Dear Rev. Lynn,
What you haven’t mentioned is that these “religious advisors” whom President Obama has cherry picked out of for example the Catholic Church is that they all represent the Liberal point of view, particularly on abortion. The Catholic advisors which President Obama has picked might as well not be termed Catholics at all. Belief in abortion is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church, the Holy Bible, and all of the popes, including our current Pope Benedict. These so-called “catholics” do not believe as God has taught us, that human life is sacred because human beings were created in God’s image, and they also do not believe God’s teaching that children are a gift from God. Therefore, since all his advisors go against the teachings of the Church that they claim to represent these “religious advisors” are Bogus. This is just another attempt of President Obama’s deception of the American people who adhere to religion. He also very good at “doublespeak,” and comes out with beautiful, eloquent, and noted quotes, but then acts in direct opposition to what he has just proposed and the ideals he is promoting. This President of ours says that “We have a moral obligation” to pass his stimulous package when it is just a litany of payoffs to Far-Left organizations for getting him elected, and who also promote his “agenda.” What does using our tax dollars for (with the interest) trillions of dollars have to do with “stimulating the economy?” Our grandchildren will be paying off these debts with their hard earned tax money. How does putting us more in debt stimulate the economy? As for the provision in the President Obama’s Stimulous Package that states that religious groups cannot meet in university buildings that are renovated with government funding, if it is already the law, as you state, then why is it currently being written in this bill? What does religious liberty have to do with “stimulating the economy?” Why should the same law, that you say already exists, be up for legislation once again? I don’t think that it’s for “emphasis.” If this provision does not expand legislative reach over religious people, why was it included? Why is legislation that limits the freedoms of all people of all religions in this country hidden in a 680 page stimulus package? President Obama claims to be a Christian, yet his policies are diametrically opposed to the teachings of God, our Constitution (which contains freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly), and the will of the American people he is supposed to be a representative of? He was not elected “King,” and he is overstepping his power as the President of the United States. The reason our the Pilgrims left England in the first place was because their religious freedom was taken away. If one takes away the Constitutional freedoms of the American people, it seems to be evident that a leader is the an “enemy of our Constitution.” President Obama is right now limiting the freedoms of people of all religions, except one, which is Atheism. Atheism is not the absence of religion, but it Is a religion in itself in which “Mankind is god,” meaning whomever has the most power over the people is calling all the shots with no representation of the people. President Obama is hugely increasing the size of our Federal Government, and he will be have to tax us to a much larger extent to create all of this bloat than we even realize at this time. It will just be “upon us” before we know it, and we won’t have any say in it at all. This is just another case of “Taxation without Representation.” In is not being mentioned in our media at all, but several American states are now “proclaiming sovereignty” because of violation of our Constitution. They want to live by our Constitution only, and prefer to be sovereign states who govern themselves, adhering to Constitutional Law. I found this piece of well hidden news from a person who works for Dow-Jones Newswire, now owned by Rupert Murdock through a merger. It’s really amazing that the rest of the world is getting the “real news,” while we are sitting at home in ignorance of what is taking place in our own country. My advice to others is to not get their news from broadcast television, but from sources of your choice that you trust on the Internet. What broadcast television leaves out is just as important as what they do report on with obvious bias.
Laura

Laura said: Atheism is not the absence of religion, but it Is a religion in itself in which “Mankind is god,” meaning whomever has the most power over the people is calling all the shots with no representation of the people.
Laura, you don’t get to define atheism in your own terms. You did the same thing with evolution. No dice. You haven’t a clue about either subject. Your claim that atheism is a religion is false. There is an obvious undercurrent of defensiveness and desperation in this claim, as if your own faith is invalidated by the existence of a genuinely different approach to life and the universe. In making their convoluted arguments, people who conflate atheism with religion actually weaken the foundations upon which their own belief is built. Atheism simply cannot be a religion unless that term carries essentially no meaning.
Atheism has no God, no common belief, no holy book, no priests, no Laws, no holidays, rituals or traditions, no funny hats, turbans, yarmulkes, robes, veils, sacred or protective underwear or other holy vestments, no creation myth, no afterlife, no superstition.
Atheism is the natural position anyone takes until something is proved. The existence of God has not been proved to either of us or anyone else. You decided to believe what other PEOPLE told you about their religion and you adopted this religion. We atheists simply reject what other PEOPLE say about their religion. That is NOT a religion. It’s the opposite – the rejection of other PEOPLE’S ideas about God and religion. That’s what it is. Too bad you’re so threatened and frightened by other people’s critical thinking. You wouldn’t be if you were as sure about your beliefs as you pretend and wish you could be. But we both know that you aren’t now don’t we?

Boris, you are certainly assuming a lot when you think that I’m hiding my sources of information. This is information that I have learned over many years, and I don’t even remember where I could quote anything from. This is Beliefnet, and I certainly have the right to hold any beliefs that I choose to, just the same as you do. This freedom to be of whatever religion one chooses, or no religion at all, is the beauty of living under Christian principles. They honor life, and respect all viewpoints. Some religious people don’t respect any other viewpoints, and neither do some people of no religion. Right now, our Scientific Community does not respect any other viewpoints, and will not allow anything else to be taught. If you are a skeptic, doesn’t this in itself sound a little bit fishy to you? Science backs up what is taught in the Bible, and so does History. Just research Archeology, or Geology, or any other branch of Science. There is a magazine called Biblical Archeology that I use to subscribe to which has actual pictures and findings that prove the Bible is accurate historically. However, I’m sure that you will write it off just because it has the word Biblical in its title.
Nicolas, I apologize for messing up on my Science terms. I was not a Science major, but I have a BA in English Literature. Since I am a graduate student in Public Administration, I am highly limited on what I would want to study, restudy, or even read. I don’t claim to be a scientist or an expert in any scientific field. I just claim that I have read and studied many types of books in my lifetime. It’s been a long time since I memorized Science terms, and I am a complete amateur and newbie in Astronomy. I just started about a month ago. However, these are the things that I believe based on many sources that I have read. No one can be a jack of all trades. We all have read different books, and all believe different things. However, it is not right for us to criticize things that we have never read nor studied. If people are truly skeptical, they will investigate the other side of the story. For example, has any skeptic ever read any of Ken Ham’s books, or even looked at any of the evidence that he purports to back up Biblical teachings? Have you ever visited his web site? Both sides of any belief should read and investigate at least a few of the books that claim the opposite of the beliefs that they hold; myself included. I am glad to have such challenging responses to what I believe, and I hope I have challenged others on the opposite side to investigate my side. I have only written what I believe based on the books I’ve read, and because of my own faith. I can safely say that I’m sure this is the case of others also. Maybe I could change some of your beliefs, and maybe others could change some of mine. The least we could do is to become curious enough to investigate the other side. However, my faith in God cannot be shaken, especially because I’ve had personal, spiritual experiences of Him. I know that He’s real. That’s why many religious people are so convinced of religious concepts. When you know God, the Bible makes sense to you. There was a time, where I didn’t believe that the things in the Bible were true historically etc. But then I started to read about archeological findings. Also, when applied to the human experience, and my own life experience, the principles taught in the Bible on morality, and ethics make true sense, and have proven themselves to be true in my own experience. I have read the entire Bible, but there seems to be always something new I am learning about it. When looked upon through the eyes of Literature, the Bible is a literary book. Some stories are used as an example of life experiences and what happens when one strays from the Ten Commandments etc. The stories contain real historical people that can be proved archeologically and in historical manuscripts and other findings. For example, there are thousands of ancient manuscripts that show that Jesus was a real person. Certainly, not all of the manuscripts believe he is God, but even his enemies in ancient times according to manuscripts prove that He was a real historical person. These are the reasons I believe in the Bible, and I don’t just believe things because it says so in the Bible. I look at my life, and see what has happened to me as a result of breaking a Commandment. It always seems good for a short time, but then ends in misery. I believe that God gave us the Ten Commandments to keep order in society, and to make sure that we don’t really hurt ourselves. God did not give us the Ten Commandments to restrict our happiness, but to make sure we don’t end up in misery. Just try breaking one of the Commandments and you will find that you’ll think doing so is a way of making yourself happy, but the pleasure does not last. There are consequences to everything we do. I have seen in my life that I am happiest and content when obeying what God says in the Bible. This is just one of the reasons why I believe what the Bible teaches. So, I have personal evidence that I am convinced of. I don’t just believe things because the Bible says so. That would be blind faith. But real faith comes from evidence that you can see in your own lifetime, if you examine your life. Like I said, the Bible is a literary book, and it depends on what form of Literature they are using to understand what is being conveyed. If it comes right out and makes a statement point blank about a life issue, one can test it to see if it is true in their own life. Imperative statements can be taken literally. The poetry in the Bible such as the Psalms, convey all sorts of information. Some of it is for praying or just reading when you feel upset over bad things happening to you. It is a source of comfort, as other poetry can be. The Psalms are written by a King David, who was a real person in history. The archeological findings in Judeo-Christian History have proved this. I would recommend the Bible to anyone, as a source of Literature, and truth, or example, or warning, etc. People just read it because it is interesting and a good source of Literature. No one has to believe anything it says if they don’t want to. But as a source of truth found in its teachings or warnings, one can test them out in their own life to see if they are true or not. I have found that they are true, and that’s why I believe what it says. It is a misconception that faith has no basis to it, and that it is blind. I can understand why some people believe in Evolution, but I happen to believe differently based finding that what the Bible says does make sense, but I didn’t think it made any sense until I had a personal spiritual experience of God and believed. There are millions of people around the world who have had similar personal experiences of God, and can then make sense of the Bible. However, I don’t expect anyone to understand or believe anything it says without testing it for yourself. It was once just an interesting storybook to me, but now it is the basis for my whole life.
Laura
Sorry, Boris. I wrote this and then read your post afterward. I don’t negate what I believe, I’m just trying to be respectful to others who don’t believe what I do. I have had real experiences that have convinced me that God is real, plus, what He teaches in the Bible makes sense, and I’ve found to be true in my own personal life. If people do not decide to submit to God, they will never have experiences like myself and millions of others have around the world. See above.

I have seen people define Atheism in many different ways. I don’t think there is an actual “true” definition. But, if the majority of Atheists believe what you say the definition of Atheism is, then I accept it. I don’t think that you could put my definition of Catholicism into your own words either. Also, you are not very polite at all, and just ridicule others and what you don’t believe. I may have been sacastic on here, but I don’t think I have ridiculed others.
I don’t think that Beliefnet is a site to cast cheap shots at everyone else.
Laura

Saying that atheism is a religion is like saying that baldness is a hair color.

