait a minute”, you say, “Is it not possible that one person has more than one name?”

    In principle it is, but read this:

    “Moreover God said to Moses, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel: Jehovah the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My eternal name, and this is My memorial from generation to generation.” – Exodus 3:15

    Did you notice that? Jehovah is the eternal name of the God of the Bible. There’s no room for another name like Allah. The God of the Bible goes on to say:

    “I am Jehovah; that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another” – Isaiah 42: 8

    Not only are the names of the gods of the Bible and Islam different, their characters and instructions to their followers are also very different!

    Difference # 2
    Jehovah has a Son (Psalm 2: 7-12) but Allah does not (4:171).

    Can you see how Allah contradicts himself?! On the one hand, he claims to be responsible for the psalms of the Bible (4:163), in fact for the entire Torah which includes the Psalms (3:3), and then claims that he has no son, although the Torah and the Psalms clearly state that God has a Son!!
    Difference # 3
    Jehovah encourages his followers to not retaliate personally when they are being wronged (1 Peter 2: 19-23), but Allah condones harsh speech from those who have been wronged (4:148)

    Jehovah expects His followers to follow the supreme example of Jesus Christ His Son, who reserved all judgment (that the government neglects to administer) to the final Day of Judgment. It was this knowledge that enabled Jesus, and enables his followers today, to suffer wrong quietly. Whereas both Jehovah and Allah claim to be the ultimate judges, it is Jehovah who expects His people to walk according to this knowledge, knowing that the right of vengeance belongs to Him. Clearly, the moral standards of Jehovah are higher than that of Allah.
    Difference # 4
    Allah changes his revelations and his mind (2:106, 16:101) whereas Jehovah does not (Malachi 3:6, Psalm 119:89)

    No prizes for guessing who’s more reliable!
    Difference # 5
    Allah encourages his followers to fight others (4:74, 8:39, 8:65, 9:111, and 9:123) and establish his worship.

    This is what 8:65 says: “O prophet [Muhammad]! Exhort Muslims to fight! A hundred Muslims will defeat 1000 non-Muslims, because non-Muslims are not intelligent!”

    Jehovah encourages his followers to reach out to others in love (Matthew 28: 19-20). Nowhere in the Bible are the followers of Jesus Christ asked to spread his message by force. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ, through his person, death and resurrection, is God’s demonstration of love for humanity (John 3:16, Romans 5:8) and Jehovah wants His followers to spread this message all over the world – only by telling those who’re willing to listen and demonstrating the effects of His love in their own lives!

    See: Does the Bible instigate Christians to violence?

    As I said before, I stand for the teaching of the Bible (which true Christians follow), not the duplicity and atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church. Also see How to distinguish between true and false Christianity?

    More violence in Islam

    So called violent passages in the Koran refer to a particular situation. There are lots of peaceful passages as well!

    Difference # 6
    Allah is a champion of anti-Semitism [in the restricted sense of Anti-Jewish sentiment]:

    On the other hand, Jehovah calls Himself the “God of Israel” 203 times in the Bible! He says He loves Israel and will never forget them:
    “Thus says Jehovah: If you can break My covenant of the day and My covenant of the night, so that there should not be day and night in their season, then also may My covenant with David My servant be broken, that he should not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites the priests, My ministers.” – Jeremiah 33: 20, 21

    God spoke these words around 590 BC, when the Israelite monarchy was at the verge of being ended. So God is implying that in the distant future, there will be a descendant of David, ruling from Jerusalem, Israel.

    Jehovah claims He’ll set up a worldwide kingdom headquartered at Jerusalem:

    “And it shall come to pass in the end times, that the mountain of the house of Jehovah shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob. And He will teach us His ways, and we will walk in His paths. For out of Zion the Law shall go forth, and the Word of Jehovah from Jerusalem.” – Isaiah 2: 2, 3

    Clearly, Allah and Jehovah are markedly different. In fact, there is a conflict going on. The followers of Allah in the Middle East outnumber the Jews 50:1 and are rolling with petrodollars (and petro-clout!) These nations want Israel to be exterminated. Jehovah has promised it won’t happen!

    Difference # 7
    Allah does not make it clear as to how we can get to heaven. He demands belief and good works (3:57, 2:223). If you’re not a Muslim, you spend eternity in hell. Even if you’re a Muslim, he’s going to make you scream in hell for sometime before he lets you into paradise (3:185). He’s not even willing to give you a conversion formula, as in, “do such and such and you spend so much time in hell, etc”!

    On the other hand, Jehovah offers guaranteed access to Him and to heaven as a matter of grace. The Bible makes it clear that as sinners, humans deserve the wrath of God (Romans 1:18, 3:23, 6:23) and that no matter how good we try to be, we cannot match up to God’s standards of justice (Isaiah 64: 6). However, God, in a stunning display of love gave His Son for humanity. His Son came to earth as Jesus Christ, suffered and died, paying the price for our sins – so now, we can escape God’s wrath by trusting in His Son:

    “For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man some would even be bold enough to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us…God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life…Jesus Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed…For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast…These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life” [Romans 5: 8, John 3:16, 1 Peter 2:24, Ephesians 2: 8, 9, 1 John 5:13]

    Muslims! Jehovah is a merciful compassionate God who reaches out in love to you! His Son has purchased your pardon by dying on a cross [Allah never loved you this much!] and you can gain access to Him and eternity in heaven by repenting and trusting in Him! You can be sure! What a contrast to Allah who demands belief and good works but does not specify just how much good works would get you into paradise without spending time in hell!

    Difference # 8
    Allah demands that Muslims –fight– for him even unto death:

    “Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward” – Surah 4:74

    While Jehovah wants His followers to be faithful to Him (that is, not deny Him) even on pain of death, He does not demand that they fight, and provided the supreme precedent for sacrifice Himself in sending His Son to die for the sins of humanity (Romans 5: 8).

    “So called violent passages in the Koran refer to a particular situation. There are lots of peaceful passages as well!”

    Difference # 9
    Jehovah is capable of writing an error free Bible, but Allah is unable to keep the Koran free of errors.
    Difference # 10
    Jehovah promises a heaven that will be a wonderful place because:

    We’ll get to see Him, who’s loved us so much that He gave His Son to die for our redemption.
    We’ll get to see others, from every time in history and place on earth, people who have put their faith on the living One True God Jehovah
    There won’t be any pain, suffering, grief, sin or evil.
    We’re also told that when we get to heaven, there will be no marriage (Matthew 22:30).

    On the other hand, Allah’s paradise is a very different!!

    Koran 78:31: As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and virgins with big breasts for companions: a truly overflowing cup.

    Koran 37:40-48…They will sit with bashful, dark-eyed virgins, as chaste as the sheltered eggs of ostriches.

    Koran 52:17-20…They shall recline on couches ranged in rows. To dark-eyed houris (virgins) we shall wed them…

    Koran 55:56-57: In them will be bashful virgins neither man nor Jinn will have touched before. Then which of the favors of your Lord will you deny ?”

    Looks like Allah knows to bargain. Jehovah on the other hand, expects His followers to serve Him as a loving response to the love that He has shown to them.

    Koran 56:7-40: …We created the houris (the beautiful women) and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand.. ”

    Koran 55:70-77: In each there shall be virgins chaste and fair… Dark eyed virgins sheltered in their tents whom neither man nor Jin will have touched before..

    Koran 56:17: Round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness.

    Koran 55:57-58 Virgins as fair as corals and rubies. Then which of the favors of your Lord will you deny ?

    “Ali reported that the Apostle of Allah said, ‘There is in Paradise a market wherein there will be no buying or selling, but will consist of men and women. When a man desires a beauty, he will have intercourse with them.’” (Al Hadis, Vol. 4, p. 172, No. 34)

    “The virgins will not urinate, relieve nature, spit, or have any nasal secretions” – Sahih Bukhari 4:55:544

    ‘Everyone that God admits into paradise will be married to 72 wives; two of them are houris and seventy of his inheritance of the [female] dwellers of hell. All of them will have libidinous sex organs and he will have an ever-erect penis.’ ” – Sunan Ibn Majah, Zuhd (Book of Abstinence) 39

    “The Holy Prophet said: ‘The believer will be given such and such strength in Paradise for sexual intercourse. It was questioned: O prophet of Allah! can he do that? He said: “He will be given the strength of one hundred persons.” – Mishkat al-Masabih Book IV, Chapter XLII, Paradise and Hell, Hadith Number 24

    The prophet Muhammad described his view with the following words, “The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana’a .” (Surah Al-Rahman 55, 72, as interpreted by Ibn Kathir, who died in 1373 CE)

    Apart from sex, Allah promises all the other things 7th century Arabians lusted after: abundant water (13:35), wine (56:7-40), fruit (55: 68, 69), jewels, fancy cutlery and fabrics (43:68-73, 55:70-77, 56:7-40). Allah and Jehovah are poles apart!!

    An important point: In Surah 37:42-43, Surah 52:18-19, Surah 78:36, etc. we read that the sensuous delights of paradise are the ultimate reward for Muslims. They are not an “add-on” to some non-sensuous reward such as fellowship with Allah.

    More on Allah’s paradise [Includes refutations of excuses made by Islamic apologists to explain away these passages]

    Difference # 11
    Jehovah knows history inside out while Allah doesn’t have a clue. Jehovah has demonstrated His sovereignty and omniscience by littering the Bible with hundreds of prophecies bearing on Israel, Jesus Christ, and other issues. In contrast, Allah has none!
    Difference # 12
    Allah is a doting tyrant:

    “The Jews and Christians claim that they are loved ones of allah. But that is disproved by the fact that he chastises them. He forgives and chastises whomever he wants (5:18)

    In contrast, Jehovah is a loving Father who wants all to come to Him (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9). He chastises His children as any wise father would (Hebrews 12: 5-11)
    Difference # 13
    Jehovah has given people the freedom of conscience:

    “And if it seems evil to you to serve Jehovah, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers have served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.” – Joshua 24: 16

    “[Jesus said:] Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hears my voice, and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” – Revelation 3:20

    Allah demands that you either become a Muslim or get plundered and murdered:

    “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them” – 9:5
    “It is not for a prophet to take captives before he has made slaughter in the land” – 8:67
    Difference # 14
    Allah considers a few options concerning how to deliver the Koran (6:7) and then settles on dictating the whole thing to a single character, Muhammad. Needless to say, this leaves authenticity open to question. A single person can easily make up a coherent fraud.

    However, Jehovah delivered the Old and New Testaments to dozens of authors from different backgrounds, over a period of thousands of years, using three different languages, in three different continents. By doing so and coming up with a coherent Bible, Jehovah has given us a proof of the authenticity of the Bible. If Allah was the same as Jehovah (as he claims to be) he should have at least told us why he decided to change his method of delivery!
    Difference # 15
    Allah sends some people astray (6:39)
    Jehovah wants all to come to Him (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9), and none to perish.
    Difference # 16
    There is no mediator with Allah (6:51)

    The Lord Jesus Christ is a mediator with Jehovah (1 Timothy 2:5)
    Difference # 17
    If you’re not convinced that Allah is god, he’s got some pathetic proofs:

    “Allah is able to bring misfortune to people. This shows that he is god.” (6:65)

    And some hollow claims:

    “Messengers of Allah to Midian, etc had “proofs of Allah’s sovereignty”” (9:70) [We are not told what these proofs were, or even in which year the messengers went to Midian, or who are the Midianites]

    In contrast, Jehovah has authenticated Himself in various ways.

    Difference # 18
    Allah is prejudiced against deaf and dumb people.

    “Deaf and dumb people are the worst beasts, who have no sense. If Allah had made them hear, they would turn away from him” (7: 22, 23)

    Jehovah and His Son are compassionate towards the deaf and dumb.

    “And one of the crowd answered and said, Teacher, I brought You my son, who has a mute spirit. I spoke to Your disciples, that they should cast it out, but they were not able. So Jesus asked his father, How long has this been happening to him? And he said, From childhood. And often he has thrown him both into the fire and into the water to destroy him. But if You are able to do anything, have compassion on us and help us. Jesus said to him, If you are able to believe, all things are possible to him who believes. And immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, Lord, I believe! Help my unbelief! When Jesus saw that the people came running together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, Deaf and mute spirit, I command you, Come out of him and enter him no more. And the spirit cried out, convulsed him greatly, and came out of him. And he became as if dead, so that many said, He has died. But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose.” – Mark 9: 17-27

    Conclusion
    Allah is an impostor. He claims to be the same God Jehovah who dealt with people like Abraham in the past. However, on closer examination, he turns out to be different from Jehovah, and thus is self-contradictory and logically inconsistent. His advocating violence and promising cheap Arabian thrills as rewards prove that he is a product of seventh century Arabia, not a real God.

  71. Indiana Jones says

    @ 83

    Having read along with all of this, and mostly agreeing with Narf, I do have one, pewrhaps nit-picky, question for you. Under difference #9 where you say:

    “Jehovah is capable of writing an error free Bible”

    Where is it then?

  72. Jerry Herrera says

    Indiana_ (Quoting You )Having read along with all of this, and mostly agreeing with Narf, I do have one, pewrhaps nit-picky, question for you. Under difference #9 where you say:
    “Jehovah is capable of writing an error free Bible”
    Where is it then? (I don’t quite understand your question?)

  73. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jerry Herrera
    The Christian bible contains contradictions. Example: 1 Chronicles 18:4 and 2 Samuel 8:4… how many horsemen were there? 700 or 7000? Let me emphasize that this is just one example of many.

  74. Mr. Dave says

    @ 76 Narf:

    “Ah, I think I follow you. So, you were at least expecting an argument, rather than the unsupported verse- and video-bomb that we got?”

    Exactly. In one way, it’s almost like watching a sports fisherman on television, using catch-and-release to keep the show going with the same old shit.

  75. Jerry Herrera says

    Nit-Picking I see, no-contradictions in the Bible:
    11. Did David capture 1,700 of King Zobah’s horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4), or was it 7,000 (1 Chronicles 18:4)?
    (Category: copyist error)
    There are two possible solutions to these differing figures. The first by Keil and Delitzsh (page 360) is a most convincing solution. They maintain that the word for chariotry (rekeb) was inadvertently omitted by the scribe in copying 2 Samuel 8:4, and that the second figure, 7,000 (for theparasim “cavalrymen”), was necessarily reduced to 700 from the 7,000 he saw in his Vorlage for the simple reason that no one would write 7,000 after he had written 1,000 in the recording the one and the same figure. The omission of rekeb might have occurred with an earlier scribe, and a reduction from 7,000 to 700 would have then continued with the successive copies by later scribes. But in all probability the Chronicles figure is right and the Samuel numbers should be corrected to agree with that.
    A second solution starts from the premise that the number had been reduced to 700 as it refers to 700 rows, each consisting of 10 horse men, making a total of 7,000.

  76. Jerry Herrera says

    Nit Pick, Nit Pick, Muslims are always trying to discredit the Bible, No contradictions:
    11. Did David capture 1,700 of King Zobah’s horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4), or was it 7,000 (1 Chronicles 18:4)?
    (Category: copyist error)
    There are two possible solutions to these differing figures. The first by Keil and Delitzsh (page 360) is a most convincing solution. They maintain that the word for chariotry (rekeb) was inadvertently omitted by the scribe in copying 2 Samuel 8:4, and that the second figure, 7,000 (for theparasim “cavalrymen”), was necessarily reduced to 700 from the 7,000 he saw in his Vorlage for the simple reason that no one would write 7,000 after he had written 1,000 in the recording the one and the same figure. The omission of rekeb might have occurred with an earlier scribe, and a reduction from 7,000 to 700 would have then continued with the successive copies by later scribes. But in all probability the Chronicles figure is right and the Samuel numbers should be corrected to agree with that.
    A second solution starts from the premise that the number had been reduced to 700 as it refers to 700 rows, each consisting of 10 horse men, making a total of 7,000.

  77. Indiana Jones says

    @85

    It’s just that I have never seen, or even heard of, an error free bible. Nice job on the 700 vs 7000 thing (if true, something about divinely inspired that oughta get rid of ‘copyist error’ and/or be utterly unambiguous cos God and all, but don’t care really), but how about taking a swing at the error freeness of the 2 different accounts of creation in the first coupla chapters of Genesis for example?

  78. says

  79. says

    @ Frank 77

    “Is there some passage in scripture that says, “Thou art blessed who does not have ideas of his own”?”

    Maybe not in those words, but…

    Proverbs 3:5-6New International Version (NIV)

    5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
    and lean not on your own understanding;
    6 in all your ways submit to him,
    and he will make your paths straight.

  80. Andres Villarreal says

    @88 – Jerry Herrera
    The problems with the Bible we know (as opposed to the Bible that might have existed some time in the past, written or inspired by the Abrahamic God) are definitely relevant to Pascal’s Wager. Why should I risk my immortal soul based on a book that we know is full of contradictions, whether due to copyist errors or not? You do not bet your life savings on a Football team based on the knowledge that somebody had the exact winning formula on a book that was mostly lost. You bet some of your life savings on real, verifiable information from books that were not lost or somewhat reconstructed.

    You know that there is a clear contradiction in the current Bibles related to the specific subject matter of Pascal’s Wager. You know that the Bible says, in no uncertain terms, that belief in God is the only requirement for Heaven, and that it also says, in no uncertain terms, that loving your neighbor more than yourself is the requirement for Heaven. And in both cases the Bible authors neglected to say that if you are a faithful and loving homosexual man you are doomed anyway. To which copyist will you bet your life? Why not consider that both might have made a mistake or two? And what about so many other surefire recipes for getting and not getting to Heaven that are in almost every book in the Bible we know? Remember, for example, that Moses was pretty much the perfect being and he was denied entry to the Promised Land.

    If I were a betting man I would discard any book that is full of contradictions and look for somewhat safe bets in some other place.

  81. samgardner says

    At some point, I think I’d considered whether Satan may have written the Bible. He is a master of deception, after all. And with the way the religionists want to have it all set up, we’re essentially in a “Mission Impossible” scenario anyway (or Plato’s cave, if you want to be all classical about it).

  82. says

    “Difference # 18
    Allah is prejudiced against deaf and dumb people.
    “Deaf and dumb people are the worst beasts, who have no sense. If Allah had made them hear, they would turn away from him” (7: 22, 23)”

    This is why bible quotes are fun, yet ultimately pointless…
    Ex.4:11
    Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?
    Lev.21:17-23
    Whosoever … hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. … Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries.

    …you can pretty much prove anything with the right passage…

    The deaf and dumb come out of that OK, but screw you if you’re blind or have a flattened nose…

    How is hating this group of people over here better than hating that group over there based on something which is not only not their fault, but an attribute created by god?

    Yes/no answers only….

  83. StonedRanger says

    So the entirety of post #83 was nothing more than a cut and paste job with not a mention of where he stole it from? Shame on you jerry for being so dishonest. You cant even argue on your own, in your own words? Then why should anyone take what you say seriously? Oh, by the way, stealing is a sin. Just thought you should know. Ten commandments and all…

  84. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jerry Herrera

    But in all probability the Chronicles figure is right and the Samuel numbers should be corrected to agree with that.
    A second solution starts from the premise that the number had been reduced to 700 as it refers to 700 rows, each consisting of 10 horse men, making a total of 7,000.

    The first option is admitting that your Bible is not inerrant. The second option is bullshit – both verses have the exact same context, with basically the exact same original text, except for the equivalent of a typo. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that the word sometimes means “rows of 10”. That was pulled directly out of someone’s ass. Further, if that’s what you mean by inerrant, then all books are inerrant. If you’re going to use that standard to determine if there are errors, then errors are impossible.

  85. Jerry Herrera says

    Here is a Video that best clears up the so-called contradiction: = no contradiction, to you never ending skeptic fault lookers.
    Did David capture 1,700 of King Zobah’s horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4), or was it 7,000 (1 Chronicles 18:4)?
    Video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydRcPqjeNnE
    Also_Christian, do-not be-head Muslims nor anyone who rejects Christianity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdK8zl_9ABQ

    NOTE: My post had nothing to do with contradictions In The Bible, I had to do with the MUslim god -allah and the Christian G-D Jehovah (Not The Same)

    NOTE: I’m not going to answer any more stupid questions about contradiction’s in the Bible because there are none, so don’t post me about that, because you’re wasting your time; I WILL NOT REPLY.

  86. jdoran says

    @99

    Lookit this guy who’s never read the synoptic gospels side-by-side. There are tons of mistakes and contradictions both in the bible and between different copies of the bible, moreso than there are words in the entirety of the new testament.

    Educate yourself. Use the Youtube you like so much to watch one of Bart Ehrman’s lectures on the myth of biblical inerrancy, instead of spamming links to inane videos.

  87. Narf says

    @83 – Jerry Herrera
    Jerry, this is so pathetic; I don’t even know where to begin. I didn’t even bother reading most of it, because you just copied and pasted it from some anti-Islam apologetics site. What did I say earlier? If you’re not willing to make an effort, why should I?

    I found the conclusion particularly ludicrous:

    Conclusion
    Allah is an impostor. He claims to be the same God Jehovah who dealt with people like Abraham in the past. However, on closer examination, he turns out to be different from Jehovah, and thus is self-contradictory and logically inconsistent. His advocating violence and promising cheap Arabian thrills as rewards prove that he is a product of seventh century Arabia, not a real God.

    You’re really criticizing Allah for advocating violence? Seriously? Have you even read your holy book? It’s pretty sad when a preacher understands the character of his god less well than I do.

    So, let me guess, Yahweh was telling Joshua to stop slaughtering the people of Canaan, but Joshua went ahead anyway? I’ve read the whole book, cover-to-cover, and I have to say that I don’t remember that part. Yahweh commands genocide by his chosen people, and he commits genocide against them and all of humanity, personally. Yahweh is a freaking monster, and his character fits pretty nicely with what you describe of his Allah incarnation.

    The argument from etymology is also stupid. I don’t care what the word originally meant, before it was re-purposed to refer to the new monotheistic deity that was being increasingly worshiped in the region. By the time of Muhammad, it was used to refer to what they thought of as the one true god. Word usage changes, you know.

    It’s particularly bad when you consider the origin of Yahweh-worship, itself. You’re aware that the Jews were never in Egypt, as described in the Pentateuch, right? There’s been a lot discovered in the last few decades, after real archaeologists began examining Israel, doing real work, rather than the fundamentally-biased William F. Albright and his like.

    Check out the Wikipedia article on Yahweh. That will give you at least a bit of a starting point, although of course there’s a hell of a lot more research than what’s represented there. I’d recommend the books of Israel Finkelstein, but I doubt you’ll read those. The abridged documentary based upon his most popular book, The Bible Unearthed, is on YouTube. Let me know if you’re interested in watching it, and I can link to it here.

    Essentially, the Yahweh of the Christian and Jewish Bibles is a composite of multiple gods from a pantheon worshiped by the people of Canaan. El was the creator god of the pantheon, and Yahweh seems to have originated as a war god of some sort, which makes a lot of sense when you see how he behaves in the Old Testament. You know the Christian apologetic about how the multiple divine names listed in the Bible are just different names for your god? It’s bullshit. We’ve found traces of the pantheon out of which the Bible was cobbled together during the push to monotheism, probably in the 8th Century BCE.

  88. frankgturner says

    @Narf #101
    Don’t even bother, the fact that he didn’t have any original thought but copied and pasted his argument from another sight proved my point. He just didn’t use scripture to do it, he used apologetics. Same tired bullshit over and over.
    .
    Frankly when he said,

    NOTE: My post had nothing to do with contradictions In The Bible, I had to do with the MUslim god -allah and the Christian G-D Jehovah (Not The Same)
    NOTE: I’m not going to answer any more stupid questions about contradiction’s in the Bible because there are none, so don’t post me about that, because you’re wasting your time; I WILL NOT REPLY.

    He basically admitted here that he is going to (metaphorically speaking) stick his fingers in his ears and stop his feet and go “La la la, I’m not listening” rather than look at the reality right in front of his face. He suffers from delusions and he is so insecure about them because some part of him has realized they are based on crap that he has to get the rest of the world to buy his bull to support his delusion.
    .
    He could try to make it sound more noble like the “Divine witness of the holy spirit” crap but that is basically the same thing, sticking your fingers in your ears and shutting your eyes and going “la la la I can’t hear you.” People try to make it sound noble but call it what it is, being a spoiled insecure brat,
    .
    Even as a believer I knew that there were contradictions in the bible and it didn’t bother me one bit. This guy sounds like one of those the bible has to be all fact or all fiction nuts. At least he does a little (and I mean VERY little) homework to know that the bible was not written in english. Probably has some weird vision in his head of it being handed to the council of Nicea in its completed form by a figure that looks something like Charlton Heston n a white toga.

  89. Narf says

    @88 – Jerry Herrera

    Nit-Picking I see, no-contradictions in the Bible:

    Jerry, you really don’t seem to get it. That is a contradiction in the Bible, with the possible explanation that a scribe screwed it up at some point. You can try to figure out how that contradiction got in there all you want, but it’s still a contradiction. And there are thousands of contradictions like that.

    Step away from that tree for a moment and look at the forest. When we have so many scribal errors and potentially deliberate changes, what does this tell us about the reliability of the textual transmission? When there are that many changes which we can detect, because of their inclusion in an obvious contradiction like that, how many more are there that we have no idea about?

    And that’s on top of the problem that the texts include many stories taken from older works of mythology, from the surrounding area, in its original form. The Pentateuch is a compilation of retold myths, and I just can’t comprehend how so many people can’t grasp the obvious.

    The greatest contradictions are the ones that deal with the character of Yahweh. You remember that bit I quoted out of the 10 Commandments, which indicates that Yahweh will punish the descendants of those who offend him? Yet, later on, there are specific pronouncements that children will not be punished for the sins of their fathers. Which is it?

    The differences between the character of Yahweh in the Old Testament and the New Testament are even more pronounced.

    You want to talk about contradictions? How about the census described in the Gospel of Luke? That passage contradicts reality. The Romans never had a census as described in that gospel, which required that everyone return to the homeland of their ancestors, for some reason. That’s bonkers.

    There’s so much stuff in the Gospels, which was obviously made up, decades after the supposed events, in an attempt to match up with perceived prophesies made in the Jewish scriptures .. and half of the time, they weren’t even pulling from an actual prophesy, just grabbing a bit of some psalm and claiming it was a prophesy.

    And we have big chunks of the gospels that are missing in the oldest copies that we have. The story of the woman taken in adultery, in the Gospel of John, was clearly added centuries after the bulk of the text was written. Jesus’s Agony at Gethsemane was only added later, many biblical scholars believe to counter the doctrine of docetism.

    What we have here is a pattern of behavior amongst early Christians, changing and adding to their holy texts, for theological reasons. If they were willing to make stuff up even after the stories were first written down by their anonymous authors (you do know that the Gospels weren’t actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, right?), how much do you think they felt free to change and embellish in their storytelling, in the multiple decades between the supposed events and the time when they were written down?

