It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. I'll point out some common errors and misconceptions that atheists have.

Atheist error #1 Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said

The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.


Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification

The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.

Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific

The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:

Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.

This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.

Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.

Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”

Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.

Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology

The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”

The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible.

So there are just some of the common misconceptions atheists have concerning the bible. If you had any of these misconceptions then I venture that you must re-evaluate your position. God bless.

First off, I still refute your statement that there are a finite number of statements about the universe that can be true. For instance, Hawking has proposed that there are perhaps an infinite number of parallel universes causing an infinite number of truth statements about the cosmos. Already, we have programs that can write additional complexity in themselves, causing an infinite rule-set of truths to be created. Also, any statement about truth being finite would itself be about the set, not in the set, causing a new set to be created to include that truth. Any statement about absolute absolute finiteness statistically can't be shown. (This was the same fate the logical positivists suffered. For something to be true, to them, it had to be verifiable. But you can't apply the verification principle to itself nullifying its usefulness as method for determining absolute truths.)

Plus, the way you setup your statistic is to show that for a finite universe, the probability of an infinitely increasing number of Gods being true goes to 0. But no religious person even holds to the idea that all religions are true simultaneously. This statistic is meaningless as it is measuring the value to wit no one is asserting is the possibility of the conditions of deities.

Furthermore, if we disregard your strict adherence to the idea that the cosmos must be finite, we can, in fact, have an infinite number of religions true simultaneously. It would be the limit of x infinity^infinity/x as x goes to infinity. My calculus I is rusty, so I think that is either 1 or infinity, I don't know which.

For me, though, estimations are never close enough to make no difference when Truth is concerned. I hope you don't take my tone as argumentative. I have taken it as two folks with a difference of opinion. However, I do think that statistics are a poor model for evaluation the likeliness of deities. It doesn't matter if all are true, only one needs to be for us to be satisfied. It would be akin to relating the belief of the big bang to a religion and discounting it because it can't be simultaneously true with conflicting theories of existence.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

It's simple. There are an infinite number of possible 'guesses' one could make about the universe with no observation of reality. Yet the number of statements about the universe which can be true are finite. Yes you cannot divide infinity, that is why I said at first that 'statistically' God cannot exist (try to follow along here and keep more than one post in mind at a time, I don't want to repeat myself). Because, as you say, it is an estimation. The number may not actually be 0, but it is close enough that it makes no difference.

Time and space are more intertwingled than you think. Just the fact that stars are so insanely far away makes the odds astronomical (badum dum tish) that we would detect or be detected by another civilization.

To be detected, there would have to be another civilization with listening capabilities (radio, microwave etc) that evolved at maximum 200 light years away from here... 200 light years is nothing in the astronomical scale.

Chances may be higher that we can detect some other civilization, but that means that they would have to have sent out signals equivalent to their distance from here in light years, so that we can pick them up. They can be much older than us and live further away and have sent their signals while we were still cavemen or fish or before even, but that would likely mean that they will be a long time extinct when we get the signals. And it would also mean that we never, ever would be able to contact them.

Just from the forseeable distance, we likely will not be able to contact any alien civilizations, since, I mean just 200 light years would mean a delay (lag if you will) of 200 years(!!). Try to remember back on the last two hundred years and think of how much we've changed. Theres no conversation to be had that way. Just the verification of existence, which I guess would be cool in itself though.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What if Israel sponsored an "aid convoy" to the pro-democracy factions inside of Iran? And when stopped at the border by the Iranian military the activists ran at the soldiers with knives, screamed anti-Muslim slogans, threw flash grenades, and assaulted the soldiers? The resulting news that "Iranian soldiers shoot 9 Isreali militants posing as aid workers for violating thier borders..." wouldn't get so much as a mention on page 50 behind the classifieds. Isreal shooting 9 militants posing as aid workers who violated their borders gets international attention. Its bull crap.
Countries have borders for reasons. If groups of people (Mexican illegals, Muslim activists, whoever) choose to violate and disrespect those borders then they subject themselves to justified retaliation. Don't want problems? Don't violate borders. And don't try and justify the dumb@$$es who disrespect borders. They're criminals.
When I travel I have a passport that has to go through a verification process 6-ways from Sunday. Yes - in EVERY civilized nation I've been to I am asked the question, "Undt do you haff your PAPERS?!" I have no problem whatsoever showing my passport because I have nothing to hide and I've FOLLOWED THE RULES. I expect (and respect) every nation to vigorously enforce their laws. If I ran screaming into a port of duty waving a knife I would fully expect to be either shot or locked up forever. But I'll never do that because I'm not a stupid moron idiot like these boatniks.