Laura,
You said: This is Beliefnet, and I certainly have the right to hold any beliefs that I choose to, just the same as you do. This freedom to be of whatever religion one chooses, or no religion at all, is the beauty of living under Christian principles.
Boris says: Huh? Christian principles allow one to choose any religion they want? Since when? You are confusing the DEMOCRATIC principles our nation was founded and which appear nowhere in the Bible with Christian principles which certainly are anything but democratic. I hate the way Christian apologists try to blur the definite distinction between democratic freedom of religion and a monotheistic religion. The Ten Commandments demand the worship on only one God and HALF of them have nothing to do with laws but rather the proper worship of this God.
You said: Scientific Community does not respect any other viewpoints, and will not allow anything else to be taught. If you are a skeptic, doesn’t this in itself sound a little bit fishy to you?
Boris says: You don’t READ anything I write, do you? Get this: Again, no avenue of human endeavor is more open to scrutiny than science. Science doesn’t deal with or teach “viewpoints.” Science is based on evidence that comes from experiments, demonstrations and a healthy dose of skepticism. What you are proposing is teaching magic as science. It would be no different than teaching alchemy instead of chemistry, astrology instead of astronomy, flat earthism instead of geo-centrism. Creationism isn’t science it’s religious dogma and the last places it was taught in public schools instead of evolution was South Africa and Nazi Germany.
You said: Science backs up what is taught in the Bible, and so does History. There is a magazine called Biblical Archeology that I use to subscribe to which has actual pictures and findings that prove the Bible is accurate historically. However, I’m sure that you will write it off just because it has the word Biblical in its title.
Boris says: Quite the contrary. “Archaeological data have now definitely confirmed that the empire and David and Solomon never existed.” – Biblical Archaeological Revue 31, no. 1 (January/February 2005). This is why I wanted you to name your sources. I knew you would eventually shoot yourself in the foot for all to see. Obviously your claim is false and you have no reliable sources to back any of your outrageous claims. You get all your ideas from creationist propaganda and lunatics like Ken Ham. No one else promotes this kind of nonsense. Please do not address anything else you write to me. Your claims are as untrue as any I have ever read.
Hey daniel rotter: saying atheism is a religion is like saying health is a disease.

I believe that anything or anyone you rely on, and give your highest allegience to can be considered a god or godlike, or an idol in your own life. I don’t believe that anyone is a total skeptic of every single thing in life. If it even comes close to being true, the obvious answer is that you live for yourself alone, and don’t care or even have hatred for everyone else that doesn’t believe what you do, or believe in. Belief is a part of one’s will. People have choices as to what they believe in. My will is that I believe in God, and I am convinced of Him being real. So, don’t you dare tell me what I believe, and don’t believe. Who do you think you are? I suppose you enjoy belittling others. How much intelligence does it take to do that? What you say doesn’t negate any of my beliefs. It is shocking at the level you operate on. I suppose you think that my beliefs are negated. Christians put others before themselves, and do not serve themselves. That includes being civil when debating ideas. It also is unacademic to resort to riducule of others. I give credit to Rev. Lynn and Jay Sekulow who debate ideas, and don’t resort to Ad Hominem attacks on others. If some of you were actually in a debate or actually a student in college (who knows?) you would receive an F for ridiculing. It’s just not intelligent. You would be kicked out of a university for writing some of the things you do. Jesus Christ is Lord of you and everyone else that ever lived.

Jesus is not Lord of anything. The Bible says the birth of Jesus was announced by angels and Jesus talked to Satan, demons and thought demons caused disease and disease was cured by authority rather than human knowledge. I do not believe in angels, Satan or demons so therefore I do not believe in Jesus either. Jesus Christ never existed. I’ve never been more absolutely sure of anything in my life.

Boris,
You don’t state anything that you believe in. To be specific, you don’t state, “I believe in…”
So I guess Biblical Archeological review has now resorted to lies. You believe that they must be right only because they support your viewpoint. I have experienced God’s presence that can’t be put into words. You don’t have that experience, and probably never will because you have put yourself above God.
Laura

Laura,
You said: “So, I guess Biblical Archeological review has now resorted to lies. You believe that they must be right only because they support your viewpoint.”
Boris says: Just how hypocritical can you get? You used this publication to back up your absurd claims when you thought it supported your viewpoint. I don’t believe you ever read one. Now that you find out it doesn’t support your viewpoint you claim it is telling lies. Now who should we all believe, something you admitted yourself is a respected publication or someone with a reckless disregard for the truth?
Finally, I don’t believe there is a God to put myself above. Do you put yourself above Santa Claus?

Boris, just ask Laura if “Jesus is lord of you and everyone else that ever lived”, when did anyone named Jesus live? (Hint: there is no letter “J” or even a “j” sound in any Biblical language). The New Testament Messiah’s name was Yashua bar Yusef, which actually means Joshua Josephson in English. The truth is: “Jesus” is just a contrived, made up name. And it is not name-calling to point out that while the former Nazi pope Benedict (nee Ratzinger) declared pro-choice American politicians to be “in grave sin” and therefore ineligible for communion, he holds communion to this day with priests that are known pedophiles…

Does the above debate have value to anyone not engaged in it?

Dsjulian
Jesus is not only a contrived, made up name, it’s a contrived made up person. I’m absolutely positive that no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed.

This is distressing news about the Faith based initiative. I guess it’s here to stay. I thought Obama had made a statement that he would not allow the hiring discrimination and now he seems to have flip-flopped. I’d say the jury is still out on whether Obama will be Constitutional defender.Some organizations have done fine on their own without federal or state money. The Salvation Army for example has helped many thousands of impoverished – those willing to submit to their proselytizing and pay for their own treatment through sweat equity in their thrift operation. Of course they discriminate in hiring and are extremely fundamentalist in belief but so far for the most part they do so without my tax dollars. So far.
As to the side debate, I can believe their was a Jesus. I’ve read that in his time there were all kinds of mystics and shamans and magicians roaming about. And we have Sung Myung Moon, David Koresh, L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones, Wayne Bent. People want to believe in something because they’re scared or confused and want answers and want to belong.

I can believe God created evolution I suppose but no way is the Genesis story to be believed. Come on! Please!

Boris states: [Your claim that atheism is a religion is false. There is an obvious undercurrent of defensiveness and desperation in this claim, as if your own faith is invalidated by the existence of a genuinely different approach to life and the universe.]
No, this is an obvious motive fallacy and you lose.
Just because you say it’s false doesn’t make it false. You also place yourself in a position of authority to obscure the definition of your own “ism.” The definition of atheism is obvious and propagated by your own prophets (see below).
Boris: [In making their convoluted arguments, people who conflate atheism with religion actually weaken the foundations upon which their own belief is built. Atheism simply cannot be a religion unless that term carries essentially no meaning.]
1. It uses religion as its kickstand. It’s the schoolyard religion of “nuh-uh” and “opposite day” where your existence depends on the theist and thus. . .religion. Religion is your tar-baby. You can’t fight it and you can’t escape it because your “ism” is dependent upon it like some philosophical parasite.
2. Atheism loudly and boldly declares an absolute. Will you give us grace, oh lord Boris, to appeal to a dictionary? Please?
The problem is that this absolute is found wanting when the belief is put to the test. For obviously, if you are not 100% certain there is no god, then you are nothing but an agnostic who merely aspires to be an atheist. And an athiest with no convictions is truly the most ironic and pitiable of all.
3. Therefore, Laura is right. If no God, then mankind is left with only the “will to power.” Man becomes sovereign. Under your system there is obviously no transcendent logic, and there certainly is no transcendent morality. But then you’ll certainly lie as if there were. The truth is that your system ushers in the “will to power” and is an obvious appeal to Social Darwinism.
Boris: [Atheism has no God, no common belief, no holy book, no priests, no Laws, no holidays, rituals or traditions, no funny hats, turbans, yarmulkes, robes, veils, sacred or protective underwear or other holy vestments, no creation myth, no afterlife, no superstition.]
Here’s a few just off the top of my head:
1. Carl Sagan’s pet project was alien seeding (Contact). That’s a creation myth that was swept under the rug even though he was completely devoted to the project for many years.
2. Stephen Hawking’s creation myth is eternal matter (eternal empiricism) and a pseudo-science spin on “turtles all the way down.”

This is Beliefnet, so state what you believe in and why. What does it prove that I made a mistake in my post? It proves that I’m human, and that’s it.
Laura

EDIT: “F.F. Bruce” should be substituted for “Mary Baker Eddy.”
“. . .annihilation is certainly an acceptable interpretation of the relevant New Testament passages. . .For myself, I remain agnostic. Eternal conscious torment is incompatible with the revealed character of God.” -Bruce
This would include Anglican John Stott and a host of others. My point is clear where my names were mixed. For an atheist, annihilationism is a non-negotiable. Either you believe it, or you’re lacking in your atheistic conviction.
-PJ

I don’t believe that Mr. “B” is an Atheist. If he were a true Atheist, he wouldn’t spend all his time on message boards trying to negate someone he believes doesn’t even exist. That doesn’t make sense. Is this the main cause of your life, to try to prove that someone who “never existed” doesn’t exist? You ascribe power to God and His existence by being on a quest to “negate” Him. You can’t negate someone who “doesn’t exist.” So, actually, you’ve proven that you believe He exists in the first place. I’d like to have a real Atheist on this board. You’re hostile to someone “who doesn’t exist,” and you side with the terrorists. Maybe you should be on the “no fly” list. You don’t cut it as a “real” Atheist because you belong to a web site that tries to prove that “someone who never existed doesn’t exist.” A real Atheist doesn’t waste his or her time fighting someone “who doesn’t exist.” Your “cover” is blown to bits. Congratulations, you’ve insulted all Christians, Jews, “real” Muslims, etc., etc. I wonder what percentage of people you’ve insulted on this web site? Why are you on Beliefnet other than to insult and intimidate people who believe in something? You’re a fake.
Laura

L: [That doesn’t make sense. Is this the main cause of your life, to try to prove that someone who “never existed” doesn’t exist?]
You’re right, it doesn’t make sense. But then this is not your father’s atheism. This is an atheism that truly seeks to convert.
One of the comparisons that I forgot to include was that they have their evangelists and their missionaries, Boris being one of them.
The “4 horsemen” of Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins are the keepers of what has been dubbed the “new atheism.”
Al Mohler has a very informative streaming lecture series on this.
tinyurl[dot]com/dfotjg
L:[You ascribe power to God and His existence by being on a quest to “negate” Him. You can’t negate someone who “doesn’t exist.” So, actually, you’ve proven that you believe He exists in the first place.]
That is most reasonable!
L: [I’d like to have a real Atheist on this board.]
Not on this site, but. . .
tinyurl[dot]com/778cge
tinyurl[dot]com/bf6aqg
tinyurl[dot]com/clbrcy
His name is Jeff Smith-Luedke, and he’s quite probably the only honest atheist I have personally encountered. He also has a valid beef with people like Boris here. The rowboat vid is fantastic.
Boris doesn’t even rate a respectable atheist. Boris is nothing but a fan, parroting stuff he hears and assumes there are no better arguments. He thinks that if he avalanches Beliefnet with enough propaganda, that he’s really arguing to a well-reasoned idea.
The new-atheists have a new agenda, make no mistake. Half of Christianity doesn’t even see it coming.
But the apostle Paul in Romans 1 states that God and His eternal attributes are clearly seen. If this is true, then Boris has a problem, because theists don’t even need a Bible to “prove God.”
And if even an all-human philosopher named “Jesus” never existed, that’s a denial of ancient history where early Christianity acts contrary to human nature. But if Jesus existed, then the challenge for the atheist remains: Find the body, kill the faith.
This is something that Boris and Dawkins cannot do. They must resort to cheaper tactics.

JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!

Laura,
You said: A real Atheist doesn’t waste his or her time fighting someone “who doesn’t exist.”
Laura, you obviously don’t understand what atheism is. I’m not trying to prove that God doesn’t exist to myself or anyone else nor could I or would I try to fight something that I don’t think exists. Atheists are simply showing that there is no good reason to believe in God because there isn’t any evidence for God. God belief is irrational and dangerous. If you don’t believe me I suggest that you read a book or two by one of “The “4 horsemen” of Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins” because they each make a very good case against religion. As far as you and other Christians claiming to have experienced God, I say that my non-experience of God is just as good as and probably a whole lot better evidence that there is no God.

