Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer): A Collection of Quotes


“If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.”

- Robert Griffiths, physicist and winner of the Dannie Heineman Prize for Mathematical Physics

Quote from Evolution is Dead!

——————

Note: The following are not all exact quotes. Some have been paraphrased.

——————

“The most amazing thing to me is existence itself. How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?”

“Can a person be a scientist and a Christian? Yes. As I said before, the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone.”

“God is the explanation for the miracle of existence.”

- Allan Sandage, cosmologist and Nobel Prize winner

See also Leadership U.

——————

“Not in the center of the galaxy, not in a globular cluster, not near an active gamma ray source, not in a multiple-star system, or near a pulsar, or near stars too small, too large, or soon to go supernova.”

- Peter Ward, professor of Biology and of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington, and David Brownlee, astronomer and biologist in their book ‘Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe’

Learn more about the multiple fine-tuned parameters that are required to support life on Earth: Rare Earth hypothesis

Right area of the galaxy, suitable star, Jupiter’s gravitational influence, Earth’s size, large Moon, plate tectonics, chemistry of the atmosphere = probability of 1 in 10,000,000,000 to 1 in 1,000,000,000,000

—————— 

“Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.” Of course you would…”

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

“I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

“If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of…”

“The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”

“The random emergence of even the simplest cell is comparable to the likelihood that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

“The chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously.”

- Fred Hoyle, astronomer and proposer of the Steady State Theory, and an atheist (for now…) who is forced by logic to support the existence of an Intelligent Designer

——————

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

“Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proven that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, what cause produced the effect? Who or what put the matter and energy in the universe? Was the universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions.”

- Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist, cosmologist, First chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee, Founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Director Emeritus of Mount Wilson Observatory, and an agnostic (for now…)

I would add to his second quote: If the Big Bang theory and atheism are both correct, then the Universe was created out of nothing, because of nothing, for the purpose of nothing.

Think about it, what could possibly have caused all time and space and matter and energy to exist rather than continue not existing for infinity?

——————

We shall now move on to the principle of the fine tuned universe – how the universe’s parameters are so perfectly, so fragilely set to just the right values to support life, that it is unfathomable that it all happened by chance.

——————

 “If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron — then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.”

- Rr. Dennis Scania, Head of Cambridge University Observatories

——————

“If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.”

“If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.”

- David D. Deutsch, physicist at Oxford University, and an atheist (for now…)

——————

“The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life — almost contrived — you might say a ‘put-up job’.”

- Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University and chairman of SETI

——————

“How surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.”

“One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning — The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.”

Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics winner for combining electromagnetism and the weak force into the electroweak force, and an agnostic (for now…)

——————

“The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”

- Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, coiner of the term ‘dark energy’

——————

“It’s an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe — and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure — we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Einstein’s) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.”

- Roger Penrose, Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford

——————

“To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, “How could it have ever been otherwise?”

- John Archibald Wheeler, theoretical physicist and coiner of the term ‘black hole’

——————

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.”

- Stephen Hawking, probably the most well-known theoretical physicist in the public eye, and an agnostic (for now…)

——————

Most of the above quotes on fine tuned universe and more from Gerald Schroeder.

See also Beliefnet: A Finely-Tuned Universe: What Are the Odds?.

And for the parameters for each of the fine-tuned settings of the universe:
God and Science: Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

——————

As a biologist, I am often in awe of the logical and mathematical prowess of physicists. They simply have an understanding of incredibly complex abstract concepts that my classically trained mind cannot grasp.

I’m no astrophysics genius. I can’t even wrap my mind around how Einstein’s relativistic gravity caused by the bending of space-time works, I have to stick with Newton’s gravty as a force.

But all these people I quoted above study science at the very highest echelons of understanding, of logic, of scientific experimentation.

They are smarter than me. They know whether something is possible or impossible, even on a quantum physics level where reality gets all screwy. So I trust that they know what they’re talking about.

And they say: “Based on the empirical evidence, to not have a God who created our universe is just impossible.”

But from my biologist’s viewpoint, I must say that I can agree with them completely, just on the basis of the Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design of the amazingly improbable phenomena called life.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

565 Responses to “Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer): A Collection of Quotes”

  1. aredvoice Says:

    Great post! – I see no one even tried to argue with you on this one… hmmm what does that say about Atheism.

  2. KClark Says:

    This is a very interesting post. As a Christian, it sounds peculiar for me to say that I really prefer reading an agnostic point of view on this subject. While I do believe and trust the Christian scientist’s point of view, the agnostic point of view is unbiased. Agnostics are typically open to the idea of both theism and atheism. When an Agnostic is in awe of the complexity of the universe, and takes into account that “The constants of physics seem to be finely adjusted to make life possible,” indicates that there is a creative force behind all that exists.

