*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, August 21st, 2011 2:32pm PDT - promote requested by kulpims.

It will be a grand day when secular peace enshrouds the world and religion will be marginalized such that talking about a belief in God will be as embarrassing as talking about a belief in leprechauns.

At least for Christianity, Hitchens is really arguing against a minority position. This "screw the world, we want the apocalypse so we can go to heaven" mentality is a small portion and has not been the historical position of Christianity. This came about with American dispensationalism in the mid-19th century, where it's still confined to today so it's not only the minority position in Christianity, but also American Christian denominations. These are the churches that sadly ignore the fact that a lot of Jesus' ministry included feeding and healing the poor and outcast. These are people who ignore what Jesus said - that the law could be summed up with "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." In practice, these are the churches that never help their communities because they have an Us vs. Them mentality. Churches that say, "Screw you, go to hell" totally missed it. What did Jesus say about your enemies? Love them. Jesus asked God to forgive his murderers as he was dying a torturous death.

Hitchens is arguing against the minority position.

in advertising they say that the only two human emotions that bring about change in a person are either 'fear' or 'hope' and religion works on both these principles, so no wonder its soo hard to shake it has its arms in both these areas of human psychology.

>> ^Morganth:

At least for Christianity, Hitchens is really arguing against a minority position. This "screw the world, we want the apocalypse so we can go to heaven" mentality is a small portion and has not been the historical position of Christianity. This came about with American dispensationalism in the mid-19th century, where it's still confined to today so it's not only the minority position in Christianity, but also American Christian denominations. These are the churches that sadly ignore the fact that a lot of Jesus' ministry included feeding and healing the poor and outcast. These are people who ignore what Jesus said - that the law could be summed up with "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." In practice, these are the churches that never help their communities because they have an Us vs. Them mentality. Churches that say, "Screw you, go to hell" totally missed it. What did Jesus say about your enemies? Love them. Jesus asked God to forgive his murderers as he was dying a torturous death.
Hitchens is arguing against the minority position.


Repeat it more often, you might just convince yourself. The Jehovas Witnesses are all over the world. And they heavily promote the end-times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_behind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism

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

Edit: And these are just the outspoken tendencies of Christians.

@Morganth
it's the extremists actions/mentality that are sure fuckin shit up
it's all cool if you love your neighbor

headshot

It's the same thing I always say when asked the same question: When the religious folks stay home, I'll stay home.

[redacted]

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Christopher Hitchens, Religion, Turek, debate, atheism' to 'Christopher Hitchens, Religion, Frank Turek, debate, atheism' - edited by xxovercastxx

full debate: http://videosift.com/video/Turek-vs-Hitchens-Debate-Does-God-Exist

I think you just proved his point for him. According to the website you linked to, being wildly generous with estimations, the total number of Jehovah's Witnesses is around 20 million worldwide. Compare that with 2.1 billion Christians worldwide and do a little math and you'll see the Jehovah's Witnesses represent less than 1% of Christians.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^Morganth:
At least for Christianity, Hitchens is really arguing against a minority position. This "screw the world, we want the apocalypse so we can go to heaven" mentality is a small portion and has not been the historical position of Christianity. This came about with American dispensationalism in the mid-19th century, where it's still confined to today so it's not only the minority position in Christianity, but also American Christian denominations. These are the churches that sadly ignore the fact that a lot of Jesus' ministry included feeding and healing the poor and outcast. These are people who ignore what Jesus said - that the law could be summed up with "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." In practice, these are the churches that never help their communities because they have an Us vs. Them mentality. Churches that say, "Screw you, go to hell" totally missed it. What did Jesus say about your enemies? Love them. Jesus asked God to forgive his murderers as he was dying a torturous death.
Hitchens is arguing against the minority position.

Repeat it more often, you might just convince yourself. The Jehovas Witnesses are all over the world. And they heavily promote the end-times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_behind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism
Edit: And these are just the outspoken tendencies of Christians.

yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnn

>> ^SDGundamX:

I think you just proved his point for him. According to the website you linked to, being wildly generous with estimations, the total number of Jehovah's Witnesses is around 20 million worldwide. Compare that with 2.1 billion Christians worldwide and do a little math and you'll see the Jehovah's Witnesses represent less than 1% of Christians.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^Morganth:
At least for Christianity, Hitchens is really arguing against a minority position. This "screw the world, we want the apocalypse so we can go to heaven" mentality is a small portion and has not been the historical position of Christianity. This came about with American dispensationalism in the mid-19th century, where it's still confined to today so it's not only the minority position in Christianity, but also American Christian denominations. These are the churches that sadly ignore the fact that a lot of Jesus' ministry included feeding and healing the poor and outcast. These are people who ignore what Jesus said - that the law could be summed up with "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." In practice, these are the churches that never help their communities because they have an Us vs. Them mentality. Churches that say, "Screw you, go to hell" totally missed it. What did Jesus say about your enemies? Love them. Jesus asked God to forgive his murderers as he was dying a torturous death.
Hitchens is arguing against the minority position.

Repeat it more often, you might just convince yourself. The Jehovas Witnesses are all over the world. And they heavily promote the end-times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_behind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism
Edit: And these are just the outspoken tendencies of Christians.



So this "afterlife" everybody is eager to have, it's taking place in this world then?

Yes, the Kingdom of Heaven will be on Earth..when Christ comes back He establishes His Kingdom here and reigns for a thousand years..and after that is the final judgement, called the white throne judgement. When that is finished, Heaven and Earth are remade and established forever.

>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^SDGundamX:
I think you just proved his point for him. According to the website you linked to, being wildly generous with estimations, the total number of Jehovah's Witnesses is around 20 million worldwide. Compare that with 2.1 billion Christians worldwide and do a little math and you'll see the Jehovah's Witnesses represent less than 1% of Christians.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^Morganth:
At least for Christianity, Hitchens is really arguing against a minority position. This "screw the world, we want the apocalypse so we can go to heaven" mentality is a small portion and has not been the historical position of Christianity. This came about with American dispensationalism in the mid-19th century, where it's still confined to today so it's not only the minority position in Christianity, but also American Christian denominations. These are the churches that sadly ignore the fact that a lot of Jesus' ministry included feeding and healing the poor and outcast. These are people who ignore what Jesus said - that the law could be summed up with "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." In practice, these are the churches that never help their communities because they have an Us vs. Them mentality. Churches that say, "Screw you, go to hell" totally missed it. What did Jesus say about your enemies? Love them. Jesus asked God to forgive his murderers as he was dying a torturous death.
Hitchens is arguing against the minority position.

Repeat it more often, you might just convince yourself. The Jehovas Witnesses are all over the world. And they heavily promote the end-times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_behind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism
Edit: And these are just the outspoken tendencies of Christians.


So this "afterlife" everybody is eager to have, it's taking place in this world then?

Precisely. Christians are called to contributing members of society, and to do good works whenever possible. Not to be isolationists and pine away from the second coming. Our hope is in Jesus Christ, but until He returns our life is here on Earth doing His will.

>> ^Morganth:
At least for Christianity, Hitchens is really arguing against a minority position. This "screw the world, we want the apocalypse so we can go to heaven" mentality is a small portion and has not been the historical position of Christianity. This came about with American dispensationalism in the mid-19th century, where it's still confined to today so it's not only the minority position in Christianity, but also American Christian denominations. These are the churches that sadly ignore the fact that a lot of Jesus' ministry included feeding and healing the poor and outcast. These are people who ignore what Jesus said - that the law could be summed up with "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." In practice, these are the churches that never help their communities because they have an Us vs. Them mentality. Churches that say, "Screw you, go to hell" totally missed it. What did Jesus say about your enemies? Love them. Jesus asked God to forgive his murderers as he was dying a torturous death.
Hitchens is arguing against the minority position.

So when he reigns the holy spirit out of everyone, will there be these other religions too? What is going to happen to them, when your/ our lord comes over?
I mean they will probably have a chance to accept him then right?

>> ^luxury_pie:

So when he reigns the holy spirit out of everyone, will there be these other religions too? What is going to happen to them, when your/ our lord comes over?
I mean they will probably have a chance to accept him then right?


