Pope Paul VI, the pope at the time of the moon landings, had a lot of things to say about the event--pretty much all of them positive judging from this article. I can't find any record of him demanding missionaries be sent into space to convert other life forms. Anyone have a source?

In fact, the only thing about space missionaries I could find was this opinion article... which turns out to be a heavily slanted gross exaggeration of this actual news story which itself is clearly a humorous take on the subject and certainly not any sort of "announcement" from the Vatican.

I didn't know of this woman before this vid. I'm very grateful to her for helping getting prayer out of schools. I'm sickened by the way she died. But I get the feeling from this vid and the other one @xxovercastxx posted that she was hated as much for her extremely confrontational attitude as for her atheism. She's like a forerunner of Hitchens.

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime". Also with the ridiculous comparisons between scientology and Christianity. It was so egregious that I couldn't help but feel I should just go to youtube and find a Hitchens video and comment there as my reply.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

It's not the church that is making someone feel guilty, it's their own God given conscience that does so. People don't come to believe in Christ because they were guilted into doing so; that in itself is a ridiculous premise. People come to Christ in part because of personal conviction from their own conscience; they already knew they were guilty. They realize that it is not just other people they have offended but God Himself, and without a mediator they have no hope of standing on their own merits.

Yes, I know what you're implying, since you already shared your history with me. It's true many previous believers strike out in anger because they feel wronged for being indoctrinated. In your case, it's probably justifiable. However, it goes much farther than that. This kind of person tends to get disillusioned and emboldened, and goes to the other extreme, feeling cocky and self assured because they now perceive themselves as being elevated and enlightened over anyone who believes.

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

These sorts of people usually become worse sinners than anyone else because they feel above Gods laws. They treasure this new found "freedom" and don't want to give it up in their self righteouness. What they perceive as freedom from the law is really mental and emotional derangement from sin. So in the same manner they still hate Gods authority because they prefer their sins.

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Regardless of how people may have abused Christianity in the past does not speak to its truth. If anything it confirms it, as the bible warns countless times of false teachers and prophets who will try to distort the message and use it for gain. The early church flourished under heavy persecution, and Christians were murdered continually for the truth they shared. Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive? Give me a break.

What you're talking about is the catholic church, and they aren't Christians. They are basically a pagan religion that worships Mary and the Pope. There is a conspiracy in that so called church, a will to power. Among Christians, however, we exist in fellowship. You were part of a church once and you still apparently want to stay that way, so I think you understand about fellowship.

I dislike the catholic church as an institution, but not catholics..and it isn't to say there are no Christian catholics..but in any case, what's crap is the attitude problem..civil discourse is already at a minimum in society..but its becoming culturally acceptable to be intolerant towards religious beliefs and christians in general because of inanity like this..to just openly mock and deride people for what they believe..this is just another disrespectful egotist lowering the bar by vomiting up hate speech against people who have faith. if this is all the respect an atheist can come up with for his fellow man, it doesn't go very far in convincing me of his so called superior truth..it really just shows the whole ignoble farce for what it is..

>> ^kymbos:

Cue thread derailment by Shinyblurry in 3..2..1...


He's already expressed a great dislike for the Catholic church so I doubt he'd mind this video all that much.

This is only a problem of definition. You're defining evil to be a universal attribute that applies to both God and man, but it doesn't. That is because evil itself is defined simply as disobedience towards God, and thus something only a man can do. God cannot disobey Himself. Nothing God does could ever be defined as evil because God isn't under His own authority. God is the source of the authority which defines for us what evil actually is. Gods omniscience is not violated because it not applicable to Him.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?


Wikipedia is not used as a source by intelligent people as intelligent people know that it can be edited by anyone, including those with a personal interest. You are an intelligent person, so it surprises me that you would use it. Try looking at a dictionary.
And you make it very hard to respond to your entire posts as you spend the whole time avoiding the crux of the argument. If there is something evil that God cannot do, he is not omnipotent. If God can do evil but chooses not to, then he still has the capacity for evil. As such, if God is "incapable of evil", then he is not omnipotent.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?



Wikipedia is not used as a source by intelligent people as intelligent people know that it can be edited by anyone, including those with a personal interest. You are an intelligent person, so it surprises me that you would use it. Try looking at a dictionary.