Not sure what you're on about. The attack happened in international waters, no one violated any borders.

Es ist "Und haben Sie ihre papiere". Nicht das Kuhscheiße Sie schrieb.

What if Israel sponsored an "aid convoy" to the pro-democracy factions inside of Iran? And when stopped at the border by the Iranian military the activists ran at the soldiers with knives, screamed anti-Muslim slogans, threw flash grenades, and assaulted the soldiers? The resulting news that "Iranian soldiers shoot 9 Isreali militants posing as aid workers for violating thier borders..." wouldn't get so much as a mention on page 50 behind the classifieds. Isreal shooting 9 militants posing as aid workers who violated their borders gets international attention. Its bull crap.

Countries have borders for reasons. If groups of people (Mexican illegals, Muslim activists, whoever) choose to violate and disrespect those borders then they subject themselves to justified retaliation. Don't want problems? Don't violate borders. And don't try and justify the dumb@$$es who disrespect borders. They're criminals.

When I travel I have a passport that has to go through a verification process 6-ways from Sunday. Yes - in EVERY civilized nation I've been to I am asked the question, "Undt do you haff your PAPERS?!" I have no problem whatsoever showing my passport because I have nothing to hide and I've FOLLOWED THE RULES. I expect (and respect) every nation to vigorously enforce their laws. If I ran screaming into a port of duty waving a knife I would fully expect to be either shot or locked up forever. But I'll never do that because I'm not a stupid moron idiot like these boatniks.

>> ^entr0py:

But it is a dilemma when you think about it. If you are going to have laws against the possession of child pornography, you almost have to rely on "expert" guesses at age. Since the vast majority of kids appearing in actual CP could never be tracked down.

Still though if someone could track her down as easily as just looking up her Myspace page then I suspect they didn't try very hard to find her for verification. I'm not sure how the system works now but I think there should be consequences if the prosecutor doesn't make sure they've got all the facts straight, especially if they had actually managed to get a conviction. More than likely though they probably didn't give a damn whether he was really guilty or not and just wanted the conviction.

I'm curious to know how this has affected the creditability of the pediatrician, etc that stated she was a child just based on what they seen in the video. Granted, the pic of her did look like she was a preteen, but still...you'd think a prosecutor team would at least ensure some verification rather than "expert testimony" stating "Oh yeah...I've seen plenty of kids. Thats totally a kid."

Which is fine, I suppose, if there is some sort of repercussion when you're proven wrong...and these folks were obviously proven very very wrong.

Awesome! thanks for the verification and promote!

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Works great, not blocked any more- great ending. *promote

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I have read it. I support the Anonymous action. The "banning small breasts" thing is actually, mostly true.

From the site that's linked from that Crikey link you posted Spoco:.

UPDATE 29/01/10 12:19PM: Fiona Patten has provided additional comment:

“I would like to clarify a few points. In the last 18 months the Classification Board has revoked over 30 serial classifications for a range of reasons, one major one being that the models appear to be under 18. These revoked classifications do not appear on the classification database.”
“Late last year I attended a classification publications training session with three adult magazine distributors and one publisher. We were shown a range of images and the notes made by the board were read out. The underdeveloped nature of the model’s breasts was cited as a reason for the image to be refused classification numerous times.“

“All the publications that have been refused classification adhere to the very strict US laws that enforce model age verification in adult publications and films. These laws are upheld by the FBI. There is no chance that any of the models were under 18.”

>> ^spoco2:
ARGH!
Again with this bullshit..

NO, THEY ARE NOT BANNING SMALL BREASTS. Does no one actually go and check things anymore?
sigh .
Yes, Australia has some ridiculous censorship laws. YES, the attempt to install a mandatory internet filter is utter bullshit. YES we are denied R rated games.
BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE.
It hurts the real cases when this is spread around as if it's fact, because it isn't.
The ejaculation thing is true, which absolutely friggen baffles me... WHY?

To understand why this makes sense you have to know how secure RF verification works.

Most people assume one step:

remote: hey open the doors
-- car unlocks doors

This would allow anybody with a digital recorder and a properly tuned radio transceiver to unlock your car, so instead we do this:

remote: hey car #29837485, I want the doors open
car: okay, just send me the password scrambled with this code: 3943847283
remote: the scrambled password is 2938277437
-- car unlocks doors

For this to work, the remote must be able to hear the car, that is your limiting factor. The car has a big antenna relative to the remote, it can easily hear the remote. If the remote does not get the scramble code ( called a nonce) then it can't send the right response, and the car will not get the right code, and will refuse to unlock the doors.