You belong to a web site that claims that Jesus doesn’t exist. Now you’re saying that you certainly wouldn’t fight anyone or anything that doesn’t exist. But that’s exactly what you’re doing. You can’t convert me to Atheism because you think that you’ve intimidated me enough to feel that there’s a “desperation” in what I’ve said. So, you use low blows to intimidate people? Does that make you win an argument because you sense a “desperation” in someone else? That sounds like someone who enjoys abusing someone. They sense “desperation” or fear, and they think they’ve won an argument. If people like you make someone angry, they feel that they’ve somehow “won” an argument. You haven’t won anything, but what you’ve done is just “change the subject.”
Laura

Hey Boris, you’re ignoring my replies. You only going after the low-hanging fruit here, or what?
B: [Laura, you obviously don't understand what atheism is.]
“You obviously don’t understand,” is an appeal to the fallacy of special pleading, or the assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend your point of view.
B: [I'm not trying to prove that God doesn't exist to myself or anyone else nor could I or would I try to fight something that I don't think exists.]
Of course not. . .because it “just is,” right?
B: [Atheists are simply showing that there is no good reason to believe in God because there isn't any evidence for God.]
Where Atheists make the rules and determine the value of what a “good” reason is. Atheists also judge “good” and “bad” evidence according to their materialist-empiricist bias. It’s only true if it fits in your box.
B:[God belief is irrational and dangerous.]
Parroting Dawkins. Yet you cannot rationally argue where rational arguments originate. If logic and reason are creations of man, then they can be broken.

I think a lot of us take atheist as a political label for a person in opposition to the Religious Right more than as a non-belief system (?) to be argued.
It gets attention.

Nicholas,
The Religious Right are believers in Jesus Christ. If someone belongs to web sites that are called Jesus doesn’t exist, who do you think he’s opposed to? If you define Atheism different than Boris, then I suggest that you distance yourself from him.
Laura

Hey Nicholas, let me ask you your opinion on something.
Do you think that any particular parent in your own neighborhood teaching their children any particular religion is a form of “real child abuse”?
The new atheists do!
Nope, I’m not kidding. Check it out.
Why don’t we ask Boris if he marches in lock-step with that assertion.
-PJ

Quote: “It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society to be stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?” -Richard Dawkins, Wired magazine interview.
Note the following:
1. What kind of “society” is implied here that should be “stepping in” to indoctrinate beliefs on your children? And who determines what that “right” belief system is?
2. “Manifest falsehoods” (i.e. “lying”) is a moral argument against an absolute truth. But if there is no transcendent morality, then why is lying bad? If there is no transcendent morality, then what “truth” are these falshoods violating?

Perhaps Richard Dawkins believes that “the government” should teach children what to believe? That’s exactly why “the government” is trying to take away parent’s rights to teach their own children. That’s what the current “public” school system is all about.
Laura

I lean towards libertarianism so I would say a parent can teach their kid to be good or burn in hell if they want. Its their private business. It would be hypocritical to say otherwise if I profess to be pro choice. Similarly, Christian Scientists can let their children die needlessly if their faith prohibits taking them to a doctor. There are some hard choices to make in life and politics.
So the Religious Right believe in Jesus. So what? They also seem to want us to be a Christian theocracy. I dont have time here to explain whats wrong with the “moral majority”. Im sure youve heard the arguments elsewhere. Look at the 700 club and watch them pray for sick people as if they have some kind of special powers. How audajious can you get? Eight years of kowtowing to those knuckleheads who put Bush in power.
Distance myself from Boris? Excuse me, what?

Fortunately I dont have to make such policy decisions but I wouldnt meddle in a families affairs like that. Sure, drag your kid to church, but dont leave him alone with a priest. Similarly I wouldnt meddle with Christian Scientist who wont take their sick kid to a doctor. It a privacy issue. Tough choices.
So the Religious Right believe in Jesus. So what? They seem to want us to live in a Christian Theocracy. Ive had religion forced down my throat by the state in some of those religious social service agencies that Bush gave my tax dollars to and had to suffer through all kinds of religious kooks and hypocites. Defend the first amendment. Thats why Im here.
Separate myself from Boris? Excuse me, what?

sorry, flaky computer.

Quote: [They also seem to want us to be a Christian theocracy.]
Sure “seems” like a valid accusation, but the problem is that it’s not biblical.
The Dominionism Movement is questionable in that a “theocracy-by-proxy” that takes the throne prior to Jesus’ return is in direct violation of the teachings of both Peter and Paul. Christians only have one king. Thus, no theocracy of man.
Many secularists out there LOVE to paint all Christians up as Dominionists, or worse, as the Spanish Inquisition.
I’m a member of the “religious right,” and here I see myself thrown in with those guys you see on TBN. Thanks. Thanks a lot.
Quote: [Look at the 700 club and watch them pray for sick people as if they have some kind of special powers. How audajious can you get?]
Um. . .don’t you mean “audacious,” as in rude and insolent? Why? It’s their show and they believe prayer works.
Or is this an argument against using your platform to lie to sick people? Because it’s only a lie if there is no God to pray to in the first place.
But then your own moral argument itself collapses, because then “lying” can be interpreted to mean anything anyone wants. There would be no transcendent morality that defines what “lie” means.
Pick one and live with it. You cannot appeal to any “truth” without a transcendent morality.

It’s a strange phenomenon that a site called Beliefnet is filled with people who claim that “they don’t believe in anything.” They are either “looking for something to believe in,” or they are on this site to “trash everyone in existence who believes in anything.” I’m tired of people accusing all “religious people” of being hypocrites. Who do you think you are? Have you ever done anything that’s hypocritical in your entire life? All human beings are hypocrites in some sense, not only “religious people.” People point to anyone who has “fallen from grace,” and claim that this “must mean” that God doesn’t exist. Since when are human beings the “measure” of God’s existence? It’s just a misguided line of reasoning that only proves one thing: All are sinful, and fall short of the Glory of God. That’s from a book called, “The Bible.” I believe that it makes sense.

I didnt mean to lump you in anywhere. You call your self “Religious Right”. That has certain connotations. Why dont you like Pat Robertson and crew? Isnt he one of your spokespersons?
I’m agnostic.

I’m a Catholic, but I happen to have actually read books by Pat Robertson, and he is an expert in Law, and very intelligent. Don’t listen to what the media tells you. Just because he made some quotes that have been unpopular doesn’t mean that he’s crazy. I would suggest to anyone to read books of your choice instead of watching television. Television used to be for entertainment. Now, it is just a propaganda tool that tells only one viewpoint, and that is the Leftist viewpoint who have their own type of religion, but say that they “have no religion.” Don’t be fooled by this. Pat Robertson is not necessarily the spokesperson for the Religious Right, but he has been very vocal at times.
Laura

N: [You call your self "Religious Right". That has certain connotations.]
Yes. Most of them very broad and rather vague.
N: [Why dont you like Pat Robertson and crew? Isnt he one of your spokespersons?]
1. Because leftist blogs and the MSM usually pick our “spokespersons” for us, which is of course, not cool.
Mine would be John MacArthur, that guy who’s on Larry King every now and then (clips on YouTube). I also like Al Mohler.
2. I’m a donor and “member” of the ACLJ through my wife, but would disagree with Robertson (its founder) on where his priorities are at.
It is my conviction that our priority as Christians is obedience to the Great Commission. So. . .then where does political activism come in? Should we give Jesus 50/50, or is political activism a form of serving Christ? That I am not certain of.
3. Most of dominionist theology is not truly biblical. Neither is most of what you’d see on TBN.
4. Robertson has been criticized by his own denomination for some of his own verbal gaffes. He should spend more time reading the epistle of James because of it.
5. Related to #4, there has been a split between Southern Baptists in the SBCC and those who hold to the Monergist doctrines, who are not very popular. I am one of the latter. I don’t see much on Robertson’s theology, but I’d guess he’s from the other side based on his fast and loose approach to prophesy, scripture, and spiritual gifts.
In that order, with #1 the biggest reason.

For the record, that’s ^^^ my post at 2/11 2:04 a.m.
Now then, you might wonder why I haven’t broken with Robertson and the ACLJ entirely. Because Paul worked the courts in his day and appealed to his own Roman citizenship in Acts 16, and especially Acts 22:22-29. As citizens, we have a certain amount of responsibility as voters and whatnot. I do believe that.
But then Paul was martyred under the Roman system.
So where to draw the line?
-PJ

I am a supporter of the ACLJ also, which was founded by Pat Robertson and several others. Where would we be without them, and the Alliance Defense Fund? I hate to even think of it. I feel that Pat Robertson should be given a lot of credit for this, despite any gaffes. Supporting democracy in the US, and politcal groups is just as much a part of the Great Commission as anything else, except God wants us to give to our local Church first.

Laura:[I am a supporter of the ACLJ also, which was founded by Pat Robertson and several others. Where would we be without them, and the Alliance Defense Fund? I hate to even think of it.]
You mean compared to the estimated 70 millions of Chinese Christians living in the fastest growing region of our faith?
Your answer is simply that we would be “less comfortable.” That’s all. Jesus said, “. . .I will build. . .” What? “. . .MY church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
We are supposed to be walking the path of the suffering Christ. If we are not willing to drink that cup, He says we have no part with him.
What about Romans 8:36?
We’ve gone soft in that regard. If I could only have the courage of a Polycarp.