And you make it very hard to respond to your entire posts as you spend the whole time avoiding the crux of the argument. If there is something evil that God cannot do, he is not omnipotent. If God can do evil but chooses not to, then he still has the capacity for evil. As such, if God is "incapable of evil", then he is not omnipotent.

I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:

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

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began

In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?

Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.

It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.

Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?

@blankfist I have to say, this is just getting sad. A City Council deciding on a building fire code regulation? Aren't there real injustices still happening in the world?

IMO, the people objecting raised mostly reasonable questions about it. The video doesn't show the answer to the reasonable questions, just to the boneheaded ones (e.g. you mean you're going ahead even though we whined at you in person?). If people don't like what the council does, they have plenty of recourse to take.

The council are all elected officials, and the people objecting are unable to make their case to the people of the city about why this should move their vote in the next election. They can file suit against the law if they think it violates some sort of Constitutional statute. Or worst comes to worst, sue the city if something does indeed go wrong and they incur damages because of the lockbox.

As to the conversation @GeeSussFreeK and @Skeeve are having about "the merit of an idea does not depend on the number of people who hold that idea", while I agree that statement is true, it also is almost a non sequitur. Gallileo was prosecuted by the Catholic church for saying things that later turned out to be true. George Bush wasn't tried for war crimes, even though he's directly confessed to ordering crimes against humanity (waterboarding).

If you want to see your meritorious ideas gain the force of law, you need to win popular support for those meritorious ideas. Saying "free speech is in the Constitution" isn't at all a guarantee you're going to be legally allowed to speak your mind. Free speech (or any other right you think you're entitled to), will only persist as long as a significant portion of the population feel strongly that you should have it.

So back to the actual lockbox case. Suppose the government accepted all liability for damages that may result from lockbox abuse. Does that set your minds at ease? If not, what "right" is it you think is being violated?

A Christian is someone who follows Christ and the true church is the body of Christ. This means that all the different denominations are false divisions in the body. This doesn't mean they don't have any Christians, it just means that the church is not a human institution..the catholics for example, most of what they do is not biblical, and is in fact blasphemy. There is no such thing as a pope, or nuns, or monks or priests in the bible. Neither are there sacraments. The conception of the virgin mary and the immaculate conception are both unbiblical and blasphemous. The same with bowing to statues, the worship of Mary, and confession. The catholic church is rife with apostacy. Does this mean no catholic is saved? I wouldn't say that..I don't limit God. I would say though that if I were catholic I wouldn't be confident of my salvation.

I wasn't "indoctrinated". I grew up agnostic, without any religion. I was a strict materialist who would have fit right in with many of the sifters here. I can understand the perspective of someone who can't see a spiritual reality because that used to be my perspective. I probably would have scoffed at this video too, but it would have been from the depths of ignorance. I have direct knowledge that there is a demonic host controlled by Satan who runs this world and is bent on seperating every soul on Earth from Jesus Christ. I have dealt directly with evil spirits, spoken to them directly, and have been directly deceived by them. This girl, whatever her history is, is/was possessed..of that there is no doubt.

Science is great, but this is spiritual warfare. You may not understand it, but you live in harmony with this world system and thus passively support the objectives of the enemy. Everytime you're arguing against Christ, you are doing Satans work for him. The world itself isn't frightening..

matthew 10:28

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. If you're a jew, you should know that much.
>> ^G-bar:
First, It is stated in the video that she had had this "possession" for a long time, and her medieval parents were taking her to those voodoo sessions for quite some time. This hints that the girl could be suffering from a minor mental illness and/or autism, which the parents are either too dumb or too religious to realize. Making her do things against her will over and over again might make her go completely crazy.
Second, If catholics are not the real Christians, who is? what are you shiny? how can you justify your own belief as the correct one?
And to sum it up, you throw every possible scientific measures against evolution, and now this? come on shiny, let go of your childhood indoctrination. Use your own eyes to see the world and you will see it is not as frightening as they told u it would be.

Ah, the classic case of correlation versus causation.