I think when the Second Coming, umm, comes, non-believers' pleas for acceptance will be drowned out by the gleeful sounds of Christians murdering the shit out of them.

Luke 19:27 “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, nor do they claim to be. >> ^SDGundamX:

I think you just proved his point for him. According to the website you linked to, being wildly generous with estimations, the total number of Jehovah's Witnesses is around 20 million worldwide. Compare that with 2.1 billion Christians worldwide and do a little math and you'll see the Jehovah's Witnesses represent less than 1% of Christians.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^Morganth:
At least for Christianity, Hitchens is really arguing against a minority position. This "screw the world, we want the apocalypse so we can go to heaven" mentality is a small portion and has not been the historical position of Christianity. This came about with American dispensationalism in the mid-19th century, where it's still confined to today so it's not only the minority position in Christianity, but also American Christian denominations. These are the churches that sadly ignore the fact that a lot of Jesus' ministry included feeding and healing the poor and outcast. These are people who ignore what Jesus said - that the law could be summed up with "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." In practice, these are the churches that never help their communities because they have an Us vs. Them mentality. Churches that say, "Screw you, go to hell" totally missed it. What did Jesus say about your enemies? Love them. Jesus asked God to forgive his murderers as he was dying a torturous death.
Hitchens is arguing against the minority position.

Repeat it more often, you might just convince yourself. The Jehovas Witnesses are all over the world. And they heavily promote the end-times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_behind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism
Edit: And these are just the outspoken tendencies of Christians.

So if I am reading this correctly, Christians are planning on murdering us, unless we forsake our personal definition of life and our whole understanding of what it means to be human.
Well don't we have a place for people like that?
I don't want to be murdered... say tomorrow?! That just seems a bit harsh!

>> ^luxury_pie:

So if I am reading this correctly, Christians are planning on murdering us, unless we forsake our personal definition of life and our whole understanding of what it means to be human.
Well don't we have a place for people like that?
I don't want to be murdered... say tomorrow?! That just seems a bit harsh!


I know... seems to take all of the fun out of Christian Fundamentalism.

Oh well, Bible says it so its gotta be true. You have no chance to survive make your time.

All this preoccupation with the fantasy next life is a covert acceptance that there is something wrong with this one and you got to get through it quick and clean so you can really get started having a good time..
Hence DEATH WORSHIP. He's on the money. Again.

Sorry Shiny, Morganth, this life is all you're gonna get so start enjoying it.

And it's all the rest of us are gonna get too so maybe give us a break from demented comfort stories that turn into threats of murder and hell if we don't AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY SO YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE SUCH CRAZY BASTARDS.

What I always found funny about the afterlife is that it's supposedly a reward.

If you avoid all these sins and live a good life...you get to live in an afterlife where you basically get to indulge in sin after sin.

Heaven has been associated with decadent things....ultimate comfort, eating extremely decadent food without getting fat, being able to indulge in all these things that....oh wait....are supposedly sins.

So be good...avoid sin, so you can live an immortal life doing all the things we said were sinful.

Then you better hope you picked the right god, @shinyblurry. Or Zeus is going to be very angry when you show up, unbeliever that you are.

Every time I try to get my questions answered you guys come and scare away the shiny
I am trying to save my soul here, ok?

he didn't answer the question... o.-

I don't have anything in particular against religion. In fact I believe that the level of global cultural evolution still needs it to a certain degree.
However, the problem lies in the stasis of its moral values. Moral codes present in scripture which might have once made perfect sense to keep people from barbarism no longer apply but are still strictly interpreted by overzealous followers.
The question I often pose to devout believers is what they view as worse- the rise of atheism (and the feared loss of moral values) or the misinterpretation of their own religious belief system (the only pseudo-logical explanation people supply for some of the less humane passages of scripture is after all that it should be interpreted in a different way).

IF religiously based values/faith are so dear and right I'd bet a whole lot more people would (re-)convert to ones system of faith if it didn't mean being thrown back into the dark ages of religious crusades (Catholics, Mormons and Protestants haven't even settled their score yet).

Bummer, I need to read up again about what the different sub-branches of religion think of each other- I remember it was quite funny in a tragic kind of way...

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, the Kingdom of Heaven will be on Earth..when Christ comes back He establishes His Kingdom here and reigns for a thousand years..and after that is the final judgement, called the white throne judgement. When that is finished, Heaven and Earth are remade and established forever.
>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^SDGundamX:
I think you just proved his point for him. According to the website you linked to, being wildly generous with estimations, the total number of Jehovah's Witnesses is around 20 million worldwide. Compare that with 2.1 billion Christians worldwide and do a little math and you'll see the Jehovah's Witnesses represent less than 1% of Christians.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^Morganth:
At least for Christianity, Hitchens is really arguing against a minority position. This "screw the world, we want the apocalypse so we can go to heaven" mentality is a small portion and has not been the historical position of Christianity. This came about with American dispensationalism in the mid-19th century, where it's still confined to today so it's not only the minority position in Christianity, but also American Christian denominations. These are the churches that sadly ignore the fact that a lot of Jesus' ministry included feeding and healing the poor and outcast. These are people who ignore what Jesus said - that the law could be summed up with "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." In practice, these are the churches that never help their communities because they have an Us vs. Them mentality. Churches that say, "Screw you, go to hell" totally missed it. What did Jesus say about your enemies? Love them. Jesus asked God to forgive his murderers as he was dying a torturous death.
Hitchens is arguing against the minority position.

Repeat it more often, you might just convince yourself. The Jehovas Witnesses are all over the world. And they heavily promote the end-times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_behind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism
Edit: And these are just the outspoken tendencies of Christians.


So this "afterlife" everybody is eager to have, it's taking place in this world then?



Kinda sounds like the Matrix.

Religion:

I want to hurt you, but I can't, so I find solace that "YOU'LL GET YOURS FROM GOD" while ignoring my own inadequacy, until the rage of frustration of denial leads me to bring hell on Earth amongst my fellow humans who may have helped me had I asked.

Do unto others (unless you're a crazy asshole)
Ask, and you shall receive (or not, 50/50 but don't tell anyone it ruins the surprise)

For a deeper answer from Hitchens on this question read his autobiography, Hitch22. His original take on religion borrowed from his mother's vehemence against it. As he went off to school though, his mother eventually left his father for a religious nutter, eventually being led to a mutual suicide with the nutter. As though that weren't enough to poison one against religion, the priests of the day wouldn't do the funeral ceremony for his mother as suicide was a sin...

until of course he paid them some money which overcame their qualms...

That all might have a good deal do with the depths of his convictions as well, albeit far less eloquent and objective.

I'm afraid to add this also where I find some Hitchen's arguments to be the weakest. The Christian belief that believers will be sent to heaven and those who don't will go to hell is not some threat against non-belief. It is simply a different belief, and atheists shouldn't find it any more threatening than the shadows in their closet.

>> ^bcglorf:

I'm afraid to add this also where I find some Hitchen's arguments to be the weakest. The Christian belief that believers will be sent to heaven and those who don't will go to hell is not some threat against non-belief. It is simply a different belief, and atheists shouldn't find it any more threatening than the shadows in their closet.


If only Christianity was so fluffy and benign. Not sure if the The American Christian Lobbyists Association got that memo. Or the AFA. Or Dominionists. Or Moral Majority Inc. Or The Social Contract - National Religious Lobbying group. Or the hundreds of other Christian based groups that have and will pump millions of dollars into lobbying and political campaigns until every citizen in the US and other countries bends to their beliefs.

Or maybe I'm just being a little cynical...

Religion isn't the cause of irrationality, it's a symptom of it. Eliminating superstition would be about as effective as treating disease by finding a cure for coughing.

Maybe Hitchens really is helping people who are uncomfortable doubting religious claims... I just feel that his aggressive and hyperbolic language can be counter-productive to his apparent goals.

>> ^Psychologic:

Religion isn't the cause of irrationality, it's a symptom of it. Eliminating superstition would be about as effective as treating disease by finding a cure for coughing.
Maybe Hitchens really is helping people who are uncomfortable doubting religious claims... I just feel that his aggressive and hyperbolic language can be counter-productive to his apparent goals.