Tracheostomy
You said: You’re right, it doesn’t make sense. But then this is not your father’s atheism. This is an atheism that truly seeks to convert. One of the comparisons that I forgot to include was that they have their evangelists and their missionaries, Boris being one of them.
Boris says: I’m not trying to convert any fundamentalist Christians into atheists. Fundamentalist Bible believers tell us that humans cannot be moral without God. Every Bible believing Christian I’ve discussed this with has told me that if there was no God there would be nothing to stop them from doing evil and harming other people. Anyone who would say this must be inclined only to do evil and not good. So you fundies go right on believing in your magical deity because we wouldn’t want to see what you would do if you found out there is no God.
You said: The “4 horsemen” of Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins are the keepers of what has been dubbed the “new atheism.”
Boris says: Actually I’ve only read Hitchens and Dawkins of those four. I’m a student of the Ancient Near East and my favorite atheists are the Greek philosophers. “Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don’t believe in the gods. What’s your evidence? Where’s your proof?” Aristophanes (c.448-385 BCE) “”Everything has a natural explanation. The moon is not a god but a great rock and the sun a hot rock.” – Anaxagoras (c.500-428) “Do we holding that the gods exist, deceive ourselves with insubstantial dreams and lies, while random careless chance and change alone control the world?” – Euripides (c.480-406 BCE) “Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun. man was like another animal, namely a fish, in the beginning.” Anaximander (c.610-546 BCE), Greek philosopher, journalist and media personality and Proto-Darwinian of the year 561 BCE Atheists have been mocking religion and religious people ever since there was religion.
You said: L:[You ascribe power to God and His existence by being on a quest to “negate” Him. You can’t negate someone who “doesn’t exist.” So, actually, you’ve proven that you believe He exists in the first place.]
Boris says: I’m not on a quest to negate something that exists only in people’s imaginations. Even if there is a God no one knows anything about it so you still have to imagine its traits, which makes God imaginary. Muslims imagine God is Allah, the Christians imagine Jesus is God, the Jews don’t and atheist think if there is a God he is probably made of Pasta and dresses in full pirate regalia.
You said: That is most reasonable!
Boris says: So you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster then?
You said: L: [I’d like to have a real Atheist on this board.]
His name is Jeff Smith-Luedke, and he’s quite probably the only honest atheist I have personally encountered. He also has a valid beef with people like Boris here. The rowboat vid is fantastic.
Boris doesn’t even rate a respectable atheist.
Boris says: Character assassination and personal attacks couple with your groundless arguments and baseless accusations clearly illustrate you have no case and have already lost our debate BEFORE I even got started deconstructing you babble and nonsense.
You said: Boris is nothing but a fan, parroting stuff he hears and assumes there are no better arguments. He thinks that if he avalanches Beliefnet with enough propaganda, that he’s really arguing to a well-reasoned idea.
Boris says: I’m no fan, my ancestors are Jewish and atheism is very popular and common among Jewish people. My brother and I are both lifelong atheists who have never believed in any God for even a moment. When I was a child I didn’t know anything about atheists or atheism and the only thing I heard or saw about it was government Cold War propaganda about how the evil atheists had taken over Russia and stamped out freedom of religion. That didn’t influence me at all. I still knew there couldn’t be any kind of God like people clamed there was and I could tell the stuff about the Soviet Union, Stalin and atheism just didn’t ring true. It wasn’t.
You said: The new-atheists have a new agenda, make no mistake. Half of Christianity doesn’t even see it coming.
Boris says: The atheist agenda: Relax there probably is no God. Just be good for goodness sake. I can see why Christians are afraid of that message. They know they can’t behave without the threat of eternal punishment so they falsely assume no one else cam either.
You said: But the apostle Paul in Romans 1 states that God and His eternal attributes are clearly seen. If this is true, then Boris has a problem, because theists don’t even need a Bible to “prove God.”
Boris says: It’s not God you need to prove. It’s the baggage your God has that makes every rational person, every person who trusts reason over faith, science over religion, logic over dogma and doctrine reject the Christian God. It’s the angels, demons, Satan, Jesus, talking animals and vegetation, seraphs, heaven, hell and stories like Matt 27:52-53 in the Bible that says corpses came back to life and appeared to many. All the special pleading in the world won’t help your case for that bunch of nonsense. You can’t even prove the Apostle Paul existed.
You said: And if even an all-human philosopher named “Jesus” never existed, that’s a denial of ancient history where early Christianity acts contrary to human nature. But if Jesus existed, then the challenge for the atheist remains: Find the body, kill the faith. This is something that Boris and Dawkins cannot do. They must resort to cheaper tactics.
Boris says: There was no body to find and one way we know this is that there is no tomb to find. Where is this empty tomb where this miraculous unforgettable occurrence took place? Did everyone forget where it was? Why isn’t there a single mention from one contemporary first century historian about Jesus Christ if he actually existed? Poof, there goes your case.
You said: Hey Boris, you’re ignoring my replies. You only going after the low-hanging fruit here, or what?
Boris says: I’ve refuted your arguments before here on Beliefnet. They are a mixture of tortured logic, backward-reasoning, post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, special pleading, non sequiturs and religious superstition
You said: “You obviously don’t understand,” is an appeal to the fallacy of special pleading, or the assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend your point of view.
Boris says: No, this woman proves she doesn’t know what either atheism or evolution is, and unlike the groundless statements you make, I showed exactly why. Special pleading. Obviously someone has pointed out to you that that is what YOU do. So you learned a new term and know somehow think it fits on other people instead of your self. You fundies are funny.
You said: Where Atheists make the rules and determine the value of what a “good” reason is. Atheists also judge “good” and “bad” evidence according to their materialist-empiricist bias. It’s only true if it fits in your box.
Boris says: Well there is good and bad evidence but then there is YOUR case, supernatural mysticism, for which there is absolutely NO evidence. There is a word of difference there.
You said: Parroting Dawkins.
Boris says: I’m not parroting anyone but I’ve seen all YOUR arguments before hundreds of times, which is why it’s so easy for me to refute them and give you this verbal smackdown. You people are cookie cutter carbon copies of each other with the same old tired long refuted arguments that we must see and hear over and over and over and over again.
You said: Yet you cannot rationally argue where rational arguments originate.
Boris says: Yes I can. Logical arguments come from chemical reactions in the matter of our brains.
You said: If logic and reason are creations of man, then they can be broken.
Boris says: Yes you can torture logic and reason to come up with your beliefs in magic and magical fairies and explain the known with the unknown. Or you could use it to make sense of the world and try to explain the unknown with the known.
You said: Pick one and stick with it.
Boris says: Let’s see, I’ll stick with man-made logic and reason and you stick with your man-made religious dogmas and doctrines and your man-made God.
You said: “Dangerous” is when the “will to power” decides to do something with the world population without a transcendent moral law. Placing the value of “dangerous” is in and of itself a moral judgement. If there is no God, then why is it “right” to campaign against other religions? Are you going to sit there and sincerely tell everyone here that you would rather have a new Alexander running things?
Boris says: Religions are all false and that alone makes it right to campaign against them The 2000 year long Christian war on science has been the most destructive thing for mankind on this planet. We should all believe a “true” religion could be so WRONG about science. No way man.
You said: Oh wait, you’re subscribing to a belief system where others tell you what to think. How is this not a double standard?
Boris says: They don’t tell others what to think. That’s what theists do. Atheists tell us what THEY think. Philosophers have always done this. Wow your arguments are absurd.
You said: I’m not arguing to subjective experience. I’m saying “God” (even the rationalists God) is more real that the plastic keys you touch, or what you smell, hear, or see. You’ve never run the discourse on method and you’re too afraid to. You really think Hume falsified the law of causality.
Boris says: You just saying God is real is meaningless. Santa Claus is real. Mermaids are real. Prove they aren’t.
You said: Keep looking for that God particle.
Boris says: I’m not looking for God or any particles.
You said: Keep praying to your priests at the Hadron Cathedral.
Boris says: You pray and I’ll THINK for both of us. “Prayers may bring solace to the sap, the bigot, the ignorant, the aboriginal, and the lazy – but it is the same as asking Santa Claus to bring you something for Christmas.” – W.C. Fields

Boris says, “Even if there is a God no one knows anything about it so you still have to imagine its traits, which makes God imaginary.”
So, “…if there is a God,” (meaning there could be), because you’d have to imagine “its” traits, that means He doesn’t exist. Sounds like your screwing up.
We’re only giving you a taste of your own medicine, Boris. You’re the one that began all the Ad Hominem attacks, so why shouldn’t we just bounce them back on you? You don’t have to believe in God to believe, “What comes around, goes around.” Or, if you want to be ignorant religious people like us, “You will reap what you sow.”

W.C. Fields is a wonderful source; a drunken scoffer who gave flowers to little children in movies, but secretly hated children in real life.
Deconstructionists: really well-adjusted, positive, healthy people, who tear everyone and everything apart (for fun).
You’re nothing but a scoffer. You’re just so superior to all us ignorant people on Beliefnet who believe in “fairies.”

“Never give a sucker an even break.” – W.C. Fields. looks like Boris knows that one too.