  3. AdamJ. Says:

    Fabulous post! I recommend the book, God, The Evidence by Patrick Glynn. A great work concerning science, reason and faith in God.

  4. Jon.C Says:

    I am a bit disappointed that no atheists tried to argue this. I really wish to see an atheist debate this, and see if they even have an answer.

  5. roddy Says:

    I recommend Anthony Rizzi’s “The science before science”.

  6. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    A little bit question to myself which I failed to get an answer till now:

    “Where do matters come from?” (since billion or trillion years ago (before the existence of space and time, or much earlier)..science agrees they were all not there then..).

  7. Robert Says:

    Why must humans go to such great lengths to know it all? Why do many study the conditions of our existence in the Universe while others will simply accept any delusional nonsense as a short cut to “know it all”?

    Beats me. We must be just as lazy as we are curious.

  8. Adifferentview Says:

    why must humans go to such great lengths to know it all? perhaps, it’s due to being made in the image of God..the creativity of God, His intelligence, may have been given to man at creation.

  9. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Obviously, to me mankind do NOT know EVERYTHING. Mental prowess
    in ‘the world best’ or renowned physicists are all limited knowledges. We live in shroud of “misteries”. Professors, doctors, or specialist physicians do NOT fully understand every single illness and cure them all.

    The truth of the existence of mankind (and every creatures) lies in the scriptures. God has sent many prophets since Adam in order to guide human beings. Psalm (Zabur) to David, Torah (Taurat) to Moses, Injeel (part of Bible) to Jesus (Isa), and Quran to Muhammad, the seal of all prophets, peace be to them all.

    Yet man thoughts they know all. Some of us want to have “proof”. If God doesn’t or couldn’t appear before them, then it is a clear proof ‘God doesn’t exist’, the said. They want God to listen to them or do what they want? Some of us thought that God is somehow like the rest of His creatures, like human being or so.. And God must be working like human beings (like what their logic mind is working)?. Blashphemy..

    God knows best in everythings mankind do not know..the past and the future, the clear, physical, the spirit and the unseens..

    It is a matter of believe.

  10. Robert Says:

    We must be just as lazy as we are curious.

    The lazy concocted delusional myth stories to satisfy their limited curiosity and control the actions and lives of others less interested but quite gullible.

    The curious who studied their surroundings were later known to be scientists. Scientists are not afraid to say “I don’t know.” That is what drives them to follow up with “But we’re working on it.” Many are religious and many are not. The suspicion and scorn they receive from the religious community is somewhat of a conundrum, don’t you think? Especially when you consider that the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Roman Catholic Priest.

    The goal of science was not to disprove the existence of a god; but rather to simply catalog their observations of what ever phenomenon intrigued them and agree on the factual constructs that are consistent to form a theory. When those observations and theories conflict with the existing dogma of the day it is the myth believers who protest and/or attempt to discredit the scientific study.

    Why is that?

  11. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Thanks Robert for your opinion. I think science cannot study anything, if anything is NOT there (not exist/ not available). So..to me, science actually investigate God’s creatures, their systems, how they work, or their nature, their origin. Scientists “investigate” things/ creatures that God made available. But science as we know has NEVER made any of them. Not a singele creature or creation PER SE, and OUT OF NOTHING. And perhaps will NEVER make any. For example, I have never seen in my lifetime science has ever created a flower for us (and our kids) to admire. I’m talking about a flower, not plastic flower. Or a piece of grain (for our stomach), or a volume of oxygen (for our lungs). Or, a completely new fruit, never seen before fruit (like apple, orange for instance, but not apple, orange) for its mineral or vitamin needed by our body.

    Yes, we could clone them to produce a new variety/speices, but that was not ACTUALLY a “creation” per se, because you took someone’s (God’s) things/materials (seeds or its gene). Right ?

    I think God has no problem with us investigating or make research on everythings He made. In fact, from Islamic point of view, God ‘encourage’
    us to “see” of His creations – planets, stars, earth, including creepy living creatures on earth and in the ocean..AND THINK..ponder..their benefits, their roles in ecosystems, their co-existence, with purposed, all designed
    “ferfectly” for according to systems, symbiotic etc. If they all happened ‘by chance’ it , I don’t think they serve any purpose, any function, at all. Do you, on the other hand thought that sample of tests done in labs shown that anything created by chance does serve any purpose or function ? Make sure they REALLY appeared “by chance”, “by itself” ! Maybe.. they served certain functions I don’t know..am not sure.
    For example, the debris, affluents or remnants, or broken glasses is for a sweeper to sweep it away or else.. (the ‘purpose/ function) I don’t know..