The tenacity of Hitchens and Dawkins may seem malevolent, but they attack using language and logic instead of censorship, violence, and excommunication.

I much prefer that over the alternative.

>> ^razzyl:

>> ^bcglorf:
I'm afraid to add this also where I find some Hitchen's arguments to be the weakest. The Christian belief that believers will be sent to heaven and those who don't will go to hell is not some threat against non-belief. It is simply a different belief, and atheists shouldn't find it any more threatening than the shadows in their closet.

If only Christianity was so fluffy and benign. Not sure if the The American Christian Lobbyists Association got that memo. Or the AFA. Or Dominionists. Or Moral Majority Inc. Or The Social Contract - National Religious Lobbying group. Or the hundreds of other Christian based groups that have and will pump millions of dollars into lobbying and political campaigns until every citizen in the US and other countries bends to their beliefs.
Or maybe I'm just being a little cynical...


By that standard nobody is benign. People with a common interest lobbying the government to support their common interest. Shocking.

Christians are among those opposing any so-called christian groups wanting to limit religious freedoms or impose religious beliefs on the people though. Freedom of religion has it origins from christians themselves. Eventually minority protestants, catholics and other smaller sects got tired of being killed off by the other side and agreed that separation of church and state amounted to an appropriate and mutually beneficial 'truce'.

Making out as though all christians are X because some people calling themselves christians are X is a fundamental and very basic logical fallacy.

All of the world religions will come together to worship the antichrist. There will be a one world government, a one world economy and a one world religion. The antichrist will have the power to do signs and wonders, and all of the world will be deceived by them and follow him.

Revelation 13:8

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Meaning, if you have decided to reject Jesus before the tribulation, you will be convinced of the deception and by no means be saved. People who had not yet rejected the Lord will still have a chance to be saved. Anyone who takes the mark of the beast will end up in hell.


>> ^luxury_pie:
So when he reigns the holy spirit out of everyone, will there be these other religions too? What is going to happen to them, when your/ our lord comes over?
I mean they will probably have a chance to accept him then right?

That is not correct, he doesn't know what he is talking about. If you read the passage, it's referring to Christians and not the unsaved. It is the dichotomy between the good and wicked servant:

11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. 15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. 18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. 19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. 20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: 21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. 22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: 23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? 24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. 25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) 26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:25-27 (KJV)


>> ^luxury_pie:
So if I am reading this correctly, Christians are planning on murdering us, unless we forsake our personal definition of life and our whole understanding of what it means to be human.
Well don't we have a place for people like that?
I don't want to be murdered... say tomorrow?! That just seems a bit harsh!

That's your faith, but you will still stand before God regardless, and there is clearly something wrong with this world; it is entirely corrupted with sin.

>> ^cosmovitelli:
All this preoccupation with the fantasy next life is a covert acceptance that there is something wrong with this one and you got to get through it quick and clean so you can really get started having a good time..
Hence DEATH WORSHIP. He's on the money. Again.
Sorry Shiny, Morganth, this life is all you're gonna get so start enjoying it.
And it's all the rest of us are gonna get too so maybe give us a break from demented comfort stories that turn into threats of murder and hell if we don't AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY SO YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE SUCH CRAZY BASTARDS.

As a former agnostic materialist secular type who has seen both sides of the fence, I would characterize the way the world is set up presently as a type of matrix. I marvel at the grand deception being perpetrated..Satan is truly an unparalled genius amongst all the created beings. On the surface it appears one way, and people who are totally committed to it can't tell there is anything wrong..but people who aren't living for it can see there is something fundementally wrong with the world, and can perceive in some manner that it is a deliberate illusion created by the powers that be. These people are seeking to be liberated from it, and want to know the truth. They are seeking the one who made it all, and controls it all..and that is Jesus Christ our Lord.


>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, the Kingdom of Heaven will be on Earth..when Christ comes back He establishes His Kingdom here and reigns for a thousand years..and after that is the final judgement, called the white throne judgement. When that is finished, Heaven and Earth are remade and established forever.
>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^SDGundamX:
I think you just proved his point for him. According to the website you linked to, being wildly generous with estimations, the total number of Jehovah's Witnesses is around 20 million worldwide. Compare that with 2.1 billion Christians worldwide and do a little math and you'll see the Jehovah's Witnesses represent less than 1% of Christians.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^Morganth:
At least for Christianity, Hitchens is really arguing against a minority position. This "screw the world, we want the apocalypse so we can go to heaven" mentality is a small portion and has not been the historical position of Christianity. This came about with American dispensationalism in the mid-19th century, where it's still confined to today so it's not only the minority position in Christianity, but also American Christian denominations. These are the churches that sadly ignore the fact that a lot of Jesus' ministry included feeding and healing the poor and outcast. These are people who ignore what Jesus said - that the law could be summed up with "love God and love your neighbor as yourself." In practice, these are the churches that never help their communities because they have an Us vs. Them mentality. Churches that say, "Screw you, go to hell" totally missed it. What did Jesus say about your enemies? Love them. Jesus asked God to forgive his murderers as he was dying a torturous death.
Hitchens is arguing against the minority position.

Repeat it more often, you might just convince yourself. The Jehovas Witnesses are all over the world. And they heavily promote the end-times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_behind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism
Edit: And these are just the outspoken tendencies of Christians.


So this "afterlife" everybody is eager to have, it's taking place in this world then?


Kinda sounds like the Matrix.

A character in one of Jesus' parables says that line. It's a "nobleman" who steals from the poor to make the rich richer, and kills anyone who doesn't accept his supreme authority. Is that Jesus' example of good Christianity?>> ^razzyl:

>> ^luxury_pie:
So when he reigns the holy spirit out of everyone, will there be these other religions too? What is going to happen to them, when your/ our lord comes over?
I mean they will probably have a chance to accept him then right?

I think when the Second Coming, umm, comes, non-believers' pleas for acceptance will be drowned out by the gleeful sounds of Christians murdering the shit out of them.
Luke 19:27 “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

>> ^Psychologic:
Religion isn't the cause of irrationality, it's a symptom of it. Eliminating superstition would be about as effective as treating disease by finding a cure for coughing.
Maybe Hitchens really is helping people who are uncomfortable doubting religious claims... I just feel that his aggressive and hyperbolic language can be counter-productive to his apparent goals.

The tenacity of Hitchens and Dawkins may seem malevolent, but they attack using language and logic instead of censorship, violence, and excommunication.
I much prefer that over the alternative.


Why are there only two options?

I love this man.

That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

>> ^messenger:

A character in one of Jesus' parables says that line. It's a "nobleman" who steals from the poor to make the rich richer, and kills anyone who doesn't accept his supreme authority. Is that Jesus' example of good Christianity?>> ^razzyl:
>> ^luxury_pie:
So when he reigns the holy spirit out of everyone, will there be these other religions too? What is going to happen to them, when your/ our lord comes over?
I mean they will probably have a chance to accept him then right?

I think when the Second Coming, umm, comes, non-believers' pleas for acceptance will be drowned out by the gleeful sounds of Christians murdering the shit out of them.
Luke 19:27 “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

>> ^shinyblurry:

As a former agnostic materialist secular type who has seen both sides of the fence, I would characterize the way the world is set up presently as a type of matrix. I marvel at the grand deception being perpetrated..Satan is truly an unparalled genius amongst all the created beings. On the surface it appears one way, and people who are totally committed to it can't tell there is anything wrong..but people who aren't living for it can see there is something fundementally wrong with the world, and can perceive in some manner that it is a deliberate illusion created by the powers that be. These people are seeking to be liberated from it, and want to know the truth. They are seeking the one who made it all, and controls it all..and that is Jesus Christ our Lord.