Boris: [I’m not trying to convert any fundamentalist Christians into atheists.]
Great, but that’s not what I said. “This is an atheism that truly seeks to convert.” Who is not specified, and my Wired interview specifies otherwise.
Oh yeah, and see below. If your so-called “campaign” is right and good, then why are you denying here that you’re in a campaign to begin with?
Boris:[Fundamentalist Bible believers tell us that humans cannot be moral without God. Every Bible believing Christian I’ve discussed this with has told me that if there was no God there would be nothing to stop them from doing evil and harming other people. Anyone who would say this must be inclined only to do evil and not good. So you fundies go right on believing in your magical deity because we wouldn’t want to see what you would do if you found out there is no God.]
You call that an argument? “Good” and “evil” only become relative to individual opinion. Now multiply that by 6 billion individuals! You have a moral gap here that you have failed to account for, apart from humanity’s collective arbitrary whim.
Boris: [Actually I’ve only read Hitchens and Dawkins of those four. I’m a student of the Ancient Near East and my favorite atheists are the Greek philosophers. “Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don’t believe in the gods. What’s your evidence? Where’s your proof?” Aristophanes (c.448-385 BCE)]
So, you’re putting a. . .playwright over the major Greek scholars? Hello?
Boris: [”Everything has a natural explanation. The moon is not a god but a great rock and the sun a hot rock.” – Anaxagoras (c.500-428)]
Agreed. And this one helps how? Paul would pretty much agree w/this (Romans 1:23).
Boris: [“Do we holding that the gods exist, deceive ourselves with insubstantial dreams and lies, while random careless chance and change alone control the world?” – Euripides (c.480-406 BCE)]
Another playwright? *rolleyes*
See, I’m pointing this out because this is the second quote from the second Greek playwright where it’s uncertain whether he’s speaking for himself, or this is one of his characters.
Cite please. It’s like misquoting one of Shakespeare’s plays and attributing it to the author’s own personal beliefs.
Boris: [“Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun. man was like another animal, namely a fish, in the beginning.” Anaximander (c.610-546 BCE), Greek philosopher, journalist and media personality and Proto-Darwinian of the year 561 BCE Atheists have been mocking religion and religious people ever since there was religion.]
You got anyone who isn’t a playwright or pre-Socratic? BTW, Anaximander believed that nature was ruled by laws and that there was an apeiron or source of all things. This was not only taken on total faith, but it was also quite vague. So, you got the same problem there as I referred to earlier.
Boris: [I’m not on a quest to negate something that exists only in people’s imaginations.]
Yet you cannot bring that to certainty. You espouse an absolute in name only. Your “ism” is just a badge. You’re not omnipresent and your “perhaps/maybe” ideas are nothing formally certain.
Pop-atheist sez: All observed material phenomena is not God.
Pop-atheist fallaciously concludes: Therefore, there is no God.
Yet your argument tries to use the material only to argue against a non-material being. Hence my reference to Hadron.
Boris: [Even if there is a God no one knows anything about it so you still have to imagine its traits, which makes God imaginary.]
Another presumptive certainty statement! You argued an “if” here assuming a reasonable, trascendent, and omnipresent being would never make Himself known to us. How do YOU know? Your reasoning hinges on that “if” statement and nothing else. So either abandon it, or concede.
Boris: [Muslims imagine God is Allah, the Christians imagine Jesus is God, the Jews don’t and atheist think if there is a God he is probably made of Pasta and dresses in full pirate regalia.]
Now it’s being used to strengthen Christian apologetics. So thanks.
It comes down to the definition of “God” and your own honesty with that definition. To be fair, “God” is the only being that is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If any theology fails any of these 3 traits, then their “God” fails to truly “be.”
Boris: [So you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster then?]
See above. And I’d advise you watch your step, because your statements place yourself in the position that the FSM isn’t “mere satire.” But if you really wanna go there, be my guest.
Boris: [Character assassination and personal attacks couple with your groundless arguments and baseless accusations clearly illustrate you have no case and have already lost our debate BEFORE I even got started deconstructing you babble and nonsense.]
LOL! “Character assassination,” your own convictions render you a non-entity, and you accuse me of character assassination! ROTF!
By the way, have you watched Jeff’s vid(s) yet?
You’re seriously a poor excuse for an atheist and I’ve argued against way better. Dr. Lynne Atwater gave me a run for my money for about. . .6 hours once. I’m simply saying that as a self-described atheist, you just don’t have anything challenging, period.
Boris: [I’m no fan, my ancestors are Jewish and atheism is very popular and common among Jewish people.]
LOL! And look who you’re hiding behind. Arguing to the exception, rather than the rule.
Boris:[My brother and I are both lifelong atheists. . .and I could tell the stuff about the Soviet Union, Stalin and atheism just didn’t ring true. It wasn’t.]
Yep. “Just didn’t” and “it wasn’t” = “Just so” and “nuh-uh” arguments. LOL!
Boris: [Relax there probably is no God.]
Awesome. Now I know for sure you haven’t actually read any of my responses. If the probability is in favor of no God, then it’s still not 100% certainty and you’re a failed agnostic that’s merely a wanna-be atheist.
At this point, you’re just making yourself look bad. Why don’t you back up and actually read my points, as they are kinda unique. I mean seriously, I even appealed to 2 of your betters within your own “ism,” C’mon, throw me a bone here!
Boris:[Just be good for goodness sake.]
Wait. By WHAT STANDARD of goodness again? Answer this! C’mon, don’t chicken out now! Be a brave little atheist! Answer this just once for the big bad theist. I hope you can!
Boris:[I can see why Christians are afraid of that message. They know they can’t behave without the threat of eternal punishment so they falsely assume no one else cam either.]
LOL! There’s nothing to fear and it was answered. Answer the above question! Your appeals to probability and “goodness” x2 are pretty hilarious.
Boris: [It’s the baggage your God has that makes every rational person, every person who trusts reason over faith, science over religion, logic over dogma and doctrine reject the Christian God.]
Nope. You just haven’t venutured out of the playpen you call reason and I call willfully ignorant empiricism. You haven’t really done anything with your so-called skepticism, other than claim to have some. Sure, you make a lot of lofty and impotent claims, but you fail to answer a lot of questions. Hopefully you missed that post I made about “why” statements. God forbid you actually watch Jeff’s vid!
Boris:[It’s the angels, demons, Satan, Jesus, talking animals and vegetation, seraphs, heaven, hell and stories like Matt 27:52-53 in the Bible that says corpses came back to life and appeared to many. All the special pleading in the world won’t help your case for that bunch of nonsense. You can’t even prove the Apostle Paul existed.]
Then don’t argue to the Bible. The Bible assumes there is a God. If Paul is right in Romans 1, then you don’t need a Bible to know there is a God.
And you sure like to pick and choose who historically lived and who didn’t, huh? Pity this doesn’t work both ways for your pet Greeks. Because there’s more copy documentation that supports the historicity of. . .wait, nevermind. You disregard everything you’ve pre-judged.
Thus, your hypocrisy and prejudice. It’s like you don’t see any real problem with that either, especially after citing all the pre-Socratics. Some who’s original works are completely lost. But you’ll take them as historically valid, no prob.
So. . .yeah, for that reason above, you definitely ARE the most hypocritical atheist-in-name-only I have probably ever encountered. Sad.
Boris: [There was no body to find and one way we know this is that there is no tomb to find. Where is this empty tomb where this miraculous unforgettable occurrence took place? Did everyone forget where it was?]
Would a newly-founded religious spinoff of a religion that forbade worshipping idols, or contact with the dead, make a shrine out of a tomb? Sure, you can blame Christian mystics, but not Biblical ones who were (allegedly) chided by angels because they were gazing into the heavens. . .not a tomb. I might add one that was bought and paid for that was just sitting around doing nothing. Would Joseph (a Jew) turn it into a tourist trap?
And given the fact that you assent to the possibility of a Jesus Christ living to argue against the ressurection in the first place, then what’s your reply to the lie the proves the resurrection?
tinyurl[dot]com/amz35q
And, “you’ve heard it all before” isn’t a real argument. You obviously haven’t, because I’m not seeing any valid counterarguments at all here.
Boris: [Why isn’t there a single mention from one contemporary first century historian about Jesus Christ if he actually existed? Poof, there goes your case.]
Great, then you made yourself an even BIGGER problem, a Jesus cult with NO central figure and a conspiracy theory to boot. That’s stretching it beyond even the most rational historical scholarship.
So then why didn’t any of the first martyrs crack under pressure if they knew they were perpetuating a big lie? Why didn’t the gospels change over time (with entirely new stories) in light of comparative copy evidence? Why were other early gospels rejected?
You can’t substitue arguments to “class struggle” either, because many prominent Romans and Jews also joined. You appear to assume that “the church” was always this super-strong entity.
And if historians such as say, Flavius Josephus didn’t exist, then what is your standard for a valid historian? You obviously take the testimony of ancient Greeks who support your sparse pet pre-socratic atheists, so why the obvious bias? Yours is a unique problem considering all that initial bragging of yours.
Boris: [I’ve refuted your arguments before here on Beliefnet. They are a mixture of tortured logic, backward-reasoning, post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, special pleading, non sequiturs and religious superstition]
You mean “me” individually? Cite date and post please. I may have missed it. Your accusations cite alleged crimes here. Where are the quotes? Or do “all them Christians look alike” to you?
Boris: [No, this woman proves she doesn’t know what either atheism or evolution is, and unlike the groundless statements you make, I showed exactly why. Special pleading. Obviously someone has pointed out to you that that is what YOU do. So you learned a new term and know somehow think it fits on other people instead of your self. You fundies are funny.]
All you’re doing is putting me in the same position as Laura, and covering it over with, “nuh-uh” statements. You’d surely hold me accountable if I pulled that.
I am also obligated to inform you that by your stating the above, you’re simply elevating your atheism to a mystery belief. Bad move.
Stop the cop-out and admit that your “ism” isn’t as complex as you’re making it out to be. That is the very definition of special pleading, which I have never done on this board (or elsewhere) and you can’t find the quote either.
Boris: [Well there is good and bad evidence but then there is YOUR case, supernatural mysticism, for which there is absolutely NO evidence. There is a word of difference there.]
You only assume it’s based on mysticism. Again, you’re loathe to even consider those I have cited due to your own willfull ignorance. All you’re doing is fingers-in-your-ears screaming “mysticism” and “irrational” over and over. Yet your side is actually covering up far more than most atheists I’ve encountered.
And again, your answer does nothing to refute my statement. You place your own arbitrary whim on what qualifies as evidence and what doesn’t.
You don’t even have the guts to specify the parameters!
Boris: [I’m not parroting anyone but I’ve seen all YOUR arguments before hundreds of times, which is why it's so easy for me to refute them and give you this verbal smackdown. You people are cookie cutter carbon copies of each other with the same old tired long refuted arguments that we must see and hear over and over and over and over again.]
Still nothing. This statement is nothing more than mere posturing. If you claim to have a cogent argument, you can just cut, paste, and plug it in here, can’t you?
Kinda like how I’m doing. =)
Though, I am a bit surprised you’d go so far as to deny the existence of everyone who came within the remote neighborhood of a Biblical persona. . .even Paul himself. Just, wow.
Boris: [Yes I can. Logical arguments come from chemical reactions in the matter of our brains.]
Evasive. This statement does not specify whether math/logic is created by man, or discovered.
I also happen to have worked in medical records with neurology consults for almost 2 years now. Gimme the alleged chemical! Show me the study!
Boris: [Yes you can torture logic and reason to come up with your beliefs in magic and magical fairies and explain the known with the unknown. Or you could use it to make sense of the world and try to explain the unknown with the known.]
No, we’re arguing to plain old secular non-biased logic.
Aren’t we? I hope YOU are. Appeals to “magic” and “fairies” are presumptive comparisons and don’t have the wider historical backing that you of course ignore. No, you have chosen to appeal to a real minority historical scholarship here.
Boris: [Religions are all false and that alone makes them evil and makes it right to campaign against them The 2000 year long Christian war on science has been the most destructive thing for mankind on this planet.]
Then you’ve testified against yourself. You are on a campaign. But yet you still fail to specify the exact standard of “evil” you accuse it of.
And your “most destructive” argument is indeed laughable. Raw numbers please. Oh yeah, and don’t forget to include atheist dictatorships and personality cults.
Boris: [We should all believe a “true” religion could be so WRONG about science. No way man.]
Yet you yourself naively take anyone at their word who claims to be a Christian.
“All that is knowable falls into these five categories…time, force, action, space and matter.” -Herbert Spencer
“In the beginning (that’s time), God (that’s force), created (that’s action), the heavens (that’s space), and the earth (that’s matter).” – Genesis 1:1 (h/t to John MacArthur)
Boris: [They don’t tell others what to think. That’s what theists do. Atheists tell us what THEY think. Philosophers have always done this. Wow your arguments are absurd.]
WRONG BORIS! I’m SORRY, you read my statement the way you wanted to hear it, and now a copy of it is here for all to see!
The only absurdity is in your mind, because I said, “Oh wait, you’re subscribing to a belief system where others tell you what to think. How is this not a double standard?”
“YOU” SUBSCRIBE! That’s the opening operative phrase! The choice to “be the sheep” in MY statement is initially yours! Get it right! First A, then B, then C, Mr. Smart Guy!!!
Boris says: [You just saying God is real is meaningless. Santa Claus is real. Mermaids are real. Prove they aren’t.]
I appealed to a philosopher and you kicked it out within what. . .not 5 minutes of you previously replying, “Atheists tell us what THEY think. Philosophers have always done this.”
And I really need that overwhelming history section on the historical Mermaids. HELLO? I can give you a historical St. Nick, but I assume you’re asking for the elves and the flying reindeer too, right?
The Santa Claus argument is OLD and you make it under pretense. Cut the crap. It’s an argument to ridicule.
Boris: [I’m not looking for God or any particles.]
“We’re working on it.” -Dawkins.
Boris: [You pray and I’ll THINK for both of us. “Prayers may bring solace to the sap, the bigot, the ignorant, the aboriginal, and the lazy – but it is the same as asking Santa Claus to bring you something for Christmas.” – W.C. Fields]
“We’re working on it.” -Dawkins.
Is this all you got?
-PJ

The wonderful Atheistic Communist Soviet Union-I’m sure everyone has fond memories of the Gulags.
The Blessed Mother-”If mankind does not repent and turn back to God, Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, and several nations will be anhilated.” Fatima, Portugal 1913.
Maybe you’d like to get an apartment in North Korea?

First you said: This is an atheism that truly seeks to convert. One of the comparisons that I forgot to include was that they have their evangelists and their missionaries, Boris being one of them.
Then you said: Great, but that’s not what I said. “This is an atheism that truly seeks to convert.” Who is not specified, and my Wired interview specifies otherwise.
Boris says: Trip over your own words much? Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot and proving to everybody that read this that you had to backtrack and tell a big fat lie. There it is in print above. You certainly DID accuse me of trying to convert and then lied about it. Since you have totally discredited your self don’t bother making anymore inane long rambling incoherent posts.

Ignore this post: Johnny Fab
February 11, 2009 5:38 AM
“Never give a sucker an even break.” – W.C. Fields. looks like Boris knows that one too.
I see my stepson wants to get in the act. I give suckers an even break. Everyone can see that.

Now it’s being used to strengthen Christian apologetics. So thanks.
The very need for a thing called apologetics demonstrates the weakness of the theistic argument. God always needs apologies, excuses, defenses, tortured logic…. Notice there are no atheist apololgetics. Atheists don’t have to apologize for hoisting a big fat hoax on the world. The fact is Christianity can only be defended by arguments. Science on the other hand is supported by experiments and demonstrations, never arguments. Arguments are NOT evidence and the fact that that is all the theist has proves there is NO evidence whatsoever to support Christianity or any Kind of theism. Plus the argument form design, the argument from morality, the First Cause argument and all the other Christian smoke and mirrors have been thoroughly refuted.