    I agree, Big Bang, Evolution, DNA/RNA/ or gene were there, “thermodynamic” theory perhaps were there. (WE can call it thermodynamic” etc as we like..) But all those thing were God’s will, God’s works, His ‘destiny’, His plan ! And we try to understand them; yet so many things scientists have yet to understand. Some of them remain to this date ‘unknown’ as well. They are NOT created by anyone of us. Or maybe we can say, they existed by themselves, or by chance during Bing Bang, big explosion or energy and matters some 18 or 19 billion of years ago..

    I think it is good if we care to check scriptures too. Check Bible, check Quran. Check yourself what Quran says about something closely, very closely related and in conformity/ in harmony with what we called “Big Bang Theory of modern science. It is there. (I’ll provide you next time if I have free time then..). PLEASE do not quick to accept the ‘descrepancies’ found in them WITHOUT proper consideration and thought ! This is is because..the ‘rival or enemies of Bible and Quran made many, many INVALID attacks on the not so VALID accusations. I’ll let you know some sample of attacks. So, don’t so quick to admit to such fallacies, such flaws. You can read one of the attacks on Quran, for example the total numbers of days in creation narration (the verses were NOT that unequivocal, no one knows FOR SURE. Yet they acted like they are the big time shcolars !. In fact, shcolars themselves are not sure enough of EVERY single verses !

    Look from many perspectives before conjure up your ‘verdict’ if can..

    I know atheist position after all. You’ll never accept. But..GOOD to learn
    not only science..but scripture as well. Do you think you are very well versed in scriptural experience too?. I”n not.

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    What suspicion and scorn are you talking about?

    If it is that of ‘religious folk’ 400 years ago, that’s then – this is now.

    If it’s ‘fundies’ who do not accept evolution or global warming as a proven science and would like more solid evidence before basing the entire education system or economic policy on it, perhaps they have good reasons to think so?

    When observations and theories conflict with existing dogma, first we bear in mind that they are just that – observations and theories. Spontaneous generation was theorized on the basis of observations, but later proven wrong. Imagine what life today would be like if we had immediately changed all our textbooks to adopt it, spent 80 trillion on technology to reverse the process (thus turning mice back into wheat), and branded all skeptics as ‘deniers’, ‘religious nuts who think the world is flat’ and ‘bought off by Big Vacuum Packaging’.

  13. loop Says:

    “..the total numbers of days in creation narration (the verses were NOT that unequivocal, no one knows FOR SURE.”-Nasaei

    Some condemned ‘Allah also confused bloke with brain fever’ .These are verses said to be contra in the creation of heavens and the earth.

    Contradiction: 7:54, 10:3, 11:7 and 25:59 say six days of creation.
    Contradiction: 41:9-12 say eight days of creation.

    In the verse 41:9-12 Allah make it clear by stated that Allah create the earth in 2 days. Then,Allah COMPLETELY create the earth with firm hills rising therein sustenance in four days.THUS mean that it is still 4 days (not 6 ) because the 2 days already counted. 2 days earth + 2 days hills and sustenance=4 + 2 days heaven= 6 days STILL not 8.

    I am not a scholar but already tried before to make it better by giving a simple calculation for better understanding :
    “An express bus started its journey from Singapore at 0800 hours. It reached Batu Pahat after 2 hours travelling, then arrived Malacca at 1200noon.The bus continued and reached Seremban at 1400hour.

    Meaning that the time taken from Spore to Seremban is 6 hours not 8 hours as a comparison to the above verses that said to be contra.

  14. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Might be, we should pintpoint meticulously and prudently, what verses 41:9 is telling about. Is it about creating the ‘house’ or/and its funitures ?

    Might be we should also consult a renowned world class scientists, as to whether..at time Earth was created..whether it came together with it like what we see the surroundings today..with mountains, lakes, rivers, volcanos, slopes, and maybe together with greeneries and dinosaurs kingdom as well. I’m not sure the earth surface looked like during the precambrian era, or million of years before that. If I’m not mistaken, there were glaciers and water activities, erosions, even some said the intrusion of meteorites etc. Assume, this morning there planet Earth was
    there started to come into existence. What did it has in it ?

    41:9 reads:

    “Say: Is it that ye deny Him who created the Earth in two days..? And
    do ye joinequals with him? He is the Lord of (all) the worlds”.

    41:10:

    He set on the Earth, mountain standing firm, high above it..
    and bestowed blessings on the Earth, and measured therein, all things
    to give them nourishments in due proportion, in four days in accordance
    with (the need of) those who seek (sustenance)..”

    – Yusuf Ali translation. (commas, small/ capital letters are mine).