The human body is a pretty good antenna, especially for receiving purposes, and so we give the little remote the RF antenna it needs to hear the car, and complete the conversation.

1st this is about frozen produce which is labeled as being from china. If you shop at a whole foods you are probably the same kind of person who checks the labels (I know I do). All the fresh produce is labeled on the price plaques. 2nd the organic fresh produce sold at whole foods here in Chicago is often cheaper than the pesticide produce at regular grocery stores. I don't see whole foods as a premium store simply because they are generally cheaper at least in my area.
-Karl

PS. I think it sucks that they don't seem to have better checks on their verification process, especially when dealing with stuff from china. When I worked at IKEA I found that they have a whole division of the company dedicated to worker protection in the various countries they have factories in. Being a Swedish company they would have to be really careful just because of how active the people are politically and human-rights wise in Sweden. Now you would figure Whole Foods would behave similarly knowing who their customers are.

Liberal Lies About National Healthcare: Fourth in a Series
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, September 09, 2009

(12) Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job" -- as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.

This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama's economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year's end.

The only reason you can't keep -- or often obtain -- health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of ... government intrusion into the free market.

You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you can obtain car and home insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government. (Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.)

Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.

Meanwhile, state governments must approve the insurers allowed to operate in their states, while mandating a list of services -- i.e. every "medical" service with a powerful lobby -- which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs a boob job.

If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."

Plus, think of all the paper a one-page bill would save! Don't Democrats care about saving the planet anymore? Go green!

(13) The "public option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.

Why does the government get to decide when the "trigger" has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is -- and I believe the historical record is clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking "triggers"?

Why not have a "trigger" allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers -- but only when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks?

Thinking more broadly, how about triggers for paying taxes? Under my "public option" plan, citizens would not have to pay taxes until a trigger kicks in. For example, 95 percent of the Department of Education's output is useful, or -- in the spirit of compromise -- at least not actively pernicious.

Also, I think we need triggers for taking over our neighbors' houses. If they don't keep up 95 percent of their lawn -- on the basis of our lawn commission's calculations -- we get to move in. As with Obama's public option trigger, we (in the role of "government") pay nothing. All expenses with the house would continue to be paid by the neighbor (playing "taxpayer").

To make our housing "public option" even more analogous to Obama's health care "public option," we'll have surly government employees bossing around the neighbors after we evict them and a Web site for people to report any negative comments the neighbors make about us.

Another great trigger idea: We get to pull Keith Olbermann's hair to see if it's a toupee -- but only when triggered by his laughably claiming to have gone to an Ivy League university, rather than the bovine management school he actually attended.

(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.

This appeared in an earlier installment of "Liberal Lies About Health Care," but I keep seeing Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies -- which, in itself, constitutes proof that it's all true.

Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan -- where they think they have no reason to be sneaky -- in support of national health care?)

On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.

On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman -- a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one -- originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did -- as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.

If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?

Disrespectful? Sure. "No president has been treated like this ever?" Hardly. Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM

So let us not pretend that this is some sort of 'Republican' problem. People from both sides of the aisle are guilty of this, and they're doing it with increasing frequency. Its a little late in the game for neolibs to be clucking their tongues at such behavior now. Such protestations are reserved only for the innocent. From the guilty it is nothing but hypocrisy.

Now - on to substance...

I for one am not so willing to say that Wilson's accusation is wrong. He shouldn't have blurted it in the middle of a speech, but his sentiment is correct. While Obama is not OVERTLY lying about the immigrant issue, he is not being honest, straightforward, or clear either. That's typical political speech though. Skate close enough to the truth that you can always back up and say, "Hey I'm not totally lying." But at the same time play pretty fast and loose with facts.

For example - it is 'technically' true that the immigration bill claims to exclude immigrants. So Obama can make his two-faced claim, "Hey - illegals won't be covered..." And it's the 'truth' right? Not exactly.

This is the same guy that keeps going around claiming that we have "43 million uninsured". Well he BLOODY WELL KNOWS that a huge chunk of those 43 million uninsured are illegal immigrants that he's including in his total to make it sound like 20% of Americans are running around not able to afford insurance. That's bullcrap. He can't go around saying we have "43 million uninsured" that he means to cover, and then turn right around and say "illegals won't have access." But it isn't very compelling when you realize that he's asking for a TRILLION DOLLARS to cover only about 15 million people if he's serious about his 'illegals won't have access' claim. That's asking for almost $70,000 per uninsured person. Pretty expensive plan, eh? No wonder he's trying to bury his facts.