As far as I can tell, you have no way of knowing that you are the one who is "right" and we are the ones being "wrong". What if this belief you are following is in fact the great delusion you were telling us about and we - atheists - who use our "god given" reason are the ones who will be reigned by "him - the Lord" or in other words, reigned solely by reason itself.
To put it simple:

Great question in life:
Can you think for yourself?
No? Go to hell (on earth)! (decisions dictated by religous beliefs)
Yes? Live happily ever after (on earth). (decisions dictated by reason and reason alone)

Hitchens makes me proud to be *british

Adding video to channels (British) - requested by Seric.

>> ^hpqp:

That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

I like Richard Morgans view on it

"Even if you could convince [a man like me], against all the evidence, that there really was a god? He’d just see him as a threat to be eliminated. If God were demonstrably real? Guys like me would just be looking for ways to find him and burn him down."

People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether*, it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.

*http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining-the-Existence-of-a-Historical-Jesus

>> ^messenger:

People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".

>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining-the-Existence-of-a-Historical-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

Under your scenerio, if God exists then your reasoning is fundementally flawed and filled with error. In that case, I have the claim to reason and logic and it is far more likely I am correct.

>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^shinyblurry:
As a former agnostic materialist secular type who has seen both sides of the fence, I would characterize the way the world is set up presently as a type of matrix. I marvel at the grand deception being perpetrated..Satan is truly an unparalled genius amongst all the created beings. On the surface it appears one way, and people who are totally committed to it can't tell there is anything wrong..but people who aren't living for it can see there is something fundementally wrong with the world, and can perceive in some manner that it is a deliberate illusion created by the powers that be. These people are seeking to be liberated from it, and want to know the truth. They are seeking the one who made it all, and controls it all..and that is Jesus Christ our Lord.
As far as I can tell, you have no way of knowing that you are the one who is "right" and we are the ones being "wrong". What if this belief you are following is in fact the great delusion you were telling us about and we - atheists - who use our "god given" reason are the ones who will be reigned by "him - the Lord" or in other words, reigned solely by reason itself.
To put it simple:
Great question in life:
Can you think for yourself?
No? Go to hell (on earth)! (decisions dictated by religous beliefs)
Yes? Live happily ever after (on earth). (decisions dictated by reason and reason alone)

[citation needed]


This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.

edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"


>> ^shinyblurry:

Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historical-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.

As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw

If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.

edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.

>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historical-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.

And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.

As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..

I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.



>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

Do you have an "Even Dawkins admitted" macro button?

Dawkins isn't even a historian. Why should anyone care about his opinion on this? Dawkins is a pretty prominent atheist, so I can understand why you'd make that mistake, but atheists don't receive beliefs from a single infallible godhead figure. Until seeing the David Fitzgerald video @hpqp just referenced, I assumed Jesus was a real guy too. But it's OK, because as I'm a linguist, not a historian, nobody was quoting me on that.

As you your second bit, I don't know if anybody with historical chops had questioned the existence of the man named Jesus of Nazareth, and it was generally accepted that he did exist and that he was a well attested figure. Now someone is casting doubt on that with evidence, and smart people will at least consider this new possibility before deciding either way.>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".

You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).

Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).

Yours satanically,

Lucy Furr



edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.

>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic

al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

Jesus and Robin Hood and Socrates, and any other popular figures from more than a couple of centuries ago, have their existence/non existence blurred with legends, stories and all sorts of stupid demented bullshit to the point where no one really knows what the story is. Anyone who claims to is lying.

You take the good stuff and kind of hope they were like that. Christianity is the selective filtering of some ancient stories from an uneducated diseased fearful superstitious population of people who rarely lived past 35, warped to suit the morality and power structure of a succession of morally dubious civilisations in which the ones with the big hats claiming to know more about what 'god' thinks are invariably FAR more like the self righteous fat ruling class who had Jeebs nailed up. If that actually happened. I mean , if Jeebs was real enough to drive a nail through - they certainly nailed up thousands in that time.

I mean what about the pope/nuns/monks/water into wine etc etc? That's not in the bible. People add, and remove, whatever they want to suit their purpose. They don't seem to be afraid of retribution for it, so either they have a HUGE ego (god will agree with me!) or they don't really believe in any of that shit. The pope sure as hell doesn't, or he'd clean up the Vatican bank sharpish.

Shiny may be bonkers but at least he's not wearing a silly hat in a golden city tricked from the poor and desperate, shouting at Africans that the fantasy god he has violently imposed on them will hate them for using Jonnies to stop Aids.



>> ^hpqp:

Well considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.

@cosmovitelli

I've been thinking lately that one of the biggest reasons that the Bible appears as a sham to me is that it starts so simple and gets more and more complicated as it goes along.

Think about it. At first, the authors are just rounding up local word-of-mouth legends and parables. Which is why so many early religions share so much of the same information, stories, themes, etc. But then, as people become more educated via industry and technology, the stories have to get more complicated to deal with more problems and more questions that people have. Then by the time you get to Revelations, which was written hundreds of years after everything else, it gets really, really complicated. Dealing with matters of early globalization and world government. AND, those things aren't hard to predict, really, if you think about it. Anyone trying to control a large amount of people would know that if they all tried to join together, that would be the end of the reigning power. So they try to fight that by planting the idea early in people's minds that it's a sign of evil. And so they preemptively attack the "leader" saying that "you'll know him, because you'll be really impressed by him". And you don't have to be a student of history to know that people usually attribute revolutionary ideas to one person so that they can hide behind that one person when the powers that be try to persecute them for trying to change things.

The whole thing seems like such a recipe for control. I mean, maybe this idea isn't new (Hell, Frank Herbert wrote about them a long time ago) but it seems to me that it's the biggest evidence showing that the bible was created by men, for the purposes of control. I'd like to think that a supreme being would be so obvious about it.

That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

@shinyblurry

Can you really blame me for being suspicious that a probie named "shinyblurry", posting a shiny and blurry video with a title stating so seriously "God DOES exist!", but which contained nothing but a pathetic argument from personal experience, was not trying to stir the pot (of a rather atheistic-leaning site) in a trollish manner? But you're right, you're not a troll, you're a fundagelical. I'm not sure which one is less flattering.

And no, there really is no debating you intelligently. Just look at your answer to my questions above:

1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.

2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?

3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."

3. Another assumption about me: "I don't like God". WRONG, I don't believe in god(s); what I don't like is people indoctrinating their kids with lies and fear about supernatural non-entities, killing/hating/preaching at others, keeping science and moral progress back, basing laws and morals on the thoughts of tribal desert-dwellers, etc etc.

4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.

5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?


Yes, I "ran away" from the "debate", in order to retain my sanity and occupy my time more productively. (only reason why I'm answering you now is 'cause I'm procrastinating something I don't feel like doing... mmm, idleness is such a lovely workshop, I wonder whose is it? )


As for "you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.", let me simply quote yours truly:

Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.

p.s.: Satan says "Hi"

Not sure whether Shiny is scary or funny. Both maybe?

P. S.: The Celestial Teapot says "Hi"
P. S. S.: Dionysus says "Hi"
P. S. S. S.: Osiris says "Hi"
P. S. S. S. S. : Attis says "Hi"
P. S. S. S. S. S.: Mithras says "Hi"
P. S. S. S. S. S. S.: The Flying Spaghetti Monster extends his noodley appendage in a manner which means, "Hi."

Surely you will claim otherwise, but can you, with any certainty prove to me that it is not "Satan" whose bidding you do? You only have one book (one heavily edited and revised, conflicting, mistranslated, how could this possibly be the true word of a "perfect being" after all the aforementioned issues book) which you assume to be given to you by your god. Show me how you know (not believe, I mean to find out how you KNOW) that you are not following the wrong deity (and yes, your Satan qualifies as a deity based on the "powers" you attribute to it.). Your god commands the slaughter of innocents in its name and condemns them to torture unless they bow before it. Your god commits genocide on its own and inflicts abject misery upon those who are most loyal to prove a point. Sounds evil to me.

Or tell me this... how this is any different than if you were to live in a dictatorship under the rule of a corrupt person who provided all of those in their country with a book which proclaimed them as a god, and prevented any communication with the outside world? You would have no outside means by which to refute this, no alternative book which claimed otherwise. Only through critical thought, reason and logic can you test the validity of the dogma you've been fed, and remove the blinders from your eyes. Otherwise, you are merely a parrot who as been trained to spout off what he has been told.