    Four days was in reference to:

    1) Creation of planet Earth ?
    2) Or, the ” things” inside/ on it ? (including “give sustenance in due proportion” and “measured therein).. OR
    3) both ??

    I, as a layman (not a scholar) just can understand that it took long time for earth surface to develop untill ‘finally’ it becomes like what we see today. And, might be ‘four days” to be include 2 days for creation of the
    ground/ earth. If you take 4 days, that could possibly be double counting..
    maybe.. Only God Himself knows best.

    By the way, in modern academic writings, repetition, redundancies maybe “abhored” by examiners / academics, but Quran is a repetition of
    many smae verses. In Surah Ar-Rahman alone, you will find “fabiayyiaalaa-irrobbikumaa tukazzban” (meaning roughly, “which of the God blessings/ grants that you going to deny?..” to youand is repeated 21 times. And you will find..”yaa ayyuhallaziina aamanu (oh ye who have faith) in many, many occasions in the Quran. Allah says he gave Quran (to mankind) the verses (Quran) that is repeatedly read and read verses..again and again.

    About the subtility and ambiguity of words/verses, there are quite many Take one, for example the word “Kauthar” in Surah al-Kauthar). The interpretation of this word is actually, means (as Muslims made to understand it)..a water spring, or well (or river) in the Day of Judgment for the believers. It could not be found in the dictionary (unless recently been inserted by Muslims according to what they know regarding this specific Quranic verses, of a current understanding). Before Quran was revealed, no such word in the Arabic language. It has no literal meaning. Then how can Muslim knew it ? – from the Prophet explanation ! They called al-Kauthar as “the fountain of abundance”.

    The difficult words/ phrases/verses.. will remain so forever..and “subject to interpretations” – whatevet it may be !

    In such a circumstance, I wonder if anybody could tell us what exactly they are/ they meant. ..And “suddenly”.. we find many also have their own ideas on it. So and so..

    Many, many more which no ones knows the meaning for sure !

    Only God knows best!

  15. Robert Says:

    Now look who’s touchy and behind the times, Scott! Please don’t be so naive.

    And I appreciate your effort Nasaei, but you quote from the writings of men who claim they are the words of god and that is the Atheist’s first line of rejection. We simply do not believe anything written by men that claim to be the words of some god. There are many, and yours are the most recent, which, by the way, happen to be partially plagiarized from Mithraism and other earlier “True” faiths.

    But then you may counter argue that if I reject those words written by men then how can I believe the words of Science, also written by men?

    Easy. Scientists are not attempting to pass off a delusional story imagined in explanation as the origin of the universe. And who are the Atheists who claim that we come from “Nothing”? One of your christian pals, Ray Comfort the blabbering Brit likes to loudly make that claim yet he won’t name any names as well. He likes to use props like banana’s to “prove” creation. He was made a fool of there as well.

    As I have said before, we are products of Nature and as yet do not have a full understanding of our origins at this point in our Evolution. But we’re working on it. The Universe and the diversity of life and how inanimate matter evolved into animate intelligence is far more exciting than all of the myth-dittoed stories put together!

  16. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Scott, can you please explain to our athiest friend Robert ? I hope you’ll not be tired or exhausted like me.. when I’m free or not busy, I’ll also respond to him. As I said before, it is more difficult to explain to an atheist than an animist or so..

    He said, you scripture and mine are from man, the product of a man. He has nothing to do with”inspired” by God or God’s revelation whatsoever !

    Perhaps it seems true to him because God has NEVER came in person to anyone of us and says..”Hei guys..give me a pen, here I’m going to write for you some holy verses of mine..for you and all mandkind..”

  17. Scott Thong Says:

    Well Nasaei, if someone does not believe that any gods exist, then any product of intelligence (such as written material) must be the result of humans – the only organism intelligent enough to create such a product. Unless one also believes in aliens…

  18. Robert Says:

    Well gents, it’s not so much “aliens” as it is ‘Life’ existing elsewhere in a universe that is abundant in the elements conducive to producing life. We are in that awkward stage of study where it is very promising and mathematically impossible for life to exist elsewhere in the universe, quite possibly here in our solar system. We’ll see.
    As far as the religious writings of human history are concerned; I think you should be able to find them in any library under “Fiction”.

  19. Robert Says:

    Oops! Well darn, I am human! Please allow me to correct an error I made above being “…mathematically impossible for life NOT to exist…” and a comma after ‘promising’ would probably help as well.
    My wife is of a non English speaking culture and I truly understand just how confusing “English” can be at times so flubbing it, for my part, certainly does not help if I am attempting to convey a point. My apologies.