Laura said: The Blessed Mother-”If mankind does not repent and turn back to God, Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, and several nations will be anhilated.” Fatima, Portugal 1913
Boris says: Ah yes, the mighty Judeo-Christian God, easily defeated by chariots of iron, and whose greatest miracle of the modern day is a light show to some people in a field. He truly is an awesome God…

Boris: [The very need for a thing called apologetics demonstrates the weakness of the theistic argument.]
This is an argument to what? Some kind of alternative non-existent overwhelming mental force or something? Instead of reasoned debate?
BEHOLD! Boris wants a MIRACLE OF MENTAL FORCE! SHAZAM! Something so dazzling and undeniably irresistable that no human will ever dare to resist. LOL!
Jesus is not my cosmic bellhop here.
Boris: [God always needs apologies, excuses, defenses, tortured logic....]
This is just another “say so” statement to throw on the pile.
Boris: [Notice there are no atheist apololgetics.]
LOL, I noticed. Ya think? Maybe it’s because there’s nothing but inductive-only and question-begging fallacies backing your side up.
Thanks for conceding we have an argument and you don’t. I’m not going to place the term “apologetics” on a hidden mystical pedestal like you have with the definition of atheism. In fact, you know what it means, or else you wouldn’t have to spin it.
Boris:[Atheists don't have to apologize for hoisting a big fat hoax on the world.]
Here you’re obscuring the definition. Either you’re confused or stupid. Again, look it up. I’m holding you responsible for what you claim to know. No special pleading here. The wonderful thing about Christian apologetics is never having to say you’re sorry (Romans 1:16, 1 Peter 3:15). And for that reason, I don’t fear you.
Boris: [The fact is Christianity can only be defended by arguments.]
And not overwhelming miraculous mental force. Yep.
Boris: [Science on the other hand is supported by experiments and demonstrations, never arguments.]
“Never” is an absolute and you’re not fooling anyone. What’s inductive and deductive reasoning if not arguments? What’s a Higgsless Model, if not a theoretical argument to Higgs?
You need to be replaced with a better representative to sell your side. This is pretty pathetic.
Boris: [Arguments are NOT evidence and the fact that that is all the theist has proves there is NO evidence whatsoever to support Christianity or any Kind of theism. Plus the argument form design, the argument from morality, the First Cause argument and all the other Christian smoke and mirrors have been thoroughly refuted.]
Then where are the actual refutations? This is nothing but more “just so” statements and you know it.
And look! Boris is arguing too! He thinks that by repeating “No [empirical] evidence over and over, that he has a valid argument himself, which he’s blindly arguing. . .on a computer. . .with words. What’s that spell? H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y!
Boris! Answer my questions! You’re falling WAY behind now, and resorting to vain repetition here, as you were chanting a mantra that actually means something.
You’re chickening out and failing to answer hardly any of my questions.
Here’s some free advice. Why don’t you read up on some more up-to-date arguments and stop making your side look so incredibly silly. Find some certainty in your arguments for a change. Get something better than “is not,” “nuh-uh,” and “empiricism only.”
Stick a fork in it, you’re done.
And please, I beg you, stop with the pretentious pre-Socratic quotes. That was LOL! When you started denying even the historic apostle Paul while at the SAME TIME quoting ancient Greeks that have far less historical evidence. That stuff had me ROLLING!
And Boris, when it comes to atheists, I know some guys that would love to put you on the bench and trade you out for someone who isn’t a rookie.
-PJ

Congratulations, Boris. You’ve blasphemed Jesus Christ, and now you’re insulting His mother.
I will never, even under a death sentence, apologize for Jesus Christ.
You’re going to have to apologize to Him someday.
Your gods are “reason,” and the “current” scientific community who are all Atheists.
I see you know a little about Catholicism too. So, you’ve studied all there is about God, and even His mother, who by your definition “don’t even exist,” in order to “kill” what “doesn’t exist,” and therefore has “no power whatsoever.”
That makes a lot of sense.

Laura beat me to it! LOL, kudos to the Catholic. That was awesome!
For that reason alone, this guy just isn’t worth it anymore.
-PJ

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
——————————————————————-
Notice the we at the beginning. Does a liberal point of view which is imposed by the government include, taking away the we point of view and imposing their own on public airways.
unconstitutional:taking away freedom of speech from public airways and making it a onesided view controlled by a liberal media.
p.s. I don’t feel the common defence, general welfare, blessings of liberty to ourselves is brought forth by individuals which take these civil liberties and freedoms away with the government philosophies of legalizing murder. Let’s face it, when we let others take away children through public policy depriving them of religious freedom and their very existance, we are not holding up to the written documents of our foundation of The United States of America. Let’s love the children instead of kill them, public policy initiators.
Cara Floyd

Thanks for the compliment, PJ! I think you’re right. I’ve had enough of Boris too. So, I’m just going to ignore his posts. I’ll just have to resist the temptation. He can rant and rave all he wants, and no one will even reply anymore. Maybe he could find some other Christians to terrorize on Beliefnet.
Laura

Christian, then agnostic — Darwin was a conventional Christian for much of his life. He studied at the University of Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, just prior to the Beagle voyage. Later in life, he described himself as agnostic, not atheist.

This quote above was from the Leftist MSNBC. This is what they call one of the “strange facts” about Charles Darwin.

Here’s one for all young college students out there that believe everything their Communist professors tell them: Albert Einstien, a believer in God stated: “The Theory of Relativity is for Physics, not Ethics.” He was horrified at what people were using his theory for.

A PBS host and a Cuban “intellectual” declare Barack Obama “our Fidel Castro,” and they mean it as a compliment.-Rush

Laura:
You said: Here’s one for all young college students out there that believe everything their Communist professors tell them: Albert Einstien, a believer in God stated: “The Theory of Relativity is for Physics, not Ethics.”
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” – Albert Einstein
Apparently there are still people today systematically repeating the lie that Einstein believed in God. People on this very blog! Imagine that. And someone we’ve already seen caught not being truthful about other things several times now.

Tracheostomy, Laura,
I am very pleased to see the two of you speaking openly, and trying to answer questions for those of us that have honest opinions and are actually seeking to exchange ideas here. Trach, I picked up quite a bit in the way of Methods of discussion, I am not an apologist myself primarily, though as a witness and evangelist (speaking primarily to small groups or individuals) I often run into the same concerns.
I have spoken to Boris on these boards before, and, likely to his chagrin, I still pray for him daily. Boris, if you read this (Which I hope you do) You need to find out first what Christianity is actually all about. And then, if you will start from a truly open mind and heart, you may get some of those answers that you are so desperately seeking.
“For the word of teh Cross is foolisness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” 1 Corinthians 1:18-19
A couple of things that I have noted and would like to simply point out.. To help clarify some terms. Scientific terms: Hypothesis- a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation
Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral. Scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute.
(source, Websters Dictionary)
This is why Evolution (macro evolution, the chance from one species to another) is simply a Hypothesis. It has been suggested, but there has been no provable method of verifying it. Some call it a Theory, but it is not, because it cannot be tested.
Micro-evolution.. or adaptation, is however a Law. All species change to some degree over time, often in a fluctuating manner. IE, humans are generally taller, and slimmer, than they were 2000 years ago.. We are still, however, still human, as they were then. And, Micro-evolution actually Prohibits Macro-evolution. The amount of change is already programmed into the DNA of any given creature.
Next, you were adressing earlier a statement from the Biblical archeology magazine. in which you stated that “They definitively proved that David and Solomon did not exist”.. there are two problems with this. 1) The writing you were referring, was a dissenting opinion, not based on an archeological find. And second, Science cannot prove a negative. That is a logical fallacy. it can say ‘we have not found yet’ and it can say ‘we have found x, which appears to be mutually exclusive of y’. That isn’t to mention the more recent 2008 writings which indicate they have found what they believe to be the seal of King David. (In the same magazine)
It is important to point one last thing out. Science and the Bible are NOT incompatible. God Extablished the laws upon which our universe operates.. he can break them at his own will (Parting the red sea, raising the dead, etc.) but the laws he created as part of revealing himself. This is actually important when you realize that, many of our early scientists started with the bible. Including Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Galileo Galilei, Lavoisier, Kepler, Euler, Eddington, Gauss, Flemming. Just to name a few.
There are still many excellently intellectual people, who place the bible and its words over those of science. Science, has after all been proven wrong before. The Bible has not.
I pray that the lord will soften your heard Boris, and let you see that he is not your enemy.. if you will simply stop being his enemy.