In the U.S., between 1974 and 2004, 52.2% of all homicides were committed by those who listed their race as black, despite blacks accounting for 12.6% of the population (according to the 2010 census).

This of course will lead most racists to conclude that black people are inherently violent or cold-blooded, etc. Nevermind the socio-economic status of the majority of black Americans (almost a quarter of them live on wages below the poverty line, much higher rates of unemployment, etc.) which is a much more likely to be a reason for the crime statistics. Nevermind the justice system that has a much higher conviction rate for black offenders (probably also tied to the socio-economic status since if you can't afford a private lawyer you're going to get stuck with an over-worked and underpaid public defender).

It seems to me much more likely that these attacks are the result of immigrants who are coming from countries (Iraq, Somalia, and Pakistan seem to be where most of the rapists have come from) where they were likely already successful predators due to a lack of law enforcement and crumbling social structures. Old habits die hard. They move to Oslo and continue their predatory ways.

But could Islam really be the cause of this? Let's look at another statistic:

In Oslo, there are approximately 163,000 Muslims. Let's be generous and assume that only a quarter of these are adult males (40705) and the rest are women and children. Let's also be generous and assume that for every rape reported in Oslo, 10 rapes go unreported due to fear or shame (86 reported rapes x 10 unreported = 860 rapes). Let's further be completely unrealistic and assume each rape is the result of an individual offender (no repeat offenders or serial rapists). So now we have...

860 rapists / 40705 adult male population = 2.1% of the population

I've been hugely generous with these numbers, but I think you can see that this particular statistic does not really implicate Islam as a cause of the rapes. Wouldn't we expect to see a much higher percentage of the male population rampaging through Oslo if Islam was truly the cause of this behavior?

I'm not implying Islamic attitudes towards women don't contribute to the behavior of those who commit these crimes. But it seems hard to believe Islam is somehow responsible for these crimes any more than Christianity is responsible for pedophile priests (though the Catholic Church is certainly responsible for covering the abuses up).

>> ^shinyblurry:

Thanks, I appreciate it. Many satanists dont actually believe in the devil..that's been one my examples for how clever he really is.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't get Satanism. If you simply must dedicate your life to religious fiction, why side against the protagonist? It's like believing Harry Potter is real and then siding with Voldemort. Silly.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't think you are a troll, shiny. You're just a bit more subversive than the typical Christian. I like subversive, even if I don't agree with you.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?






Who's clever? Satan? For having the dumbest followers on earth? Yeah, maybe you're on to something there. The Catholic church sure has racked up alot of money and power that way.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Do you wear a cologne called attitude? You could bottle the sneer dripping from your words and sell it for a tidy sum. Though it doesn't surprise me that you're actually advocating for Satan in the story, it was a lie no matter how narrow, obtuse, and willfully ignorant your interpertation is. They did die, that makes it a lie. God told them the truth about it.
It was not their lack of knowledge that made them "inferior", it was their faith in God that made them superior. Yet, God gave them the choice didn't He? Your argument here is null and void. He enjoyed a perfect relationship with them but He gave them the choice of knowing anyway. He warned them if they did it they would die. They chose not to trust God and lusted after his power, and then they reaped the consequences, which was seperation from God. It's the same story going on on Earth, right now, in every heart that has turned away from God. What He did, and is still doing, is fair and just. He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do, and He even gives you fair warning.
What's absurd is your nasty and sarcastic attitude. It's just pure arrogance; have you ever read the bible? You're here railing against something you have no understanding of. You're condescending to me about my intellect when even a child has a more cohesive understanding here than you do. Btw, regarding the ridiculous "blasphemy challenge"
John 6;39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
As far as whether the Earth is old or young, I don't know. It isn't clear. I've seen models where the geology of the planet could be explained by a young Earth, and ones that dispute it. I don't really care, to tell you the truth. It makes no difference to me whether the Earth is young or old. Science hasn't proved it either way, and the bible isn't exactly clear on it, so there isn't a way for me to say definitively. To me the jury is out and it doesn't look like it will be back anytime soon. What is important to me is a relationship with Jesus Christ, not how old His creation is.
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did. They chose to believe the lie instead, and lusted after Gods power. Thus they sinned and became spiritually seperated from God. The perfect cannot be joined with the imperfect.
The whole point of our lives is to love God (and eachother) and live with Him forever in paradise. That's why He created Adam and Eve in the first place. Man sinned and fell, became seperated from God, and became mortal and lost their place with God.
Your argument is that it is immoral. Well how can you judge God? No sinner could and I include myself in that. How could an immoral being judge a moral one? It's only your excuse for not doing what He told us to do. God is Holy, but you have believed the lie that He isn't. You are choosing death over life, because that is all sin is. The soul that sins is the soul that dies, but Gods gift is eternal life.
In regard to the unforgivable sin, the reason it is unforgivable is because when you become a Christian you receive Gods Spirit. His Spirit is what transforms us, makes us a new creation. If you reject His Spirit, you cannot be transformed, so therefore you cannot be forgiven.
Everyone who has taken the so-called blasphemy challenge just to please their inner demons of being completely dead to Christ are mistaken. None of them have done anything unforgivable and can all still be saved.