  20. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Well Robert, I think the best way for you to describe about your ‘faith’/ believe (atheism) to common people like me (and the rest), is to explain several core issues, like the mutation of the first ever life..from inanimate matter to animate – not by just “we are working on it” to the no end. How many more centuries we need to prove ? We are now in the 21st century, still no “world class” scientist seems to be able to pinpoint it.. Is it not the fact?

    True, it will be very interesting for everybody to learn it. Everybody is curious to know how, for example a non-life or a matter, or dust particle suddenly developes to a life form, a cell/unicell, amoeba, protozoa etc (for example). That’s the thing you need to tell. I know you (and the scientists) “are working on it”..many science labs are in the progress of doing it ..but atheists already reached their conclusion..at times the research is still ongoing..They have their verdict at times trial is pending?

    Very interesting, of course for us to learn about the appearence of the first life some billion of years ago- which no scientist did tell us thus far.

    Then, I don’t know whether you DID actually studied scriptures extensively, or did research on the veracity of the scriptures in the past, before you could conclude THAT they are all “products of man” ! Try to talk to yourself “Did I…?”. You have the answer.

    For the sake of finding the truth or facts, for the time being, try to forget about their “fallibilties”, “contradictions” or flaws first. Albeit many accusations, allegations floating around, let us take time a bit to see again what some scriptures say again before we conclude it to be this or that.

    – Roughly Quran says (1400 yrs ago), the universe/ planets were originated from one same unit, and then it ‘split’ into stars, earth etc. as we see today. Is this wrong, gibberish or what ?

    – Quran says, before the existence of planets/ stars/ universe, it was in the form of gaseous (Dhukhan), or “smoke”. Is this wrong or right by modern science theory?

    – Quran says ‘no one’, Muslims or unbelievers, man or spirits capable of inventing another ‘quran’. Is this is big talk or what? (I notice, for 1400 years the enemies of Islam still failed to produce one!- I don’t know if on the other hand, peoples elswhere were successful in creating many quran around this far). Andrew Rippin, Professor of Theology from University of Wellington said, it is impossible to create another quran..or scripture

    – Quran indirectly indicated that the surface of earth is covered by 78% of water (22% of land areas). I was made to understand that even in last century, no scientist had ever known it..untill recently..

    – Quran says sea waters do not “trangressed” or mix freely beyond ‘boundaries’ in the oceans (there are “dividers”). Correct or not, I don’t know.

    – Quran says life originated from “water” and Adam was created from soil.
    I’m sure science find it difficult to prove this..maybe.

    – Quran says many thing which modern science agrees, confirmed.

    I just wonder..(really).. modern science has just knew some of those facts, but Muhammad (an illiterate man lived 14 hundreds yrs ago coud have been talking/telling those fact to us). And if he (Muhammad) can
    produce such a scripture, why can’t we, of today compose one similar text?

    I wonder if the wise Allen Jonson or his atheist community capable of producing another Quran, or refute what Quran says?

    We can listen to what Bible, or any other scriptures say as well.

    If these scriptures say something which are ‘illogical’ to modern science principles, wait a minute.. beware.. MANY of the allegations needed to be pintpoint by the wise (not me, or you). Many of them are INVALID accusations – floating around..everywhere.

    We should talk or disccuss abot their “discrepancies” separately. In fact those thing were debated by many, endlessly till this date.

  21. Adifferentview Says:

    Nasaei Ahmad, the man is just a common man, no expert, spouting rehashed views…

  22. Robert Says:

    “Nasaei Ahmad, the man is just a common man, no expert, spouting rehashed views…” as were the archaic aboriginals that penned the fiction of their gods. Welcome to reality and thanks for making it so easy for all to understand.

  23. Adifferentview Says:

    No, you’ve got it wrong. If, as you say, they “penned the fiction of their gods”, the so-called archaic aboriginals are in a different category from you. They were not common man but CREATORS…but you are a re-hasher, one who serves up second-hand fiction.

  24. Adifferentview Says:

    Whenever you say, “Scientists…”, it would be appropriate to not claim that what you say is representative of scientists…Be specific. The debate is not between science and believers.

  25. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I hope our big brother Scott could be our ‘mediator’ in this “quarell”. If Scott is so hectic with his formal business right now, he could possibly put the way forward for us ..or make some amendments, guidelines, rules of discussion/ “debate” etc..

    Thanks Robert, “Adifferentview” and all.

  26. Robert Says:

    No, you’ve got it wrong. All fiction has authors so your statement is illogical. Also, you may find many things in common between Christianity and Mithraism, Eleusinian mysteries and the mysteries of Isis that may lead you to the embarrassing conclusion that Christianity was a bit, ahem, plagiarized. So those verses you cherish so dearly are actually a rehash of a rehash of a rehash if you bother to understand the various translations [and what has been lost in that delicate endeavor] or notice whose version your reading. King James anyone? And if you want to get technical, if your edition does not have the imprimatur and nihil obstat, then it is pure heresy according to the “One, True Faith.” Being the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
    So whether you know it or not, A[not so]differentview, you’re the one beating your own head against the wall and I personally don’t even consider the subject debatable.