  90. Narf says

    @102 – fgt
    Yeah, I know. *sigh* I’m just wondering if he might make some vague attempt at responding to me, since he was so desperate to get me to listen to his show.

    I’m sure I’m just wasting my time, but I could be wasting it on naughtee, over in the thread for #904. Jerry is probably more worth talking to than that guy is.

  91. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    ~Bows to Narf~

    One minor correction:

    That passage contradicts reality. The Romans never had a census as described in that gospel, which required that everyone return to the homeland of their ancestors, for some reason. That’s bonkers.

    I thought this for a while too, but Dr Richard Carrier points out that it isn’t that far-fetched. Let me explain. As written, the census never happened. There is absolutely no way that the Romans required everyone to travel back to the land of their great great … grandparents. However, there are plenty of reasons which might require one to travel during a census, such as if you had a plot of land. Certain details might come up, IIRC like dealing with taxes, which might require your personal presence to ensure it’s handled correctly.

    So, as literally written it’s wrong. However, perhaps the events actually did happen, but the original writer misunderstood why the person had to travel because of the census. It’s not that unreasonable a hypothesis. As such, I don’t like quoting this problem anymore because it’s not that big of a problem compared to – say – the zombie invasion (in Mark IIRC) and the 3 hour eclipse which never happened.

    But yea, otherwise good work Narf.

  92. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jerry

    NOTE: I’m not going to answer any more stupid questions about contradiction’s in the Bible because there are none, so don’t post me about that, because you’re wasting your time; I WILL NOT REPLY.

    And all I’m going to do is point at the obvious contradiction between those two passages while you stick your head in the proverbial sand. On your part, willful ignorance and willful dishonesty.

  93. Narf says

    @105
    The Bible explicitly says that they had to travel to Bethlehem because Joseph was of the House of David, though. Either way, they’re making stuff up. The census story was made up to explain how Jesus could come from both Nazareth and Bethlehem, since … wouldn’t you know it, what with the Bible and all, we have conflicting prophecies, too.

    True, when speaking to a slightly more rational Christian, a non-inerrantist, this might not fly. You could get plenty of liberal Christians who would say that the the people writing it down were just recording what they were told, and they got the events mostly right, even if they screwed up some details. Against Jerry’s assertion of inerrancy, though, it still gets him, until he falls back on the nuh-uh defense.

  94. Jerry Herrera says

    1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
    2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron_____________________________________________________________________________________
    “A Paradox” Matt Dillahunty and Jeff both die and face the G-D of the Bible; G-D asks Matt, why should I let you into Heaven? Matt answers, because I know that you are a loving and forgiving G-D; G-D asks Matt, did you believe in Me when you were on earth? Matt, no, G-D, why? because no-one on earth could prove your existence to me. G-D did you not believe my Word the Bible? Matt no, G-D why? because there were so many other countless Ideologies and Religions out there and the Bible was just another book. G-D to Matt, you see Me now, don’t you? Matt yes. G-D to Matt, you heard my Word, you knew my Word, and yet chose to reject my Word. Here is what I said:______________________________________________________________________________
    [Romans 1:19-20] – Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.
    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    G-D to Matt, depart from me, I never knew you, you that work iniquity, into Hell and everlasting damnation prepared for the Devil and his Angels.
    ◄ Isaiah 55:6 ►
    Seek you the LORD while he may be found, call you on him while he is near:

  95. Jerry Herrera says

    1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
    2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron_____________________________________________________________________________________
    “A Paradox” Matt Dillahunty and Jeff both die and face the G-D of the Bible; G-D asks Matt/Jeff why should I let you into Heaven? Matt/Jeff answers, because I know that you are a loving and forgiving G-D; G-D asks Matt/Jeff did you believe in Me when you were on earth? Matt/Jeff no, G-D, why? because no-one on earth could prove your existence to me. G-D did you not believe my Word the Bible? Matt/Jeff no, G-D why? because there were so many other countless Ideologies and Religions out there and the Bible was just another book. G-D to Matt/Jeff you see Me now, don’t you? Matt/Jeff yes. G-D to Matt/Jeff you heard my Word, you knew my Word, and yet chose to reject my Word. Here is what I said:______________________________________________________________________________
    [Romans 1:19-20] – Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.
    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    G-D to Matt/Jeff depart from me, I never knew you, you that work iniquity, into Hell and everlasting damnation prepared for the Devil and his Angels.
    ◄ Isaiah 55:6 ► (Matt/Jeff and all Atheists)
    Seek you the LORD while he may be found, call you on him while he is near:

  96. Jerry Herrera says

    HISTORY OF ATHEISM
    Atheism (derived from the Ancient Greek ἄθεος atheos meaning “godless; denying the gods; ungodly” is the absence or rejection of the belief that God or any other deities exist. Although the term originated in the sixteenth century and open admission to positive atheism was not made earlier than the late-eighteenth century, atheistic ideas and their influence have a longer history. Over the centuries, atheists have arrived at their point of view through a variety of avenues, including scientific, philosophical and ideological notions. As a percentage of the global human population, public adherents of atheism remain but a small minority.
    Philosophical atheist thought began to appear in Europe and Asia in the sixth or fifth century BC. Will Durant explains that certain pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers’ reports.[citation needed] The Vedas of Ceylon only admitted the possibility that deities might exist, but went no further. Neither prayers nor sacrifices were suggested in any way.
    Atheistic notions slowly gained traction in certain intellectual circles in Europe following the Renaissance and Reformation. Atheism was championed by some French Revolutionaries who sought to purge France of religion. Atheism made great inroads following the First and Second World Wars, when Communist regimes promoting state atheism were established around the world. Marxist‒Leninist atheism and similar variations of Marxian thought on religion were influential in Communist governments of the twentieth century and survive to varying degrees among Marxists and in the ideology of states that continue to be governed by forms of communism, such as China, North Korea and Cuba. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, religiosity has re-established itself to varying extents across the former Soviet bloc, while in Western societies, religiosity has broadly been in decline and adherence to an atheist outlook has been growing, with some high profile advocates.
    The French Revolution of 1789 catapulted atheistic thought into political notability in some Western countries, and opened the way for the nineteenth century movements of Rationalism, Freethought, and Liberalism. Born in 1792, Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, a child of the Age of Enlightenment, was expelled from England’s Oxford University in 1811 for submitting to the Dean an anonymous pamphlet that he wrote entitled, The Necessity of Atheism. This pamphlet is considered by scholars as the first atheistic ideas published in the English language. An early atheistic influence in Germany was The Essence of Christianity by Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872). He influenced other German nineteenth century atheistic thinkers like Karl Marx, Max Stirner, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860), and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900).
    The freethinker Charles Bradlaugh (1833–1891) was repeatedly elected to the British Parliament, but was not allowed to take his seat after his request to affirm rather than take the religious oath was turned down (he then offered to take the oath, but this too was denied him). After Bradlaugh was re-elected for the fourth time, a new Speaker allowed Bradlaugh to take the oath and permitted no objections. He became the first outspoken atheist to sit in Parliament, where he participated in amending the Oaths Act.
    Karl Marx
    In 1844, Karl Marx (1818–1883), an atheistic political economist, wrote in his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Marx believed that people turn to religion in order to dull the pain caused by the reality of social situations; that is, Marx suggests religion is an attempt at transcending the material state of affairs in a society – the pain of class oppression – by effectively creating a dream world, rendering the religious believer amenable to social control and exploitation in this world while they hope for relief and justice in life after death. In the same essay, Marx states, “…[m]an creates religion, religion does not create man…
    Friedrich Nietzsche
    Friedrich Nietzsche, a prominent nineteenth century philosopher, is well known for coining the aphorism “God is dead” (German: “Gott ist tot”); incidentally the phrase was not spoken by Nietzsche directly, but was used as a dialogue for the characters in his works. Nietzsche argued that Christian theism as a belief system had been a moral foundation of the Western world, and that the rejection and collapse of this foundation as a result of modern thinking (the death of God) would naturally cause a rise innihilism or the lack of values. While Nietzsche was staunchly atheistic, he was also concerned about the negative effects of nihilism on humanity. As such, he called for a re-evaluation of old values and a creation of new ones, hoping that in doing so humans would achieve a higher state he labeled the Overman.
    Atheist feminism also began in the nineteenth century. Atheist feminism is a movement that advocates feminism within atheism. Atheist feminists also oppose religion as a main source of female oppression and inequality, believing that the majority of the religions are sexist and oppressive to women.

  97. frankgturner says

    @Narf and E, with respect to numbers 110 and 111.
    Well he sticks his head in the sand a bit deeper. I am guessing that he got # 110 of off StB’s site and #111 of of some creationist apologist’s site. As if he thinks we have not heard this shit before./
    Funny how his hypothetical situation in @ 110 paints his god as an immoral thug with no respect for freedom to explore the world around us and #111 is grossly over simplified and abbreviate, a spin to make religion look good. (I hve heard matt respond to hypotheticals like this on the show before). I doubt this guy has ever had an original thought in his life. Sounds like he never went to a foreign country and lived among them for a while, seeing how they grew up and the influence of their culture and beliefs. One of those creationists that lives in a bubble, maybe even one created by himself.

  98. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Frank
    I was unaware the creationist here was even trying to make a point. The copy-paste seemed unrelated. It’s one thing if they’re idiotic, but I see no reason to engage with a literal wall of copy-pasted text.

  99. mariarose says

    @Narf, re 101 (I think),
    Please give a link to that Youtube video you mentioned, about the bible unearthed. I would love to watch it, but can’t find it.

  100. Narf says

    @109/110 – Jerry Herrera
    Jerry, that was just an incoherent mess. What the heck were you trying to say there? What was your point? And how many times do we have to say that we don’t give a fuck what the Bible says, when there’s no reason to take anything in it seriously?

    About the only thing of meaning I was able to pull out (I didn’t feel it was worth my time to wade into the mass of text) was the bit at the beginning about “later times,” whatever that means. You know that the people who wrote the Bible thought they were living in the end times, right? They thought the world was going to end, any minute, back in 60 or 80 CE, when the gospels were written. They were writing about things they saw all around them, at that time. Of course you can see things around you that were written about the end times, because those things are basic descriptions of society at almost any point in history.

    @111
    And what the hell was the point of posting a mass of text from some website, without attribution, about the history of atheism, and then making no fucking point? The saddest part about all of this is that you’re on a radio show. What do you do on the radio show, open other people’s books and read them into the microphone?

  101. Narf says

    @114 – Simon Firth
    I’m more a fan of Woody Allen’s response to the question, when asked what he would say to God, if it turned out he was real. Something along the lines of, “I don’t know. It would depend how good his excuse was.”

    If this world is a representation of how Yahweh thinks things should run, when he’s an omnipotent entity and can do anything, and he demands belief and worship, based upon zero evidence, then I want no part of him and would want to get the hell out of heaven and his presence, as soon as possible.

  102. Daniel Schealler says

    @115 – Jerry

    Friedrich Nietzsche, a prominent nineteenth century philosopher, is well known for coining the aphorism “God is dead” (German: “Gott ist tot”); incidentally the phrase was not spoken by Nietzsche directly, but was used as a dialogue for the characters in his works. Nietzsche argued that Christian theism as a belief system had been a moral foundation of the Western world, and that the rejection and collapse of this foundation as a result of modern thinking (the death of God) would naturally cause a rise innihilism or the lack of values. While Nietzsche was staunchly atheistic, he was also concerned about the negative effects of nihilism on humanity. As such, he called for a re-evaluation of old values and a creation of new ones, hoping that in doing so humans would achieve a higher state he labeled the Overman.

    In my view this is a biased reading of Nietzche. It has some truth, but it’s spun a little bit too hard in the pro-Christian direction.

    In my view Nietzche’s argument was and is that Christian morality was always toxic and limiting, and it propagated the notion that morality can only from a higher being living in a higher realm. This is a lie – morality is a human invention and a human activity, it always has been and it always will be. But people have believed in and been raised under this lie in one form or another for thousands of years.

    The consequence of this is that the population has been left with a complete lack of moral expertise. The only ‘morality’ they know is that of obedience to an allegedly loving tyrant. They have little ability to think or evaluate moral principles for themselves, and for good reason. Religion actively discourages moral expertise because that is a direct challenge to the moral obedience that religion and religious power structures vastly prefer.

    Thus religious notions of moral obedience and the religious opposition to moral expertise creates a potential disaster that could have been avoided altogether: If people finally wake up to the fact that God never existed in the first place, then the entire house of cards that religion has propped up will blow away. This will leave them with both a lack of moral expertise and a lack of a moral tyrant to keep them obediently in line. There is a genuine risk of this, although I think that Nietzche and religious people such as yourself who admire NIetzche for this reason blow that risk out of proportion. In my personal experience most people aren’t quite so morally dense as Nietzche supposed.

    However, the point isn’t whether or not I agree with Nietzche. The point is that your reading of Nietzche is twisted around to sound like an endorsement of religion, particularly Christian religion. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    I beg of you my brothers, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not.

    Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche

  103. Narf says

    Jerry, can you answer one question for me, rather than pasting something from an apologetics website?

    Why should we care about anything that’s written in the Bible?  And don’t say, “Because it’s the word of G-D.”  I know that you think it’s the word of your god, but I asked why we should care about anything written in the Bible.  You’ve barely said anything that isn’t Bible-verse, Bible-verse, Bible-verse, and I’d like to see if you’re capable of more.

    You might do well to ask yourself that question, even if you won’t answer it for us.  Why should we care about any of the Bible verses you’ve spewed at us?  I dunno, try that as a meditative focus or something.

    By the way, anytime I see G-D, I initially read it as God-Damn.  You might want to come up with a better way to talk about your god, which doesn’t look like you’re profaning his name.

  104. Narf says

    @126 – Simon
    No prob. That isn’t the exact wording he used, but that was the general sentiment.

  105. Narf says

    Wow, that was a bit of a slide, after the approval of several moderated posts. I wish they could just stick new ones on the end, with higher numbers, somehow. I’m guessing there isn’t a tool to do so, in the moderator tools.

    I dunno, they have comment editing tools. I’ve had them clean something up for me, after I whined about my typos in a following post. Maybe they could just nuke the old comment, if it’s old enough, and paste it into a new one at the bottom? Of course that’s more work for something they aren’t getting paid to do. I’d do it, but then I have OCD.

    Anyway, remember guys, if the comment referred to isn’t in the number slot listed, look down a few, in case of late moderation approvals.

  106. Jerry Herrera says

    Narf_NOTE: I will correspond with you on these conditions: leave out the insults, disrespect, foul language and Blasphemy of the G-D I worship!!!
    #1 G-D is something the Jews use, if you knew anything about Judaism, because G-D’s name is so Holy that they will not render His true name to toss around like a football. #2 Jehovah is not the True name of G-D; The Jews invented that name, because they reverence G-D so much they will not utter His true Name.
    #3 here is what the Word of G-d says: (like it or not)
    ◄ Exodus 20:7 ►
    “Never use the name of the LORD your God carelessly. The LORD will make sure that anyone who carelessly uses his name will be punished.
    #4 the reason I copy paste articles, is because they are in agreement with my belief, and say it a lot better than I could say it.
    “PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO ALL YOUR OTHER ATHEIST FRIENDS”
    P.S. Why do you make Judgments on my Radio Show when you have never bothered to tune in to hear what it is about???
    Please Tune-in: DJ Jerry Herrera
    The Dusty Roads Show 5-7:PM-P.S.T
    Music-News-Teaching ~ Wednesday “Tonight Live”
    http://indiegospelradio.org/Jerry_Herrera.html\

  107. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jerry

    leave out […] Blasphemy of the G-D I worship!!!

    Complete non-starter. Our mere existence is a blasphemy. Our simple straightforward assertions that Jesus was not a magic man is blasphemy. Our simple judgments that your god is described as being a moral monster – that is blasphemy. What kind of conversation do you expect to have if we cannot blaspheme?

    Hey Jerry, what does god need with a starship?
    http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Star_Trek_rule

  108. Narf says

    @130 – Jerry Herrera
    Uhhh, Jerry, what exactly do you think I’m gaining from this correspondence, that I would be willing to grant you concessions?

    I was just about to add something along the lines of what EL just said, in the response above, which popped up in my inbox while I was typing this. At least half of the things I think about your god are blasphemous, and if I’m not allowed to express my feelings about it, why should I bother?

    I can try to tone down the insults, but I won’t make any promises. Same with the disrespect. When you keep spewing Bible quotes at us and not changing in the slightest when we keep telling you how useless it is to throw quotes at us, from a book which we have no authoritative respect for, I’m going to get a bit disrespectful in my tone, because you’ve earned it.

    Profanity and vulgarity … same there as above. I could try to tone it down a little, but I’m not making any promises.

    #1 G-D is something the Jews use, if you knew anything about Judaism, because G-D’s name is so Holy that they will not render His true name to toss around like a football.

    I know that some of the nuttier religious Jews do that, sure. You almost never see it in Christians, though. Christians tend not to be as fetishistic as Jews do, in their worship.

    #2 Jehovah is not the True name of G-D; The Jews invented that name, because they reverence G-D so much they will not utter His true Name.

    Actually, it’s more of a Latinization of Yahweh, not a new invention. I’m not sure the Jews were even the originators of the new name. I think it was Christians who developed the variation, when the Latin Vulgate was used throughout much of Europe.

    Mind you, I’m not surprised that you have this a bit tangled up, given your poor understanding of early church history. Wikipedia is your friend, when you want a surface examination of a subject, from a scholarly perspective, rather than … wherever you got what you said from.

    #3 here is what the Word of G-d says: (like it or not)
    ◄ Exodus 20:7 ►
    “Never use the name of the LORD your God carelessly. The LORD will make sure that anyone who carelessly uses his name will be punished.

    This is why I laugh at you when you do the G-D thing (besides the fact that it looks like God-Damn, in my mind). That passage isn’t talking about not using the name of Yahweh at all. It’s saying not to use it carelessly and disrespectfully … you know, the way I use it. When you’re talking about Yahweh in a respectful manner, just having a matter-of-fact discussion about him, there’s nothing wrong with that, and that makes it funny as hell that you mask the vowel anyway, adhering to what you think is the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law.

    #4 the reason I copy paste articles, is because they are in agreement with my belief, and say it a lot better than I could say it.

    I know that’s why you do it. But we want to have a discussion with you, not whoever wrote those articles. If you want to refer to articles as a starting point, then add your own points to that, just link the article in your comment and then build upon it in your comment. Maybe paste a small portion of the article, along with the link, highlighting the part of the article that you’re specifically referring to.

    When you just drop a crap-load of text into a comment, which you obviously didn’t write, without explaining what point you were even trying to make, that’s very bad form. I still have no idea what you expect any of us to get out of that stuff about the history of atheism, except for the fact that the author of the article has a very simplistic understanding of atheism.

    “PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO ALL YOUR OTHER ATHEIST FRIENDS”

    Pass what on to all of my atheist friends? All of the things you’ve said in this blog comment-section?

    No, I won’t be doing that. You see, I like my atheist friends, and I don’t want to torment them like that.

    P.S. Why do you make Judgments on my Radio Show when you have never bothered to tune in to hear what it is about???

    I haven’t made any judgments about your radio show. What I said was that it’s kind of sad that you do such a poor job of communicating on this blog and that I expect better from someone with a radio show, which is supposed to be about communicating ideas to people. I guess we can add reading comprehension to the list of your issues.

  109. Daniel Schealler says

    Never use the name of the LORD your God carelessly. The LORD will make sure that anyone who carelessly uses his name will be punished.

    You’re also not supposed to worship idols.

    It doesn’t matter if you say ‘God’ or ‘G-D’. They are both labels that refer to an (alleged) entity.

    ‘G-D’ is just as much a name as ‘God’ is.

    If you use the term ‘G-D’ carelessly, then you’re violating the instruction to not speak the name of God carelessly just as much as if you were using the term ‘God’ carelessly.

    Essentially, you have made a false idol out of the term ‘G-D’. You should cut that out. It’s against the rules.

  110. Narf says

    @133 – Daniel Schealler

    If you use the term ‘G-D’ carelessly, then you’re violating the instruction to not speak the name of God carelessly just as much as if you were using the term ‘God’ carelessly.

    This is the sort of thing I was thinking about, when I referred to what he thinks is the letter of the law, versus the spirit of the law. By masking over the vowel, it’s like he thinks he conning his god in some way. I dunno.

    What’s funny is what happened with one of my friends in high school. We spent a long time trying to get through to him that he wasn’t cursing any less by saying fudge, instead of fuck. It finally worked … and he stopped saying fudge.

  111. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Narf
    Counterpoint: In D&D, saying the name of a god might attract the god’s attention, and so “he who shall not be named” is a perfectly functional stand-in. So, in terms of disrespect it doesn’t matter if you use “god” or “g-d”, but maybe there’s some kind of functional magic going on which does matter whether you use “god” or “that asshole”.
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FunctionalMagic

  112. says

    Hi Jerry – This probably got lost among the posts, but what denomination are you ?
    Are you still catholic, if not – what are you now?

    I’d like to know.

  113. Narf says

    @135 – EL
    Hmmmm. That’s a thing, but we aren’t talking about omniscient/omnipresent deities, in those cases. In a world with magic spells, with specific incantations, which trigger something mystical with the particular syllables, that’s more of a thing. In a world with an omniscient, omnipresent creator-god, that couldn’t be it. It would have to be more of a matter of intent, rather than the actual syllables.

    This is one of the things about fundamentalists. They’re so much into the blind obedience, they never actually stop and think through why certain things are the way they are. Liberal believers are a little more fun, since they can actually sit back and speculate without running into their mental obedience-block.

    Most fundamentalists can’t get beyond, “God said it; I believe it.” They’re calling back to a time when the believers who were making this shit up really did think that the world worked more like a Dungeons & Dragons campaign. Yahweh wasn’t originally omnipotent or omniscient. He was just the most powerful kid on the block. Yet another thing that the fundamentalists can’t let sink into their heads, when they read their holy book. Christianity has been retconned so many times since it’s inception.

  114. Narf says

    @136 – Simon
    He definitely isn’t Catholic anymore. He stressed the Born Again thing in his definition of a True Christian, when he was trying to refute Matt having ever been a Christian. Catholics don’t do the Born Again thing.

    If I had to guess, he’s probably some sort of generic, nondenominational fundamentalist-evangelical. Most people in the Christian media are, particularly more out west. Narrowing themselves down to a specific denomination would cost them audience.

  115. says

    @138 Narf

    Yeah – that’s what I figured – particularly given that his first big copy-paste entry contained the following:

    “As I said before, I stand for the teaching of the Bible (which true Christians follow), not the duplicity and atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church. Also see How to distinguish between true and false Christianity?”

    I guess what I actually want to know is:

    – When you were a catholic, did you think you were right?
    – How did you come to the conclusion that catholicism was wrong?
    – Might you still be wrong?
    – What is the actual mechanism for being able to know which of the 30k denominations has it right?
    – Is that mechanism transferable? – Can you use it to convince me?

    How am i supposed to decide between one universal, unchanging absolute truth and any different universal, unchanging absolute truth based on the same book?

    I really would like to know….

    Jerry – help me out here…..

  116. Narf says

    @140 – Simon

    “As I said before, I stand for the teaching of the Bible (which true Christians follow), not the duplicity and atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church. Also see How to distinguish between true and false Christianity?”

    Ah, I missed that bit, when it came by. That would be a pretty explicit indicator, too.

    I guess what I actually want to know is:

    — You know that Pascal was Catholic, right? Are you willing to gamble on not following the rites of the one authorized Church of God, blessed and formed by the Apostle Peter?

  117. Narf says

    Nah, he’ll be back later. People do stuff sometimes. Besides, his radio show runs from 7:00 – 9:00 PM, PST, M,W,F. He’s doing that right now.

  118. Jerry Herrera says

    Hi Simon,
    thank you for asking what denomination:
    Well I was born and raised a Catholic until I was 27 years old, at 27 I began to wonder about religion, because there were so many other religions out there (which one is right?) and I felt a great void in my life that my Catholic faith was unable to fill, and my wife was not really grounded in any sort of religion either, which left the door wide open.
    We were first approached by a Jehovah Witness couple, and we studied with them for sometime until I asked her husband a question that he could not answer and began to agree with me even tho I had little or no knowledge of the Bible, his wife got upset with him for agreeing with me, and they never came back. My wife encountered some women from the Mormon church LDS and began studying with them and after a while she was seriously considering joining the Mormon church, My wife was working at the Lloyd Center in Portland, OR at that time in the tobacco dept. with a Black woman, and said to her that she was considering becoming a Mormon, when the lady went silent, my wife thought that she had said something wrong to her and began to apologize, but her lady friend merely said to my wife: “Ask them what they think about Black people”,,, long story short my wife did ask, only to find that Mormons at that time taught that Black people were a cursed race, but they were allowed to join the church, but, could never hold an office in their church. We obviously knew that was not true, through what little church up-bringing each us had. Finally a young Christian couple moved in a vacant house across our street, we soon got acquainted and became friends and found out the wife’s parents pastored a small Assembly of G-d church. We told them about our encounters with JW’s and Mormons, so they set up a Bible study in their home, and her parents conducted the Bible study.
    Long story short, after a time of Bible studying the scripture’s with them, one night the Pastor asked us, from all that we’ve been studying these past weeks, he asked if we would like to receive Jesus into our hearts. To our surprise neither my wife nor I had ever heard of such a thing. I thought he was going to ask us to join his church, or something like that.
    But we both agreed, he asked us some questions, such as do you believe that Jesus is the Son of G-d, that He died for your sins, that He rose from the dead and that He can forgive your sins? To that we answered yes, and then he lead us through a prayer, in which we sincerely confessed that we were sinners and asked Jesus to forgive our sins, cleanse us from all unrighteousness and make Him Lord of our lives’. we went home that night; now speaking for myself I felt nothing thinking it was some sort of formality prayer before they would want us to join their church or something to that nature.

    The next day and all that week, something changed in my life, that big void in my life was not there anymore (the Holy Spirit came in) I felt this huge weight lift from me (my sins were forgiven) I felt as though somebody turned on a light and for the first time in my life, I saw things in a whole different light. (“Born Again” a new creature in Christ Jesus)

    Now you asked me what denomination I belong to: NONE; I’m a “Christian,” I attend a Christian Church presently that is denominational, but I’m not a member. I hope this answers your question. “peace”
    Jerry Herrera

  119. Daniel Schealler says

    @134 – Narf

    What’s funny is what happened with one of my friends in high school. We spent a long time trying to get through to him that he wasn’t cursing any less by saying fudge, instead of fuck. It finally worked … and he stopped saying fudge.

    I’ve noticed a correlation where the stronger someone’s opinions are in opposition to allegedly bad words, the more naive that person is about how language actually works. 🙂

  120. Narf says

    That’s probably a thing, yeah, Daniel. I bet there are similarities in other areas of knowledge.