I was going to suggest reading Byron's "Cain: A Mystery", which develops the immorality of original sin in a much more sophisticated and poetic fashion, but seeing that you did not even get the point of the nonstampcollector video I linked (if you even watched it), Byron would be way over your head.
You say: "God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did."
Have you even read the Bible? God is the one who lies, saying "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen.2:7); the serpent, OTOH, tells the truth (Gen. 3:4-7, italics mine):
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, [...]
It is the lack of knowledge that makes the fabled first humans inferior to (and dependant upon) their father-figure creator. Religion relies on ignorance, obedience and blind faith in authority, i.e. everything that demarcates a dependent infant from an independent adult.
You use a lot of religious terms as if they actually meant something. Please define these if you want your argumentation to be the least bit intelligible:
God; sin; moral (in relation to "God"), God's spirit.

Since you did not address the incest remark while continuing to speak of Adam and Eve as if they really existed, I'll assume that you really do think we all descend from only two humans, which is totally absurd. Do you also think the Earth is only 6000 years old? Perhaps the Sun revolves around it (Eccl.1:5)? And is it a flat disc (Is.40:22)?
(Btw, most of those who took the "blasphemy challenge" grew up Christian, so no, imaginary Sky-Daddy cannot forgive them)



Since you continuously miss the subtleties of my critiques while avoiding the actual questions that are being posed, I will spell it out as simply as I can. (Note that my intellectual condescension, which you are right in spotting, is based entirely on your unintelligent responses and childish emotional reactions, your disregard for logic, your circular reasoning and your incessant ad hominem attacks. But please, don't let my "nasty and sarcastic attitude" get in the way of your reasoned and logical argumentation... for which we are still waiting.)


1. On the literal reading of Scripture: My question as to whether you took the Adam/Eve/Eden myth as factual and historical truth is crucial, and since you continued to base your argumentation on the assumption that it is, I followed up with questions pertaining to other literal readings of the Bible, i.e. YEC, geocentrism and flat earth theory. In later comments you dance around the issue of the Earth's age, but refuse to address one of my first questions: is all humanity the actual descendants of the fabled Adam and Eve? If not, the whole theory of original sin crumbles. You might argue, as the begrudgingly-evolution-accepting catholic church does, that "original sin" is equivalent to "human nature", which completely voids the whole "created in His image" and "free will" things.

2. On hypocrisy and cherry-picking: I wish I could say how surprised I am at you being oblivious to your hypocrisy and self-contradiction, but it is all too common among religious apologists. You accuse me of "narrow, obtuse, and willfully ignorant" interpretation, of arrogance, ignorance and condescension (I fully own up to that last one), and in the very same lines are guilty of all of the above. What makes your interpretation correct, and mine - which is based directly on the actual text - incorrect? Oh yes, your dogma, which declares that there is only one correct reading of the Bible, i.e. the Christian one, no matter how contrary to the text it is. You assume that any one who contradicts your creed with the help of your holy book "has no understanding" of it... and I'm the arrogant one? I could be a theology major for all you know, and while I am not, I have read the Bible thoroughly enough to know it for what it is: a collection of myths, romanticised history, laws and poetry, written by men.