    And Nasaei? I prefer the Silmarillion myself.

  27. Adifferentview Says:

    Robert, if you must keep barking the same tune, carry on….

  28. Robert Says:

    Nice to see you waffle so easily, A-view.

    Who would you argue with then if, one day, scientists actually, physically proved the existence of God? And that God created Evolution? Would you take credit for their work and argue they’ve been right all along? What are your thoughts on the latest discrepancies discovered concerning the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin? And that it has been modern science that has uncovered the even greater mysteries of its image? This is an artifact that heralds some pretty amazing breakthroughs because if it is what people of faith believe it to be, then it is the only physical artifact to record a major religious event. But – if that is also the case then what had occurred had done so under the laws of this very real and physical universe. “Beam me up, Scotty?” I find it very fascinating.

  29. Adifferentview Says:

    Just letting barking dogs bark…btw, I don’t keep a dog..barks all the times. The only good dog is a dead dog coz it can’t bark.

    Whatever may be proven or disproven about the Turin shroud, nobody COULD prove the identity of the face. Is that the face of Jesus? Who knows?

  30. Robert Says:

    You’re absolutely correct. If the scientific community is given another shot at radio carbon testing a sample of the Shroud that has not been repaired, we’ll see if it truly is first century. The data fluctuations in the original samples would allude to the fact that first century linen was present within the same ratios of the 16th century rewoven repair linen. Then again, the entire Shroud has been exposed to an intense fire and I understand that can affect an accurate reading as well.
    And that is true, we really cannot prove that what I would call an amazing “photo” even for 16th century standards, is that of the face of a Jesus of Nazareth. But it’s like looking at a photo of Abraham Lincoln and stating, “well, nobody wrote his name on the back of the photo nor dated it so…”
    Que pasa? Me alluding to “faith”? How can this be?

  31. Robert Says:

    Oh, and what you’re suggesting in your “barking dog” scenario is typical of you all of such great faith. You have no value for life. You worship death. I call people like you, and I will not mince words here, dangerous hypocrites. The type eager to kill in the name of your imaginary god. There are whole nations of subhumans like you…and you are no better than they. Animals have a greater respect for life than your kind.

  32. Adifferentview Says:

    A photo of Abraham Lincoln and the face on the Turin shroud? That you can link the two shows you have more “faith” than any believer LOL.

    As for your second comment, it deserves no reply except a :)

  33. Scott Thong Says:

    Uh, Shroud of Turin? You do realize that most modern Protestants and Evangelicals put little stock in ‘sacred relics’ like the Shroud, the Holy Grail, weeping statues and pieces of dead saints? To some, it’s even on par with idolatry.

    Not meaning to cause offense, Robert, but does your exposure to Roman Catholicism (via your grandmother, perhaps?) have any influence on your raising this issue?

    Perhaps if you looked less at the quirky customs of some Christians and looked more at the Christian efforts and influence on charity, healthcare and civil rights, you might associate it less with ‘worshipping death’…

    (Conservatives give more to charity than liberals even while earning less, did you know? And it’s their own money, not everyone else’s money through government-allocated welfare.)

  34. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Whether we realized or not, some of our atheists buddies applied the strikingly wrong concept of what they understood about the word “god”. They keep demanding us to prove the existence of God.

    Imagine..as long as God doesn’t appear right before us, or sip coffee with us, than atheists’ challenge is NOT been met since thousand of years ago..

    The concept of God (in fact one of His attributes) is that He will NOT, and never appear before us, except in the Hereafter /Day of Judgment. That is it, according to one of Abrahamic religion’s believe i.e Islam. This varies a bit in interpretation when compared to Christianity believe, where incarnation of God is probably very likely, and in fact Jesus -an intergral part of triune god was bodily presented – with eyewitnesses during his life.

    So..if you still ask God to appear before you..and then unexpetedly ‘he’ appeared (to our astonishment)..wait a minute.. ‘he’ is NOT God ! He is definitely NOT God but an imposter, (or ‘monster?). Quran tells us, He is not like anything. Pls. refer to Quran, Al-Ikhlas (verses 1-4). Note: One need to have a correct exegesis of this Surah, like the rest of the Quran because the verses are not unequivocal enough for kids to understand. An ulamak (scolar) with calibered knowledge would be able to verify it for us).