    When you know freaking nothing about a subject, you view it with a sort of superstitious fascination and dread. When you know a bit about it, it ceases to be scary and becomes normal. When you start learning a lot about it, the patterns and complex systems that orchestrate the phenomenon become fascinating on an entirely different level.

  121. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

     
    Comment: Narf on “First Rule of Holes”

    Thou shalt not take the name of thy Sky Captain in vain. 😀

     
    @EnlightenmentLiberal #135:

    saying the name of a god might attract the god’s attention, and so “he who shall not be named” is a perfectly functional stand-in.

    *Poof*
    *Looks around*
     

    but maybe there’s some kind of functional magic going on which does matter whether you use “god” or “that asshole”.

    Oh, you’re referring to Him.
     
    *Winks out*
     
     
    Article: Wikipedia – Tetragrammaton, Judaism

    the tetragrammaton and other names of God were spoken by the ancient Israelites and their neighbors.
     
    Some time after the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, the spoken use of God’s name as it was written ceased among the people, even though knowledge of the pronunciation was perpetuated in rabbinic schools. Philo calls it ineffable, and says that it is lawful for those only whose ears and tongues are purified by wisdom to hear and utter it in a holy place (that is, for priests in the Temple).

    The written tetragrammaton, as well as six other names of God, must be treated with special sanctity. They cannot be disposed of regularly, lest they be desecrated, but are usually put in long term storage or buried in Jewish cemeteries in order to retire them from use. Similarly, it is prohibited to write the tetragrammaton (or these other names) unnecessarily. In order to guard the sanctity of the Name sometimes a letter is substituted by a different letter in writing, or the letters are separated by one or more hyphens.

     
     
    The book “The Universal History of Numbers” says part of it was a True Name thing, which channels the entity’s power (appeal for intervention). (p254)
     
    It also mentions a related superstition (p214):

    North African shepherds used to count their flock by reciting a text that they knew by heart: “Praise be to Allah, the merciful, the kind…”. Instead of using the fixed order of number-names (one, two, three). They would use the fixed order of words of the prayer as a “counting machine”. When the last of the sheep was in the pen, the shepherd would simply retain the last word that he had said of the prayer as the name of the number of his flock.
    […]
    To name an entity is to limit it. So you must never say how many brothers, wives, or children you have. Never name the number of your cattle, sheep, or dwellings, or state your age or total wealth. For the forces of evil could capture the hidden power of the number if it were stated aloud, and thus dispose of the people or things involved.

  122. Jerry Herrera says

    Hi Narf_Say, all I’m asking, is to show me the same respect as I show to you. I know you don’t believe the Bible nor in the G-d of the Bible, but insults, and foul language are marks of ignorance and shows no more than a savage mentality.
    Yahweh, Jesuha, are also names for G-d. When Moses asked; who shall I say has sent me? When G-d commanded Moses to go back to Egypt and free the Israelite slaves from the hand of Pharaoh, He answered Moses, tell them “I Am that I Am” hast sent you. The Religious Jews/Pharisee’s during the time of Jesus understood plainly what “I Am” meant, because they took up stones to stone Jesus, because He said to the Pharisee’s; Before Abraham was; “I Am” meaning that He/Jesus is G-d so they accused Jesus of Blasphemy, which eventually led to a false trial by the Pharisee’s and His Crucifixion by Governor Pontius Pilot. “peace”

  123. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I know you don’t believe the Bible nor in the G-d of the Bible, but insults, and foul language are marks of ignorance and shows no more than a savage mentality.

    Nope. It is indicative of a mind not enslaved to patently false dogma like your own.

  124. Jerry Herrera says

    ATHEIST – VOLTAIRE; SOUNDS LIKE HE DIED A VERY CONFUSED MAN:
    Voltaire and the Marquise also explored philosophy, particularly metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that deals with being and with what lies beyond the material realm such as whether or not there is a God or souls, etc. Voltaire and the Marquise analyzed the Bible, trying to discover its validity for their time. Voltaire’s critical views on religion are reflected in his belief in separation of church and state and religious freedom, ideas that he had formed after his stay in England.
    In February 1778, Voltaire returned for the first time in 20 years to Paris, among other reasons to see the opening of his latest tragedy, Irene. The five-day journey was too much for the 83-year-old, and he believed he was about to die on 28 February, writing “I die adoring God, loving my friends, not hating my enemies, and detesting superstition.” However, he recovered, and in March saw a performance of Irene, where he was treated by the audience as a returning hero
    He soon became ill again and died on 30 May 1778. The accounts of his deathbed have been numerous and varying, and it has not been possible to establish the details of what precisely occurred. His enemies related that he repented and accepted the last rites given by a Catholic priest, or that he died under great torment, while his adherents told how he was defiant to his last breath. According to one story, his last words were, “Now is not the time for making new enemies.” It was his response to a priest at the side of his deathbed, asking Voltaire to renounce Satan.

    Friedrich Nietzsche ATHEIST/ CALLED FOR RE-EVALUATION OF OLD VALUES (a result of modern thinking (the death of God) would naturally cause a rise innihilism or the lack of values.)
    Friedrich Nietzsche, a prominent nineteenth century philosopher, is well known for coining the aphorism “God is dead” (German: “Gott ist tot”); incidentally the phrase was not spoken by Nietzsche directly, but was used as a dialogue for the characters in his works. Nietzsche argued that Christian theism as a belief system had been a moral foundation of the Western world, and that the rejection and collapse of this foundation as a result of modern thinking (the death of God) would naturally cause a rise innihilism or the lack of values. While Nietzsche was staunchly atheistic, he was also concerned about the negative effects of nihilism on humanity. As such, he called for a re-evaluation of old values and a creation of new ones, hoping that in doing so humans would achieve a higher state he labeled the Over man.
    Atheist feminism also began in the nineteenth century. Atheist feminism is a movement that advocates feminism within atheism. Atheist feminists also oppose religion as a main source of female oppression and inequality, believing that the majority of the religions are sexist and oppressive to women.

  125. Jerry Herrera says

    I beg to differ enlightened:
    Foul Language , Insults are signs of a Mental Disorder.
    “cuss control” Swearing is bad for the following reasons:

    Swearing Imposes a Personal Penalty
    It gives a bad impression
    It makes you unpleasant to be with
    It endangers your relationships
    It’s a tool for whiners and complainers
    It reduces respect people have for you
    It shows you don’t have control
    It’s a sign of a bad attitude
    It discloses a lack of character
    It’s immature
    It reflects ignorance
    It sets a bad example

    Swearing is Bad for Society
    It contributes to the decline of civility
    It represents the dumbing down of America
    It offends more people than you think
    It makes others uncomfortable
    It is disrespectful of others
    It turns discussions into arguments
    It can be a sign of hostility
    It can lead to violence

    Swearing corrupts the English languageIt’s abrasive, lazy language
    It doesn’t communicate clearly
    It neglects more meaningful words
    It lacks imagination
    It has lost its effectiveness

    Ref:
    http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Intermittent-explosive-disorder.html

  126. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Atheist Experience people – I know this might not be my place – but whenever you want to warn or ban this guy, I think we’re all ok with it. Jerry is just copy-pasting large segments of text at this point, with no attribution, and the text has a tenuous connection at best to the discussion at hand.

  127. Daniel Schealler says

    I’m not a regular here, but I concur with EnlightenmentLiberal.

    Jerry isn’t really contributing to anything or engaging with anyone. It’s just tenuous copy/pasting without anything much to get stuck into.

    It’s boring.

  128. Narf says

    Jerry, you’re linking something that’s some kind of uncontrolled-rage disorder, then saying that any usage of profanity fits under that disorder. What’s wrong with you?

    Don’t try to play armchair psychologist with someone who actually has a fairly strong background in psychology. It just makes you look like an ignorant fool. I know you’re ignorant about a great many things, but try not to be foolish about it and pretend that you know things, about which you have no clue.

    Yahweh, Jesuha, are also names for G-d.

    No, Yeshua is not one of the names that were consolidated into the god of the Old Testament. Yeshua, if he lived at all, was a guy who was born during the reign of Augustus Caesar, who claimed to be the incarnation of the Jewish god, according to the myths that grew up around him, decades after his supposed death.

  129. Narf says

    Hi Narf_Say, all I’m asking, is to show me the same respect as I show to you.

    And no, I’m not going to show you respect when you do aggressively ignorant things like throw out all of that nonsense about Intermittent Explosive Disorder, as if it has anything to do with my pattern of profanity. My usage of profanity is calculated and used as punctuation, when I feel it’s deserved.

    You have to earn respect, and you’re not doing so with this sort of nonsense. I’ve shown you link after link, demonstrating where you’re grossly ignorant of the subjects you’re attempting to lecture us on, and you have yet to acknowledge a single thing. You just continue to shovel random garbage about atheism, from sources that don’t comprehend atheism, and now you’re adding misapplied psychology to your copy-paste, non-conversational style.

    What part of that am I supposed to respect?

  130. Jerry Herrera says

    (Darf to Jerry) you’re linking something that’s some kind of uncontrolled-rage disorder, then saying that any usage of profanity fits under that disorder. What’s wrong with you? (Nothing is wrong with me, G-d cleaned up my bad language when He saved me. Before I got saved, I thought just like you, and that there was nothing wrong with foul, vulgar language-I highly dis-agree with you, maybe someday you will see differently about it)

    (Darf to Jerry) Don’t try to play armchair psychologist with someone who actually has a fairly strong background in psychology. It just makes you look like an ignorant fool. I know you’re ignorant about a great many things, but try not to be foolish about it and pretend that you know things, about which you have no clue.
    ( I’m not trying to play arm chair psychologist, I gave a link to “enlightenment” you might want to check it out yourself since you say you have a strong background in psychology: http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Intermittent-explosive-disorder.html

    Yahweh, Jesuha, are also names for G-d.

    (Darf to Jerry) No, Yeshua is not one of the names that were consolidated into the god of the Old Testament. Yeshua, if he lived at all, was a guy who was born during the reign of Augustus Caesar, who claimed to be the incarnation of the Jewish god, according to the myths that grew up around him, decades after his supposed death.
    ( I beg to differ: Hebrew Names for God – Yeshua Ha-Mashiach -Yeshua HaMashiach is indeed God the Son. LINK: http://us.wow.com/search?s_pt=aolsem&s_it=aolsem&s_chn=60&q=yeshua%20hamashia
    “peace”

  131. Narf says

    ( I’m not trying to play arm chair psychologist, I gave a link to “enlightenment” you might want to check it out yourself since you say you have a strong background in psychology: http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Intermittent-explosive-disorder.html

    Dude, did you read the freaking article that you linked? Nowhere on that page does it even hint at the idea that all expressions of profanity are classified as Intermittent Explosive Disorder. Are you really this stupid?

    What I’m doing has nothing to do with uncontrolled rage. It has everything to do with frustration at your ongoing incomprehension, which makes your understanding inferior to my grasp of many scholarly matters when I was in middle school.

  132. Daniel Schealler says

    @158 – Narf

    This armchair psychology thing looks fun. I’m gonna jump on that bandwagon and see how it goes.

    He read it. He just didn’t parse it.

    C’mon, you have to be familiar with the phenomenon. They read the text, in the sense that they cast their eyeballs over it. But they don’t parse the text, because they don’t know how, they don’t even know what that would feel like. They don’t even realize that they’re failing to do something, it’s a total blind spot.

    They come away having absorbed the tone and the emotion that they want to see and wind up stronger in their convictions than when they started.

    When we come at them, they don’t parse what we say either. They perceive anger and frustration in what we write, which ties in with the preconception that we’re all angry sinners who have turned away from God out of shame and the desire to sin without having to confront His Highness about the sordid business of our lives.

    So they turn around and give us the only thing that to them seems sensible or reasonable: WIshy-washy text that fulfills the emotional role that they’re tied into.

    The fact that the text they serve up doesn’t actually match what we or they are actually saying is a direct consequence of two failures. The first is their inability to parse text when they read it. The second is that they don’t realize that there is something that they are failing to do.

    It’s all down to a simple lack of reading comprehension. Everything is phatic to these guys. Nothing is concrete.

    This armchair psychology thing is fun. I should do it more often. 🙂

  133. frankgturner says

    @Daniel # 159
    I would concur with that statement. It sounds like if he ever read the Bible he came away unaware of all of the atrocities found within it even if one claimed that it was without contradiction. I have mentioned how there was a woman in my building who we discussed the Bible and when I mentioned having read it she claimed that I didn’t because if I had I would have come away with a “feeling” of it being loving and caring (never mind all of the genocide),
    .
    And there seem to be a number of individuals who will claim that slavery is not endorsed (despite it being condoned in both the old and new testaments, even by Jesus himself) or recognizing the mass genocide found within it. Jerry here seems to have gone from being a naive ignorant Catholic with no good knowledge of what is found in scripture to being a naive ignorant non-denominational Xtian with cherry picked knowledge of what is found in scripture. I would suggest him reading it from cover to cover but I don’t think it would help.
    .
    I think he might vaguely find it interesting that there are those who walk away with that same emotional (hell it seems hypnotic) feeling of “letting Jesus into their heart” that DON’T insist that every word of scripture is non contradictory or that every word is factual. Heck some renowned evolutionary psychologists and geneticists out there “let Jesus into their heart.” Like you said though, he won’t parse it. The details are flying by him. I doubt that he will parse this.

  134. Narf says

    @159 – Daniel
    Yeah, I just can’t grasp that level of reading incomprehension, though. I know I’m genius level in most respects, so far outside of the norm … but I just can’t get my head into that kind of … argh! How do you not at least know that you’re not even vaguely grasping something?

    So they turn around and give us the only thing that to them seems sensible or reasonable: WIshy-washy text that fulfills the emotional role that they’re tied into.

    I can’t offer much guarantee on your accuracy in most of your post, but you are freaking dead on, here. So many people like Jerry don’t know even basic methods for evaluating truth claims. If it gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling, then it’s true. I’ve talked to several street evangelists who just gave me a blank stare, when I asked them what their system for evaluating the truth of claims is, outside of an authoritarian mindset. They didn’t even know where to begin.

    This sort of thing is why I refused to promise Jerry that I wouldn’t be insulting or disrespectful, by the way. I knew something like this had to be coming, at some point. After this last burst of stupidity from Jerry, how can you not be at least a little insulting? And then he has the gall to suggest that I should enlighten myself by reading the article he linked, after I had already explained that it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I mean, this is just mind-numbing.

  135. Andres Villarreal says

    @145, 146: Daniel Schealler and Narf:
    I think you have not envisioned the whole “power of words” thing. What I understand of it is that you actually have power over god when you learn his name and use it, just as I have power over you if I make a puppet with your hair and stick needles in it.

    In the psychological states of mind that create the illusion of magic there is no difference between the symbol (the word or the puppet) and the symbolized entity. It is not just a matter of respect. I have heard people say that, according to the Bible, God has never revealed his real name and if a human ever speaks it, the end of the world, or something as bad, will fall on us all.

    It is quite incredible that people believe in the power of the word (beyond the power to transmit ideas). God was capable of inspiring the Bible on somebody’s head, absolutely correct and true to the very last word, but somehow lost interest and permitted every copyist after that to make mistakes by the thousands. God even achieved the impossible, by writing the absolute, non-contextual, perfect book in ancient Greek, or ancient Hebrew, or ancient Arab even though it is relatively simple to show with Information Theory that almost everything in those languages is relative and contextual and subjective. And then, just out of respect for a species that he has almost destroyed several times for being damaged, he stopped inspiring the copyists of this book. Why did he bother inspiring it in the first place?

    And why is he fooled by the unusual spelling in his name? Does he not read the mind of the writer, who thinks “God” when he writes “G-D”? Or is he bothered by the thoughts and words of a being he could destroy with half a thought? It is like a human getting mad at an amoeba. The only explanation of this is because, for some people, words have actual magical powers.

  136. says

    #151 is probably the most epically mommyish exercise in tone-trolling I’ve ever read. Anyway, how can swearing have “lost its effectiveness” and yet at the same time “make others uncomfortable,” “offend more people than you think,” “contribute to the decline of civility,” and “lead to violence”? Pick a narrative, pearl clutchers!

    Or should I say pick a fucking narrative?

  137. Jerry Herrera says

    Narf_ That’s only your opinion; and I highly disagree.
    What the Hippies of today are ignorant of, is that the Hippies of the 60’s were rebelling against the Establishment, burning the American Flag, Burning their Draft Cards, Dodging the draft by going up to Canada during the Vietnam War, and your President, Bill Clinton being one of them; The Liberal Communist/Markist Hippies of the 60’s are the one’s running our country now. Now they not only destroyed the Establishment by Rebellion of the 60’s, they are now in Rebellion against G-d and have kicked Him out our country, and now we wonder why we are in Dept to the moon, our economy is in the toilet, our borders are a big Joke, Mall-School shootings, almost on a daily occurrence, child pornography, homosexuality, Abortion (holocaust on the unborn 94 per day on average) witchcraft on the rise.
    O, but that’s Judging (O, I forgot) “Duh”
    ◄ Psalm 9:17 ►
    The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

  138. Jerry Herrera says

    @ (you’ll be shown the door)_ Actually I can think for myself “Believe or Not”

    What Hippies of today are ignorant of, is that the Hippies of the 60’s were rebelling against the Establishment, burning the American Flag, Burning their Draft Cards, Dodging the draft by going up to Canada during the Vietnam War, and your President, Bill Clinton being one of them; The Liberal Communist/Marxist Hippies of the 60’s are the one’s running our country now. Now they not only destroyed the Establishment by Rebellion of the 60’s, they are now in Rebellion against G-d and have kicked Him out our country, and now we wonder why we are in Dept to the moon, our economy is in the toilet, our borders are a big Joke, Mall-School shootings, almost on a daily occurrence, child pornography, homosexuality, Abortion (holocaust on the unborn 94 per day on average) witchcraft on the rise.
    O, but that’s Judging (O, I forgot) “Duh”
    ◄ Psalm 9:17 ►
    The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

  139. says

    Ooh my witchcraft now, shoulda seen that coming. Our childish friend may have regurgitated all the differences twixt Allah and Yahweh, but he(?) left out the one glaring similarity – they are both imaginary monsters under the bed. Booo scary.

  140. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Andres_What Hippies of today are ignorant of, is that the Hippies of the 60’s were rebelling against the Establishment, burning the American Flag, Burning their Draft Cards, Dodging the draft by going up to Canada during the Vietnam War, and your President, Bill Clinton being one of them; The Liberal Communist/Marxist Hippies of the 60’s are the one’s running our country now. Now, they not only destroyed the Establishment by Rebellion in the 60’s, they are now in Rebellion against G-d and have kicked Him out our country, and now we wonder why we are in Debt to the moon, our economy is in the toilet, our borders are a big Joke, Mall-School shootings, almost on a daily occurrence, child pornography, homosexuality, Abortion/Murder on demand (holocaust on the unborn, 94 per day on average) witchcraft on the rise.
    O, but that’s Judging (O, I forgot) “Duh”
    ◄ Psalm 9:17 ►
    The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

  141. Jerry Herrera says

    @Monocle, maybe you’ll recover the brain cells you lost when you read my article:

    What Hippies of today are ignorant of, is that the Hippies of the 60’s were rebelling against the Establishment, burning the American Flag, Burning their Draft Cards, Dodging the draft by going up to Canada during the Vietnam War, and your President, Bill Clinton being one of them; The Liberal Communist/Marxist Hippies of the 60’s are the one’s running our country now. Now, they not only destroyed the Establishment by Rebellion in the 60’s, they are now in Rebellion against G-d and have kicked Him out our country, and now we wonder why we are in Debt to the moon, our economy is in the toilet, our borders are a big Joke, Mall-School shootings, almost on a daily occurrence, child pornography, homosexuality, Abortion/Murder on demand (holocaust on the unborn, 94 per day on average) witchcraft on the rise.
    O, but that’s Judging (O, I forgot) “Duh”
    ◄ Psalm 9:17 ►
    The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

  142. Ethan Myerson says

    I’m struggling to find a context for that anti-Hippie screed. Was there something (real, extant, manifest in reality) that brought that on, or did it just feel like the right thing to say three times?

  143. Jerry Herrera says

    @ frankgtuner_for your info. I have never stopped reading the Bible, from cover to cover since 1970, now let me lay some info on you:

    What Hippies of today are ignorant of, is that the Hippies of the 60’s were rebelling against the Establishment, burning the American Flag, Burning their Draft Cards, Dodging the draft by going up to Canada during the Vietnam War, and your President, Bill Clinton being one of them; The Liberal Communist/Marxist Hippies of the 60’s are the one’s running our country now. Now, they not only destroyed the Establishment by Rebellion in the 60’s, they are now in Rebellion against G-d and have kicked Him out our country, and now we wonder why we are in Debt to the moon, our economy is in the toilet, our borders are a big Joke, Mall-School shootings, almost on a daily occurrence, child pornography, homosexuality, Abortion/Murder on demand (holocaust on the unborn, 94 per day on average) witchcraft on the rise.
    O, but that’s Judging (O, I forgot) “Duh”
    ◄ Psalm 9:17 ►
    The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

  144. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Daniel_ don’t worry about talking behind my back, I don’t mind; What I do mind is; you making judgments about me not comprehending what I read. I fully comprehended the link I sent to Darf (Psychologist Link) It has to do with anger outburst, what’s so hard to understand about that? Atheists are victims of anger outburst, by Vulgar, insulting, foul language outburst, like your messiah Matt Dillahunty,,, (Do you engage in vulgar, insulting, foul language with your wives and visa versa ???) if you do, you really do need “Anger Management”
    Now here is a little info that I’ve been posting to other Atheist’s in this group:

    What Hippies of today are ignorant of, is that the Hippies of the 60’s were rebelling against the Establishment, burning the American Flag, Burning their Draft Cards, Dodging the draft by going up to Canada during the Vietnam War, and your President, Bill Clinton being one of them; The Liberal Communist/Marxist Hippies of the 60’s are the one’s running our country now. Now, they not only destroyed the Establishment by Rebellion in the 60’s, they are now in Rebellion against G-d and have kicked Him out our country, and now we wonder why we are in Debt to the moon, our economy is in the toilet, our borders are a big Joke, Mall-School shootings, almost on a daily occurrence, child pornography, homosexuality, Abortion/Murder on demand (holocaust on the unborn, 94 per day on average) witchcraft on the rise.
    O, but that’s Judging (O, I forgot) “Duh”
    ◄ Psalm 9:17 ►
    The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

  145. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Martin_ “Actually Dude, I do have some thoughts of my own” (Believe It or Not)
    Now here is a little info that I’ve been posting to other Atheist’s in this group:

    What Hippies of today are ignorant of, is that the Hippies of the 60’s were rebelling against the Establishment, burning the American Flag, Burning their Draft Cards, Dodging the draft by going up to Canada during the Vietnam War, and your President, Bill Clinton being one of them; The Liberal Communist/Marxist Hippies of the 60’s are the one’s running our country now. Now, they not only destroyed the Establishment by Rebellion in the 60’s, they are now in Rebellion against G-d and have kicked Him out our country, and now we wonder why we are in Debt to the moon, our economy is in the toilet, our borders are a big Joke, Mall-School shootings, almost on a daily occurrence, child pornography, homosexuality, Abortion/Murder on demand (holocaust on the unborn, 94 per day on average) and witchcraft on the rise.
    O, but that’s Judging (O, I forgot) “Duh”
    ◄ Psalm 9:17 ►
    The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

  146. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Did he really copy-paste that screed into 5 separate posts?

    @Jerry
    You only need to write and post something once. Don’t post it 5 times. If you didn’t write it yourself, preferably post it zero times, and instead provide a single link in a single post. Stop copy-pasting work that is not your own, and especially stop posting spamming the same content, or the Atheist Experience people will ban you.

  147. StonedRanger says

    Jerry, please stop. Can we get a moderator in here to clean this mess up? Posting the same nonsense seven times is childish. You don’t have an original thought in your head, that’s why all you can do is cut/paste, and spam the same thing over and over.
    You should be ashamed. Poor behavior in the name of your god is still poor behavior. Grow the fuck up. As an Oregon resident, I apologize for this person. He most certainly does not represent the bulk of the people in this state. Jerry, you should link up with scott lively. That would be a match made in heaven.

  148. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Ethan_for your info, I’m 72 years young; I was there; remember? you were probably not even born back then, regardless, you should bring your head out of the clouds long enough to check-out the “Real World you live in” instead of the dream world you’ve created for yourself; that’s my advice to you.
    ◄ 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ►
    “The Light of the Gospel”
    And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world (Satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of G-d.

  149. StonedRanger says

    At 72 years old you should know better. Just because you were there doesn’t mean you were a part of it. You were way too old back then to be a hippy. So give it up. You have no actual insight as to what a hippy was, did, or wanted. Im sixty and I was right in the middle of all that. And please stop with the bible quotes dude, no one gives a shit about them. That’s what makes you an irritant more than anything else. I am now beginning to think this is the worst kind of poe. The we interact with it, the worse it behaves. Shame on you jerry for not living in the shadow of Christ. Your behavior here is abhorrent. Please stop.

  150. Ethan Myerson says

    Jerry, you’re quite right that I wasn’t there (if by “there” you mean experiencing the counterculture of the 1960’s). I was born in the 70s, so I missed the fun times. But as a humanist, I still get to fight for social equalities and justice, so in a sense, I am still “there”.

    But the point wasn’t whether I was there, or whether you were. The point was that you seemed to be responding (7 times, at that) to a hidden stimulus. I’m not sure what brought on that screed.

    In a sense, though, I’m glad you did it. Because it opens the door to a fundamental conversation; one that I hope you’ll be willing to have openly and honestly. One of the things you mentioned in that passage was that Hippies have kicked your god “out of the country”, and the consequences of that include, among other things, the claim that witchcraft is on the rise. I’d like to ask how you define witchcraft, and how you know it’s on the rise.

    I ask this because you’re making a claim about reality. Claims about reality should be testable, right? I mean, if you say witchcraft is on the rise and someone else says, no in fact it’s on the decline, we should be able to find some way to find out who is right. Since you’re the one saying it’s on the rise, can you point to how I can verify that claim?

    I apologize if I sound flippant. I am absolultely not. I am completely sincere in my question.

  151. Jerry Herrera says

    @enlightment_as I’ve explained B4, I only copy paste articles that are pertinent to the subject matter or I offer a link to confer to that subject; I see nothing wrong with that; if you don’t like it, then don’t bother reading my posts. (It’s called Whining)
    here are some quotes: Quotes on Complaining
    “You can complain because roses have thorns, or you can rejoice because thorns have roses.” Ziggy
    “I had no shoes and complained, until I met a man who had no feet.” Indian Proverb”
    “The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” William Arthur Ward
    “Don’t complain about the snow on your neighbor’s roof when your own doorstep is unclean.” Confucius
    ◄ Matthew 7:5 ►
    You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the speck out of your brother’s eye.