On a final note... the whole "God works in mysterious ways" BS response? Just say what you mean, "I... DON'T... KNOW.". Because you don't.

1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.

I don't know what I would or wouldn't do regarding Adam and Eve. I'm not God, and have no idea what He was weighing on the scales. What I am trying to get you to understand is that although we are born in a corrupted world, because of Adam and Eve, we all still have the same chance as Adam and Eve to get it right. So, although we are born in a less ideal world than the paradise they had, we still have a chance which is equal to the pre-fall state of things. We're all still presented with the same choice He offered them, to obey His law, or to try it our own way, with the exact same consequences.

2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?

How do you propose that criminals should be handled? Should they get a good talking to and sign a paper promising never to do it again? How should a murder be handled, for instance, if someone is clearly guilty?

The sins that you will stand before God for will be your own. You haven't been punished yet, and it won't be for the crimes of Adam, it will be for the crimes of hpqp.

Now there hasn't been a human being who has ever lived who has not broken Gods laws. That isn't the point. It is not so much sinners that get punished, it is unrepentant sinners who love evil who get punished. God forgives sins, but not wicked people. Your crime isn't not loving God so much as it is loving evil more than God. You see, if you knew who God was you would understand that all the good things that have happened in your life came from Him. You don't know how God loves you, or the ways He has shown it to you. You only see this sad characterization you have of God from your uninformed ideas about who He is supposed to be. You've never understand your practical, experiential relationship with Him because you are spiritually blind. God takes care of everyone, the good and the bad. Every good gift is from the Father of lights. You actually do have love for God but you give the credit to other things.

3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."

God doesn't create rules to boss His creatures around. If God wanted to rule over His creatures in that way, He would be sitting on a throne on Earth right now and we'd all be groveling before Him. He creates rules because He knows good and evil. He knows which behaviors lead to death and corruption, and which lead to life and perfection. The rules are for our benefit.

Gods rules aren't hard to live by. Don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, dont worship other gods, dont make idols, dont lust, dont covet, dont blasphemy and honor your mother and father. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Here is the one you have a problem with: Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your spirit and all your strength.

What you hate about God is His authority. You enjoy breaking some of those commandments and you resent that you would ever be held accountable for doing so. You enjoy your autonomy to sin. So you refuse to follow that greatest commandment, to love God. You have all sorts of excuses why not, but the real reason is, you don't want to stop living life the way you do. You love your sin more than the truth. So you hate God and work dilligently to suppress the truth. Look at your profile on this site..a lot of your work is anti-religious, and specifically anti-christian.

4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.

I believe your question centered on the blasphemy challenge, that since you made a little video saying you denied the Holy Spirit that you had committed the unforgivable sin and could never be saved. That's what I was disputing.

At the time, I thought blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was simply rejecting the Holy Spirit by denying Christ while you were a Christian. Since then, I have found that isn't the case. I have frequently sensed the presence of the Spirit in ex-christians, which confused me for a bit until I realized that although they were done with Christ, Christ wasn't done with them. Meaning, if you ever had the Spirit, nothing that you do will necessarily force Him to leave. Basically, when you believe in Jesus, you receive eternal life, not conditional life, so you could not commit an eternal sin.. The concensus is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit isn't possible today, that it was only possible specifically against Jesus Himself, when people suggested His power came from demons.

5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?

I don't believe in predestination for all believers, although I do believe God does have plans for specific people, like His prophets for example.

Also, what is this nonsense of God approving of serial child rape? That is patently false. As far as murder, God has used people to execute His sovereign will. That isn't murder. Under the law, the penalty of sin is death. So, His judgement was lawful.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry
Can you really blame me for being suspicious that a probie named "shinyblurry", posting a shiny and blurry video with a title stating so seriously "God DOES exist!", but which contained nothing but a pathetic argument from personal experience, was not trying to stir the pot (of a rather atheistic-leaning site) in a trollish manner? But you're right, you're not a troll, you're a fundagelical. I'm not sure which one is less flattering.
And no, there really is no debating you intelligently. Just look at your answer to my questions above:
1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.
2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?
3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."
3. Another assumption about me: "I don't like God". WRONG, I don't believe in god(s); what I don't like is people indoctrinating their kids with lies and fear about supernatural non-entities, killing/hating/preaching at others, keeping science and moral progress back, basing laws and morals on the thoughts of tribal desert-dwellers, etc etc.
4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.
5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?
Yes, I "ran away" from the "debate", in order to retain my sanity and occupy my time more productively. (only reason why I'm answering you now is 'cause I'm procrastinating something I don't feel like doing... mmm, idleness is such a lovely workshop, I wonder whose is it? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif"> )
As for "you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.", let me simply quote yours truly:
Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.
p.s.: Satan says "Hi"

"Show me how you know (not believe, I mean to find out how you KNOW) that you are not following the wrong deity (and yes, your Satan qualifies as a deity based on the "powers" you attribute to it.)."

Well, when God woke me up He showed me all the various ways He had been there my entire life. He showed me how He had provided for me, though I did not know it. I found that I already had a love for God, though I had equated it to love for life before I knew He was there.

When He woke me, before I knew anything about the bible, He showed me that He is a triune God..ie, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. He also showed me that there was a Messiah, ie, a person whose job it was to save the world. Most of all He showed me His love. So when I finally got around to reading the bible, I found it was about the God I already knew. That's how I know the bible is true.

Satan is not a deity because he can do nothing without Gods approval. Satan is Gods satan, he doesn't have free reign.

Your god commands the slaughter of innocents in its name and condemns them to torture unless they bow before it

Humans have a corrupt and carnal nature, and are naturally inclined to sin. The innocents you refer to don't exist. The people who end up in hell are not sinners, but unrepentant sinners. The ones who refuse to stop doing evil.

Your god commits genocide on its own and inflicts abject misery upon those who are most loyal to prove a point. Sounds evil to me.

There is no genocide in the bible, and if you're referring to job, his was a lesson for all believers. You might want to take into account the way that job reacted. How can you interpert something without understanding what is going on? Job realized everything he had belonged to the Lord and could be taken away without a moments notice. Does the borrower dictate to the lender? Why shouldn't the one who gives life have the right to take it away? Explain that one..

Or tell me this... how this is any different than if you were to live in a dictatorship under the rule of a corrupt person who provided all of those in their country with a book which proclaimed them as a god, and prevented any communication with the outside world? You would have no outside means by which to refute this, no alternative book which claimed otherwise. Only through critical thought, reason and logic can you test the validity of the dogma you've been fed, and remove the blinders from your eyes. Otherwise, you are merely a parrot who as been trained to spout off what he has been told

It's different in many ways. God isn't corrupt, first of all. God is holy and faultless. He is working for our good, not our destruction. Second, people have many choices about what they want to believe. There are many books which say many things, but they can't all be right. Third, the actual truth must be accessable by logic and reason. I can give you several rational reasons to believe that God exists, but it really has to do with your character; who you really are inside, and if you're interested in the truth or comfortable with lies. You must realize that if God does exist your logic is fatally flawed and and illusionary.

On a final note... the whole "God works in mysterious ways" BS response? Just say what you mean, "I... DON'T... KNOW.". Because you don't.

He does, but He also told us what is what, and what to expect.


>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:
Surely you will claim otherwise, but can you, with any certainty prove to me that it is not "Satan" whose bidding you do? You only have one book (one heavily edited and revised, conflicting, mistranslated, how could this possibly be the true word of a "perfect being" after all the aforementioned issues book) which you assume to be given to you by your god. Show me how you know (not believe, I mean to find out how you KNOW) that you are not following the wrong deity (and yes, your Satan qualifies as a deity based on the "powers" you attribute to it.). Your god commands the slaughter of innocents in its name and condemns them to torture unless they bow before it. Your god commits genocide on its own and inflicts abject misery upon those who are most loyal to prove a point. Sounds evil to me.
Or tell me this... how this is any different than if you were to live in a dictatorship under the rule of a corrupt person who provided all of those in their country with a book which proclaimed them as a god, and prevented any communication with the outside world? You would have no outside means by which to refute this, no alternative book which claimed otherwise. Only through critical thought, reason and logic can you test the validity of the dogma you've been fed, and remove the blinders from your eyes. Otherwise, you are merely a parrot who as been trained to spout off what he has been told.
On a final note... the whole "God works in mysterious ways" BS response? Just say what you mean, "I... DON'T... KNOW.". Because you don't.