    Err..atheists do not believe in any scripture after all ! Then, wiat for you turn. God’s wrath is waiting for you I think. Back to basic agai without any ending.. Wait for God’s wrath, and maybe curse ! Messege of Quran has reached everybody.

  35. Robert Says:

    So your god who won’t appear or make himself known to man other than through the words of other men will condemn you to eternal punishment for not believing….the other men?

    I really don’t think any of you truly understand Atheists.

  36. Ron Says:

    What kind of relationship can one have with a deity who never visits or returns the call?

    “The damned of hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God. In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist.”
    — Mother Theresa

    “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”
    –Jesus

    Seems even his most faithful followers are left hanging in the wind.

  37. Robert Says:

    Personally, I cannot imagine an eternity of servitude or everlasting torment. It is one of the most clearly human indignities ever conceived. Nobody ever wants to believe their conceited lives will end and, if left as some have, they’ll simply just rot and stink in the road.
    And when the Sun goes Red Supergiant in 5 billion years, rendering the Earth to a cinder, will the Universe end? Another conceited concept.

  38. assimov Says:

    “And when the Sun goes Red Supergiant in 5 billion years, rendering the Earth to a cinder, will the Universe end?”

    I dont care, I already read the Foundation series.

  39. assimov Says:

    “What kind of relationship can one have with a deity who never visits or returns the call?”

    AhBeng is kool:

    Ahbeng died and his soul were sent to hell, everyone are assigned to a Devil and this Devil will bring you round the hell on your first visit (kinda like orientation lidat la).

    Ahbeng found out from that Devil that there is different kinda hell you can choose to stay in. Among the few Ahbeng can recognise were the Singaporean hell, Indonesian hell, China hell, Thais hell and the last one is of coz Malaysian Hell.

    Ahbeng got curious and asked the Devil :

    Ahbeng : why is there so many different kinda hell one har?
    Devil : Marketing mah … different hell for different nationality so they wont fight lar. Then if you are bored with your own hell you can apply to go to other hell for holiday for a few days also.
    Ahbeng : Can migrate anot one?
    Devil : migrate also can la but you kena apply first la.
    Ahbeng : ohhh lidat wan har? shiok leh hell also can go holiday.
    Devil : So, which hell you wanna stay in? you kena decide now you know?
    Ahbeng : eh .. decide now ar?
    Devil : yalar! if not wait for xmas to come 1st izzit?
    Ahbeng : ok ok … err befoh that can you tell me what is the differences between singaporean hell, malaysian hell, thais hell and china hell?
    Devil : Basically they are the same also …. you see, you wake up at

    * 8am then they will put you on a electrict wok filled with hot oil for 3 hours,
    * 11am – 1pm is lunch break then
    * 1pm to 3pm they put you on a bed made of nail and from
    * 3pm – 5pm representative of each country will come and bash 9 you till your mader also knot recognise you.

    Ahbeng : Wuah hell also got time table wan har?
    Devil : abuden ?
    Ahbeng : If all the hell is the same then why Malaysian hell got so many peeple queue up wan? Malaysia got more sinners izzit?

    Devil : No ler … I also derno why so many ppl wanna go into Malaysian hell, the maintenance is so terrible there! The electrict wok also dont work anymore, then all the nails on the nails bed had been stolen! The worst is the Malaysian Devil !!! he everyday come to work late, punch his card ledi straight go canteen drink kopi then he work not even half hour he go home liow! Lidis also got so many peeple wanna go there wan! Diu!

    Ahbeng : Eh Eh! Lidis I also wanna go Malaysian Hell!!!!

  40. Robert Says:

    “Uh, Shroud of Turin? You do realize that most modern Protestants and Evangelicals put little stock in ’sacred relics’ like the Shroud, the Holy Grail, weeping statues and pieces of dead saints? To some, it’s even on par with idolatry.”

    Well, Scott, you do realize that Catholics believe that most modern Protestants and Evangelicals are misguided heretics who don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of ever entering Heaven.

    So which of you are “True”? Ahahahahaaa. Neither. None. Null. Rendering your faith and your god existence to zero.

  41. Scott Thong Says:

    What kind of relationship can one have with a deity who never visits or returns the call?Ah, but does He not return the calls? Or do we simply not hear the ringing? – Ron

    For as I recall, Mother Teresa did not die an agnostic, and Jesus returned to be seated at the right hand of His Father.

  42. Scott Thong Says:

    And when the Sun goes Red Supergiant in 5 billion years, rendering the Earth to a cinder, will the Universe end? Another conceited concept. – Robert

    Heat death.

  43. Scott Thong Says:

    Good one, assimov!