    G-d love’s you enlightenment, and so do I, please get a Bible and read it from cover to cover as I have since 1970, it is there you will find the “Truth” that is in Christ Jesus. “peace”

  152. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @enlightment_as I’ve explained B4, I only copy paste articles that are pertinent to the subject matter or I offer a link to confer to that subject; I see nothing wrong with that; if you don’t like it, then don’t bother reading my posts. (It’s called Whining)

    Yeah. If Jerry is going to be that difficult and outright refuse to not spam, then my vote is to ban. (Valueless vote, because I don’t own the place.)

  153. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Stoneranger_ sorry my copy paste offends you. What you do-not understand is: I try to answer every post to me, or directed at me, to that particular individual, if that offends you; “then don’t read it” stop whining.

    QUOTES ABOUT COMPLAINING:
    “You can complain because roses have thorns, or you can rejoice because thorns have roses.” Ziggy
    “I had no shoes and complained, until I met a man who had no feet.” Indian Proverb”
    “The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” William Arthur Ward
    “Don’t complain about the snow on your neighbor’s roof when your own doorstep is unclean.” Confucius
    ◄ Matthew 7:5 ►
    You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the speck out of your brother’s eye.
    G-d love’s you, and so do I, please get a Bible and read it from cover to cover like I have since 1970. It is there you find the “Truth” that is in Christ Jesus. “peace”

  154. Narf says

    @163 – Andres Villarreal

    I think you have not envisioned the whole “power of words” thing. What I understand of it is that you actually have power over god when you learn his name and use it, just as I have power over you if I make a puppet with your hair and stick needles in it.

    It isn’t so much that I hadn’t envisioned that aspect, as much as that I hadn’t thought that any Christians would apply it to their god.

    I’m well acquainted with the proposal, having hung out with a few pagans in my late teens and early 20’s. The power of someone’s true name (which they pulled out of their ass and had no inherent attachment to them) was a commonly-held belief.

    Do you really think there’s some connection there? If so, that would be freaking hilarious. I pretty much always perceive more of a messed-up concept of how you venerate someone. It could have originated in the true-names-give-you-power-over-something thing, a couple thousand years ago, but I don’t think there’s any real trace of that left in the minds of modern Christians.

  155. Jerry Herrera says

    @ StoneRanger_ you’re 60 and I’m 72 and you’re trying to me what I know and don’t know? For your info I was smoking dope when it was not cool to smoke dope, then the sixties came along and if you didn’t smoke dope you weren’t “Hip” as in Hippy. what you don’t know, mister knows it all, is: I was heavily involved in the “Hippy Movement” and was having a grand time, Free Love,/Sex, Drugs and Rock n’Roll and being a singer and a lead guitar player in many, many different bands, I was having a blast. So don’t try to say things about me you know nothing about.
    ◄ Proverbs 18:13 ►
    He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.

  156. Narf says

    @166 – Jerry Herrera

    Narf_ That’s only your opinion; and I highly disagree.

    Dude, I have no clue what you’re even referring to here. If you’re going to have a discussion with someone, you really need to work on your communication skills, because they’re pitiful.

    The Liberal Communist/Markist Hippies of the 60’s are the one’s running our country now.

    This is one of the most disgraceful things you’ve said yet. Have you taken a look at the makeup of the government for the past 15 years or so? Or are you trying to blame the national debt on the liberal media, or something similarly insane?

  157. Narf says

    @171 – Ethan Myerson

    I’m struggling to find a context for that anti-Hippie screed. Was there something (real, extant, manifest in reality) that brought that on, or did it just feel like the right thing to say three times?

    7 times, now …
    Jerry, you know that your behavior on here makes you look like a halfwit, right? And you want me to listen to what comes out of your mouth for two freaking hours?

    I’m beyond expecting any sort of rational link between any two points in this guy’s thought process. He seems to be saying that using profanity leads to some sort of psychotic rage-disorder. That’s the only thing I can pull out of his incoherent assemblage of statements and links. Either that or he’s accusing me of having a psychotic rage-disorder, because I use profanity. I dunno; he never made a clear statement of what point he was trying to make, beyond some vague statement about my enlightenment … which is pretty hilarious coming from someone who didn’t even understand the article he linked.

  158. Narf says

    @178 – StonedRanger

    I am now beginning to think this is the worst kind of poe.

    Sadly, no. I vaguely remember his call in to the show. You could hear it in his voice. He really is this feeble-minded. Almost no one is that good of an actor, making things up on the fly like that, and anyone who is that good would not be wasting his time like this, in a blog comment-section.

  159. JimB says

    Jesus Fucking Christ!

    and your President, Bill Clinton being one of them; The Liberal Communist/Marxist Hippies of the 60’s are the one’s running our country now. Now, they not only destroyed the Establishment by Rebellion in the 60’s, they are now in Rebellion against G-d and have kicked Him out our country, and now we wonder why we are in Debt to the moon, our economy is in the toilet, our borders are a big Joke, Mall-School shootings, almost on a daily occurrence, child pornography, homosexuality, Abortion/Murder on demand (holocaust on the unborn, 94 per day on average) and witchcraft on the rise.

    What the fuck is the color of grass on your world?

    We had a surplus when Clinton left office. That fucking asshole Bush put us into debt with his two wars. And why isn’t he on trial for crimes against humanity like our laws and conventions require? And if you actually had some passing acquaintance with reality you might notice that the economy is improving thanks to Obama.

    Do you have any idea what ” almost on a daily occurrence” means? I mean seriously. Words have meaning!

    And somebody has already pointed out your idiocy on “Witchcraft”. ooooooo witches…

    Jesus Fucking Christ. What a maroon!

  160. Jerry Herrera says

    (@Ethan)____________________________________________________________________________(First of all Ethan, thank you for you politeness, it’s always a pleasure to talk with someone minus the hostilities.)
    _____________________________________________________________________________________
    (Ethan to Jerry) you’re quite right that I wasn’t there (if by “there” you mean experiencing the counterculture of the 1960’s). I was born in the 70s, so I missed the fun times. But as a humanist, I still get to fight for social equalities and justice, so in a sense, I am still “there”. ( Jerry to Ethan, Yes, I was there and in it: I was smoking dope when it was not cool to smoke dope, then the sixties came along and if you didn’t smoke dope you weren’t “Hip” as in Hippy. I was heavily involved in the “Hippy Movement” and was having a grand time, Free Love,/Sex, Drugs and Rock n’ Roll and being a singer and a lead guitar player in many, many different bands, I was having a blast.)
    (Ethan to Jerry) But the point wasn’t whether I was there, or whether you were. The point was that you seemed to be responding (7 times, at that) to a hidden stimulus. I’m not sure what brought on that screed. ( Jerry to Ethan_I guess the same answer to 7 different replies I got?)
    (Ethan to Jerry) In a sense, though, I’m glad you did it. Because it opens the door to a fundamental conversation; one that I hope you’ll be willing to have openly and honestly. One of the things you mentioned in that passage was that Hippies have kicked your god “out of the country”, and the consequences of that include, among other things, the claim that witchcraft is on the rise. I’d like to ask how you define witchcraft, and how you know it’s on the rise.( Jerry to Ethan_ Witchcraft: The Greek word “pharmakia” literally means “drugs”, and appears five times in the New Testament: in Gal 5:20, Rev 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, and 22:15.
    “Pharmakia” is translated into our English Bible as either “witchcraft” or “sorceries”. We also get our English word “pharmacy” from the Greek word “pharmakia”)
    (Ethan to Jerry) I ask this because you’re making a claim about reality. Claims about reality should be testable, right? I mean, if you say witchcraft is on the rise and someone else says, no in fact it’s on the decline, we should be able to find some way to find out who is right. Since you’re the one saying it’s on the rise, can you point to how I can verify that claim? ( Jerry to Ethan_ I just did in above answer)
    I apologize if I sound flippant. I am absolultely not. I am completely sincere in my question. ( Jerry to Ethan, Not a prob-lemo (Spanish) and again thank for your inquiry and polite mannerism. Jerry Herrera “peace”)
    (Proverbs 15:18)
    A hot-tempered person stirs up conflict, but the one who is patient calms a quarrel.

  161. Narf says

    So, how many times are you going to post that garbage about complaining, Jerry?

    @180 – Jerry

    … I only copy paste articles that are pertinent to the subject matter or I offer a link to confer to that subject …

    I have yet to see you make any connection between the articles that you pasted — without attribution, I might add — and the discussion at hand. You just dropped the article about the history of atheism, to lie there like a steaming pile of crap, and I still have no freaking clue what point you were trying to make with the article, since you never explained yourself.

  162. Narf says

    @188

    (First of all Ethan, thank you for you politeness, it’s always a pleasure to talk with someone minus the hostilities.)

    I was quite polite at first, too, Jerry. They just haven’t had as much exposure. Give them some time.

  163. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Narf_ Well, lets hope that Ethan always keeps a “civil tongue” you will get farther in life that way.
    ENGLISH DICTIONARY – civilized or civilised
    Having a high state of culture and social development – cultured; polite ⇒ a civilized discussion.
    ◄ Proverbs 18:21 ►
    Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.
    [Proverbs 10:19]
    Sin is not ended by multiplying words, but the prudent hold their tongues.
    [Proverbs 13:3]
    Those who guard their lips preserve their lives, but those who speak rashly will come to ruin.
    [Proverbs 21:23]
    Those who guard their mouths and their tongues keep themselves from calamity.
    [Isaiah 3:10]
    Tell the righteous it will be well with them, for they will enjoy the fruit of their deeds.

  164. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jerry
    You also need to learn how to quote people in a way that’s readable. It’s hard to what stuff is yours, what text is someone else’s, and what text is from an outside source.
    This is how you do a blockquote in this blog:
    <blockquote> quoted text goes here </blockquote>
    becomes:

    quoted text goes here

    Also, the preview button is your friend to make sure you don’t have a typo in your blockquotes.

    You also need to start posting citations when you copy-paste from somewhere else.

  165. says

    Interesting, I read the BuyBull aboot the same time our righteous copypaster did. I still canna believe adults take that murderous nonsense seriously. Jeraldo is the kind of Xtian that the more newagey “it’s all lovey dovey” types despise for highjacking their religion.

  166. says

    I worked with a woman who would never, ever cuss because Buddy Jebus. She did, however, ‘frig this’ and ‘friggin that’ all day long. She had no idea that frig = fuck, until I set her straoght. You shoulda seen her face almost implode.

  167. Jerry Herrera says

    Thank you “enlightenment”
    (sorry, but, being politically and literacy/linguistics correct; is “not one of my greatest virtues.” I do my best tho in trying, you can’t please everybody, Jesus Christ most definitely did not please everybody.)

  168. frankgturner says

    @ Jerry # 172
    Which is precisely what we are talking about, you are not parsing what we are saying. The main point was not if you had read the bible, but if afterwards you came away with knowledge of the atrocities mentioned in it. It is one thing to read it and get a warm fuzzy feeling and be blissfully unaware of what you don’t agree with in the writing. It is something else to read something with an honest demeanor and to be aware of the words.
    .
    You talk about “letting Jesus into your heart.” What does that even mean … to you? And I mean to you personally, not what some authority that you admire and can copy/paste from.
    .
    And regarding the authority of scripture, do you know how the works chosen for scripture wound up being in the bible? I mean it is not as though a white bearded man that looks like Charlton Heston in a white toga just descended from the clouds and handed the book in its complete form to the council of Nicea. Or do you believe that?
    .
    This is probably pointless as you are not reading this slowly and carefully being sure to comprehend every single word. You just glaze over it and get a feel for it. Which is fair, you may not have the capacity to look at this without your emotional reasoning getting in the way. You feel first and read second instead of the other way around. Put your feelings aside when you read, if you can.
    .
    You think people in here are angry. Might I ask, are you angry with Smaug the Dragon?

  169. Daniel Schealler says

    @173 Jerry

    don’t worry about talking behind my back, I don’t mind;

    That’s very gracious of you.

    However, it should be noted that I haven’t been talking behind your back. I have in fact been talking in front of your front. Important distinction, methinks. 🙂

    Basically, I addressed you directly earlier but you didn’t respond, so I started talking to other people. No biggie.

    … like your messiah Matt Dillahunty…

    This is exactly what I’m talking about, Jerry.

    Matt Dillahunty isn’t my messiah.

    I think he’s interesting on a lot of topics. And I think being an ex-preacher gives him a unique and useful insight into the religious mindset. But he’s just another human being. I’m not familiar with all of his work, and I can’t really say what kind of man he is because I don’t know the guy outside of his writing.

    Yet you attribute to me this position that I don’t have and have never said. You’re reading it in where it never existed.

    You’re not actually comprehending what is in front of you. You’re only seeing what you have already decided you want to see.

    Do you engage in vulgar, insulting, foul language with your wives and visa versa ???

    No fucking way. 🙂

    There’s nothing wrong with these words Jerry.

    Individual uses of those words might be wrong, if they are used abusively. But in that context it is the abuse that is wrong. The words are just collections of phonemes. Words have no power other than the power we imbue into them.

    In the words of my late and great Aunt Gwen: Piddle piss bum damn fuck. ^_^

    I think it’d be worthwhile for you to have a listen to what Stephen Pinker has to say on the subject of swearing.

    The Language of Swearing – Part 1
    The Language of Swearing – Part 2

  170. says

    Back in the day when us hoodlums could get away with crank phone calls, we’d call and give people the gears. When they’d demand to know who this is, we’d hit play on the portable casette recorder and Saint Carlin would boom out “I AM FUCK, FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN!”. Good times.

  171. Narf says

    @191 – Jerry Herrera

    @ Narf_ Well, lets hope that Ethan always keeps a “civil tongue” you will get farther in life that way.

    Jerry, I’m perfectly capable of being civil to 90+% of the people I interact with.  Between your preachy arrogance and assholish attempts to enlighten us on subjects about which you’re too ignorant and too stupid to comprehend a dumbed-down-for-the-public website-description, you don’t rate civility.

    The more I learn about you, the less I like you.  Your tirade against hippies was pretty disgusting.  If you oppose equal rights and fight against social justice, you are a bad person … probably irredeemable, at your age, with your level of brainwashing.  You should be glad I never listened to your radio show, because if you talk about the same sorts of things that you write about copy and paste from websites here, it would only increase my already significant contempt for you.

    Next, you’re probably going to post something justifying the execution of gay people, aren’t you?  How many comments are you going to paste that into?

  172. Ethan Myerson says

    #188

    Witchcraft: The Greek word “pharmakia” literally means “drugs”, and appears five times in the New Testament: in Gal 5:20, Rev 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, and 22:15.

    So, when you claimed that “witchcraft” is on the rise, you meant that “drug use” is on the rise. That claim is certainly untrue in some definitions (non medical pain reliever use among adolescents, for instance, is at its lowest point in at least a decade. Likewise illicit drug use, binge alcohol use by minors, first time drug use by minors, etc), and is likely untrue by most meaningful definitions. So, does this disproof of one of your claims invalidate your whole claim that “kicking god out of our country” has led to a host of societal ills? Since you were wrong about that set of statistics, could you be wrong about more? Maybe societal ills are not caused by kicking gods out of places. Maybe “witchcraft” (which we should apparently just call “drug use”) is actually lessened by kicking gods around. Or maybe god-kicking has no impact on drug use. I guess to really test the hypothesis, we’d need to define what a god is and how it gets kicked out of a place. Then we could set up an experiment. But I think the thing we can definitively state is that your original assertion has at least one error.

    But the veracity of the claim is only part of the issue. You used a word – “Witchcraft” – and attached an unusual meaning to it. Very few people would hear the word witchcraft and assume that you meant “drug use”. In my research, I found that Christian biblical scholars tend to interpret the passages about witchcraft to indeed be about spells, incantations, potions, and other mythological and magical concepts. They tend to read those passages to be about the unfamiliar and superstitious practices of the pagans who surely lived near the biblical authors. If you want to have a productive conversation, you should meet us halfway by communicating in a way that doesn’t require so much unpacking. Using words in ways that no one expects, and expecting us to follow along is confusing at best, and dishonest at worst. I’m making the assumption that you are indeed after a productive conversation. Maybe you’re not?

    *Drug use statistics from SAMHSA:
    http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/National_BHBarometer_2014/National_BHBarometer_2014.pdf

  173. Jerry Herrera says

    (Ethan to Jerry) So, when you claimed that “witchcraft” is on the rise, you meant that “drug use” is on the rise.
    (Jerry to Ethan) Yes, and Witccraft also. I noticed you’re only focused on ‘Drugs” and skipped over ‘Soceries’
    Full Definition of SORCERY:
    the use of power gained from the assistance or control of evil spirits especially for divining : “necromancy” “magic”
    Nec·ro·man·cy: the supposed practice of communicating with the dead, especially in order to predict the future.
    Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
    Related to SORCERY:
    bewitchery, bewitchment, conjuring, devilry (or deviltry), diablerie,enchantment, ensorcellment, mojo, necromancy, magic,thaumaturgy, voodooism, witchcraft, witchery, wizardry
    Other Occult Terms
    Augury, censor, invocation, lucidity, metempsychosis, mojo, numinous,preternatural, weird, wraith
    Link_http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sorcery

    Related to SORCERY:
    bewitchery, bewitchment, conjuring, devilry (or deviltry), diablerie,enchantment, ensorcellment, mojo, necromancy, magic,thaumaturgy, voodooism, witchcraft, witchery, wizardry
    Other Occult Terms
    Augury, censor, invocation, lucidity, metempsychosis, mojo, numinous,preternatural, weird, wraith
    MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION: (In case you do-not know marijuana is a ‘Drug’ like Alcohol and other Drugs, Cocain, Meth, LSD, HEROIN, Prescribed drugs and over the counter Drugs and the like. (many over the counter drugs were taken off the counter/market because of their mis-use.
    Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia (Washingtion D.C ) currently have laws legalizing marijuana in some form.
    Four states have legalized marijuana for recreational use. In Alaska, adults 21 and older can now transport, buy or possess up to an ounce of marijuana and six plants. Oregon voters approved a similar measure allowing adults to posses up to an ounce of marijuana in public and 8 ounces in their homes, set to take effect July 1. Officials in the District of Columbia are also moving ahead with plans to implement a marijuana initiative approved by voters.
    Colorado and Washington previously passed similar ballot measures legalizing marijuana in 2012.
    Other states have passed medical marijuana laws allowing for limited use of cannabis. Some medical marijuana laws are broader than others, with types of medical conditions that allow for treatment varying from state to state.
    In some states, criminal penalties have been eliminated for small amounts of marijuana. below is current as of Feb. 24, 2015. (Copy Pasted this section)
    Link: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.htmlInformation
    Abortion was prohibited in 30 states and legal under certain circumstances (such as pregnancies resulting from rape or incest) in 20 states. The Supreme Court 1973 decision Roe v. Wade invalidated all of these laws, and set guidelines for the availability of abortion.
    37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans
    Link: http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857
    (Jerry to Ethan) I don’t know what planet Atheist’s live on, but you all seem to be dis-conected to the real world around you, and I don’t say this in a critical manner; but in sadness, and as far a trying to discuss which god, the futility of that kind of discussion, leads no-where because Atheists do-not believe in the G-d of the Bible as so they claim.
    P.S. As you probably read my posts to Narf and enlightenment about “Anger Out Burst” – that it is a mental disorder. here is the link.
    Ref: http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Intermittent-explosive-disorder.html

  174. Jerry Herrera says

    P.S. Ethan_ Narf_enlightenment_ here is what is meant about “Anger Out Bursts” as being a mental disorder.

  175. Ethan Myerson says

    Yes, I neglected to make any references to sorcery, divination, alchemy, necromancy, conjuration or other bits of magic that are the usual definition of “witchcraft”, as I didn’t want to put words into your mouth. If all you really meant was drug use, it seemed unfair to attack the magic bits.

    But it’s clear that you did, in fact, mean as well that evil magic is on the rise. Do you mean that evil magic is a real thing that actually manifests in our shared reality? Again, I don’t want to put words into your mouth, so can you state definitively for me whether you actually believe that there are humans who can, through incantation and magical enchantments, cause real world manifestations? I’m not even asking right now why you think cases of that are on the rise. I just want to hear you say that you believe these things exist, and for you to explain why you believe that.

    Of course I saw the link to the mental disorder that you posted earlier. You understand, I hope, that this is a discussion forum and not a series of private emails. Each of us can see everything that is posted. That’s why it’s silly for you to post the same content over and over again. We all see it the first time, regardless of whom you feel you’re addressing. Why do you feel it’s relevant to include it again? Are you asking me to comment on it? Are you implying that it’s somehow germane to this conversation about witchcraft? Do you mean that I’m exhibiting symptoms of that disorder? I’m trying to understand your thinking.

  176. Ethan Myerson says

    Even though you linked to the wrong video, you might want to watch that one. Around the 8:00 mark, Martin makes a great bit of recommendation to the caller about clarifying his own thinking before making assertions.

    IT’S VERY MUCH WORTH WATCHING, JERRY.

    Is there such a thing as a “Freudian Link”? 😉

  177. Jerry Herrera says

    Ethan_ you missed the whole point. you were asking about DRUGS REMEMBER? Ethan to Jerry- (So, when you claimed that “witchcraft” is on the rise, you meant that “drug use” is on the rise. )
    I was just also including that SORCERY also has to do with Witchcraft, and was not trying to prove anything about Witchcraft to you, because since Atheist reject the G-d of the Bible, and Witchcraft is in the Bible. Jerry to Ethan-(and as far a trying to discuss which god, the futility of that kind of discussion, leads no-where because Atheists do-not believe in the G-d of the Bible as so they claim.)
    It appears that you deliberately skipped over what I posted concerning “DRUGS” Abortion and Gay marriage so here it is again:

    MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION: (In case you do-not know marijuana is a ‘Drug’ like Alcohol and other Drugs, Cocain, Meth, LSD, HEROIN, Prescribed drugs and over the counter Drugs and the like. (many over the counter drugs were taken off the counter/market because of their mis-use.
    Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia (Washingtion D.C ) currently have laws legalizing marijuana in some form.
    Four states have legalized marijuana for recreational use. In Alaska, adults 21 and older can now transport, buy or possess up to an ounce of marijuana and six plants. Oregon voters approved a similar measure allowing adults to posses up to an ounce of marijuana in public and 8 ounces in their homes, set to take effect July 1. Officials in the District of Columbia are also moving ahead with plans to implement a marijuana initiative approved by voters.
    Colorado and Washington previously passed similar ballot measures legalizing marijuana in 2012.
    Other states have passed medical marijuana laws allowing for limited use of cannabis. Some medical marijuana laws are broader than others, with types of medical conditions that allow for treatment varying from state to state.
    In some states, criminal penalties have been eliminated for small amounts of marijuana. below is current as of Feb. 24, 2015. (Copy Pasted this section)
    Link: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.htmlInformation
    Abortion was prohibited in 30 states and legal under certain circumstances (such as pregnancies resulting from rape or incest) in 20 states. The Supreme Court 1973 decision Roe v. Wade invalidated all of these laws, and set guidelines for the availability of abortion.
    37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans
    Link: http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857
    (Jerry to Ethan) I don’t know what planet Atheist’s live on, but you all seem to be dis-conected to the real world around you, and I don’t say this in a critical manner; but in sadness, and as far a trying to discuss which god, the futility of that kind of discussion, leads no-where because Atheists do-not believe in the G-d of the Bible as so they claim.
    P.S. As you probably read my posts to Narf and enlightenment about “Anger Out Burst” – that it is a mental disorder. here is the link.
    Ref: http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Intermittent-explosive-disorder.html

  178. Jerry Herrera says

    Ethan_I’ve watched all the Matt Dillahunty Videos on youtube that I will ever want to watch for a life time, that’s like asking me to to watch a movie over and over and over, I think “NOT” Matt Dillahunty is rude with his “Anger Out Bursts” and constantly talks over his callers hardly lets them get a word in edgewise then uses childish foul language, and insults and dominates the conversation, because he loves to hear himself talk evidently, THANKS but, NO THANKS!

  179. Ethan Myerson says

    Jerry, you weren’t making any points about abortion, gay marriage or drugs. You posted facts about their legalization. You didn’t provide any comments on those facts. I’m not going to refute arguments you didn’t make. That would be disingenuous and futile. I will gladly debate arguments you DO make, but posting assorted facts is not making an argument. Provide a couple of premises and a conclusion, and we can discuss it.

    Or, you can make a claim. That’s what you’ve done with “witchcraft”. You made a claim, so now I’d like to discuss it. So far, we’ve been able to tease out the following:

    1. You feel that a thing you call “witchcraft” is on the rise.
    2. You define this thing called “witchcraft” as including the two categories of:
    A. Drug use
    B. The casting of magic spells to enchant, portend, ensorcel, bewitch and conjure. May include some light necromancy.
    3. The perceived rise of these things can be attributed to a kicking out of a god that happened in the 1960s, and has continued to this day.

    I don’t want to mischaracterize your position, so please let me know if I’ve misrepresented anything in that summary.

  180. Narf says

    *sigh* Why am I still bothering?

    Jerry, are you still waving around that article about Intermittent Explosive Disorder like a talisman? Matt Dillahunty does not have IED (hey, anyone else notice the acronym?). He’s a little on the aggressive side in a conversation, particularly with someone who clearly has no clue what he’s talking about, but that does not make for a psychotic, rage disorder. You’re making yourself look like a fool, yet again, to anyone who has the faintest glimmer of knowledge about psychology. Hell, just about all of the laymen with no education on the subject can tell that you’re misapplying the article, because unlike you, they can read and comprehend things that are dumbed down for a lay audience.

    So, tell me … how do you know that the use of witchcraft and sorcery is on the rise? Your pastor told you, because the constant scaremongering keeps his mindless little sheep coming back for more?

    Which branch of the hippy US government keeps records on witchcraft and sorcery use? Can you point us to a poll by the Pew Research Center? Surely they have a poll about anything religious, because … you know … pews …

    And I suppose you think that Matt Dillahunty’s use of sorcery, in the form of stage magic, helped lead to his break from Jesus? You would possibly be the tiniest bit right, in that practicing stage magic helps people learn to detect cons and chicanery, but any association to sorcery would be completely freaking insane.