Tracheostomy
You said: This is an argument to what? Some kind of alternative non-existent overwhelming mental force or something? Instead of reasoned debate?
Boris says: If there is evidence to support your religion, why the need for faith? If you had any evidence we would never hear the end of it from Christians. Instead we see 28 different TV shows and I don’t know how many books on the Fraud of Turin. This is the best you can do after 2000 years? The fact that Christians think this fraud is evidence for something shows what kind of nonsense passes for evidence among people wanting very much to believe.
You said: BEHOLD! Boris wants a MIRACLE OF MENTAL FORCE! SHAZAM! Something so dazzling and undeniably irresistable that no human will ever dare to resist. LOL!
Jesus is not my cosmic bellhop here.
Boris says: Can you prove there was a Jesus and how?
You said: This is just another “say so” statement to throw on the pile.
Boris says: You have made not one statement that wasn’t a “say so” statement. Can you point one out for us please? ROFL! What are apologetics then exactly if they aren’t excuses for the lack of evidence?
You said: LOL, I noticed. Ya think? Maybe it’s because there’s nothing but inductive-only and question-begging fallacies backing your side up.
Boris says: No we don’t have to apologize for not believing something. Atheists have nothing to prove.
You said: Thanks for conceding we have an argument and you don’t. I’m not going to place the term “apologetics” on a hidden mystical pedestal like you have with the definition of atheism. In fact, you know what it means, or else you wouldn’t have to spin it.
Boris says: Atheism: (a) no (theism) God belief. Atheism is a lack of belief in God.
You said: Here you’re obscuring the definition. Either you’re confused or stupid. Again, look it up. I’m holding you responsible for what you claim to know. No special pleading here. The wonderful thing about Christian apologetics is never having to say you’re sorry (Romans 1:16, 1 Peter 3:15). And for that reason, I don’t fear you.
Boris says: What do I claim to know exactly? I didn’t claim to know there is no God. But you do fear what I know and the fact that others can easily find these things out too.
You said: And not overwhelming miraculous mental force. Yep.
Boris says: What overwhelming miraculous mental force?
You said: “Never” is an absolute and you’re not fooling anyone. What’s inductive and deductive reasoning if not arguments? What’s a Higgsless Model, if not a theoretical argument to Higgs?
Boris says: Theoretical arguments are part of science but they do not support science. Arguments are all that support belief in God. Where’s your evidence? In your imagination, that’s where it is.
You said: You need to be replaced with a better representative to sell your side. This is pretty pathetic.
Boris says: I don’t have a “side.” You should talk. If your God really exists and wants people to believe in him he really needs to get some better representation here on Earth.
You said: Then where are the actual refutations? This is nothing but more “just so” statements and you know it.
Boris says: The argument from design is refuted by the fact that the first life on Earth had no DNA and reproduced by simply falling apart. The complexity of DNA and life itself is the result of 4 billion years of cellular evolution. It didn’t just randomly pop into existence nor were all species created at the same time. 99 per cent of all life that once existed on Earth is now extinct; hardly an argument for “Intelligent” design. The First Cause argument is refuted by the fact that the mass energy that comprises the universe probably always existed just in a different form before the Big Bang. Poof, no cause needed. I’ve already refuted the argument from morality by showing how our morals have evolved as we have.
You said: And look! Boris is arguing too! He thinks that by repeating “No [empirical] evidence over and over, that he has a valid argument himself, which he’s blindly arguing. . .on a computer. . .with words. What’s that spell? H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y!
Boris! Answer my questions! You’re falling WAY behind now, and resorting to vain repetition here, as you were chanting a mantra that actually means something.
You said: You’re chickening out and failing to answer hardly any of my questions.
Boris says: This is what is happening and everyone can see it too: I have meticulously pasted your arguments with clear refutations after each one. What do you do? You ignore these refutations and your own contradictions I point out and simply attack my intelligence and character thereby proving you have already lost our little debate. You’re the one who is chickening out and it’s plain to anyone reading these posts.
You said: Here’s some free advice. Why don’t you read up on some more up-to-date arguments and stop making your side look so incredibly silly. Find some certainty in your arguments for a change. Get something better than “is not,” “nuh-uh,” and “empiricism only.”
Boris says: Again you should talk. You have failed to refute anything I’ve said yet. Don’t say I need up-to-date arguments until you PROVE it. Instead you make personal attacks and bend logic until a real conversation with you is impossible. Why haven’t YOU been able to make an argument I haven’t seen or heard yet or one I haven’t completely refuted? Tell us all please.
You said: Stick a fork in it, you’re done.
Boris says: I call attention to this post: Boris February 11, 2009 3:08 AM where I did a meticulous and amusing deconstruction of every word in one of your posts. To simply ignore that and say “Stick a fork in it, you’re done” is just absurd. Anyone who reads that post can plainly see the opposite is true.
You said: And please, I beg you, stop with the pretentious pre-Socratic quotes. That was LOL! When you started denying even the historic apostle Paul while at the SAME TIME quoting ancient Greeks that have far less historical evidence. That stuff had me ROLLING!
Boris says: Socrates and Atlantis didn’t exist either. They were inventions of Plato. Just where and what EXACTLY is this evidence for the “historic apostle Paul?” Where is any evidence for any of the apostles EXACTLY? The Bible says so just won’t cut it. I want evidence that isn’t circular apologetic smoke and mirrors.
You said: And Boris, when it comes to atheists, I know some guys that would love to put you on the bench and trade you out for someone who isn’t a rookie.
Boris says: Sure you do. Name ‘em and claim ‘em. Bring ‘em on. I’ve been a guest (not a caller) on the radio more than once discussing these same things and am doing another show in March I think. How many radio shows have you been on? Be careful whom you are calling a rookie. Let me know when someone who has a forum like the radio or television invites YOU to speak or debate for an hour. Until that happens YOU’RE the rookie and I’m in the Show. How come you haven’t been able to refute anything I’ve written and ignore the clear refutations I’ve made of your statements? I show how you are wrong and you just claim I am. No one on this blog thinks you’ve made any points in any debates with me. If they do, let’s see them.

The world is firmly established and shall never be moved (1Cron 16:30; Psalm 96:10), on a foundation (Job 38:4) with deep sunk based (Job 38:6) and a dome over it (Gen 1:6). Flat Earth mantra validated beyond any question by Bible. Do you win many converts by telling them to shut up?

The Torah is VERY errant and contradictive to that of scientific facts. The first book of Genesis alone should be enough to invalidate Judaism to any INTELLIGENT person. Sadly, not only is Judaism still one of the world’s leading religions, but it has spawned the most insane theism (Christianity). The goal of this page is to expose the inaccuracies of the Torah, hence shooting down its divine claim. All the verses shall appear in chronological order. Feel free to copy what ever you wish.
1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.
2) “And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night….’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.
3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.
4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
5) “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind… ‘And the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-13), versus “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life… And God created – great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly… And the evening and the morning were the fifth day” (Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before vegetation and life appeared on land.
6) “And God said, ‘Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20). Birds did not emerge from water.
7) “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made…every thing that creepth upon the earth after his kind…” (Genesis 1:24-25). Science contends that reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously. While reptiles existed in the Carboniferous Age, mammals did not appear until the close of the Reptilian Age. “So God created man in his own image,…male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27), and “the evening and the morning were the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31). If Adam was created on the 6th day, approximately 6,000 years ago (Bishop Usher’s calculations), then nobody lived before 4,000 B.C. Prehistoric men would be fictitious. By tracing the genealogy of Jesus back 77 generations to Adam, the third chapter of Luke also supports belief in a very young earth. If each man had lived approximately 100 years, then the world would be no more than 9,684 (7,700 + 1984) years old. If each of Jesus’ ancestors had lived to be 1,000 years old (an age not even reached by Methuselah), the earth would still be only 78,984 (77,000 + 1984) years old, according to creationists.
9) “And to every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so” (Genesis 1:30). Carnivorous beasts and fowl do not eat green herbs, nor were all animals originally herbivores. Simply consider tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, barracudas, tigers, etc.
10) In Genesis 1, the entire creation takes 6 days (Genesis 1:31), at the end of which the earth and its living things are pretty much as they are today. But we know from modern science that the universe (including the earth and life on earth) evolved slowly over billions of years.
11) In Genesis 2:7 humans are created instantaneously from dust and breath, whereas they actually evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. Science can in fact trace back human evolution CONCLUSIVELY 3 .2 million years.
12) God makes the animals (Genesis 2:18) and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while, why Adam would still have to be living for we haven’t even discovered nor named all the species. Also consider the idea of every living creature being brought to the Middle East, that would have killed many animals due to climatic changes.
13) God curses the serpent, making him crawl on his belly and eat dust (Genesis 3:14). One wonders how he got around before — by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don’t eat dust, do they?
14) “There were giants in the earth in those days.” Genesis 6:4 But there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants. Also there is a reference to the “Nephilim” being on the earth. Which is a term used for half angel, half human. Why is there no archaeological evidence for the existence of the Nephilim either?
15) Noah is told to make an ark that is 450 feet long (Genesis 6:14-15). The largest wooden ships ever built were just over 300 feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. Even so, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly. Are we to believe that Noah, with no shipbuilding knowledge and no shipbuilding tradition to rely upon, was able to construct a wooden ship that was longer than any that has been built since?
16) Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female representatives from each species of “every thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 7:8). Now this must have taken some time, along with expert knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, biogeography, and anatomy. How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely unknown to him? How, once he found them, did he transport them back to his Near Eastern home? How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart? How did he know how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals? How did he find the space on the ark? How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species or the hundreds of thousands of plant species? (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the animals wouldn’t last long if the plants died in the flood.) No, wait, don’t tell me, a miracle happened, millions of them.
17) All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 per second. How did poor Noah and his family make sure that the correct number of each species entered through the door and then get them all settled into their proper living quarters so efficiently? I wish the airline companies could do as well!
18) The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20). Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record?
19) When the animals left the ark (Genesis 8:19), what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find there way back after the flood subsided?
20) Noah kills the “clean beasts” and burns their dead bodies for God (Genesis 8:20). According to Genesis 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all “clean” animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. So why is it that we still have “clean” animals?
21) God is filled with remorse for having drowned his creatures in the flood. He even puts the rainbow in the sky so that whenever the animals see it they will remember God’s promise not to do it again (Genesis 9:13). But rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops. There were rainbows billions of years before humans existed.
22) “The whole earth was of one language” (Genesis 11:1). But this could not be true, since by this time (around 2400 BCE) there were already many languages, each unintelligible to the others.
23) (Genesis. 11:4) According to the Tower of Babel story, the many human languages were created instantaneously by God (Genesis 11:9) But actually the various languages evolved gradually over long periods of time.
24) (Genesis 14:14) Abram goes into pursuit looking for his captive relative in the city of Dan. The problem here is that the city of Dan did not exist until over 300 years after Moses died. How is it that Abram could enter the city of Dan, when the city did not even exist?
25) Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.
26) Camels don’t divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:4). This statement is completely moronic for every TEENAGER knows what a “camel toe” and how it used to describe a specific split.
27) The bible says that hares and conies are unclean because they “chew the cud” but do not part the hoof (Leviticus 11:5-6). But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not “chew the cud.”
28) Bats are birds to the biblical God (Leviticus 11:13-19 & Deuteronomy 14:11-18).
29) Some birds have four feet (Leviticus 11:20-21).
30) If there is a God, there is one thing we know for sure about him: He really likes insects (particularly beetles). There are more species of insects, by far, than all other species of life on earth. As JBS Haldane said, “he has an inordinate fondness for beetles.” Yet insects are said to have four legs in Leviticus 11:22-23.
31) Unicorns have never existed, yet they are said to in Deuteronomy 33:17.
32) Fiery serpents have NEVER existed yet Numbers 21:6 claims they do and TO THIS DAY STILL inhabit certain cities.

The Bible’s Flat Earth mantra is still alive and well:
Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth’s surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth…reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth’s farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him…”
You like that, huh Trach? FYI I am NOT an atheist. Post whatever you want and I’ll use your Bible to show it to be false. See, I’ve actually read the thing.