And that's not even touching the fact that not a single one of the plans in the House or Senate has any plan for verification of citizenship. They say that illegals won't be able to get in - but if they have no plan to verify (and ENFORCE!) citizenship then it is nothing but words. And leave us not forget that not a single bill is out of committee yet. Who can say with certainty that there won't be some last minute provision, or scheme, or whatever that jams in an illegal coverage loophole?

So Obama can flap his gums all he wants, but just because it 'says' illegals won't be covered in the bills doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen. I remember the 1986 Reagan immigration & control reform act. Know what? That act 'claimed' that it was going to start enforcing immigration rules and clamp down on illegals. Know what? It DIDN'T! Why should I believe that this bill is actually going to exclude illegals when there is no plan in place, and every past attempt to enforce citizenship has failed completely?

So was Obama lying? Maybe not technically, but in practical reality his claim that illegals won't be getting insurance or medical care is complete load of honk. He's got no plan, he's got no enforcement. As far as I'm concerned, that's as close to a lie as you can get.

I'm tired of letting politicians get a free pass when they talk smack answers to questions and skate by on technicalities and half truths. I don't like it when any politician weasels his way out of the SUBSTANCE of an accusation by hiding behind puffery and bureauratic double-speak. So I'm going to call things like I see it and come out and say that Obama IS lying. Neolibs can pretend that his jargon makes him 'technically' truthful, but it's in every practical way he's spewing lies. Until Obama comes up with a CONCRETE (IE written in a bill and NOT just rhetoric) solid, provable, and enforcable plan that clearly and plainly excludes ALL illegals from ever getting insurance or receiving medical care then he's lying.

Strangely enough when I discuss it with people they often mention the system proposed as a fascist movement of some sort, that much I can attest to. There are not enough hours in teh day to listen to all the right wing bullshit they must be filling their heads with but the people in opposition to the plan, simply put, are misinformed.

Some oppose it because they dont want one gov run system (not proposed)
Some oppose it because they dont want tax dollars going towards abortions (laws on teh books against gov funded abortions already)
Some oppose it because they dont want the gov choosing their doctors (already doesnt happen with medicare and furthermore nearly all private insurance already dictates which doctors/hospitals u can/can't go to)
The list goes on...

The sad thing is, misinformation is being asserted as fact and people are too lazy to get info from a reliable source or simply multiple sources for verification, spreading rumors is much more fun.

Me? I talk about it every chance I get because my quality of life has been seriously effected by privatized insurance and their unwillingness to cover people with legitimate insurance claims.

Strangely enough when I discuss it with people they often mention the system proposed as a fascist movement of some sort, that much I can attest to. There are not enough hours in teh day to listen to all the right wing bullshit they must be filling their heads with but the people in opposition to the plan, simply put, are misinformed.

Some oppose it because they dont want one gov run system (not proposed)
Some oppose it because they dont want tax dollars going towards abortions (laws on teh books against gov funded abortions already)
Some oppose it because they dont want the gov choosing their doctors (already doesnt happen with medicare and furthermore nearly all private insurance already dictates which doctors/hospitals u can/can't go to)
The list goes on...

The sad thing is, misinformation is being asserted as fact and people are too lazy to get info from a reliable source or simply multiple sources for verification for that matter, spreading rumors is much more fun.

Me? I talk about it every chance I get because my quality of life has been seriously effected by privatized insurance and their unwillingness to cover people with legitimate insurance claims.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
^ The stupid belief is that private health insurance if truly deregulated would cover people. Which is inanely dense. Look at the insurance market in any other commodity, the insurer is not on your side. Their incentive is to deny claims not fulfill them. This might work in strict legally defined markets like housing or car insurance but not health as health depends on alot of factors beyond people's control. My private health insurance may not cover pre-existing conditions, so if I have a heart defect and I get a heart attack. That could be thought of as a pre-existing condition.

Health care should not be in the realm of the private market, especially through provision of insurance. It's not a tangible commodity where transactions and coverage can be strictly defined.

Not mentioning the usual blah blah US spends the most, covers the least, has the worst health care indicators.

Personally as someone living outside of the US am extremely fascinated in the ferocity of opposition to Obama's health care reform, its not perfect and very middle ground, being still very much rooted in the private insurance industry. But jesus the opposition to it sounds is akin to Obama imposing fascism.