  181. Jerry Herrera says

    Ethan_”You still don’t get it” I’m not, nor was I trying to make a point about Witchcraft and all the other things associated to Witchcraft, nor was I trying to make a point about Abortion nor Homosexuality as I explained, Atheist’s reject the G-d of the Bible so therefore it is futile to get in a discussion about, these things that the Bible is against which includes Witchcraft, Homosexuality and Abortion. I’m not trying to prove to you the existence of G-d, nor the Bible. so lets drop that subject and stick with the MAIN TOPIC “DRUGS”
    You seem to keep diverting from the Main Topic Here “DRUGS” here it is again:
    MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION: (In case you do-not know marijuana is a ‘Drug’ like Alcohol and other Drugs, Cocain, Meth, LSD, HEROIN, Prescribed drugs and over the counter Drugs and the like. (many over the counter drugs were taken off the counter/market because of their mis-use.
    Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia (Washingtion D.C ) currently have laws legalizing marijuana in some form.
    Four states have legalized marijuana for recreational use. In Alaska, adults 21 and older can now transport, buy or possess up to an ounce of marijuana and six plants. Oregon voters approved a similar measure allowing adults to posses up to an ounce of marijuana in public and 8 ounces in their homes, set to take effect July 1. Officials in the District of Columbia are also moving ahead with plans to implement a marijuana initiative approved by voters.
    Colorado and Washington previously passed similar ballot measures legalizing marijuana in 2012.
    Other states have passed medical marijuana laws allowing for limited use of cannabis. Some medical marijuana laws are broader than others, with types of medical conditions that allow for treatment varying from state to state.
    In some states, criminal penalties have been eliminated for small amounts of marijuana. below is current as of Feb. 24, 2015. (Copy Pasted this section)
    Link: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.htmlInformation

  182. Narf says

    @209 – Ethan Myerson

    I don’t want to mischaracterize your position, so please let me know if I’ve misrepresented anything in that summary.

    Well, you haven’t mischaracterized anything that Jerry actually said.  Whether or not what Jerry said accurately represents Jerry’s position is open to debate, since Jerry has very poor communication skills.

  183. Narf says

    Atheist’s reject the G-d of the Bible so therefore it is futile to get in a discussion about, these things that the Bible is against which includes Witchcraft, Homosexuality and Abortion.

    Really? Where does the Bible explicitly prohibit abortion? All I’ve ever been able to find on the subject of abortion is Numbers 5:11-31, which describes a magical spell for inducing an abortion in a woman who has been unfaithful.

    There’s a lot of other stuff about Yahweh commanding that pregnant women be sliced open, so the baby will die, but you’d have to go to a really incompetent abortion-provider for that passage to be applicable. Of course that would be the only kind of abortion provider available, if conservative religious-zealots like you had their way, so that passage might give you a warm fuzzy feeling, too. “Take that whore! Abortion by sword-through-the-navel, for you!”

  184. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jerry Herrera

    Atheist’s reject the G-d of the Bible so therefore it is futile to get in a discussion about, these things that the Bible is against which includes Witchcraft, Homosexuality and Abortion.

    Dude. The Christian bible is pro-abortion (at least in the case of when a man suspects his wife of cheating). I thought you’ve read your bible many times. Seems like you need a refresher.
    http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2008/10/bibles-guide-to-abortion.html

  185. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Narf_ Well Narf, I’ve tried to be civil towards you and show you respect also, but if that is not good enough for you, then so be it, but don’t try to play the “guilt trip game on me” because that is just childish in my opinion, and I would not play that game on you nor anyone else. Everything I’ve posted to you, has been done in a respectful manner, and if you were offended by my posts, because of what I posted about the Hippy Movement of the 60’s, that’s on you; you weren’t there, I was, and like I said, I was heavily involved, I saw Jerry Garcia, Jimi Hendrix, many others and hung around Haite Ashberry and Hippie communes, and I’m glad that I met Jesus who saved me from that destructive lifestyle. You can choose to live in denial and that also is on you, I can only hope that G-d will open you blind eyes before it is too late for you, and all other Atheist’s. “peace”

    Are you really showing respect to me, in your post here?
    Jerry, I’m perfectly capable of being civil to 90+% of the people I interact with. Between your preachy arrogance and assholish attempts to enlighten us on subjects about which you’re too ignorant and too stupid to comprehend a dumbed-down-for-the-public website-description, you don’t rate civility.
    The more I learn about you, the less I like you. Your tirade against hippies was pretty disgusting. If you oppose equal rights and fight against social justice, you are a bad person … probably irredeemable, at your age, with your level of brainwashing. You should be glad I never listened to your radio show, because if you talk about the same sorts of things that you write about copy and paste from websites here, it would only increase my already significant contempt for you.
    Next, you’re probably going to post something justifying the execution of gay people, aren’t you? How many comments are you going to paste that into?

  186. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jerry Herrera
    Seriously. How hard is it to use quotation marks? Or this
    >>
    Quotes
    <<
    Or something that distinguishes between what you write and what someone else writes?

    I'm honestly surprised that you're not banned yet.

  187. says

    @211 Jerry

    It’s probably fair to say that a lot of people would characterise the list of things that have started to become legal which the bible is against as simply ‘a good start’…

  188. Narf says

    @215 – Jerry Herrera

    Are you really showing respect to me, in your post here?

    Jerry, is your reading comprehension really that poor?  Did I say that I was showing you respect there?  I have no respect for you, so I wasn’t trying to be dishonest and fake it.

    I show respect to the vast majority of people.  You aren’t in that 90+%.  I said so explicitly, at the end of that first paragraph.  How did you miss it?

    Fine, let me say it again, without the reference to hippies:
    If you oppose equal rights and fight against social justice, you are a bad person … probably irredeemable, at your age, with your level of brainwashing.  You should be glad I never listened to your radio show, because if you talk about the same sorts of things that you write about copy and paste from websites here, it would only increase my already significant contempt for you.

    Was that clearer?  You seem to have latched onto the hippie thing and missed the rest of the message.

    Let me ask a couple of questions that will make it more clear.  What is your position on the legalization of gay marriage?  Do you think that we should prosecute people for having homosexual sex, as many states were doing before the Lawrence v. Texas decision?

  189. Jerry Herrera says

    @ enlightenment_ why do you keep throwing the Bible into this, I’ve already told all of you Atheist’s “It’s Futile” I’m not here to prove the Bible to you, You don’t seem to get it; you don’t believe in G-d/Bible REMEMBER? I’m only here to tell you what the Bible says; so I’m not going to get into endless discussions about contradictions as I’ve already convied, nor any other endless subjects of the old testament. REMEMBER ATHEIST’S DO-NOT BELIEVE IN G-d/Bible. (So lets just put that subject to rest, thank you very much.)
    ◄ Proverbs 17:10 ►
    A reprimand impresses a person who has understanding more than a hundred lashes impress a fool.

  190. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jerry Herrera
    I’m merely noting that the Christian Bible is pro-abortion. Says so right there in Numbers 5.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water#Abortion_interpretation

    The key thing to remember is that in ancient Hebrew, “thigh” was often a euphemism for various reproductive organs, including penis, uterus, vagina, etc. They don’t often teach you that in Christian Sunday school, but it’s true.

    PS: Relates to one of my favorite passages of the bible:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipporah_at_the_inn
    Now, keep in mind that Moses’s wife cut off their baby’s foreskin, and threw the foreskin at Moses’s feet. “Feet” is another word in ancient Hebrew which was often used as a sexual organ euphemism, which means a very plausible reading of the passage is that she took their son’s bloody foreskin which she just cut off, and threw it at Moses’s penis.

  191. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    For other people, I learned about this wonderful “bridegroom of blood” passage from this Skepticon talk:
    Sex & Violence in the Bible – David Fitzgerald – Skepticon 6
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY0cniU30zk
    It’s a great talk. I thoroughly suggest it.

    PS: @Jerry. See? This is how you do a citation.

  192. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Narf_ here it is: (remember I’m not here to argue nor prove the Bible)
    These six things the Lord hates,
    Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
    17 A proud look,
    A lying tongue,
    [Hands that shed innocent blood,] Abortion sheds the blood of innocent defenseless babies in the womb.
    18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
    Feet that are swift in running to evil,
    19 A false witness who speaks lies,
    And one who sows discord among brethren.
    [Proverbs 6:16-19]

  193. Narf says

    @219 – Jerry

    I’m not here to prove the Bible to you … I’m only here to tell you what the Bible says.

    And this doesn’t seem a bit stupid and pointless to you?  Don’t you think your god would care more about you convincing us that we should accept the Bible as an authority, rather than spitting verses at us mindlessly, just irritating us as making us more adverse to the contents of the Bible, since those who accept it are such mindless parrots?

    REMEMBER ATHEIST’S DO-NOT BELIEVE IN G-d/Bible. (So lets just put that subject to rest, thank you very much.)
    ◄ Proverbs 17:10 ►
    A reprimand impresses a person who has understanding more than a hundred lashes impress a fool.

    You hypocrite.

    “Let’s just put the subject of that subject to rest, since you don’t accept the Bible. Here, have a Bible verse!”

    You mealy-mouthed, two-faced hypocrite!  Are you even capable of grasping how dishonest you’re being, when you do stuff like that?

  194. Jerry Herrera says

    Narf_ you are beginning to sound redundant, you keep hashing and re-hashing the same garble over and over again.
    (You)- Fine, let me say it again, without the reference to hippies:
    If you oppose equal rights and fight against social justice, you are a bad person … probably irredeemable, at your age, with your level of brainwashing. You should be glad I never listened to your radio show, because if you talk about the same sorts of things that you write about copy and paste from websites here, it would only increase my already significant contempt for you.
    Was that clearer? You seem to have latched onto the hippie thing and missed the rest of the message.
    (YOU)>Let me ask a couple of questions that will make it more clear. What is your position on the legalization of gay marriage? Do you think that we should prosecute people for having homosexual sex, as many states were doing before the Lawrence v. Texas decision?
    (Me) I take G-d’s position in the BIBLE. For the umpteenth time, again, I’m not here to prove G-d nor the BIBLE, when are you going to get It???

  195. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jerry Herrera

    I take G-d’s position in the BIBLE.

    So, you’re pro-abortion then, as commanded by “G-d” in Numbers 5?

  196. Narf says

    @222 – Jerry
    That passage doesn’t say anything about abortion, Jerry. Try again. You don’t get to add things that aren’t in the text.

    Moreover, Numbers 31:17-18:

    17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

    That’s a direct command from Yahweh, through Moses. I bet all of those 1 and 2 year-old boys that Yahweh commanded slaughtered had a lot of blood on their hands and didn’t count as innocent, huh?

    And that isn’t even as bad as the bit in Hosea about ripping open pregnant women.

  197. Narf says

    Narf_ you are beginning to sound redundant, you keep hashing and re-hashing the same garble over and over again.

    Hah! That is so rich, coming from you. How can you type that without the slightest trace of irony?

    I take G-d’s position in the BIBLE. For the umpteenth time, again, I’m not here to prove G-d nor the BIBLE, when are you going to get It???

    Once again, Jerry …

    What is your position on the legalization of gay marriage? Do you think that gay people should be allowed to marry, in the US?

    Do you think that we should prosecute people for having homosexual sex, as many states were doing before the Lawrence v. Texas decision?

    Are you afraid to answer two simple yes/no questions and have to fall back on evasive answers? Spit it out, man.

  198. Jerry Herrera says

    Darf
    #1 I’ve met Jesus, He lives’ in my heart, He has forgiven me my sins, He has filled me with His Spirit, His Spirit bears witness to my spirit that I belong to Him and He belongs to me, I’m (‘Born Again’)
    # 2 Can I prove that to you? I cannot
    #3 Can I prove the Bible to you? I cannot
    #4 Can I prove G-d to you? I cannot
    Let me ask you a question; can you describe, prove, show evidence of, the colors of the ‘Rainbow’ to a person that has been blind since birth?
    “peace”
    ◄ Hebrews 11:6 ►
    And it is impossible to please G-d without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that G-d exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him.

  199. Jerry Herrera says

    Sorry, Simon, I don’t quite follow what you are saying here: (It’s probably fair to say that a lot of people would characterise the list of things that have started to become legal which the bible is against as simply ‘a good start’.)

  200. Narf says

    Let me ask you a question; can you describe, prove, show evidence of, the colors of the ‘Rainbow’ to a person that has been blind since birth?

    That’s a pretty useless metaphor. Aren’t you the one who claims that everyone really knows that your god exists, because it says so in your holy book? How is a comparison to a blind man even close to apt?

  201. Jerry Herrera says

    Narf_ True G-d s Spirit is in every person, we all are born with a G-d given conscience knowing right from wrong, but, because man is born into sin through Adam and Eve, they are naturally in rebellion with G-d, that is why we are in need of a Savior to restore our fellowship back to G-d that Adam and Eve forfeited when they disobeyed G-d by taking of the forbidden fruit. (can I prove that, No.) You may ask, what about people who have never heard about the G-d of the Bible in some remote place or are of a different religion, Hindu’s etc. If they have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ; G-d will judge them by their own conscience’s whether they had a pure, good conscience, or and evil conscience.

    “The Blind man Metaphor I gave you was from a totally different perspective which had to do with Christians having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” (no comparison here)
    Example: It would would be like you telling me about your personal relationship with your dad, I never even met your dad, and here I’m asking you to prove it and show me evidence about your personal relationship with your dad. Can you see how ridicules that would be? “peace”

  202. Jerry Herrera says

    EnlightenmentLiberal
    Let me ask you a question; can you describe, prove, show evidence of, the colors of the ‘Rainbow’ to a person that has been blind since birth? Yes.
    (Me) How?

  203. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jerry Herrera

    EnlightenmentLiberal
    Let me ask you a question; can you describe, prove, show evidence of, the colors of the ‘Rainbow’ to a person that has been blind since birth? Yes.
    (Me) How?

    I provided a link for a reason.

  204. StonedRanger says

    Jerry, in enlightenments post, at the very bottom, do you see the red text? That is a link. Just put your cursor on it and left click. It will take you to a page with the required information. I cant believe you don’t know that. I don’t know why Im even bothering with you as its clear you aren’t interested in an honest conversation. The only reason you wont discuss the bible is not that we don’t believe in it, its that we know it as good as you or better than you and you are scared. Its okay. We all know that you are here just to blather and not discuss anything we bring up. And if you were in Haight Ashbury, how come you cant spell it right? If he isn’t a poe, he is the worst Christian representative Ive seen in years.

  205. Narf says

    @232 – Jerry

    Narf_ True G-d s Spirit is in every person, we all are born with a G-d given conscience knowing right from wrong …

    Actually, that isn’t true, but your Bible says it. My whole point there is that your blind-person/rainbow analogy doesn’t work, according to your theology, so you should come up with a better way to try to describe whatever point you were trying to make. As usual, I’m not sure what your point actually was, because you didn’t state it clearly.

    You may ask, what about people who have never heard about the G-d of the Bible in some remote place or are of a different religion, Hindu’s etc.

    Actually, that isn’t what I would ask. If I could be allowed to speak for myself here …

    There are two primary problems here. The first is a very basic one, that the claim about the conscience being god-given is a stupid, unfounded assertion without a shred of evidence, and it can therefore be dismissed out of hand.

    The second problem is psychopaths and sociopaths. Never mind the source of the conscience. The statement is blatantly wrong, before we even get to that. Psychopaths and sociopaths do not have empathy. They do not see other people as people, the same way you and I do. They do not have what you would call a conscience.

    So, we weren’t all born with what the Bible claims we were. The Bible is absolutely errant, in that regard.

  206. Jerry Herrera says

    enlightenment_ a blind man who reads brail by shifting boxes around shows him the “colors” of the rainbow? sorry that doesn’t cut it.

  207. Narf says

    It demonstrates that there’s this other characteristic that we can see, which the blind person can’t. It’s empirical, testable proof of something that we call colors, which verifies to the blind person that we’re talking about a real phenomenon.

    That might not be what you were looking for in your head, but that absolutely fits the requirements that you asked for in your comment. It isn’t our fault if you can’t express things properly.

  208. Narf says

    @238 – Jerry

    Ok, that’s your opinion.

    What is my opinion? That psychopaths and sociopaths lack a moral sense that the rest of us have?

    No! You ignorant piece of crap. That is not just my opinion. That is in keeping with the field that you’ve been abusing for the past couple dozen comments. So, you like the field of psychology when you think it indicates something that you want to make use of, despite the fact that your reading comprehension is so pathetic that you don’t understand the basics of what you read? But once the field reveals something that flatly demonstrates the falsehood of something in your holy book, it’s just my opinion?

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

  209. Narf says

    Alright, fuck you Jerry. I’m out of here. You are so aggressively stupid and can’t even grasp basic logical-consistency, and you have the reading comprehension of a particularly slow elementary-school student. I can’t deal with this shit anymore.

    I’ll catch you in the next blog post, guys. I think I’m out.

  210. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Heh. Narf lasted longer than I did. I (mostly) stopped reading his shit a while ago.

  211. Narf says

    Well, I figured you and MS were likely reading along, and I figured you two and a few others would get some amusement from it. That kept me going longer than I otherwise probably would have.

    Seriously, what the hell? He grabbed and held onto that article about IED, like a freaking pacifier, and wouldn’t let go no matter how many times I tried to explain that he had no idea what the article actually said.

    And then psychopaths being morally abnormal is just my opinion? Does he not even know what internal consistency means?

    I mean, I’m sure this guy is for real. A Poe wouldn’t have a radio program on a Christian radio station. But I still have to keep asking myself if he’s for real.

  212. says

    Herr Herrera is a prime example of a mind infantilized by the imaginary friend of his cult. I bet he believes Harry Potter teaches sorcery to children

    RIP Leonard Nimoy

  213. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Narf

    And then psychopaths being morally abnormal is just my opinion? Does he not even know what internal consistency means?

    I lay 50 50 odds he was referring to your response about the procedure that could demonstrate the existence of light / vision to a blind man.

  214. Narf says

    I lay 50 50 odds he was referring to your response about the procedure that could demonstrate the existence of light / vision to a blind man.

    Nah, that was the other thing that was just my opinion.  😀  He used that bullshit twice, in both #238 and #240 … without connecting it to anything I said, either time. Either way, it’s an intellectually vapid response from someone who has nothing and knows he’s been beaten but doesn’t have the balls to admit it.

    That’s when he hit critical mass through a combination of all of the ways that someone can be an ignorant, dishonest, unintelligent douche-bag. That’s when I have to peace-out for my own sanity.

    I can’t help but wonder what he’s doing here still. I mean, he admits that he can’t justify why we should grant any authority to the Bible. He says the Bible is off the table, as he continues to spray Bible quotes at us, just annoying us and driving us even further from an acceptance of anything he says, if that was possible.
    I don’t get how he thinks that anything positive (from his perspective) could come from his continued interaction.

  215. Narf says

    RIP Leonard Nimoy

    Yeah, how is Leonard Nimoy dead, but that douche-bag Charlton Heston is still running around?

  216. Narf says

    Oh, wait. Never mind. I just looked Charlton Heston up, to see when he was born and how much longer we likely had to put up with him. Oops. 😀

    I was wondering why we hadn’t heard much out of him lately, given the big media blitz from the NRA, lately.

  217. Jerry Herrera says

    Narf_ Lets finish something that I posted you about a father dad relationship, in which you never bothered to respond to me back about that. (If you remember?)
    I compared that scenario to a Christians personal relationship with G-d/Jesus (here it is again)
    I will expound further on this scenario:
    Say your dad had been deceased for many years, and you had shared many quality time’s together, such as fishing trips together, camping, hiking, hunting trips together and many personal talks together, that only you knew about.
    Here comes, basically a complete stranger, you just met on a transit bus and had sometime to get acquainted.
    You begin telling him about your dad, and all the great times you had together and all the personal conversations you and your dad shared etc. etc.
    This person can’t believe all of what you are telling him and calls you a liar, and that you are delusional, and that there is no such thing as good dad son relationship, and you say, yes, it’s true!
    Then this person begins to use vulgar,foul language and insults and tells you to give him proof, evidence, otherwise he won’t believe you.
    How would you prove your personal relationship with you dad to this skeptical, insulting vulgar, foul mouthed person? (and restrain yourself, from punching him in the face and knocking his lights out?)
    (Remember this a ‘scenario’ about you and your dad) “please give me an honest answer.”

  218. Daniel Schealler says

    @Jerry

    You neglected to respond to me again. Just reminding you.

    Earlier, you said this:

    What I do mind is; you making judgments about me not comprehending what I read. I fully comprehended the link I sent to Darf (Psychologist Link) It has to do with anger outburst, what’s so hard to understand about that? Atheists are victims of anger outburst, by Vulgar, insulting, foul language outburst, like your messiah Matt Dillahunty,,,

    This is exactly what I’m talking about, Jerry.

    Matt Dillahunty isn’t my messiah.

    I think he’s interesting on a lot of topics. And I think being an ex-preacher gives him a unique and useful insight into the religious mindset. But he’s just another human being. I’m not familiar with all of his work, and I can’t really say what kind of man he is because I don’t know the guy outside of his writing.

    Yet you attribute to me this position that I don’t have and have never said. You’re reading it in where it never existed.
    You’re not actually comprehending what is in front of you. You’re only seeing what you have already decided you want to see.

  219. Narf says

    @250

    Narf_ Lets finish something that I posted you about a father dad relationship, in which you never bothered to respond to me back about that.

    Let’s not, Jerry. You’ve ignored half of the explicit questions I asked you, in the last dozen or so messages. Why should I extend the courtesy to you?

    You’re so far from rational thought construction, I can’t even come up with a sufficiently hyperbolic metaphor to mock you with. You lack the intellectual integrity and courage to engage objections to your worldview, instead spitting out trite bullshit like, “That’s your opinion,” in matters that aren’t at the level of opinion.

    I’m done with you.

  220. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I’m still waiting for Jerry to answer why he’s anti-abortion when Numbers 5 is unambiguously pro-abortion.

  221. Narf says

    Okay, fine, last thing, since it will help outline how poor your thinking is:

    I will expound further on this scenario:
    Say your dad had been deceased for many years, and you had shared many quality time’s together, such as fishing trips together, camping, hiking, hunting trips together and many personal talks together, that only you knew about.
    Here comes, basically a complete stranger, you just met on a transit bus and had sometime to get acquainted.
    You begin telling him about your dad, and all the great times you had together and all the personal conversations you and your dad shared etc. etc.

    I tell the stranger about how my father performed miracles, healing cripples with his touch, bringing my Uncle Tom back from the dead, after Uncle Tom had been dead a couple of weeks.

    I then went on to tell this stranger how my father had resurrected for a few weeks, after he had been clinically dead for three days. When my father resurrected, several of his bowling buddies who had been long dead rose from their cemetery plots too, and they roamed the bowling alleys of the town and were seen by many.

    A few weeks after his resurrection, my father rose bodily into heaven and was never seen again, but he told me he’ll be back one day.

    When I told the guy on the bus all of these things, he told me that I was a liar or delusional, because … no shit; I would tell someone who told me stories like that that he was delusional, too.

    This is Christian apologetics 101: telling common, mundane stories and attributing hyperbolic overreactions to those stories by made-up people, then saying that reasonable objections to the preposterous, mythical stories of the Bible are the same as those hyperbolic reactions to the mundane stories. It’s dishonest bullshit, and you’re a dishonest person for using that sort of sleight-of-hand. How do you live with yourself, being that sort of dishonest person?

  222. Narf says

    @253 – EL
    I’m waiting for Santa to bring me that bike I asked for this past Christmas. I think my wish is more likely to be fulfilled.

  223. Jerry Herrera says

    Narf_ Exactly what thought, I knew I wouldn’t get an intelligent straight answer out of you , because you are unable to give a truthful straight answer.
    (So I’ll put to you again very simple.)
    I come up to you, and start calling you a liar, about something you had told me, and then start saying things about your mother and dad whom I’ve never met, saying all sorts of vulgar, hateful insults, and foul language about you, and your parents.
    WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

  224. Jerry Herrera says

    enlightenment_ keep waiting, if I’ve told you once I’ve told you 1000 time’s I’m not here to argue nor to prove the Bible. ( file this away, so that you don’t forget, do you have a short attention span?)

  225. Narf says

    See? I told you, EL; there’s a bit of Sye Ten Bruggencate in this guy. Sye will also only discuss the Bible with people who hold a fundamentalist interpretation of the book. What a pair of vacuous cowards …

  226. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jerry
    I’m not asking you to prove the bible. I’m asking why you hold a position contrary to the pro-abortion stance of Numbers 5.

  227. Jerry Herrera says

    enlightenment, Narf, and all the rest of you here, it was real, and disappointing at the same time, I thought that I could engage with everyone here in an intellectual manner, but to my dismay I’ve come to the conclusion that I have been conversing with brute beasts, that have no remote awareness nor knowledge about the world around them.
    Atheists remind of of movie I once saw entitled, “Time Machine” where this fellow invents a time machine and travels into the future and stumbles onto this colony of all Blond Blue Eyed young people, girls and boys just lounging around on the beautiful grass eating all this exotic food and drink near this beautiful river, and one of the young boys got to close to edge of the river and falls in, and everybody just sits there and watch as this young man is drowning and no one gets up to try to rescue him. To the amazement of the time traveler, he jumps in the river and rescues the young man from drowning.
    Long story short, these young people were like cattle, being raised by these underground carnivorous trolls for food and had these young people under their control by some sort of sound control device.
    Atheist remind me of these young people, but under the control of Satan and his demonic force’s.
    I will have to say, that Ethan impressed me the most, I can only hope that he will come out of Atheism and meet Jesus; “The Way The Truth And The Life”
    So in closing, ‘enlightenment’ not to worry, you need not ban me, as I ban myself from this place.
    Jesus Christ commanded His Disciples to go out and preach His Gospel, And if they were received into someones home, they were to stay and share the Gospel with them, but if they were not received into a home, and the people of that home rejected the Gospel, then they were instructed to leave that place, and shake the dust from their sandals at that house, so that is what I’m doing here.
    ◄ 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ►
    “The Light of the Gospel”
    And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

  228. Narf says

    Heh, don’t even try to pose as being an intellectual, Jerry. Everyone saw your comments and saw that you’re a vapid fool.

    Spraying Bible verses at people is not an intellectual form of argumentation. Don’t even bother with a pathetic attempt to save face, as you flounce your way out. Anyone who can read this blog section can see what you’re made of, and you only appear worse and utterly un-self-aware for the attempt.

  229. StonedRanger says

    @Narf #264
    To quote one of my favorite authors “So it goes”.
    @Jerry #263- ‘ I thought that I could engage with everyone here in an intellectual manner’. Sir, I submit that judging by your post history on this thread that you haven’t a clue what it means to engage in an intellectual manner. You have failed to engage almost everyone here in an honest manner for the most part, much less in an intellectual manner. Please don’t let the doorknob hit you on the ass on your way out.