All right you guys, I want to call a truce, and ask for peace for a minute, because that’s what women usually do when they see anyone arguing. I understand that all three of you are angry, or at least two of you, whether you admit it or not. I don’t think anyone is laughing or finds this funny because you are all insulting each other. This argument or debate obviously could go on forever with no one being convinced of any of each other’s reasoning or faith. I think that this debate basically boils down to this:
1. All the religions of the world all use different texts, and all have different interpretations of each text (from the original manuscript).
2. All Theists do not believe the same things, and neither do all Atheists. Their beliefs are not all identical within each group.
3. All beliefs of any kind are as numerous and unique as all of the people on the Earth and all of the personalities they have.
4. Not everyone defines terms in the same way. All have different definitions and perspectives.
5. Basically, there are two types of human beings living on the Earth: Those that look around at everything that can be seen, and decide by their wills to believe 1. This is all there is, or 2. There must be someone or something that put me and all this here.
6. These two types of people believe either 1. It is evident to me, that since people are in control on the Earth, there must be nothing greater than the human intellect or what man can explain or invent, or 2. Since I believe that I couldn’t possibly know everything there is to know, and I can’t explain how everything works, or how it was made, there must be something or someone greater, or more knowledgeable than me.
7. One type of person says, 1. “There could be a God, but I choose not to believe (I don’t exercise any faith or 2. There could be a God, and it makes sense that there must be one, therefore I choose to believe (I will exercise my faith).
8. I believe that every human being has been given a measure of faith; some more than others. A person can decide by there own will to put their faith in mankind (because that’s what I can see), or, to put their faith in someone or something greater than themselves because they believe there must be something or someone greater (Mankind couldn’t be all there is).
9. Therefore, it is a decision of the “will” of the person, whether to believe only what they can measure and see, or, a decision using the “will” to believe that there must be things beyond what I can see with my own eyes (or with an invention of man etc.).
10. It is the will of a person that decides “I believe only what I can see.” Or, through my will, “I believe that there are things I cannot see.”
11. Either, “There is nothing greater than man.” Or, “There must be something (someone) greater than me.”
12. Therefore, “I choose not to believe that there is anything greater.” Or, “I choose to believe in something greater than myself (or mankind).
13. The difference between these two viewpoints is: An act of the will.
14. The person who believes that there is nothing greater than man decides that he will figure out how everything that is seen works, and doesn’t believe that there is any opinion higher than human.
15. The person who chooses to believe that there must be more than eyes can see, decides to ask “the Something or Someone” who is greater, “Please show me who and what you are.”
16. Therefore, the first man looks for what is already revealed, and the second man looks for something beyond what is already revealed.
17. The first man does not have a spiritual experience. The second man does have a spiritual experience. It is a decision of the will to either not desire a spiritual experience or to desire one and ask for one.
18. The first man has no spiritual experience because he does not ask for one, and is not open to spiritual things, so he will not experience or understand spiritual things because he has had no revelation.
19. The second man asks (God) for a revelation, receives one, and now begins to understand spiritual things.
20. It basically all comes down to, 1. I say “No” to God, or, 2. I say “Yes” to God.
Some children are taught that there is a God, and they are introduced to spiritual things. They don’t truly believe them yet, but they do as they are told (go to church etc.). As they grow up (some younger than older), they decide by their will to believe or not to believe. If they decide by their will to believe, the spiritual experiences are opened up to them and then they have personal evidence that they are real. If they decide they will not believe, spiritual things are never revealed to them. Either their faith is exercised, and it grows through revelations or It is never exercised, and there are never any revelations.
Faith is an act of the will. It will either be used, or it will never be used.
Decide to say “Yes” to God, and you Will have revelation. Or, decide to say “No” to God, and you will not receive revelation.
Every person is given the choice to say “Yes,” or “No.” It is up to each individual.
Therefore, the two people either receive 1. Only Earthly revelation or 2. Or, both Earthly and Godly revelation.
There is a gap between the two individuals, and neither one will be able to convince the other of what’s true.
Each individual will see the other side as silly, and unreasonable.
Revelation is not based on intellect, but an initial act of the will. Both people can be just as intelligent as the other.
Please add any individual corrections, or additions. I tried my best to explain the differences between a spiritual person and a non-spiritual person. Neither person is more valuable (to God); my personal insert, than the other.
Continue to debate the ideas, but please don’t insult each other anymore. I apologize for my sarcasm and/or insults in previous posts. We’re hear to debate ideas, as do Rev. Lynn and Jay Sekulow.
Laura

Thank you, PJ, and I hope to meet up with you again some day! Boris, did you read my post? Did it make any sense at all? (Not sarcasm). I apologize for being mean. I will pray for you also. (Not sarcasm).
All people get angry, and can misbehave, no matter what they belive. The best we can do is say that we’re sorry, agree to disagree, and wish the best to all on the board.
I will probably not be able to be on the board for too much longer because of starting up grad school again.
I hope our future conversations can be more productive. Thanks to all!

I agree to move on to the next topic.
Laura

Hi Boris,
You said, “Boris says: But monotheism HASN’T been agreed on. You can’t argue for the existence of God unless you first assume there is a God. So your argument falls on its face because it assumes what it sets out to prove is already true.”
I agree with these statements. Monotheism has not been agreed upon, but is believed in the major religions of the world: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Also, one must have a personal revelation of God by asking Him for it, whether silently in one’s mind, or verbally in a prayer etc. Just as with Atheism, you first have the belief in the same way, that there mustn’t be a god or God, and then there is evidence found from others before you (Science, opinion etc) to back it up.
As I stated before, the Bible was just a good storybook, until I had this personal revelation, when I asked God if He was real, then the Bible made sense to me. But not just because it said so, but that the Bible as a whole could be grasped and became coherent. It also made sense (its teachings on morals etc) from looking back on my life so far (self-examination) and my experiences with others.
If no one is introduced to God, through the teachings of parents etc., they will likely not take the leap of faith to make an attempt at asking this God if He will reveal Himself to them. The Bible will remain to seem silly and nonsensical, or a work of fiction.

Sorry about that. I posted again, thinking your post was re-posted on under the new topic. I thought I clicked on the new topic. I guess it’s from fatigue!
THE END

Laura the Bible IS a work of fiction. Stories with dialog in them are NOT historical narratives. Ever. You think the Bible is true because you want to and other superstitious people told you it is. It isn’t no matter what you or anyone else believes.

Boris,
I just have a quick thought. Let’s say that we had a face-to-face conversation. Then I wrote down every bit of dialogue and penned it accurately. Then let’s say someone 2000 years from now finds it and reads it. Just because it has dialogue does not mean that it is untrue. Right?

Wayne,
First of all you could not remember our conversation five minutes after we had it. When we are reading conversations between people in a story setting we are reading fiction. There is no such thing as ancient historical narrative that contains dialog in it. Who for example could have possibly recorded the private conversations between people like David and Saul, Jezebel and Ahab or Nicodemus and Jesus? No one else was present but them. Who recorded the absurd conversations between the friendly talking snake and the rib woman, or the talking donkey and Balaam? When we hold the Bible up to routine literary criticism that we learned in elementary school it flunks every test there is as historical and passes all the tests for fiction with flying colors. No one would believe the stories in the Bible if they saw them in any other format. But because the Bible had been given this mysterious aura by believers, people forget everything they’ve learned about literature and surrender their common sense and even their dignity and buy into the dogma that God wrote the Bible. Sure he did. The Bible says the Earth is flat and never moves and this has been proved beyond any doubt whatsoever recently on this blog. Even if you believe in divine inspiration you’d have to believe in divine DICTATION to believe any of the dialog in the Bible was anything but right out the storyteller’s
imagination. The whole notion that the Bible was dictated word for word by some sort of magic is about the most indefensible claim a person could make. You have to buy into absurd dogma and be incredibly brainwashed to believe a story about corpses coming back to life, climbing out of their graves and appearing to many people. Now if you still believe the Bible is historical please tell us all why. I think we already know though don’t we? You’ve been frightened by other PEOPLE into thinking that if you don’t believe every word of the Bible you will be punished with unimaginable violence in an afterlife. How else could anyone get you to believe these stupid stories in the Bible? THINK about it and get back to me.

Boris,
First, I wish you would quit saying that the Bible says the Earth is flat, and never moves…..That is a gross misinterpretation of scripture.
Anyway, the question is posed….Why do i believe the Bible is historical?
Well, it is not because I am afraid of eternal punishment. It is not because I am brainwashed. It is because something inside of me (I call it the Holy Spirit, and you call it my emotions, fear, or whatever you choose) tells me it is true. Of course we can’t prove that a donkey talked, and we can’t prove that God came from heaven, died, and rose again. That’s why the crux of Christendom is faith. While I still believe the Bible is 100% accurate (and I’ve read your previous posts concerning supposed contradictions and still believe the Bible is inerrant) I also realize you have to take a lot of it by faith. I know what happened to me when I chose to fully trust the Bible….my life has not been the same. I’ve seen the prayers answered in my life when I prayed to the God of the Bible. I’ve seen people be healed after following James chapter 5.
So, why do I believe the Bible? Because I choose to. Because I want to. Because I have indescribable peace when I trust the Bible. I have a joy that I never had before becoming a Christian. And because I’ve tried, and just can’t believe anything else.
BTW, I do believe that God wrote the book by speaking to men by the Holy Spirit while empowering them to accurately pen it.

Wayne,
You said: First, I wish you would quit saying that the Bible says the Earth is flat, and never moves…..That is a gross misinterpretation of scripture.
Boris says: You want me to stop saying the Bible claims the Earth is flat because it’s true and you know people can read their Bible’s and see this very easily. Since the earth is purportedly motionless upon its pillars in the biblical universe, and the sun deceitfully appears to be the body in motion, does the Bible imply that the sun has movement as it relates to the daily cycle on earth? Once again, we’re not required to examine these potential implications because the Bible plainly delivers its held position to us. “[The sun’s] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it” (Psalms 19:6). In more comprehensible English, the sun journeys across the sky in a circular path. Thanks to the work of early astronomers, we now know that the sun is stationary relative to the planets around it. Twenty-five hundred years ago, it would only be logical for divinely uninspired individuals to assume that the sun was the body in revolutionary motion.
On the other side of the coin, there’s a singular instance found in Isaiah that Christians often flaunt to promote an imagined harmony between the Bible and the true configuration of the earth. All the while, previously mentioned scriptures authored by Isaiah and his colleagues go completely ignored. Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” The word in question here is “circle.” A circle is a flat two-dimensional object, while a sphere, the approximate shape of the earth, is a three-dimensional object. The original Hebrew term used in this verse is chug, meaning circle. The same word is used twice in the book of Job to describe Heaven and the sea, two areas that we have no reason to believe anyone ever considered spherical. Furthermore, Isaiah does not use the actual Hebrew word for sphere, kadur, in 40:22 even though this utilization would have been much more appropriate if Isaiah intended to convey a spherical planet.
You said: Anyway, the question is posed….Why do i believe the Bible is historical?
Boris says: Just because your life was changed when you started believing something doesn’t mean that what you believe is true. People have the exact same story when they adopt other religions. Based on your logic that would make those other religions true too. Are they?
You said: I’ve seen the prayers answered in my life when I prayed to the God of the Bible. I’ve seen people be healed after following James chapter 5.
Boris says: One common factor common to all “medical miracles” is ambiguity. Just how sick really was this person in the first place? Would he have recovered without prayer? The answers to the questions are always nebulous. Why are God’s “miracles” never clear-cut? Why couldn’t a man who had had no legs whatever for twenty years suddenly wake-up one day with a brand new pair? Is this feat impossible for God to achieve? If God has the power to miraculously cure others (though invariably in a vague and uncertain way), why doesn’t God ever help amputees? The fact that amputees have never been healed proves to me that all supposed medical miracles are nothing but hoaxes based on selective observation.
“Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads….” – Martin Luther
You really should resort to prayer and not go running to doctors who use their knowledge of evolution by natural selection to cure you. I find it VERY hypocritical that just about every fundamentalist Bible believing Christian goes running to the “evolutionists” when they get sick. Doctors should refuse to treat creationists on the grounds that the evolution – based cure they would provide goes against their religion. The Bible clearly says that diseases are caused by demon possession and cured by authority and NOT human knowledge which we both know is disparaged in the Bible.

Wayne,
You said: Of course we can’t prove that a donkey talked, and we can’t prove that God came from heaven, died, and rose again. That’s why the crux of Christendom is faith.
Boris says: This is why I have always been and will remain an atheist forever. Outrageous claims such as those in the Bible must be proved before any thinking person can accept them. Just blindly accepting them because other PEOPLE told you to is just silly.
You said: So, why do I believe the Bible? Because I choose to. Because I want to. Because I have indescribable peace when I trust the Bible. I have a joy that I never had before becoming a Christian. And because I’ve tried, and just can’t believe anything else.
Boris says: Believing something because you want to is the worst reason to believe anything. What you believe isn’t going to be true because truth doesn’t demand belief. Science is our best defense against believing what want to. I would suggest you pick up some science books and stop reading propaganda from creationist liars and goofy fairy tales you’ll never understand. The people you trust are the most dishonest, evil and ignorant people on the planet.

Pres. Barack should be praised for expanding upon the faith-based care initiative. There is no problem with receiving federal money for secular purposes, likened to a sectarian school receiving federal money for transportation or lunch programs. Moreover, this type of program supports and contributes to the facilitation of broad ideologies that make up the fabric of our Country.