Bravo my friend... you are indeed a magnificent troll.

@shinyblurry

Lather, rinse, repeat... ad infinitum.

Someone points out the worthlessness of your arguments (strawman, argument from personal experience, etc) and in response you do it all again. And then you wonder why people "run away" from "discussions" with you? You sound like a godbot on repeat (no offense @siftbot, we <3 you )
About the HS: so anyone who grew up christian (and thus "received the HS") gets a free pass, no matter what? Sweet! *goes off to eat some freshly born babies*

God on child rape (=sex with children under the age of consent): there are several passages in the OT in which it is ordered that all men, women and boys (even livestock sometimes) be killed, and only virgin girls/women be taken as slaves/wives. Are you suggesting not a single one of these were under the age of consent?

None taken.>> ^hpqp:

@shinyblurry

Lather, rinse, repeat... ad infinitum.

Someone points out the worthlessness of your arguments (strawman, argument from personal experience, etc) and in response you do it all again. And then you wonder why people "run away" from "discussions" with you? You sound like a godbot on repeat (no offense @siftbot, we <3 you )
About the HS: so anyone who grew up christian (and thus "received the HS") gets a free pass, no matter what? Sweet! goes off to eat some freshly born babies

God on child rape (=sex with children under the age of consent): there are several passages in the OT in which it is ordered that all men, women and boys (even livestock sometimes) be killed, and only virgin girls/women be taken as slaves/wives. Are you suggesting not a single one of these were under the age of consent?

There is no saying God will let you live another day, so I wouldn't recommend pushing your luck. As far as this discussion, when you substitute some salient points for the usual empty rhetoric, perhaps you'll get a formal reply..if you didn't spend the entire post trying to establish your superiority with cheap shots and hyperbole, perhaps a miracle would occur and this conversation would move beyond the petty ridicule that you seem to think makes for a coherent argument.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry
Lather, rinse, repeat... ad infinitum.
Someone points out the worthlessness of your arguments (strawman, argument from personal experience, etc) and in response you do it all again. And then you wonder why people "run away" from "discussions" with you? You sound like a godbot on repeat (no offense @siftbot, we <3 you <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif"> )
About the HS: so anyone who grew up christian (and thus "received the HS") gets a free pass, no matter what? Sweet! goes off to eat some freshly born babies <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/troll.gif">
God on child rape (=sex with children under the age of consent): there are several passages in the OT in which it is ordered that all men, women and boys (even livestock sometimes) be killed, and only virgin girls/women be taken as slaves/wives. Are you suggesting not a single one of these were under the age of consent?

"There is no saying Godthe Don will let you live another day, so I wouldn't recommend pushing your luck."

It's great how you continually illustrate my points. Pity you had to follow up with the childish mirror-response of "no, YOU'RE not making sense!", instead of trying to refute the arguments I proposed. Oh wait, you can't without hurtling yourself against the hard wall of the internal illogic of your belief system.

Look who's running now.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is no saying God will let you live another day, so I wouldn't recommend pushing your luck.

I did refute your arguments..you glossed over them and called me names, then followed up with more ridicule. You already abandoned the debate in your last reply. I'll further refine what I said.

1. Why does God punish people for the sins of Adam and Eve:

He gives you the same opportunity as Adam and Eve, with the same consequences.

2. Reiteration of question 1, with false correlation. Why are all crimes equated?

Again, you have the same opportunity and the same choices. All crimes fall under the umbrella of sin. They are all equated because all sin leads to death.

3. God coerces you

God created you for the purpose of knowing Him, and the reality of planet Earth is that what you do in this life determines what happens in your eternal future. It's not coercion to inform you of the reality of the situation, and to let you know the consequences of either choice.

4. Already covered, and no you don't have a free pass.

5. Again, I don't believe everyone is predestined, although some people like His prophets were.

>> ^hpqp:
"There is no saying Godthe Don will let you live another day, so I wouldn't recommend pushing your luck."
It's great how you continually illustrate my points. Pity you had to follow up with the childish mirror-response of "no, YOU'RE not making sense!", instead of trying to refute the arguments I proposed. Oh wait, you can't without hurtling yourself against the hard wall of the internal illogic of your belief system.
Look who's running now.
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is no saying God will let you live another day, so I wouldn't recommend pushing your luck.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I did refute your arguments..you glossed over them and called me names, then followed up with more ridicule. You already abandoned the debate in your last reply. I'll further refine what I said.
1. Why does God punish people for the sins of Adam and Eve:
He gives you the same opportunity as Adam and Eve, with the same consequences.




Not to change the subject, but in all the pictures of Adam and Eve, why do they always have belly buttons? I mean c'mon man...details...

It is an entirely worthless endeavor to debate someone who cannot be reasoned with. Shiny is blind to all but dogma and any attempts to use logic or rational arguments will not succeed in penetrating to the point of consideration on his part. Much like that of an animal (I'm not calling him names, but rather making a comparison to another lifeform which does not use reason or critical thought to evaluate ideas.) he goes about as he is wired. Indeed religion (not merely Christianity, but most) teachs their flock (the reference to sheep not being without irony, in my opinion) that their god exists outside logic and reason, and to dismiss any doubts stemming from such attempts to question using either methods. He has demonstrated no capacity to challenge or logically consider of that which was apparently ingrained in him through his upbringing and will likely, and regrettably, repeat the same for the duration of his lifespan.

A better example might even be to liken it to debating a computer program which will only respond from the parameters of its code. What is programmed is all it "knows" and attempts to inquire or have it respond in a manner which exceeds the parameters of its coding will yield no results.

I expect no response from Shiny in regards to the above statements, nor would I feel compelled to respond further as I would find no value in what I expect will be yet another of the same dogmatic responses as has been supplied in his posts above.

To those of you who continue to engage him, I wish you much patience. May the Hitchens be with you. ; )

>> ^hpqp:

@shinyblurry
Lather, rinse, repeat... ad infinitum.
Someone points out the worthlessness of your arguments (strawman, argument from personal experience, etc) and in response you do it all again. And then you wonder why people "run away" from "discussions" with you? You sound like a godbot on repeat (no offense @siftbot, we <3 you )
About the HS: so anyone who grew up christian (and thus "received the HS") gets a free pass, no matter what? Sweet! goes off to eat some freshly born babies
God on child rape (=sex with children under the age of consent): there are several passages in the OT in which it is ordered that all men, women and boys (even livestock sometimes) be killed, and only virgin girls/women be taken as slaves/wives. Are you suggesting not a single one of these were under the age of consent?

@SpaceGirlSpiff

Spacegirl, your former post is riddled with logical fallacies. False analogies, begging the question, non-sequiturs and strawmen fallacies. You provided absolutely no rationale for any of your conclusions. You simply dictated the terms of the discussion as if everything you said was factual and justified. This alone makes your entire post irrational, and unfounded. Then you go on to unfairly characterize me as an unthinking animal or a mindless automoton in one giant Ad hom, dodging the debate completely, saying in the height of arrogance that I am not even worthy of a reply.

Let's go over this again. You asked, how do I know I am not following the wrong deity? My answer is personal revelation. Why do you think this is unreasonable, or irrational? If God exists He is quite capable of revealing Himself to whomever he chooses. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational reason to believe the bible is true. I explained that before I even read the bible, God had personally revealed to me certain facts about Himself which were confirmed later by the bible, and this is the reason I know the bible is accurate. Whether you consider that rational or not is a separate question. It is an appropiate and reasonable answer to your inquiry.

You stated Satan has the power of deity. I countered with the fact that the activities of Satan are restricted by God and that he cannot do anything without permission. A god that has to ask permission isn't a god. Again, this is a reasonable answer.