  230. frankgturner says

    I just wanted to sum up a bit here, because I think I am starting to understand more about where people like this guy Jerry are coming from. One of the hosts on a previous show said something about a theist that he met on a plane who read the bible and did not see contradictions (I am guessing that the theist did not parse the bible very well either) and who had this idea in mind that everyone needs something to worship, like it is a fundamental need of human beings. The idea that the host did not have a being to worship was something strange and odd that the theist had never considered.
    .
    We on here know that light is a form of electromagnetic radiation with a property of wavelengths and energy levels upon which it radiates which we perceive as color. We can measure these wavelengths and even build machines that can measure the wavelengths and quantities of light energy (colorimeters and spectrophotometers). I think what he might be getting at is the idea that we feel something emotional in response to the color. He wants us to “feel” his god the way he “feels” it. What he doesn’t seem to get is that emotion is not an empirically measurable thing that we can build machines to perceive and measure objectively (yet). The machines don’t have emotion but we would not say that they do not perceive and measure color due to their lack of feeling for it (Jerry probably would as he probably has a limited understanding of science and physics).
    .
    Admittedly until a few hundred years ago we could not build machines to perceive color either. If I were in that time I would not say there was no color, just that we could not describe it. Due to a lack of capacity to describe it and provide physical evidence for it if I had been asked if there was color at the time I would have said “I don’t know if there is” which I would hope a lot of you would as well.
    .
    It is the same way with the “relationship with his father” issue. I don’t really know if he has it and I am guessing that he has one in general. Narf makes a good point about that relationship having extraordinary claims and whether I would perceive the extraordinary claims.
    .
    The “I don’t know” position is something a lot of theist can’t seem to accept. Making reference to the color concept, until it could be proven by physical means by building machine to measure it objectively I would have kept the “I don’t know” position with regard to color. I might have still used and approved of color concepts even though I was not sure they are not real, the same way I do with emotions. We can’t measure emotions objectively so while I try to follow them and make use of them in objective ways I often say to myself that I don’t know if they really exist and I treat them that way. Humans have been studying emotion (psychology) and can make some predictions about them, but that is basically educated guess work. Psychologists who study that have some common ground to go on even as a soft science. (Many a psychologist I have know acknowledges that it is a soft science that is not very measurable).
    .
    We have something to go on with that. We could study god too, but the predictablility is even worse (which Jerry here does not seem to get). Jerry wants us to feel what he feels and we just don’t. What he does not seem to get is that if he looked deep enough he would realize that other Xtians don’t feel what he feels either. The common ground that they match upon is so unpredictable and varied that trying to build a machine that could measure the ideas would result in hundreds of different machines. And yet, he still wants us to drop the “I don’t know” position and state that there is a god. I am not saying that it is not hypothetically possible to build a machine that can measure and replicate the emotional experience that he has with his father or the experience that he has with his alleged god the same way we do with colors. It hasn’t been done yet though.
    .
    That is my challenge to theists, build a machine that can perceive, measure, and replicate your god the same way that we have machines to perceive, measure, and replicate color. Until then, “I don’t know” is a pretty good position to take.
    .
    As far as apologists go since we have been studying them, we can categorize him a bit too. I have met and perceived and heard on the show many a theist and apologist describe who thinks that they can just change the nouns of a believe or lack thereof and understand the system. So he thinks atheists worship Matt Dillahunty as a Messiah instead of Jesus or Mohammed or John Smith. I am guessing that he also thinks that “The God Delusion” or (as I have heard many a creationist say) “On the Origin of Species” are atheist scripture. The fundamental pattern by which we understand the world is different. There are no holy books and there is no messiah among us. We don’t need someone or something to worship as atheists and agnostics. “I don’t know” is an ok position. We don’t really “know” deep down in our hearts that there is a god. How can we rejct and be angry at something or someone if we don’t know if it really exists?
    .
    It’s a moot point and this is really for other readers as this seems to all be beyond Jerry’s comprehension and I am guessing that it was beyond his comprehension before he became “born again” so to speak. I think based on a combination of personal experience and observation of others around me what he was really looking for was comfort and the bible gave that to him. From what I can see, insecure people looking for certainty in an uncertain world can find it in scripture if they delude themselves hard enough and scripture does not make it tough to do that. Of course learning to cope with the insecurity is a much better path intellectually speaking. I doubt that Jerry has ever had a truly intellectual discussion as he was basically demanding that we follow his script and was unwilling to work outside of it. He was not looking for individuals who actually comprehend that emotion is a highly variable and somewhat unpredictable form of perception.
    .
    Leonard Nimoy is appropriate t the discussion (Rest in Peace) given the role he played. Vulcans saw the flaws of emotional reasoning and made a culture out of not pursuing emotion. I don’t think Jerry here can do that. Then again, I don’t know how theists will react to actual sentient alien species when they are discovered on other planets. (I would love to see the reactions of Mormons when Oblish and Kolob are explored).

  231. Narf says

    @265 – StonedRanger
    Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. In his attempts to engage us in an intellectual manner, it wasn’t our side that dropped the ball.

    It terrifies me to think that he could actually be serious, with his (hopefully) final post. Could he possibly think that anything that he posted here the whole time was any kind of intellectual argument? I know that religious indoctrination can blind you to basic reasoning, but holy crap …

    Some part of me wants to think that he was just fucking with me the whole time … that he doesn’t really think that any usage of profanity or vulgarity demonstrates that a person has Intermittent Explosive Disorder. He couldn’t really have read that article and come away with that interpretation, right? Clearly anyone with a middle-school reading-level would understand that the way he was using the article had nothing to do with what the article actually said.

  232. Narf says

    I dunno, Frank. I think I’ll have to stick with “Jerry is one of the most aggressively stupid individuals that I’ve ever encountered, and he can’t construct an apt analogy to save his life.”

    I’m not sure there’s as much going on under the hood as you’re trying to give him credit for. I think he’s just running on pure brainwashing, with no ability to analyze anything outside of his indoctrination. Looking back, I can’t find a single time that he really engaged in any way, except to throw out a chunk of Bible that he thought was in some way related to what we were saying. I still have no freaking clue what point he thought he was making with that History of Atheism article, wherever he stole that from.

    I’d have taken a stab at trying to figure out which forms of mental impairment he’s suffering from, but his formatting and coherence are so freaking horrible that I couldn’t even get that far.

  233. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @frankgturner #266:

    emotion is not an empirically measurable thing that we can build machines to perceive and measure objectively (yet). The machines don’t have emotion but we would not say that they do not perceive and measure color due to their lack of feeling

    It’s problematic to use “emotion” as a mysterious catch-all term in an explanation.
     
    In that post, it sounds like you were referring to qualia.
     
    Article: Wikipedia – Qualia
     
     

    emotion is a highly variable and somewhat unpredictable form of perception.

    Emotional states can be modified by stimuli, and emotions can skew and recontextualize one’s interpretation of the environment, but I disagree that emotions are a subset of perception.
     
    A child whose heard stories of a bogeyman then startles at a creaky floor board: I guess you could say it was ‘perceived’ as threatening in a colloquial way, but fear isn’t an informative model of the sound.
     
    Article: Wikipedia – Affect (Psychology), Theoretical Perspective
     
     
    The color analogy, like love etc, is a retreat to a gap-in-his-head. To excuse himself from responsibility to make his case, by asserting it’s something impossible to communicate. And to deny everyone else’s capacity to determine that he’s wrong, by asserting they’re blind.
     
    And a claim walled off from scrutiny, so as to be unfalsifiable, is a ‘win’.
    Never mind that it reduces his god to having no discernible effect on reality outside of his imagination.

  234. says

    We had a surplus when Clinton left office. That fucking asshole Bush put us into debt with his two wars.

    Not only that, but Obama has substantially reduced the Bush deficit, and it’s entirely possible that mall and school shootings are being made a hell of a lot easier due to Christian Republican insistence on absolutely nothing in the way of even the most common-sense gun safety legislation.

  235. says

    @231 Jerry

    “Sorry, Simon, I don’t quite follow what you are saying here: (It’s probably fair to say that a lot of people would characterise the list of things that have started to become legal which the bible is against as simply ‘a good start’.)”

    Ok – I’ll be clearer….

    LGBT equality, allowing women the right to choose what happens to their own bodies and reducing prison sentences for non violent drug offenses are a GOOD THING…

  236. kudlak says

    I wonder how many of these Pascal’s Wager Christians ever worry about the gamble they’re taking in believing they won’t be reincarnated after they die? There could be millions of slugs out there wondering where they went wrong!

  237. kudlak says

    @Jerry Herrera
    I tend to agree with you that swearing isn’t a particularly good thing. I can remember being on a bus with a friend in the 80s and listening to a group of teens drop so many f-bombs that my friend imitated them by swapping out the word “Smurf” instead. Hilarious!!!

  238. Narf says

    @274 – kudlak
    I agree with that statement, with the addition of an adjective.  Indiscriminate swearing is … silly.  Profanity and vulgarity should be used for emphasis … punctuation.  Profanity should be used with some artistry, or it completely loses its impact.

    While I’m a huge fan of George Carlin’s work and his statements against the suppression of certain aspects of language, I think he perhaps erred a bit on the excessive side.  Of course when he was up on stage, he was putting on an act.  Most stand-up comedy exaggerates everything for … you know, comedic effect.

    Even in normal life, though, I’ve heard people talk in a manner in which every other sentence or every third sentence contains a ‘fuck’.  You’re doing it wrong, guys.

  239. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Simon_ In answer to your question; as you know what my stance is; therefore I can only answer you from my own Biblical belief, in which I’ve stated here time and time again, that I did not come here with the intention to argue the Bible nor try to prove the Bible, and all I got was folks in here asking me, what about this, or what about that, in the Bible, I don’t how I can say it any plainer?
    I will answer you from G-d’s Holy Word the Bible
    (Simon) Ok – I’ll be clearer….
    LGBT equality, – (G-d Condemns Homosexuality – 1 Cor. 6:9 and several places in the old testament esp. Leviticus) allowing women the right to choose what happens to their own bodies – (G-d Condemns Abortion, It is true a woman may have the right over her own body, But, she does not have right over the body inside her womb, it’s legalized murder; Condemned by G-d. [Proverbs 6:17]-[Exodus 20:13] Thou shalt not Kill = Murder) – and reducing prison sentences for non violent drug offenses are a GOOD THING… (this is the law of the land) “peace)

  240. Narf says

    I did not come here with the intention to argue the Bible nor try to prove the Bible, and all I got was folks in here asking me, what about this, or what about that, in the Bible, I don’t how I can say it any plainer?

    That’s a lot of the problem, Jerry. You came here spouting Bible verses, without having any intention of arguing the Bible or proving anything about the Bible. That’s very bad witnessing for Christ, even for a fundamentalist faith-head.

    We bring up other bits from the Bible that flatly contradict what you’re holding up from the Bible, because that’s the way something as self-contradictory as the Bible is. Everyone reads it and takes away from it what they want, because there is a statement to support almost any position, somewhere in the book. You’ve just chosen to hold up the verses that support your bigotry against homosexuals and women.

    Why don’t you hold up the parts that expressly support and promote slavery? You’ve at least progressed beyond that point, so you disregard those verses. At least I hope you’ve progressed beyond that point. You’re not a slavery proponent, are you?

  241. says

    I reviewed a book by a evangelical christian, doG of the gaps branch, that claims The Holey Book does not favour creationism, homophobia, anti-abortionism etc. Cherry pickers will pick cherries from that turd of a tome.

  242. Narf says

    Oh yeah, it’s freaking insane. I’ve heard a few apologetics trying to excuse away the bits about slavery as indentured servitude, saying that slavery in ancient Israel was nothing like what was practiced in the American south, proposing it as a more moral alternative to debtors’ prison …

    It’s the usual rubbish, picking the one verse that has the best potential for positive spin, then spinning the living hell out of that verse and saying that that spin represents all of the other verses. A good example is the apologetic that takes the 7 years that you were allowed to keep a Jewish slave and saying that that applied to all slavery (it didn’t), then leaves out the con that was built into the system, allowing you to coerce your male, Jewish slave into permanent slavery by getting him a wife and kids, which he would have to leave behind when he went free. The whole enterprise is logically and ethically bankrupt from the start.

    And the funniest part is that after all of their squirming work, I’d love to ask them, “Okay, so you think we should implement your modified system, here in the US? Do you think that sort of slavery even is moral and is a good idea?”

  243. Jerry Herrera says

    Hi kudlak
    Kudlak_I tend to agree with you that swearing isn’t a particularly good thing. I can remember being on a bus with a friend in the 80s and listening to a group of teens drop so many f-bombs that my friend imitated them by swapping out the word “Smurf” instead. Hilarious!!!
    Jerry_ that is Hilarious!!! indeed 🙂
    Thank you for sharing this with me, I know things are much different today, and a lot more tuned up than from my generation from back in the 40’s – 50’s when (although there was swearing occasionally, but nowhere to the level it is today) Hollywood was heavily censored back then concerning nudity and bad language etc. As I recall the very first movie that became controversial was “Gone With The Wind” 1939 when actor Clark Gable in the movie said: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn” (actually, I never saw the movie until about 1953)
    I did say that I banned myself from this thread mainly, because of all the negativity that was bellowing back at me.
    Since I have committed my life to Jesus Christ, by G-ds grace, He has worked on my bad temper in which got me into many brawls and fights in the past and having a hatred towards certain people I didn’t like such as the white man for the injustice’s on the Indians mainly my people on the Apache side, and I carried that sort hatred with me for many years until I met Jesus, and now I’m not only free from that sort of hatred, but He set me free from Drug and Alcohol addiction overnight. And that is why I can’t go back to that kind of lifestyle ever, it would be like dog, returning to its own vomit.
    In saying all this, I don’t mind conversing with people in here that are civil tongued
    and that show respect to my G-d whom I worship, but I will not get into discussion’s about things G-d did in the Old Testament because that was for G-ds people the Jews back then, part of it was before Moses. G-d, called Abram (Abraham) from his land and promised a land that he and his descendants would come to possess “Canaan” (modern day Israel) and G-d dealt differently with Abraham and his people back then because G-d wanted a people that would be subordinate to Him, that He could use to bring light into a darkened world, then G-d called Moses in which He gave the Law to, (10 Commandments) because before the Law the Jews did not know what sin looked like, until the Law showed them what sin looked like (like looking into a mirror, and seeing mud on your face) so the way G-d dealt with the Jews in the Old Testament was for “then and then only.” Christians do-not live according to Old Testament Law, Jesus changed that, He/Jesus came to write the Commandments in the Christian’s heart and mind, we are in the age of Grace, the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. If you notice in the Old testament the Priests had to sacrifice, goats, lambs, bullocks, doves in order to atone for the sins of the people-(Israelite’s) which was a foreshadow of Jesus Christ who lived a perfect life, so that He gave Himself to be sacrificed on Roman cross to atone for sins of the whole world once and for all time, a free gift for forgiveness of sins, to anyone who will receive it.
    “Peace”
    ◄ John 10:17-18 ►
    “Jesus the Good Shepherd”
    17- “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.
    18- “No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”

  244. says

    Um,Jebus did say sumthin aboot obeying the Ol’ Testicle, er, testament. I’d look it up but Jer would ignore it anyway just like he does the slavery bits

  245. Jerry Herrera says

    @kudlak_ I guess it all depends on what part of Hinduism you’re referring to.
    Naraka (Hinduism)
    HINDU HELL. FOR THE ASURA (DEMON) IN HINDU MYTHOLOGY.
    The central panel portrays Yama, aided by Chitragupta and Yamadutas, judging the dead. Other panels depict various realms/hells of Naraka.
    Naraka (Sanskrit: is the Hindu equivalent of Hell, where sinners are tormented after death. It is also the abode of Yama, the god of Death. It is described as located in the south of the universe and beneath the earth.
    The number and names of hells, as well as the type of sinners sent to a particular hell, varies from text to text; however, many scriptures describe 28 hells. After death, messengers of Yama called Yamadutas bring all beings to the court of Yama, where he weighs the virtues and the vices of the being and passes a judgement, sending the virtuous to Svarga (heaven) and the sinners to one of the hells. The stay in Svarga or Naraka is generally described as temporary. After the quantum of punishment is over, the souls are reborn as lower or higher beings as per their merits. In a few texts, a hell is described as a bottomless pit of darkness where souls are trapped for eternity and deprived of rebirth.

    Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical concept that the soul or spirit, after biological death, can begin a new life in a new body. This doctrine is a central tenet of the Indian religions. It is also a common belief of various ancient and modern religions such as Spiritism, Theosophy, and Eckankar and is found in many tribal societies around the world, in places such as Siberia, West Africa, North America, and Australia.
    Although the majority of sects within the Abrahamic religions of Judaism,Christianity, and Islam do not believe that individuals reincarnate, particular groups within these religions do refer to reincarnation; these groups include the mainstream historical and contemporary followers of Kabbalah, the Cathars, the Druze and the Rosicrucians. The historical relations between these sects and the beliefs about reincarnation that were characteristic of Neoplatonism, Orphism, Hermeticism, Manicheanism and Gnosticism of the Roman era, as well as the Indian religions, has been the subject of recent scholarly research.
    In recent decades, many Europeans and North Americans have developed an interest in reincarnation. Contemporary films, books, and popular songs frequently mention reincarnation.
    (NOTE: Copy pasted; because. if I wrote it myself, I would more likely be accused of making this up myself.) “peace”

  246. Narf says

    I did say that I banned myself from this thread mainly, because of all the negativity that was bellowing back at me.

    Jerry, the negativity is a result of the intense frustration of trying to deal with you. I’m not sure I can properly convey to you how maddening it is.

    Do you still think your usage of that article on Intermittent Explosive Disorder was in any way apt? You clearly didn’t comprehend a single thing in that article. I don’t know if you just read one sentence from the article, which didn’t go into any kind of detail, and you took that half-formed idea of it and ran with it. I can’t comprehend how you thought that you had any idea what IED entails, because you’re not even close.

    And don’t give me any crap about that just being my opinion. I have a decent grasp of undergraduate-level psychology. More importantly, that article was written at a layman’s level, and you didn’t even grasp what was said in the article. That’s a fact, not an opinion. To anyone with a basic grasp of the subjects involved, you looked incredibly ignorant and foolish waving that article around like you were.

    Then there was the question about my supposed guilt before Yahweh, if I wound up in heaven, and it turned out that the god of the Bible was real. I’ll ignore the fact that we know that pretty much everything before Judges is just flat-out false, and everything before the 8th Century BCE is dubious at best. But let’s just go with a more vague scenario, if the god of the Bible was real in some way.

    You asked a half-formed question. Your question was not answerable as asked, and when I tried to clarify the question, so it was something complete enough to answer, you danced around proclaiming that you knew what my answer was, and you were right. Do you have any freaking clue how obnoxious you are, when you act like that?

    You weren’t even impressing anyone. Everyone else who has posted in this thread is on my side, in matters such as that. If you aren’t going to engage honestly, then everyone here will see it and judge you for it.

    And your supposedly final statement when you were going to “ban” yourself from here:

    I thought that I could engage with everyone here in an intellectual manner …

    Do you really think that anything you’ve said here has been an intellectual argument, in any way? I’m genuinely bewildered by that sort of statement, when you make it. I can’t begin to imagine how you perceive yourself and the way you come across in this forum. Do you think that anything you’ve said here is logically consistent and intellectually stimulating in any way?

    He has worked on my bad temper in which got me into many brawls and fights in the past and having a hatred towards certain people … and now I’m not only free from that sort of hatred, but He set me free from Drug and Alcohol addiction overnight.

    You know, there are alcohol and drug addiction alternatives that work a lot better than AA and similar religious programs. Cognitive behavioral therapy is a scientifically developed system that actually gets results, unlike AA, which horribly skews their results with loaded criteria.

    So, what do you think relating that story to me will do? I don’t use drugs or alcohol. Caffeine is the only drug that I make any kind of use of, and it’s so mild as to be negligible. I don’t hate anyone, based upon their social or racial demographics, including homosexuals. I’ve been in three real fights in my life, outside of my martial arts training, all three of those initiated by the other person/people.

    Why would I want to be born again? I got it right the first time.

  247. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Narf_ since you keep posting me about the same old garb, I will answer you again about “Anger Out Bursts” only, in this post; you keep ranting on with your accusation’s that I’m void of understanding and comprehension, when in fact it looks to me, that it’s the other way around of what you falsely accuse me of. You claim you you’ve had experience in Psychology, but your ‘attitude’ proves otherwise. Psychologists are supposed to be the bigger person who are ‘not’ given to Outburst of Anger, using insulting, vulgar and hostile language, and you show no signs to me as being the bigger person in fact just the opposite.

    (Darf to Jerry) Do you still think your usage of that article on Intermittent Explosive Disorder was in any way apt? You clearly didn’t comprehend a single thing in that article. I don’t know if you just read one sentence from the article, which didn’t go into any kind of detail, and you took that half-formed idea of it and ran with it. I can’t comprehend how you thought that you had any idea what IED entails, because you’re not even close.
    (Jerry to Darf)
    here are some excerpts I copied from the article on Intermittent Explosive Disorder.
    Intermittent explosive disorder
    Symptoms
    By Mayo Clinic Staff
    Explosive eruptions, usually lasting less than 30 minutes, often result in – (“verbal assaults,”) – injuries and the deliberate destruction of property. These episodes may occur in clusters or be separated by weeks or months of nonaggression. In between explosive outbursts, the person may be irritable, impulsive, aggressive or angry.
    Other clinicians attribute IED to cognitive distortions. According to cognitive therapists, persons with IED have a set of strongly negative beliefs about other people, often resulting from harsh punishments inflicted by the parents. The child grows up believing that others “have it in for him” and that violence is the best way to restore damaged self-esteem. He or she may also have observed one or both parents, older siblings, or other relatives acting out in explosively violent ways. In short, people who develop IED have learned, usually in their family of origin, to believe that certain acts or attitudes on the part of other people “justify” aggressive attacks on them. Symptoms
    IED is characterized by violent behaviors that are impulsive as well as assaultive. One example involved a man who felt insulted by another customer in a neighborhood bar during a conversation that had lasted for several minutes. Instead of finding out whether the other customer intended his remark to be insulting, or answering the “insult” verbally, the man impulsively punched the other customer in the mouth. Within a few minutes, however, he felt ashamed of his violent act. As this example indicates, the urge to commit the impulsive aggressive act may occur from minutes to hours before the “acting out” and is characterized by the buildup of tension. After the outburst, the IED patient experiences a sense of relief from the tension. While many patients with IED blame someone else for causing their violent outbursts, they also express remorse and guilt for their actions.
    Diseases and Conditions
    Intermittent explosive disorder
    http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/intermittent-explosive-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20024309
    Intermittent explosive disorder
    http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Intermittent-explosive-disorder.html

  248. Daniel Schealler says

    @Jerry

    You neglected to respond to me again. Just reminding you.

    Earlier, you said this:

    What I do mind is; you making judgments about me not comprehending what I read. I fully comprehended the link I sent to Darf (Psychologist Link) It has to do with anger outburst, what’s so hard to understand about that? Atheists are victims of anger outburst, by Vulgar, insulting, foul language outburst, like your messiah Matt Dillahunty,,,

    This is exactly what I’m talking about, Jerry.

    Matt Dillahunty isn’t my messiah.

    I think he’s interesting on a lot of topics. And I think being an ex-preacher gives him a unique and useful insight into the religious mindset. But he’s just another human being. I’m not familiar with all of his work, and I can’t really say what kind of man he is because I don’t know the guy outside of his writing.

    Yet you attribute to me this position that I don’t have and have never said. You’re reading it in where it never existed.

    You’re not actually comprehending what is in front of you. You’re only seeing what you have already decided you want to see.

  249. frankgturner says

    @Sky Captain # 270
    You are correct that the better word to use here would be “qualia.” I was using the term to indicate that many things that we seem to believe exist in this world are immeasurable. We have an idea that they exist but do not have a capacity to test them in well defined ways. Hence why psychological studies are considered a “soft” science and while things can be learned from such studies, they are basically using scientific methods on opinions, Though the usage of scientific testing on soft concepts does lead to some predictable behavior such as the Kubler Ross cycle. You’ve gotten what I am saying here pretty well though regarding retreating to gaps in his head and excusing himself from responsibility for actually having to prove his case. I would say (armchair psychology) that it comes from internal insecurity and a desire to see the world around him in simple ways rather than accepting the complexity of the real world and learning healthy methods to cope with that insecurity.
    .
    What I am basically getting from Jerry is that he reads some documents and emotes what he reads in his own way, interpreting what he reads. He fails to see that there are numerous ways to interpret what he is reading based on a wide array of other facts and variables that he has failed to mention. Hence the whole “Not comprehending what is in front of you.” and “only seeing what you have decided you want to see” that Daniel mentions in # 288. He thinks others are fools for not interpreting the facts the way he does and does not realize that they are wider minded and more intellectual ue to THEIR capacity to understand that wide ranges of factors influence interpretation.
    .
    For example, he rallies off that range of facts about the 1960s and 1970s and how liberal minded people from that era are (some of) the people in control of government today. He wants to believe (for his own security and desire to have a culture like the one he is comfortable with I presume) that said facts are responsible for economic turmoil and downfall. (I am not going to site where he said it, he repeated that crap 7 times, as if that has some effect). I’m no economist but I know that those who study economics tend to recognize that there are a wide array for factors that influence economics and that the facts he is sighting are really not definitive causal factors in reducing economic turnout (though I am sure that many of them do influence the economy in various ways). I have heard members of my own family who are involved in the financial industry point out that while they tend to favor conservative political methods for improving the economy, they recognize that various factors influence money flow and that conservative responses are not always the best case.
    .
    Of course it takes a broad and opened mind to recognize that there are a range of ways of interpreting the facts and a narrow mind fails to realize this. So the narrow minded Jerry here thinks people are fools for not interpreting the facts his way when it is him who is the fool for not realizing that there are a variety of ways to interpret the facts and that there are other facts that influence the situation. And Jerry somehow thinks this narrow minded view (which I am sure that he fails to see as narrow minded) is convincing. Hence why I think we see the Dunning Kruger effect taking place here. So I have to thank Jerry for inadvertently getting me to see why the Dunning Kruger effect is so powerful.

  250. says

    Ooooh, someone’s really slipped down the rabbit hole. Fuck, fuck fuckity fuck fuck how can someone see the odd use of a very useful and flexible word and equate that to “Explosive eruptions, usually lasting less than 30 minutes, often result in – (“verbal assaults,”) – injuries and the deliberate destruction of property.” is beyond me. Apparently, one of the multitude of things you canna learn from the Buybull is reading comprehension. Oh LORD let there be 300 comments.

    Narf @282 – I was surprised to learn there’s a class of apologist who are completely onside with science based medicine. They are quite insightful and adept at eviscerating the claims of medi-wooligans. Reading their comments, you’d never think they’d buy the bull of religi-wooligans, given the ease with which they point out the fallacies and logical inconsistencies in the arguments presented for naturoquackery and the like.

    Once the subject turns to religion, all that skill disappears and they fall into the very same mind-trap using the identical Jedi mind tricks – appeals to popularity, antiquity, emotion et al, the narcissism, the butt hurt – the true woo believers “argue”. And with absolutely no sense of irony.

    Someone claimed to know that “Jesus loves everybody” and a coupla sentences later mentions “the arrogance of those who tell us whom Jesus loves”. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I politely asked for evidence of Jesus or the deity that raped Mary to produce Himself, with none of the snark I just used. Well, wasn’t the simple question treated as an attack on MY religion and family by another of the faithful. Did you know Matthew 10:34 is aboot the civil rights movement in the USA? Another absolutely refuses to discuss the rampant misogyny of the abortion laws in Ireland at all, but will bleat endlessly how their hospital isn’t like that.

    The mind boggles.