Concerning the "blasphemy challenge", if I understand your reasoning cherry-picking logic, there is no need to believe in God, the Bible or any Christian creed, since we're all going to heaven anyway, right? But then, in a later comment you proclaim that only some are chosen ("many are called..." I know). What happens to those who are not and, more importantly, how will you get out of that without contradicting yourself?

3. Please do not skirt the questions: note that the "answers" to my earliest questions, repeated here, were unintelligible due to your use of terms (see below) which need clarification.

>>"So the story of Adam and Eve is not just a myth, and we are all descendants of incestuous sex (twice, if the story of Noah is taken into account)?

So God values blind obedience higher than natural curiosity, and expects Adam and Eve to obey without knowing that disobeying is "bad" (since they don't yet have the knowledge of good/evil)?

So it is moral to punish an infinity of generations of humans for what their ancestors supposedly did? And then present the "gift" of forgiveness if you submit to the god who caused you to be "sinful" in the first place??"


>>"You use a lot of religious terms as if they actually meant something. Please define these if you want your argumentation to be the least bit intelligible:

God; sin; moral (in relation to "God"), God's spirit."

Well, I'll have to disagree with you here. God isn't a myth. At the very least, God is an idea, and a philosophical conception. Let me ask you this, since you're science minded..Is the postulate of a creation really that irrational? Why is it so unlikely that it was? You may not agree with a particular account of creation, but just the basic question of how the Universe got here..why does creation seem unlikely to you?

I mean, for a species that hasn't even left its backyard, don't you think its a bit premature to rule that out? That in itself is bad science..as well as the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support that view. Only a lack of evidence is pointed to, but as William Lane Craig says, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, religion has been misused. Evil people can abuse anything, especially Gods authority. Personally, I don't agree with anything the catholic church has done. If they are Christians, it's only by the skin of their teeth. There have also been evil atheists, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot..and others who slaughtered tens of millions of their own people. It's human nature that is the problem here.

I know you don't believe in a spiritual reality, so you just don't get this video at all. It's not about the mans insight, he is describing an experience. This video is kind of chopped up..if you really want to evaluate it, watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9f2n0xPZ3k ..it's an interview which is much more indepth and makes some things clear which are not apparent.

For instance, when he goes to hell..he experiences being there for an eternity..not just a few minutes like it seems in the video..he describes being there for a vast amount of time, being self-aware the entire time and vividly recounting the thoughts that he had. He also goes into supreme detail of the experience he had with Jesus in going over his entire life, and secrets God revealed to him..not only that but he spends perhaps months with Jesus learning from Him and the angels in a question and answer session.

When he finally gets back, it turns out he was only unconscious for a moment..so all that time that had passed only equaled a moments time here. Plenty about this experience is unique, and intriguing. I would humbly submit that it is your lack of curiousity about the subject, mixed with the judgements you already have, that prevent you from seeing that.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
there is a bias, all communities have a common ground. i just don't think the bias is against people of faith as much as it is a bias in favor of empirical evidence and against perpetuating bad science and myths. all myths, not just ones of a religious nature. and all bad science, not just creationism. i generally don't upvote atheist videos either. because they're often loaded with self righteousness and bad arguments. i do however, upvote good science and i do upvote thoughtful insight. i just didn't find this mans insight particularly insightful or original. people often have religious experiences when facing death, i have absolutely nothing against that. and i can understand the need to believe in an afterlife. i think spirituality is deeply personal and deeply powerful and deeply beautiful and fascinating. i think religion, however, is a massive power game and i think power breeds massive corruption... see the history of the catholic church and the influence of the christian right on todays political landscape.

"Edgy?"

For your clever representation of Christianity you select the mentally-deranged vermin of a "church" already universally despised and condemned by an overwhelming majority of Christians.

Why that's like making child rapist roman polanski the poster boy for all H-wood directors!

Yes, the Holy Bible endorses slavery, but it was Christian abolitionists in America and England leading the fight to end that evil institution.

Castigating the Catholic Church (bold, courageous target!--that's never been done!) for "teaming up" with Hitler?

It's so easy and Hollywoodically-correct to bash Christianity.

A book about pedophile zombie mohammed: that's balls. Maybe I'll write that one.