You go on to say God commands the slaughter of innocents. I reply that there are no innocents on a fallen world. So I reject your premise on the outset, as it is simply ignorant of even basic scripture. You say God condemns people to hell unless they bow, which is also grossly inaccurate. God condemns all sin, and it is unrepentant sinners that go to hell.

You further state that God commits genocide, another unproven and inaccurate assertion. You need an argument showing how God is morally culpable for executing His judgement and sovereign will before you can claim genocide. You go on to say job was punished to prove a point; i pointed out that job himself realized that nothing he had belonged to him, but rather it belonged to God and it was His right to give it or take it back, and that this was a lesson for the church, that God is not our debtor, but its rather the opposite. During the trial, God used this experience to teach at least 4 other people who came to argue Job back into obedience. It also presumes that job was punished unfairly, which is untrue. Job was a sinner, despite being very loyal, and moreover during the trial he sinned even more. I will further point out that God restored job to even greater heights after this was over.

On the last bit, you state an incoherent false analogy about a corrupt dictator who provided his subjects with a book declaring himself to be god and prevents outside communication. Well, there is plenty of communication going on in this world and plenty of books which all maintain different ideas about who God is. God isn't preventing any of that. A corrupt dictator allows no freedom of choice, you are obviously free to reject God your entire life. You make a number of false correlations about reason and logic and removing blinders, but none of these conclusions follow from the premise, which is a false analogy to begin with.

In short, spacegirlspiff, your post leaves much to be desired in terms of rationality and your personal attack on me further shows that this debate is based not on logic but on your personal prejudice against Christianity and God in general.

Heh, I'm just going to keep this gem of a comment, for further use *evil laughter*

Lookitchu, shiny, all full of new words you can parroticaly throw back at the first person who calls you out, how cute.

Just a friendly reminder: there is/are no God/s. When people like @SpaceGirlSpiff or myself talk about God/s it's the concept we are discussing. A bit like when fans of Star Wars debate about the fundamentals of the Force, and whether Darth Vador is redeemable or not. Now imagine someone comes to the discussion and claims Obi Wan showed himself to them, revealing knowledge that was later confirmed by watching the Star Wars Trilogy (the original, of course; the prequels are akin to The Book of Mormon). See where this is going?

I must admit, every time you accuse someone else of being illogical, irrational, condescending, arrogant, prejudiced, etc., it makes me smile and shake my head slowly. Oh well, I'm off to do something more productive than talking to a godbot. Hmmm, a devilish diddle sounds like a good idea *goes off to find pr0n*

>> ^shinyblurry:

@SpaceGirlSpiff
Spacegirl, your former post is riddled with logical fallacies. False analogies, begging the question, non-sequiturs and strawmen fallacies. You provided absolutely no rationale for any of your conclusions. You simply dictated the terms of the discussion as if everything you said was factual and justified. This alone makes your entire post irrational, and unfounded. Then you go on to unfairly characterize me as an unthinking animal or a mindless automoton in one giant Ad hom, dodging the debate completely, saying in the height of arrogance that I am not even worthy of a reply.
Let's go over this again. You asked, how do I know I am not following the wrong deity? My answer is personal revelation. Why do you think this is unreasonable, or irrational? If God exists He is quite capable of revealing Himself to whomever he chooses. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational reason to believe the bible is true. I explained that before I even read the bible, God had personally revealed to me certain facts about Himself which were confirmed later by the bible, and this is the reason I know the bible is accurate. Whether you consider that rational or not is a separate question. It is an appropiate and reasonable answer to your inquiry.
You stated Satan has the power of deity. I countered with the fact that the activities of Satan are restricted by God and that he cannot do anything without permission. A god that has to ask permission isn't a god. Again, this is a reasonable answer.
You go on to say God commands the slaughter of innocents. I reply that there are no innocents on a fallen world. So I reject your premise on the outset, as it is simply ignorant of even basic scripture. You say God condemns people to hell unless they bow, which is also grossly inaccurate. God condemns all sin, and it is unrepentant sinners that go to hell.
You further state that God commits genocide, another unproven and inaccurate assertion. You need an argument showing how God is morally culpable for executing His judgement and sovereign will before you can claim genocide. You go on to say job was punished to prove a point; i pointed out that job himself realized that nothing he had belonged to him, but rather it belonged to God and it was His right to give it or take it back, and that this was a lesson for the church, that God is not our debtor, but its rather the opposite. During the trial, God used this experience to teach at least 4 other people who came to argue Job back into obedience. It also presumes that job was punished unfairly, which is untrue. Job was a sinner, despite being very loyal, and moreover during the trial he sinned even more. I will further point out that God restored job to even greater heights after this was over.
On the last bit, you state an incoherent false analogy about a corrupt dictator who provided his subjects with a book declaring himself to be god and prevents outside communication. Well, there is plenty of communication going on in this world and plenty of books which all maintain different ideas about who God is. God isn't preventing any of that. A corrupt dictator allows no freedom of choice, you are obviously free to reject God your entire life. You make a number of false correlations about reason and logic and removing blinders, but none of these conclusions follow from the premise, which is a false analogy to begin with.
In short, spacegirlspiff, your post leaves much to be desired in terms of rationality and your personal attack on me further shows that this debate is based not on logic but on your personal prejudice against Christianity and God in general.

Friendly reminder, there is a God and He loves you, and so do I. Looks like you're using new words too. Did you invent parroticaly all by yourself?

>> ^hpqp:
Heh, I'm just going to keep this gem of a comment, for further use evil laughter
Lookitchu, shiny, all full of new words you can parroticaly throw back at the first person who calls you out, how cute.
Just a friendly reminder: there is/are no God/s. When people like @SpaceGirlSpiff or myself talk about God/s it's the concept we are discussing. A bit like when fans of Star Wars debate about the fundamentals of the Force, and whether Darth Vador is redeemable or not. Now imagine someone comes to the discussion and claims Obi Wan showed himself to them, revealing knowledge that was later confirmed by watching the Star Wars Trilogy (the original, of course; the prequels are akin to The Book of Mormon). See where this is going?
I must admit, every time you accuse someone else of being illogical, irrational, condescending, arrogant, prejudiced, etc., it makes me smile and shake my head slowly. Oh well, I'm off to do something more productive than talking to a godbot. Hmmm, a devilish diddle sounds like a good idea goes off to find pr0n
>> ^shinyblurry:
@SpaceGirlSpiff
Spacegirl, your former post is riddled with logical fallacies. False analogies, begging the question, non-sequiturs and strawmen fallacies. You provided absolutely no rationale for any of your conclusions. You simply dictated the terms of the discussion as if everything you said was factual and justified. This alone makes your entire post irrational, and unfounded. Then you go on to unfairly characterize me as an unthinking animal or a mindless automoton in one giant Ad hom, dodging the debate completely, saying in the height of arrogance that I am not even worthy of a reply.
Let's go over this again. You asked, how do I know I am not following the wrong deity? My answer is personal revelation. Why do you think this is unreasonable, or irrational? If God exists He is quite capable of revealing Himself to whomever he chooses. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational reason to believe the bible is true. I explained that before I even read the bible, God had personally revealed to me certain facts about Himself which were confirmed later by the bible, and this is the reason I know the bible is accurate. Whether you consider that rational or not is a separate question. It is an appropiate and reasonable answer to your inquiry.
You stated Satan has the power of deity. I countered with the fact that the activities of Satan are restricted by God and that he cannot do anything without permission. A god that has to ask permission isn't a god. Again, this is a reasonable answer.
You go on to say God commands the slaughter of innocents. I reply that there are no innocents on a fallen world. So I reject your premise on the outset, as it is simply ignorant of even basic scripture. You say God condemns people to hell unless they bow, which is also grossly inaccurate. God condemns all sin, and it is unrepentant sinners that go to hell.
You further state that God commits genocide, another unproven and inaccurate assertion. You need an argument showing how God is morally culpable for executing His judgement and sovereign will before you can claim genocide. You go on to say job was punished to prove a point; i pointed out that job himself realized that nothing he had belonged to him, but rather it belonged to God and it was His right to give it or take it back, and that this was a lesson for the church, that God is not our debtor, but its rather the opposite. During the trial, God used this experience to teach at least 4 other people who came to argue Job back into obedience. It also presumes that job was punished unfairly, which is untrue. Job was a sinner, despite being very loyal, and moreover during the trial he sinned even more. I will further point out that God restored job to even greater heights after this was over.
On the last bit, you state an incoherent false analogy about a corrupt dictator who provided his subjects with a book declaring himself to be god and prevents outside communication. Well, there is plenty of communication going on in this world and plenty of books which all maintain different ideas about who God is. God isn't preventing any of that. A corrupt dictator allows no freedom of choice, you are obviously free to reject God your entire life. You make a number of false correlations about reason and logic and removing blinders, but none of these conclusions follow from the premise, which is a false analogy to begin with.
In short, spacegirlspiff, your post leaves much to be desired in terms of rationality and your personal attack on me further shows that this debate is based not on logic but on your personal prejudice against Christianity and God in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16PpvdpMXo&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK7ZDSUvB6E&feature=related