  251. frankgturner says

    @Daniel Schaellar # 288
    You and I seem to get very similar ideas on a lot of things and I want to bounce something off of you and everyone else in here. It is playing armchair psychologist but we seem to be opened to that.
    .
    I am getting this idea that Jerry here was born in 1942 most likely (he said he is 72 and will most likely turn 73 later this year, which would put his birth year at 1942). He says he grew up in a Catholic family and I am guessing it was a conservative Catholic family down south based on his other indications. I am thinking that while they tried to teach him the bible growing up and wanted him to take it at its word, at the same time they were teaching him form a Catholic standpoint which is opened to the idea of the story of creation and most of Genesis to being metaphorical. (Although I could be mistaken, some conservative Catholics do believe ina literal translation of Genesis but I was taught the finer points of evolutionary biology by Jesuit priests in the 1990s in my undergraduate years of college).
    .
    Either way, if he were down south even among Catholics he probably would have been socially pressured into believing a literal translation of scripture by being around a lot of YEC protestants too. That probably caused a lot of insecurity. Furthermore, if he had read the bible cover to cover and did not really understand it (I did this myself at a young age, 6 or 7). He probably on some unconscious level (due to not parsing a lot of what was written in the bible) became aware of biblical condoning of slavery and other atrocities like the killing of large groups of innocent people, which did not help the insecurity. Furthermore, he probably did not have the insight to begin looking up theocratic scholars and what they have to say about why such atrocities took place. It was too complex and intellectually exhausting to have to think that not all of what he was reading for answers would not have all of the answers.
    .
    It is much easer for Jerry here to believe that the bible was “all fact” than to have to parse it out. I say this as a conversation with a Mormon fellow I had years ago about evolution came down to something he had not considered. The Mormon fellow had come to believe in a false dichotomy that the bible had to be “all fact” or “all fiction” and how accepting evolution yet at the same time accepting that Jesus was divine was unacceptable because evolution would indicate that Adam and Eve never really existed as described and that most of Genesis was fiction. It took some discussion for him to accept the idea that some books in the bible were metaphors while others might be historically accurate.
    .
    So in his 20s or so a man comes along to Jerry who talks about the “relationship with Jesus” so to speak and this is hypnotic and comforting. the preacher cherry picks the bible for what he wants to hear and basically teaches Jerry to do so as well. This is comforting because it allows Jerry to see what he wants to see out of the bible. Jerry basically can imagine that his imaginary friend, whom Jerry thinks is god that he is having a relationship with but is really just a projection of himself, has authority and cares for Jerry the way Jerry wants to be cared for. Of course the authority figure, the imaginary friend, ALWAYS seems to agree with what Jerry feels. Jerry fails to see that God appears to agree with every other Xtian around him, even the ones who agree with slavery or the ones who don’t (who clearly contradict each other), agree with racism and those who don’t, and agree with homosexuality and those who don’t.
    .
    I think this is why Jerry won’t address the idea that God did not imply hand the bible to the council of Nicea in its fully written form, coming down from the clouds looking like Charlton Heston in a white beard and toga (or George Burns in a brown business suit or Morgan Freeman in a white tuxedo depending on which film you prefer). Even then, those books were written by people. Of course maybe Jerry here has it in his head that when those people wrote the books that a glowing figure came down and took over their fingers and controlled their bodies. Either way, he would have to think about the books of the bible actually being written by people and that what he is reading not really being god’s opinion on the matter.
    .
    To pop the bubble of a world that Jerry lives in where god always agrees with Jerry one would have to find some way of emotionally cracking him, something to demonstrate that the emotional security he has built up by believing in the authority of the scripture as written in unfounded. Apologists have become good at spinning because they feel so secure believing the way they do rather than finding a healthy way to cope with insecurity.
    .
    I have told this story about my cousin and her husband on other boards but I think it applies here. (Jerry won’t get it but I will tell it for other readers). I have a cousin whom I will call Martha (not her real name) who had a husband whom I will call John (a pseudonym again). Martha was raised a liberal Catholic and John a fundamentalist Baptist (I still have no idea what she saw in him). John spouted off a lot of crap about the bible having to be literally correct and it being considered 66 love letters from god. He never addressed the historical Council of Nicea or the apocrypha and had a lot of apologist crap to explain away the contradictions (though he did not deny that there were contradictions). Obviously he had some comfort in all of that.
    .
    John did not like going to the doctor much (outside of allowing a bit for birthing and exams, including his wife when she was pregnant). He knew that much of modern medicine was based upon modern biology which was built of evolutionary principles. He had supported that whole “teach the controversy” bullshit, like he knew biology had to include evolution but did not really want it to.
    .
    John and Martha had 3 kids and the 3rd one (whom I will call George) was born with a heart defect where the valves in his heart did not function properly and the 4 chambers did not close. They were informed that without and experimental surgery it was almost certain that George would die within a few months of being born (he was lucky to make it that far). John was given the info on the surgery that involved repairing the tissue with pig hearts (though not as close of a relative to humans via evolution as other primates, the pig heart is most similar to ours due to evolutionary pressure). John knew that the procedure was heavily influenced by evolutionary biology and he talked about wanting to pray and just let god decide, but he did not want to loose his son. It was tough but John caved and allowed the surgery to take place (any many thereafter for years). That was 20 years ago and George is still alive today. George even does talks (he is a great public speaker) and shows people x-rays of his heart and the scars on his chest to demonstrate that it works. The surgery has gotten more advanced and now it can be done with cow hearts (Robin Williams talks about it in a stand up act he does). I have even met others who went through this.
    .
    It wound up being the big emotional crack of Johns bubble as he would not talk about religion much at family gatherings after that. He still believed in a (mostly) literal translation of scripture outside fo the creation story but he learned to keep his mouth shut at family stuff, especially when it came to evolutionary biology and medicine. He was a much different person after that, seeming almost depressed despite the joy of his son being alive and healthy. I am guessing that it is probably what led to him cheating on my cousin (and their subsequent divorce), which I am sure that John had some sort of apologist spin on why it was justified.
    .
    Other apologists would probably claim that the doctors were “playing god” and that the boy George was some sort of demon as god had intended for the boy to die and prayer should have been enough to heal him. Of course plenty of people do believe in the god of Xtianity and evolution as well.
    .
    The point is, Jerry here has not been through a big emotional trauma that breaks the bubble of certainty and comfort that his narrow minded religious attitude provides for him. To some degree it keeps him safe and not completely absent of learning as he has read about other religious beliefs as indicated by his copy pasting of the article on Hinduism (assuming that he actually read it in such a way as he parsed it out). What it does not do is get him passed seeing what he has already decided he wants to see which is what his religious attitude does for him. He could have security and comfort without such a closed bubble as many of us learned to have as well, he just does not think that he can.

  252. Narf says

    @287 – Jerry

    You claim you you’ve had experience in Psychology …

    Ho … ly … crap. Jerry, your reading comprehension is as pathetic as ever. Let me copy exactly what I typed in comment #286:

    I have a decent grasp of undergraduate-level psychology.

    How the hell to you conflate that into having experience as a professional psychologist? Do you even understand the basic meaning of what you read? Let me address the key thing that you copied over from the article:

    Explosive eruptions, usually lasting less than 30 minutes, often result in verbal assaults, injuries, and the deliberate destruction of property.

    You think you’re actually qualified to assume physical violence and deliberate destruction of property, from someone using a few curse words online?

    What’s wrong with you? You have no concept of my physical state, while I’m typing these comments. I’ve told you repeatedly that these are cold, deliberate compositions, in an attempt to possibly snap you out of whatever is causing you to communicate with such intense, seemingly-willful ignorance at every turn.

    At the very least, it would be nice if you would cut out the hypocrisy, shoving Bible verses in our faces after saying that you won’t discuss or defend the Bible. I choose to accept the lack of Bible verses from your last two comments as an indicator that perhaps that much has finally soaked into your skull. Although, I also consider it highly likely that you simply forgot to add them, and they’ll be back.

    Clearly reason can’t reach you, so mockery is the only thing that could possibly break your indoctrination shell … not that I think that will likely have an effect. I think you’re too brainwashed and too old to ever turn around. We’ll just have to wait for you to die and hope the next generation of little Jerrys will be able to break out of their religious indoctrination.

  253. Narf says

    @290 – al kimeea

    Once the subject turns to religion, all that skill disappears and they fall into the very same mind-trap using the identical Jedi mind tricks – appeals to popularity, antiquity, emotion et al, the narcissism, the butt hurt – the true woo believers “argue”. And with absolutely no sense of irony.

    Sounds like some serious, hardcore compartmentalization going on there. I’m reminded of a book written by Kenneth R. Miller, the key expert used by the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, which shut down the attempt to get Intelligent Design into public schools, hopefully permanently.

    In one of his books, the first half is a solid rundown on biological evolution. It’s good stuff, and he’s a credible scientist.

    Then, he switches over to his attempt to link it up to his Catholic religious beliefs. It’s like the second half of the book is written by an entirely different person who doesn’t understand logic or the importance of the scientific method. The moment he starts talking about religion, it’s like he just shut his brain off.

    I can’t understand people like that, myself. I expect inconsistency out of creationists like Jerry, because he doesn’t understand shit about logic or science, but Ken Miller just blows my freaking mind. He should know better.

  254. JD and Co. says

    Jerry @251

    Say your dad had been deceased for many years, and you had shared many quality time’s together, such as fishing trips together, camping, hiking, hunting trips together and many personal talks together, that only you knew about.
    Here comes, basically a complete stranger, you just met on a transit bus and had sometime to get acquainted.
    You begin telling him about your dad, and all the great times you had together and all the personal conversations you and your dad shared etc. etc.
    This person can’t believe all of what you are telling him and calls you a liar, and that you are delusional, and that there is no such thing as good dad son relationship, and you say, yes, it’s true!
    Then this person begins to use vulgar,foul language and insults and tells you to give him proof, evidence, otherwise he won’t believe you.
    How would you prove your personal relationship with you dad to this skeptical, insulting vulgar, foul mouthed person? (and restrain yourself, from punching him in the face and knocking his lights out?)
    (Remember this a ‘scenario’ about you and your dad) “please give me an honest answer.”

    That’s not exactly the way it went down, Jerry. You started this whole thread with your taunting post about how atheists are afraid of Pascal’s Wager (comparing us to vampires–thanks a lot). Even at this opening volley, many people responded patiently to you, and you refused to engage honestly with anyone, which in the real world is an excellent way to make people furious. That was when the abuse and the cursing started. You’re like a spoiled two year old who hits another child and then cries when they are hit back.

    And besides, are you such a delicate flower that even if offended by the language, you couldn’t look past it long enough to note that many of these cursing people had MANY GOOD POINTS to make? And may i suggest that if you’re offended by cursing, then probably you should stay off the Internet. Geez.

  255. Ethan Myerson says

    I will have to say, that Ethan impressed me the most, I can only hope that he will come out of Atheism and meet Jesus; “The Way The Truth And The Life”

    If I impressed you the most, it’s because you’re impressed by all the wrong things. I was polite to you, but that’s only because I thought it would help lead you to having an intelligent conversation. If you’re capable of having an intelligent conversation, you didn’t demonstrate it here. If you should be impressed by anyone here, it should be Narf who speaks with a clarity and intellectual honesty that seems to be lacking in your world.

    I pressed you on your bizarre and unfounded assertions, but I did it politely. Perhaps that is why you didn’t recognize that I was pointing out the emptiness of your claims. Witchcraft is on the rise? Because a god was “kicked out” of the country? These are ridiculous assertions that no rational person can hold. But you held them, refused to support them, refused to indicate how we could test them, and refused to admit the degree to which they were disproven. These are not the hallmarks of an intelligent conversation.

    I will join your Jesus fan club the day someone can demonstrate to me that there is any truth to the supernatural claims and magical thinking that characterizes that belief. Until then, Jesus and Yahweh belong firmly bext to Ra, Zeus, Odin, and thousands of others in the festering graveyard of discarded god hypotheses.

  256. Narf says

    I was polite to you, but that’s only because I thought it would help lead you to having an intelligent conversation.

    And you didn’t speak to him long enough and regularly enough for his evasive, dishonest discussion style to really start getting to you. Very wise of you. I should follow your example.

    Thanks for the vote of confidence, though. 🙂

  257. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Ethan_Let me ask each you “Beyond Brilliance, Scientific, Evolutionist, godless Atheist’s”
    What has Atheism done for you? (PLEASE GIVE ME A LIST),,, so that I can learn from your “Brilliancy”
    Each of you that I’m posting, please give me, in your own words, a list of what Atheism has done for you?

  258. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Narf_Let me ask each you “Beyond Brilliance, Scientific, Evolutionist, godless Atheist’s”
    What has Atheism done for you? (PLEASE GIVE ME A LIST),,, so that I can learn from your “Brilliancy”
    Each of you that I’m posting, please give me, in your own words, a list of what Atheism has done for you?

  259. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Daniel_Let me ask each you “Beyond Brilliance, Scientific, Evolutionist, godless Atheist’s”
    What has Atheism done for you? (PLEASE GIVE ME A LIST),,, so that I can learn from your “Brilliancy”
    Each of you that I’m posting, please give me, in your own words, a list of what Atheism has done for you?

  260. says

    Sure, Jerry, I’ll bite. Atheism introduced me to skepticism and critical inquiry, enabled me to understand how to evaluate truth claims, and made me aware of the kinds of fallacies and biases that can make thinking go wrong (and which I still always have to carefully guard against). It has freed me of a lot of prejudices programmed into me by my religious upbringing, and made me less intolerant of those different from me. It has made me excited about learning. It has made me appreciate how to be happy without selfish expectations or phantom hopes, and how to appreciate human rights, human dignity, freedom of conscience and personal expression, and the wonder of the world and the universe as science continues to reveal it to us.

    What have you got?

  261. Narf says

    Jerry, you still don’t understand how message boards and blog comment sections work, after all this time.  Post your question ONCE and ask different people to respond, if they’re so inclined.

    That said, your question is incoherent, and it demonstrates that you don’t understand what atheism is.  I could give you a flippant answer: that it’s saved me 10% or 15% of my income in tithes — more in some denominations.

    Here’s your problem: atheism isn’t a thing, as such.  It’s just a response to a claim.  It’s a rejection of your assertion that a god exists.

    Turn the question around in your head, on a slightly different subject, to see if you can understand why that was a silly question.  What has not believing in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and leprechauns done for you?  When you figure out how to answer that question, you’ll have your answer.

    A more appropriate question might be, “What has skepticism done for me?” since skepticism is what lead most of us to our conclusion of atheism.  Skepticism is more of a structure … a method and standard by which to evaluate beliefs, although it still isn’t a system of beliefs, just as atheism isn’t.  It’s just more of a thing than atheism is.

    Skepticism has lead me to reject pseudoscience and pseudomedicine, like homeopathy, untested herbal remedies, and faith-healing.  So, when I get sick, I’m much more likely to go receive real medical treatment, which will drastically improve my health and chances of survival, if I get badly sick.  Skepticism has lead me to reject all of the spiritual, new-age woo-woo crap, just as it has lead me to reject your religious nonsense.  So, I’m not wasting time on that nonsense either, and I have more free time and resources with which to have a more fulfilling life.

    I could go on, but you should get my point … or at least everyone else here gets my point; I can’t evaluate your ability to comprehend anything.  You’re utterly missing that point, in your choice of questions, though.  Atheism isn’t about what it can get you.  It’s a result — a conclusion — arrived at, because I gave a damn about what is actually true.

    Do you care about what is actually true, Jerry?  Have you selected a method for evaluating claims that is the best one available for sniffing out bullshit and determining what is most likely true?  That’s what I’ve done.

  262. Daniel Schealler says

    @Jerry

    You neglected to respond to me again. Just reminding you.

    Earlier, you said this:

    What I do mind is; you making judgments about me not comprehending what I read. I fully comprehended the link I sent to Darf (Psychologist Link) It has to do with anger outburst, what’s so hard to understand about that? Atheists are victims of anger outburst, by Vulgar, insulting, foul language outburst, like your messiah Matt Dillahunty,,,

    This is exactly what I’m talking about, Jerry.

    Matt Dillahunty isn’t my messiah.

    I think he’s interesting on a lot of topics. And I think being an ex-preacher gives him a unique and useful insight into the religious mindset. But he’s just another human being. I’m not familiar with all of his work, and I can’t really say what kind of man he is because I don’t know the guy outside of his writing.

    Yet you attribute to me this position that I don’t have and have never said. You’re reading it in where it never existed.

    You’re not actually comprehending what is in front of you. You’re only seeing what you have already decided you want to see.

    —————————————–

    What has Atheism done for you? (PLEASE GIVE ME A LIST),,, so that I can learn from your “Brilliancy”
    Each of you that I’m posting, please give me, in your own words, a list of what Atheism has done for you?

    Firstly, as Narf says: You could have just written the question once, and addressed us all directly as part of that single comment. Secondly, as Narf says: Atheism isn’t actually a thing. It’s the absence of a thing. Basically, I agree with everything Narf said. 🙂

    But because I like to think of my self as being slightly original, I’ll go a step further.

    I think that what you meant to ask was: What has your atheistic worldview done for you?

    That is a more meaningful question. The trick with it is that, aside from our agreement that Gods are fictions invented by humans, Narf, Ethan, Matt Dillahunty and myself and every other atheist may in fact disagree on a very great many things about how we view the world.

    For example, consider the idea of ‘natural law’. I think that nature doesn’t obey laws, because it doesn’t have the capacity to decide to obey or not. It’s not as if an electron moving very, very fast through a magnetic field will look up a mathematical rulebook to decide if it should be deflected in it’s path of travel or not. Rather, the electron happens to be deflected, and then we come along after the fact and invent the rule that matches the behavior we observe.

    To me, nature is simply consistent with itself, because it couldn’t be any other way. I think that ‘natural laws’ are not so much discovered as they are invented. They are inventions, tools of the mind, that humans have developed so as to better model, describe, and predict the universe. And they have been wildly successful.

    However: Many atheists would disagree with me on this view very, very, very strongly. Once we get the God question out of the way, there’s no guarantee of consistency of opinion among atheists on pretty much anything. 🙂

    But I digress. In terms of what my worldview has given me… Well, it’s given me everything, hasn’t it? That’s kind of the point, your worldview shapes your life, how you see the world, how you see yourself, how you see others, and how you see the interrelationships between all of these things.

    For me, a naturalistic worldview has been a great source of empowerment so as to support my ability to live a full and happy and flourishing life, contributing to both the well-being of myself and the well-being of those around me – because those two categories are interrelated and cannot be fully separated.

    The value and meaning and purpose and fullness of life are all around me, right here, right now, in the present moment. They originate within and are extensions of myself and the people around me – value, meaning, purpose and fulfillment come from beings, from people, from the interactions with one another. We produce these qualities and add them to the universe as a function of our existence, just as a spider produces silk. They are demonstrable. They happen billions of time in every moment of every day.

    I am free from the many ideological tyrannies that abound within human cultures, and in that freedom I am empowered to pursue a way of life that is tailored to suit me and the enlightened self-interest that comes with recognizing that my quality of life depends intimately on other people and the world around me, so that my sphere of ownership and concern extends far beyond the narrow circle of myself and overlaps and merges with the spheres and well-being of others.

    I am not restricted and confined by a hypothesized moral tyrant that demands that I love an absent God more than the family and friends that exist right before me, or that I show love to humanity only because that which I do to the least of God’s people, that I do unto His Divinely Absent Self. Rather, I am free to see the automatic and spontaneous and emergent en-valuing that is unleashed upon the universe by humanity, creating value and meaning and purpose where before us there was only substance. I can appreciate and respect and seek the good of humanity for humanity’s sake, not for the sake of God.

    This connects me more intimately with the people around me and my own well-being in an immediate and visceral way. I don’t have to wait for otherworldly promises to be delivered beyond my death, or super-earthly hopes.

    My light and my life and my joy and my passion and my love and my good all come from the here and now. It extends from the interplay between myself and the natural world within the confines of the present moment.

    No supernatural eternities are needed or desired. That which gives existence value, meaning and purpose is here and now.

    It is the paltry and poisonous theology of the supernatural afterlife that has tricked generations into blinding themselves to these simple facts, denying them the bounty of life that stares us in the face in every moment. Once those theologies have you starved and sickly they offer you meager crumbs of hope for eventual feasts in the afterlife, post-life, in a realm of non-life that can never be experienced in the here and now. And in your sickly hunger you think these crumbs are themselves a feast, and wonder to yourself at how those of us who don’t partake of the same crumbs as you satiate our hunger.

    The trick is, we’re not actually hungry. It is your religion that keeps you hungry, all the better to control you and keep you in line.

    We’re well fed, joyously free of religion’s vile untruths. And that is why the crumbs of hope and empty promises that you think are so marvelous are so anathema to us. They keep you blind to your own emaciation and inspire you into imposing emaciation on others. You have made an idol of the chains placed upon your mind, but you cannot see them as such; it is far easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled.

  263. Daniel Schealler says

    @frankgturner

    For the record, my little ’bout of armchair psychology was a bit of a dig at Jerry’s expense. He was doing it to us, so I figured that I’d permit myself to do it back to him. Give him a taste of his own medicine. But it isn’t an impulse I would typically indulge.

    Normally I try and keep out of armchair psychology as much as possible: Making inferences are all well and good. But I’m not Sherlock Holmes, to be able to distill from minutia of observation elaborate and elegant concoctions of truth. At best I can make educated guesses, but even then I’m still as likely to be wrong as right.

    As to your analysis of Jerry’s background? You could hit many things truly. Or perhaps many things falsely.

    Outside of Jerry’s word, there’s no way to know. And as a general rule, in the absence of strong evidence I find it better to take a person’s word about their own experience at face value.

  264. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Narf (my point exactly, beside saving $money tithing?)
    Narf to Jerry_ I’m not wasting time on that nonsense either, and I have more free time and resources with which to have a more fulfilling life.
    Jerry to Narf_In what way?

  265. StonedRanger says

    I knew he wasn’t interested in what anyone had to say. Jerry, if youre not going to honestly reply or even read with an open mind what narf, martin, and Daniel had to say, why did you even bother to come back and ask after you had flounced?

    Ah I got it, to spam us with another link to your sad little show. How crappy does your show have to be that you come to an atheist blog to spam your show?

  266. frankgturner says

    @ Daniel Schaellar # 302 and 303
    First of all, # 302 is beautiful man, I could not have said it better myself. I would add that one thing, part of asking myself what meaning that i find in life is pretty easily answered by how do I do it as an agnostic or an atheist. I would say that I make my own purpose in life. That is a part of what free will is about, not jst having the capacity to do things of your own volition but the ability to make them for whatever purpose you so desire. If you are really not doing that because some omnipresent creature is controlling that or giving you that capacity, well then so be it. I don’t say that I would not love a hypothetical god any less if it really is there.
    .
    Also, if I know anything about the scientific works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as far as he was concerned, Holmes was making educated guesses as well. He was just very opened to how minutia could alter the hypotheses being made. That is what flexible thinking is about.
    .
    I was doing the armchair psychology thing for another reason with Jerry here. I see what appears to be an obvious case of Dunning Kruger going on and since I heard about this concept a little over a year ago, I have been trying to figure out why it occurs. I have read some stuff, but I am always opened to examples. One makes predictions about lives and patterns based one what people see. Just as I have seen the Kubler Ross cycle I am kind of seeing a type of fundamentalist indoctrination cycle here that I am observing happens in others. Some of the stuff that Jerry here describes if fit into what I describe in # 291 (filling in the blanks a bit I admit, but I acknowledge that this is speculation) and appears to be a type of cycle that occurs when a person is indoctrinated as an adult.
    .
    Something I think Jerry is failing to get is due to him getting cause and effect backwards and some misunderstanding of ideas. When he said,

    “Beyond Brilliance, Scientific, Evolutionist, godless Atheist’s”

    it becomes obvious that he suffers from the same misunderstanding that many a conservatives, evangelicals, fundamentalists, Young earth creationists, and some Old earth creationists do. He seems to think that all atheists agree with evolution (some do not), or that all theists (particularly Xtian ones) reject evolution. Jesuit priests who would very much consider themselves Xtian taught me evolutionary biology and there are protestants who teach that too, all of whom consider themselves Xtian. And I have met Hindus, Jews, and Muslims who study evolutionary biology who all believe in some form of a god. So theism is not the antithesis of evolution save but by individuals suffering from belief in a false dichotomy. In his little mind theism is the antithesis of evolutionary biology (which is probably why he would never comprehend Kenneth Miller whom I think is brilliant).
    .
    He also seems to think that atheism leads to another way of thinking, rather than that it is another way of thinking (like skepticism) that leads to agnosticism and atheism. One thing skepticism, which coincides with agnosticism and atheism to some degree (but does not have to), has done for me is to help me to be honest with myself and recognize and appreciate that honesty within others. Many say that it helps lead them to the truth and I have a small disagreement with them there. Philosophy helps lead me to the truth which is a much broader category (in my mind) than what i think people really mean. Many who discuss truth really seem to mean, based on the way that they communicate, are really discussing factual correctness . However, that is my bone to pick.

  267. StonedRanger says

    So just for grins, I listened to fifteen minutes of jerrys show. Didn’t hear jerry or any live person speak. A couple of preachers yammering, but no sign of jerry. If you click on his link on the site, it doesn’t tell you anything about him or his beliefs, just takes you to a page with the player for his show. Now I can see why he comes to this blog looking for listeners, his show doesn’t appear to have anything about him on it nor did I see where he is on it at all. To be fair, maybe it does, but Im not listening to two hours of bad music and the run of the mill proselytizing that it plays to see if he is actually on it and speaks or if its just all pre recorded ‘stuff’.

  268. frankgturner says

    @Ethan Myerson # 295 and StonedRanger # 306
    I think that based upon his statement of “I hope that he will come out of atheism” and other hings that Jerry has said on here like why “Matt Dillahunty is your messiah” that he really fails to comprehend what atheism is or why we came to it. Thats probably why he advertises his pathetic little show on an atheist blog sight. He probably thinks that people “really know” that there is a god and are just angry at or reject what they have been shown and does not have a clue into how our brains work.
    .
    Sounds pretty typical, a theist who thinks that they can just change the nouns around like instead of the “Bible” being the holy book it is “On the Origin of Species” (which is really silly given that Darwin never stopped being Xtian) and instead of Jesus it is “Matt Dillahunty” or whatever key note speaker is at a particular convention. I admit, the Flying Spaghetti Monster people kind of do that by actually having days of worship and special types of clothing, but that is just parody.
    .
    As you said though SR, he doesn’t really want to understand, ignorance is bliss and he is blissfully unaware of his own ignorance. In a nutshell, thats how I have come to think of the Dunning Kruger effect.

  269. Narf says

    @308 – StonedRanger
    Heh, thanks for taking one for the team, man. Maybe he just sort of DJ’s the various preaching clips, like a music DJ?

  270. Narf says

    @309 – fgt

    He probably thinks that people “really know” that there is a god and are just angry at or reject what they have been shown and does not have a clue into how our brains work.

    Without a doubt. After all, the Bible tells him that, and he isn’t capable of getting his mind around the idea that the people who wrote the Bible might have gotten something wrong, apparently. And he won’t discuss the Bible, so I guess that’s that.

    (which is really silly given that Darwin never stopped being Xtian)

    Eh, I wouldn’t call him a Christian, at least in the later part of his life. From the summary I’ve read, barring the Lady Hope deathbed bullshit, I would call him some sort of vague deist.

    I doubt that Jerry even read all of what Daniel or I wrote. I think he just thought he had some sort of gotcha question, and as usual, he half-assed it pretty badly. Really, I doubt he’s even capable of grasping everything that I typed, never mind Daniel’s more poetic contribution.

    Jerry’s only response … “In what way?”

    Why should I even bother?

  271. Jerry Herrera says

    MATT DILLAHUNTY CLAIMED TO BE A CHRISTIAN?
    (Dillahunty has spoken at atheist and “free thought” conferences around the country)
    Raised Southern Baptist, Dillahunty sought to become a minister. His religious studies, instead of bolstering his faith as he intended, led him to no longer believe in Christianity and, eventually, all religions. Dillahunty spent many years in the US Navy, before leaving to work in the field of computer software design. In 2011, he married The Atheist Experience colleague and co-host of the [“Godless Bitches”] podcast Beth Presswood
    SKEPTICISM
    Advocacy of the primacy of skepticism is another of Dillahunty’s recurring themes. He said at the American Atheists convention in Austin in 2013 that the closest thing he has to a motto is “to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible,” taking his inspiration from David Hume. In the same lecture, he said that being a skeptic is the most important identifier of who he is.
    In addition, Dillahunty said that skepticism has something to say about untested religious claims, and that philosophical skepticism will lead to atheism. While he respects that skepticism and atheism are two separate social movements, he sees atheism as a subset of skepticism. He doesn’t see why skepticism should not address religious claims, something that has become a point of controversy in the skeptic community.
    Dillahunty rhetorically asked, “how popular would psychics be, how popular would ghosts be, if there wasn’t this monolithic idea that 70-80% of the population believe, that within each of us is an eternal soul that leaves the body when we’re dead and either goes on to some afterlife or lingers around here on the earth?…If you teach people about what we know, about what most likely happens when we die, they will strive to treat people better while they’re alive, and their grief will be lessened because they understand reality.”
    He admonished “don’t just do skepticism with the goal of getting it right, do it with the goal of not being able to get it wrong.” In an interview published by the Norwegian Humanist Association, he said he doesn’t see why religious claims about reality should be treated any differently by skeptics than conspiracy theories and allegations about alien visitation – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty

    WHY MATT DILLAHUNTY WAS NEVER A CHRISTIAN as he once claimed.
    Matt Dillahunty also has never talked about being “Born Again” WHY?
    “What is regeneration according to the Bible?”
    Another word for regeneration is rebirth, from which we get the phrase “born again.” To be “born again” is opposed to, and distinguished from, our first birth, when we were conceived in sin. The new birth is a spiritual, holy, and heavenly birth signified by a being made alive in a spiritual sense. Our first birth, on the other hand, was one of spiritual death because of inherited sin. Man in his natural state is “dead in trespasses and sins” until we are “made alive” (regenerated) by Christ when we place our faith in Him (Ephesians 2:1). After regeneration, we begin to see, and hear, and seek after divine things, and to live a life of faith and holiness. Now Christ is formed in the hearts; we are now partakers of the divine nature, having been made new creatures. God, not man, is the source of this (Ephesians 2:1,8). It is not by men’s works, but by God’s own good will and pleasure. His great love and free gift, His rich grace and abundant mercy, are the cause of it and these attributes of God are displayed in the regeneration and conversion of sinners.

    Regeneration is part of the “salvation package,” if you will, along with sealing (Ephesians 1:14), adoption (Galatians 4:5), reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18-20), and many other salvation concepts. Being born again or born from above is parallel to regeneration (John 3:6-7;Ephesians 2:1;1 Peter 1:23;John 1:13;1 John 3:9;4:7;5:1,4,18). Simply put, regeneration is God making a person spiritually alive, a new creation, as a result of faith in Jesus Christ. The reason regeneration is necessary is that prior to salvation we are not God’s children (John 1:12-13); rather, we are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3;Romans 5:18-20). Before salvation, we are degenerate. After salvation we are regenerated. The result of regeneration is peace with God (Romans 5:1), new life (Titus 3:5;2 Corinthians 5:17), and eternal sonship (John 1:12-13;Galatians 3:26). This regeneration is eternal and begins the process of sanctification wherein we become the people God intended for us to be (Romans 8:28-30).

    The Bible is clear that the only means of regeneration is by faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross. No amount of good works or keeping of the law can regenerate the heart which from birth is “deceitful and wicked above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9). This concept of the new birth is unique to Christianity. No other religion offers a cure for the total depravity of the human heart, preferring instead to outline an often massive body of works and deeds that must be done to gain favor with God. God has told us, though, that “by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight” (Romans 3:20). Total regeneration of the heart is necessary for salvation. Paul explains this concept perfectly in Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” This is true regeneration.
    (Note: Copy and pasted, for easy access scripture reference)

  272. Jerry Herrera says

    @ Daniel_ quoting you_We’re well fed, joyously free of religion’s vile untruths. And that is why the crumbs of hope and empty promises that you think are so marvelous are so anathema to us. = Blasphemy
    If you die in your “Sins” _ you will face the wrath of the G-d you are Blaspheming with a vengeance, in a burning Hell, separated from Him, forever, as you have chosen, and these words you have so carelessly asserted: “We’re well fed, joyously free of religion’s vile untruths. And that is why the crumbs of hope and empty promises that you think are so marvelous are so anathema to us.” (your own words will ring in your ears thru-out eternity)
    These are the most pathetic words I have ever heard. and I do shake the dust from sandals at you.

  273. says

    Jerry, self loathe much? That last post of his shows explicitly the one thing I would add to the thoughtful responses you’ve all provided in vain. Not wasting your life fearfully trying to appease the monster in the sky so you’ll get to spent eternity on your knees.

    On the other hand, I asked the Creepy Father for 300 comments and here we are, so maybe…

  274. StonedRanger says

    Dixon, if you’re still out there and at least reading the blog here, jerry is a perfect example of the wrong way to have an honest discussion. You can learn a lot just by reading the responses to him. He didn’t have anything to say to us that you wouldn’t have said (I believe). And with that, I’m outta here and on to bigger and better things. A whole new episode.

  275. Daniel Schealler says

    @Jerry

    and I do shake the dust from sandals at you.

    And there’s that much-vaunted Christian love we hear so so much about!

    I speak of the love of life, and you call it blasphemy. Has hatred of life been set into you so deeply that this is the only way you know how to react?

    I truly hope that someday you learn to see your chains for what they really are, Jerry. The only person keeping you bound up in them is yourself.

    There’s really no reason to keep on going with the charade of the untruths that you have been told. It earns you nothing, and all that time you spend in denial of the bounty of life in the here and now is precious time wasted.

    It’s never too late to cast off the lies and actually live in the world instead of turning from it in fear of a tyrant that only ever existed in your imagination.

  276. Jerry Herrera says

    Author: Martin Wagner
    Comment:
    Sure, Jerry, I’ll bite. Atheism introduced me to skepticism and critical inquiry, enabled me to understand how to evaluate truth claims, and made me aware of the kinds of fallacies and biases that can make thinking go wrong (and which I still always have to carefully guard against). It has freed me of a lot of prejudices programmed into me by my religious upbringing, and made me less intolerant of those different from me. It has made me excited about learning. It has made me appreciate how to be happy without selfish expectations or phantom hopes, and how to appreciate human rights, human dignity, freedom of conscience and personal expression, and the wonder of the world and the universe as science continues to reveal it to us.
    Jerry to Martin_ Thank you for an honest reply!
    Martin to Jerry_What have you got?
    Jerry to Martin _ here is my answer to you; What you have really said is: You are “free from absolutes” “Freedom From Religion” and in other words no G-d = no accountability for moral standards, and although Atheist’s vehemently deny that ‘free of absolutes, or freedom from religion, has nothing to do with being an Atheist; is a lie.
    Here is an excerpt that explains, and a link:
    IMMORALITY
    Now for the big one. Of all the motivations and reasons for skepticism that I encounter, immorality is easily the most common. In particular, sexual sin seems to be the largest single factor driving disbelief in our culture. Brant Hanson calls sex “The Big But” because he so often hears this from unbelievers: “’I like Jesus, BUT…’ and the ‘but’ is usually followed, one way or the other, with an objection about the Bible and… sex. People think something’s deeply messed-up with a belief system that says two consenting, unmarried adults should refrain from sex.” In other words, people simply do not want to follow the Christian teaching that sexual intercourse should take place only between and man and woman who are married, so they throw the whole religion out. The easiest way to justify sin is to deny that there is a creator to provide reality with a nature, thereby denying that there is any inherent order and purpose in the universe. Aldous Huxley admitted that this is a common reason for skepticism:

    http://donjohnsonministries.org/sexual-immorality-and-five-other-reasons-people-reject-christianity/
    See more at: http://donjohnsonministries.org/sexual-immorality-and-five-other-reasons-people-reject-christianity/#sthash.hRRbg46b.dpuf

  277. jdoran says

    Hi again, Jerry.

    You would probably strongly benefit in your attempts to hold a discussion with atheists by abandoning everything you think you know about atheists and actually doing some reading of the things atheists themselves write, instead of what people who don’t share their beliefs (or lack thereof) write about them.

    Start here, this writer seems pretty good:
    Quoting the Bible Doesn’t Work Like a Jedi Mind Trick
    “When talking to people who aren’t Christians, it never seems to occur to them that doing this just makes people tune them out.”
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2015/02/05/jedi-mind-trick/

  278. says

    #317: Ah, yes. The tiresome old “you just want to sin” line. Le yawn.

    Back in reality where the grown-ups live: Human beings are morally accountable to one another. No deity is needed, especially the Christian deity, who is demonstrably less moral than all but the most sociopathic human beings alive.

    As for sex: To say that sexual libertinism is the motivating factor behind skepticism is only slightly more senseless than saying people only go to college because they want to lick whipped cream off their professors’ asses. Atheists in fact have more successful marriages and lower divorce rates than Christians, so if our only reason for rejecting unproven claims about gods and angels is that we just want to bang everything in sight, it looks like most of us haven’t gotten the memo.

    Skepticism is a method of rational inquiry based on the premise that it is best to believe only those propositions that are best supported by the available evidence. When the used car salesman tells you he’s got the best deal on the lot, and you insist on taking it for a test drive before buying it, you’re employing skepticism.

    And again this silly idea that “Christian teaching that sexual intercourse should take place only between and man and woman who are married”… did God just forget to tell Solomon?

  279. frankgturner says

    Ah yes Jerry what a great idea, sacrifice your whole life to an immoral thug (the way that you paint your god) so that you can spent an eternity on your knees worshiping that same immoral thug. Has it ever occurred to you that the heaven you are painting sounds like punishment and damnation to the people that you are talking to?
    .
    Even as a believer I did not think of god the way that you do. The way that you paint god, Mother Theresa and Ghandi would be punished in what you call damnation and Charles Manson and Hitler would be granted reward in what you call heaven (I don’t think of that as a reward mind you). As a believer I never thought of god as such an immoral thug and you are saying that by being born again will receive the gift of a god who is an immoral thug, and this is a GIFT?
    .
    Dixon, if you are reading this is relevant to you too. Jerry, do you ever wonder why your god ALWAYS seems to agree with you Jerry? You are not talking to god or having a relationship with him, you are talking to yourself. Your god is just an extension of you and your own ideas on what you think your creator should be like, which is ironically just like you!
    .
    Oh and you can believe that there is an inherent order and purpose for the universe and STILL be a skeptic. If you creationists actually comprehended natural physics and evolution you might see that it is NOT random in an absolute sense. I give my own life purpose and that is useful to me. I have actually become a more loving, giving, and compassionate person as an agnostic then I ever was as a believer. So have many others. And maybe, just maybe, if there is a god, that was part of the plan. I know it seems weird, but many people commit LESS of your supposed Xtian sins as non believers than they do as believers.
    .
    All of this shit is beyond you though, your mind is too small to comprehend it and it is too comforting for you to think the way you do so why even bother? I think that you just came here to promote your show. You know that whole, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” ? Ok, try it, if you want us to become believers then you have to become an atheist. And I mean it for real, not some weird apologist’s definition of an atheist. You want us to become YOUR definition of a believer then you have to become OUR definition of an atheist. Care to take up the challenge?

  280. says

    @313

    and I do shake the dust from sandals at you.

    Ah, I was waiting for that. He’s a door-to-door salesman, who isn’t really required to sell the product, but rather to merely go through the motions, to meet his daily quota for attempts. Hence, the mindless uncompelling, unengaging script he follows.

    He’s literally following his programming, and that’s it.

  281. Narf says

    And now the rest of you understand why I curse at Jerry so much. The idiot doesn’t so much have a conversation as he does pick out one tiny piece from what you say to use as a preaching point and to make grossly distorted claims that ignore everything else you just said outside of the one sentence he picked.

    It’s particularly disgusting in this case. Jerry, you fucking specifically asked us what benefits we gain from atheism. Then, you turned around and made some sort of asinine claim that we’re only skeptics because we want to do those things. Is it really so surprising that we focused on the benefits of atheism/skepticism in response to a question specifically asking us what the benefits of atheism are?

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

  282. says

    @322

    I really think it (the kicking the dust off your feet clause) says something about the person who we’re dealing with.

    If he didn’t believe that we’re going to hell, he wouldn’t be so adamant about trying to convert us. If he does, you’d think he’d be doing everything he could to persuade us, such as listening to our repeated objections that he’s not being coherent or appealing to evidence.

    Instead, he just invokes the “Welp, I tried” clause, and moves on.

    I’d be like if I was “concerned” about the Jews in Auschwitz, and wanted to end the slaughter/torture, so I sent Hitler a letter asking him to stop. He didn’t, but hey, at least I gave it a whirl. Next up, stopping ISIS by spending an afternoon setting up a “Don’t kill people, ISIS” Facebook page.

  283. Ethan Myerson says

    I’ll chime in as well to answer Jerry’s question, and Jerry, I’m going to be as unambiguous as I can be.

    Like Narf, the benefits I’ve enjoyed come more from skepticism than from atheism, per se. Atheism is a natural consequence of my skepticism. The benefits include being able to enjoy reality without fear of demons, knowing that I’m being as honest as I can be, knowing that I don’t have to answer for the sins of others because of some shared dogma, and raising my children in a world where they know they can make an actual, real, measurable difference for good.

    I can live my life in the best way I know how to do, without having to wonder if a stray thought offended some genie who can not only read my mind but who will also condemn me to eternal suffering for what he finds there. Jerry, you don’t have that. Your dogma teaches that your god will punish for thought crimes, and that you cannot understand the mind of your god. That means that the best you can do is hope that you never accidentally think something that will offend your god, and you cannot know what might offend your god. To believe those points of dogma is to live in complete terror. Sleep well tonight. Don’t forget that your god is perfectly capable and willing to condemn you to eternal hellfire if you have the wrong kind of dream.

    What does atheism give me? A peaceful night’s rest.

  284. Zaphod says

    I’m glad jerry took it upon himself to enumerate what conditions he will not accept in a dialogue with Narf. It gave us all a list of the tactics he used himself in what followed (and to an extent, what had preceded that demand).

    Insulting? Yep. Jerry is certainly that, and not just limited to insults to our intelligence.

    Disrespectful? Oh, heaps and BOUNDS of it. Not listening, not tracking, ignoring everything that has been said to him, condescending to the extreme.

    Blasphemous? Funny thing about that is, even though it isn’t possible to be blasphemous to anything that has no dogma, HE HAS CERTAINLY TRIED TO BE! Dillahunty is our savior?! Please

    As for the no foul language, that’s a bit harder to parse as to why he had that as a caveat but I think that can be chalked up to “no imagination” on his part. Just another bit of control he tried to wield over the conversation. No different than if I were to demand that if you want to talk to me, no using the letter “Q”

  285. Narf says

    @324 – Jasper
    I think perhaps what we have here is a strict adherence to the letter of 1 Peter 3:15-16, without an understanding of the spirit of that passage. Someone needs to explain to Jerry what good behavior involves. Judging from his actions on here, he seems to think that all manner of deceit is fair game, as long as you don’t use profanity or vulgarity.

  286. Narf says

    @326 – Zaphod

    Disrespectful? Oh, heaps and BOUNDS of it. Not listening, not tracking, ignoring everything that has been said to him, condescending to the extreme.

    I’d classify his treatment of our responses to #297 – #299 as being pretty damned disrespectful, yes. We’re almost in 8th/9th commandment-violation territory there.

  287. Daniel Schealler says

    @Zaphod and Narf

    For what it’s worth, the high point for me was the vehemence with which he condemned my alleged blasphemy.

    For some reason I’m strangely chuffed about that. 🙂

  288. Mr. Dave says

    Wow. Here I am 323 posts later after what I first stated and I’m satisfied that nothing unexpected happened. This discourse, this voluminous novel-length exercise in futility, trying to communicate with white noise, was excruciating to watch. I am both impressed by the patience and stamina on the part of my fellow atheists, yet also alarmed at the personal time wasted on a reason-deaf, cut-and-pasting platitude pimp like Jerry. Hats-off, folks.

  289. says

    Well, provided you don’t mind donating the time to the exercise, there is some value to be had in feigning interest in someone’s bad arguments so as to improve your own.

  290. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I’m just skimming Jerry’s posts at this point. I wanted to reply to one point:

    @Jerry
    Why should I care what you god has got to say about who I have sex with? I don’t care. I care about the happiness, safety, freedom, material wealth, and the generall well-being of humans. Your god’s rules for sex stand in the way of human happiness, and demonstrably makes people more miserable, and thus I shall ignore your god’s rules.

    I lack a belief in your god not because I want to have sex. I lack a belief in your god, and I want to have sex. It would be foolish to deny your god because the conclusion is undesirable. Rather, if I felt the evidence was good for your god’s existence, I would be leading a special research group to find a way to destroy it. If Stargate SG-1 has taught me anything, it is the proper response to evil gods is not to bow down and worship, but to blow them up. Nuke god!

  291. Andres Villarreal says

    @183 – Narf

    I have found that the Power of the Word, and the power of objects, are hugely relevant and current, not only in pagans but in most of us, even in these Middle Ages we call Post-Modernism.

    We have enough fascination for objects to pay thousands of dollars for a cigar we are guaranteed was half smoked by Churchill. In a serious study (mentioned in The Skeptics Guide to the Universe) people could not put on a sweater supposedly owned by a serial killer. I would have some trouble putting it on myself. And you can see in Jerry how a passage of the Bible is not just an illustrative quote, but the sword that will cut all of us in half. He does not even bother to explain how some random quote is relevant to the subject matter of this thread, he uses it as a weapon.

    As skeptics we must understand the intimate power we instinctively give to objects and words so we can transmit it back to where it really resides: in our imagination.

    Back to Pascal’s wager, we cannot understand how one of the best minds of his generation could even make such a blunder of a claim if it were not because of the special status of the Bible in their time. Pascal did not even mention the fact, that should be totally evident to him, that the Bible is internally contradictory and contradicted by external sources, and that betting his eternal life on a book that is not perfect destroys his analysis of the wager. If he was going to bet his life after death on a transcription of a perfect book that was demolished by copyists he definitely would have included the risk of a bad interpretation of a bad copy of The Bible in his argument.

    But, in my opinion, Pascal had imbued the Bible he knew with magical powers and made a totally wrong statistical analysis of the question of God based on that magical quality of perfection he gave to that Bible. If he had either doubted the existence of a perfect Bible in some time in the past, or doubted the quality of a copy of the Bible that even contradicts itself in the first two chapters of Genesis, he would have concluded that eternal life cannot be wagered on a book, and some other communication with God would be necessary to assess probabilities.

  292. Jerry Herrera says

    WHY G-d DESTROYED THE CANAANITES:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGvFAlR_io
    ◄ Romans 1:19-21 ►
    “G-d’s Wrath against Sin”
    19- because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
    20- For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
    21- For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

  293. Narf says

    Jerry, are you really sure that you want to use Kent Hovind to represent your viewpoint? Kent Hovind is a con artist. He lies nonstop, misrepresenting cosmology, evolution, and damned near every other scientific field, throughout that lecture. He’s in prison for tax fraud right now, and he’s getting at least a few more years for fraud that he committed while in prison. Normally, the tax fraud could possibly be unrelated to the rest of his work, but in his particular case, I think it’s indicative of his character in general and representative of his apologetics arguments, too.

    If you want to see what an atheist thinks of his deceit, check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUEusDsR61k&list=PLSr63zLFV8-E1pKStl54Ujdj2MBCUPETX
    Logicked ripped his crap apart. Of course I don’t think you’ll watch those videos, but if you were an honest person who actually wanted to understand us and reach us, you would watch them. But you’re not honest, so you won’t.

  294. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I was about to suggest banning Jerry, but he seems harmless enough. He’s not actively spamming at the moment, and he’s keeping it all in this thread, and I can just ignore ignore him.

    Still, IMHO he’s absolutely the worst person who’s ever posted to the blog threads I can recall. Everyone else has been more honest, engaging, and intelligent than this guy.

  295. says

    Jerry, you’re on the cusp of being blocked. You’ve been told a zillion times now: spouting Bible passages is not the way to argue with atheists. (Russell discussed the futility of this 7 whole years ago when he coined the “Star Trek Rule“.) Linking to videos by an apologist who is currently in federal prison and likely to stay there for a while is even less impressive. Please present your own thoughts, assuming you have any, in any further comments.

  296. Narf says

    I think that even Bobby understood things better than Jerry does, yeah. That’s a really freaking low bar, and I almost feel bad for Jerry, that he couldn’t even clear that.

  297. says

    Jerry is going to get banned if he keeps linking to any more Hovind videos. Thinking Hovind has any expertise in anything is a sure sign someone’s a pathetic idiot.

  298. says

    Why did Canaanites even come up? The last mention was back around 104

    To do nothing but spout bible quotes backfires more often than not. While not a logical reaction, when I see that the competition has nothing more than random quotes from a book, I walk away from the conversation with my confidence in my position strengthened, because they’ve got nothing.

  299. Narf says

    I dunno, man. I tried to explain it to him, way back when he pasted that badly-written History of Atheism article into a comment. He just pasted the article by itself, with no freaking explanation of what it had to do with anything that was said previously, and no indicator what point he thought he was making by pasting it. Same deal with this passage. I don’t see how it even vaguely relates to anything said previously.

  300. Narf says

    Yeah, jeeze. I haven’t encountered anyone so freaking dense, recently. Okay fine, Jerry, post ONE of your insane YouTube video links, followed by your actual thoughts and elaboration on what the video is covering. He’d still be utterly wrongheaded, but at least he would be following basically-acceptable social-conventions.

  301. Narf says

    I mean, at least he had the decency to switch from Kent Hovind to Eric Hovind, right? Eric can’t be nearly as dishonest as his father.

  302. frankgturner says

    Unlike the dishonesty shown by Jerry here (like the Hovinds), I may be selling actual tangible product soon. I have been getting involved with some small online business stuff and may drop you all a line or two about sales as I go along.
    .
    Don’t worry I won’t get all spammy about it like our door to door salesman like Jerry (I cracked up laughing when I read that line Jasper in # 321). I may just mention it from time to time. As you can see I actually engage you guys on topics. (I will probably engage with you Narf on episode 908 once I have listened to it, I noticed that you have already commented).
    .
    I have noticed that atheists and agnostics are often sci-fi buffs. I don’t know if you all are interested in sci-fi gear but maybe you guys can mention some things that you do shop online for.

  303. Narf says

    If it’s at all related to atheism, it’s not completely out of bounds to mention it from time to time, I imagine. What sort of stuff are you looking at selling?

    I haven’t actually listened to today’s episode, yet. I imagine I’ll catch it while I’m out for a walk or something, tomorrow.

    And yeah, there’s a definite correlation between being non-religious and liking sci-fi/fantasy. Good sci-fi is about questioning what we know and puzzling through the implications of various scenarios. Authoritarian, dogmatic religious-types aren’t as good at that sort of thing, so they would be less likely to appreciate the genre. You get a good number of flaky, new-agey religious sorts in the sci-fi community, as well as some more liberal Christians and such, but it definitely skews nonreligious.

  304. frankgturner says

    @Narf # 350
    I have not decided what to sell yet. I am working on finding a niche first. i had some ideas but wanted to see what you guys might be in need of to see what I could become the supplier / catalogers for in the future. I will keep you posted though. Thanks.

  305. Narf says

    Thinking of atheist-related materials, along with other assorted items, though? I know there are a handful of atheist/freethinker online shops, around and about. Evolve Fish is the big one that comes to mind.

    The first thing that immediately comes to mind is earrings. I usually just wear hoops, though, and most theme earrings are danglies of some sort or other.

  306. Mark Brewster says

    My answer to Pascal is pretty basic.

    Take the roulette wheel, assign a particular religion to each number on the wheel, put atheism at “00”, and at “0”, you put the “unknown deity”, one possible but undiscovered. (I’m at “00”, BTW)

    Spin the wheel; wherever you land has an equal chance under Pascal to be correct.

    I’ll take my chances.

  307. Daniel Schealler says

    @Mark Brewster

    To make that analogy *really* work, you’d have to divide the wheel up into infinite sections, because there is an infinite number of possible unknown deities. 😛

  308. Narf says

    Well, you could limit it to the deities that people have believed in, since any deity that cares enough to judge us for not believing in it would have certainly let someone know about it, at some point. That has to restrict it to a couple million or so. So, fill up about half of the wheel with those gods, fill up the other half with a deistic god or no gods. Give it a spin.

  309. Daniel Schealler says

    If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity with us. We are incapable, therefore, of knowing either what He is or if He is. That being so, who will dare undertake to decide this question? Not we, who have no affinity with Him.

    Blaise Pascal

    If we limit it to Gods that people have believed in, we’re no longer going with the original terms of the Wager. If the alleged God is infinitely incomprehensible, then the potential for a deity that would judge us for not believing in Him while simultaneously not informing us about His existence has to be permitted as a possibility. 🙂

  310. Mark Brewster says

    Daniel, I don’t need to allow for infinite POSSIBLE gods, that’s idiotic. Unless you’re pushing the idea of polytheism as the alternative (which would simply require ONE more space on the wheel), your comment is snark. We could sit around all YEAR talking about various pseudo-deities in sci-fi, adventure fantasy, etc. Look, for example, at the works of Robert E. Howard — there were the gods of Conan, Kull, Cormac Mac Art, and the rest. None of those were necessary to regard as part of the wheel.