This thread is a good example of why I have called for sb to be banned in the past. Just look at all the comments posted. I mean just the sheer number and length--I've been ignoring her for quite a while now--but I'm absolutely sure that they are all preachy and attacky.

Either a troll or a sock puppet--whatever.

I can live if she's not banned--and I'm sure many here love the chance to mix it up--as long as I have the ignore button I'll survive.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

This thread is a good example of why I have called for sb to be banned in the past. Just look at all the comments posted. I mean just the sheer number and length--I've been ignoring her for quite a while now--but I'm absolutely sure that they are all preachy and attacky.
Either a troll or a sock puppet--whatever.
I can live if she's not banned--and I'm sure many here love the chance to mix it up--as long as I have the ignore button I'll survive.


Not that it matters much but...is sb a woman? Blimey!

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
This thread is a good example of why I have called for sb to be banned in the past. Just look at all the comments posted. I mean just the sheer number and length--I've been ignoring her for quite a while now--but I'm absolutely sure that they are all preachy and attacky.
Either a troll or a sock puppet--whatever.
I can live if she's not banned--and I'm sure many here love the chance to mix it up--as long as I have the ignore button I'll survive.

Not that it matters much but...is sb a woman? Blimey!


That's what I heard from a source I trust--of course they got it on the internet, so....

You know, it takes two to do this particular (boring) tango. I love hpqp, but I do wish he would leave sb alone.

These threads go on so long because folks (not just hpqp) keep prodding the caged tiger. You'd think folks would get bored, but they don't seem to be. Not yet.


>> ^Boise_Lib:

This thread is a good example of why I have called for sb to be banned in the past. Just look at all the comments posted. I mean just the sheer number and length--I've been ignoring her for quite a while now--but I'm absolutely sure that they are all preachy and attacky.
Either a troll or a sock puppet--whatever.
I can live if she's not banned--and I'm sure many here love the chance to mix it up--as long as I have the ignore button I'll survive.

I don't understand what shiny's done to be banned. Why even bring it up? It paints we atheists in a very poor color if your only recourse for those you disagree with is to ban them.

Unless there's some rider in the rules of conduct sb has violated, if shinyblurry is banned, you can ban me too. For what that's worth. Freedom of expression swings both ways and it only means something when it's inconvenient to the community. So: ban shinyblurry, wave goodbye to shuac.

>> ^shuac:

I don't understand what shiny's done to be banned. Why even bring it up? It paints we atheists in a very poor color if your only recourse for those you disagree with is to ban them.
Unless there's some rider in the rules of conduct sb has violated, if shinyblurry is banned, you can ban me too. For what that's worth. Freedom of expression swings both ways and it only means something when it's inconvenient to the community. So: ban shinyblurry, wave goodbye to shuac.


Point taken, sir.

I'll leave that stuff by the roadside.

Damn shuac, you gave me a scare, for a moment I though our resident evangelical had been banned... was about to get up in arms too (not that much, but for equality's sake). Being a preachy bigoted homophobe is still more or less within the limits of free speech, so yeah, shiny should be able to stay if he doesn't cross the line.

Btw @bareboards2, every good truth-bearer needs a voice of opposition, or "Satan" if you will Besides, when someone says something wrong, moreover in response to a comment I did not address to them (e.g. above), I tend to reply. And I like to argue, so...
@Boise_Lib According to shiny, he is male (not that it changes anything)... either that or Jesus (the blond variety) looks like a woman, since shiny is the spitting image of him Him (according to several of his comments in any case).

>> ^shuac:

I don't understand what shiny's done to be banned. Why even bring it up? It paints we atheists in a very poor color if your only recourse for those you disagree with is to ban them.
Unless there's some rider in the rules of conduct sb has violated, if shinyblurry is banned, you can ban me too. For what that's worth. Freedom of expression swings both ways and it only means something when it's inconvenient to the community. So: ban shinyblurry, wave goodbye to shuac.

>> ^hpqp:

[citation needed]

This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.

“It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist? Although Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, page 122

A few thoughts:

1. Personal Revelation: I'm not sure why "God Told Me" is accorded a privileged, absolute position (by many, not sure if by sb) in terms of an information source. Surely a universe that includes supernatural beings interested in human behavior could also include a trickster-God capable of whispering things to someone or creating literally any kind of mental experience or situation (you know, for giggles)? Now, this could be claimed as a counterpoint to almost anything, and it's not really evidence for anything. It's not a good reason to not believe the whispering or something. However, doesn't it preclude absolute surety here? I mean, sure you could say it's more likely the whispering would be from the more powerful, "right" God - but, again, can you be absolutely sure? And if you can say "OK, I'm not absolutely sure - but I'm pretty dang sure" I think that's healthy. There's nothing wrong with picking what you feel is the vastly more likely explanation for an experience, I'm just objecting to the way some attribute absolute value here (again, not sure if this applies to specific participants of this discussion, but would value their thoughts here).

2. Punishment: I don't believe there's any "virtue" to justice or punishment. I think there's a practical societal requirement for deterrent to certain behaviors, and I think jail is a horrible, currently necessary evil (jail is marginally better than some other options, I think, because it mechanically prevents further offenses during incarceration as well as being a deterrent - and ideally it would provide education for reform, etc.. though I don't have much faith that that's happening currently). I don't understand the value of "justice" as an ideal or why it's seen as a virtue independent of these practical concerns. If people have free will and some are good and some are bad... well, whatever. As long as we can keep the bad people from hurting the good people (which, again, doesn't require any notion of justice), I don't see why we'd need to go about punishing anyone.

3. The End of Days: I will point out that shinyblurry's vision of how the whole final judgement scenario goes down is not shared by all of Christianity. There's significant variation between Christian denominations (though many of those, I assume, sb would not consider actual Christians - like Catholics or the previously mentioned Jehovah's Witnesses).

I think some of the confusion in this thread revolves around differing visions of judgement, differing ideas about what "Hell" constitutes, and the nature of God's omnipotence (which I think is a very big question). SB's posts here are essentially Theodicy, and that's a muddy job when these premises aren't well defined. I have some general ideas on SBs positions on these ideas, but I think it might clarify the discussion a bit if we knew his positions more clearly on things like:

1. Who will be in Hell, and does Hell include actual pain/torment (or is the torment more like, say, regret)?
2. What is the nature of God's omnipotence? Does it extend to control/creation of logic? What is his general relation to virtue/right?
3. What is the nature of God's omniscience, and what is your general conception of free will?

To be clear, I'm not trying to ask gotcha questions, or suggesting these questions don't have answers. I'm just asking what your answers are, as I think it'll clarify the discussion.

Ach, I always come to these debates too late. The killer feature of my dream bulletin board is the ability of the initial poster to restrict posts to 140 characters (excluding links so the would count as 3 characters).

*godbot fo sho.

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

Hitchens at his best. Rest in Peace and *promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, August 21st, 2011 5:47pm PDT - promote requested by dag.

RIP Hitch, you are already missed.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, December 16th, 2011 2:00am PST - promote requested by garmachi.