  44. Scott Thong Says:

    So which of you are “True”? Ahahahahaaa. Neither. None. Null. Rendering your faith and your god existence to zero. – Robert

    By that same logic, does our shared attitude towards atheism render it null as well?

  45. Robert Says:

    So far, the truth of Evolution has been overwhelmingly reinforced with physical evidence; as has the truth of the age of our Universe, Solar Sytem, and planet. Attempts to compare reality with shoddy myths is, for your part, quite foolish.

  46. Ron Says:

    Indeed, even the previous pope supported the theory of evolution.

    @Scott

    At issue wasn’t Mother Teresa’s lack of faith. To the contrary, it was her perceived absence of God despite a lifetime of devotion.

    As for Jesus, my point was that even the so-called “son” was ignored by his father when the chips were down.

  47. Scott Thong Says:

    Well Ron, 2000 years of theology, apologetics and attacks from polemics wasn’t for nothing. We can look at Jesus’ Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani from several perspectives:

    1) Jesus cried this out in pain and despair; yet by the end, He committed His spirit into His Father’s hands and was eventually resurrected, healed and seated in a position of honour.

    2) By taking all the world’s past, present and future sin, Jesus became temporarily anathema to a holy and pure God. Thus He was shocked when, for the first time in eternity, the Father’s presence was far from Him. Remember that in the first place, Jesus wrestled with the burden of dying painfully to further the Father’s plans, but in the end accepted it – which He most likely knew would involve just that sort of ‘forsaking’.

    On Mother Teresa, was the quote you sourced representative of her overall experience, or just an excerpt of a particular moment?

    The presence of God is interpreted in many ways – a feeling is enough proof for some, but for others they require harder evidence – such as these highly improbable coincidences that happen in response to very specific prayer.

    Btw, I don’t disbelieve in evolution per se.

  48. Ron Says:

    “1) Jesus cried this out in pain and despair; yet by the end, He committed His spirit into His Father’s hands and was eventually resurrected, healed and seated in a position of honour.”

    Ah, but how does one verify such a claim? I wasn’t there to witness any of these events and hearsay is just that – hearsay. People have been known to make all sorts of claims. Consider the number of fans who believe Elvis is still alive and/or profess to having seen him since his reported death.

    “2) By taking all the world’s past, present and future sin, Jesus became temporarily anathema to a holy and pure God. Thus He was shocked when, for the first time in eternity, the Father’s presence was far from Him. Remember that in the first place, Jesus wrestled with the burden of dying painfully to further the Father’s plans, but in the end accepted it – which He most likely knew would involve just that sort of ‘forsaking’.”

    I can’t imagine anything more immoral than vicarious redemption. How does killing an innocent person bring justice? Would any court of law allow someone else to stand in for a death row inmate? Would the public accept such an option? Can you identify any sane person who would willingly sacrfice a loved one as part of the forgiveness process? (Note: these are rhetorical questions)

    “The presence of God is interpreted in many ways – a feeling is enough proof for some, but for others they require harder evidence – such as these highly improbable coincidences that happen in response to very specific prayer.”

    Feelings aren’t facts. Facts are facts. Reason (aided by our senses) is the only way we can make conclusions about reality..

    Re: Mother Teresa

    The quote was an exerpt from “Mother Teresa : Come be my light – The private writings of the Saint of Calcutta” — a posthumous compilation of private correspondence between herself and confessors, describing the spiritual emptiness she felt fduring the last five decades of her life.

    For an overview see:

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html

  49. Scott Thong Says:

    Ah, but how does one verify such a claim? I wasn’t there to witness any of these events and hearsay is just that – hearsay. People have been known to make all sorts of claims. Consider the number of fans who believe Elvis is still alive and/or profess to having seen him since his reported death.

    That is a whole other direction of debate, isn’t it? By the same argument, how do we verify that Jesus actually felt abandoned by God?

    I can’t imagine anything more immoral than vicarious redemption. How does killing an innocent person bring justice? Would any court of law allow someone else to stand in for a death row inmate? Would the public accept such an option? Can you identify any sane person who would willingly sacrfice a loved one as part of the forgiveness process?

    No, today’s postmodern, liberal, irreligious Western society would not accept it. But we’re talking about God’s standard’s put in place since eternity. Any argument on this issue basically comes down to the same beef as why those who do not believe must be condemned to hell, or why homosexuality is considered fundamentally unholy, or why not just smite Satan so that Adam and Eve were never tempted.

    Also, even today’s postmodern society still looks on personal sacrifice for the sake of the undeserving as heroic and noble – see The Dark Knight’s ending for example. Jesus willingly took up the burden of humanity’s combined sin. In fact, since Christianity believes in a Trinity, you could say that God Himself was sacrificing for the redemption of us. That’s more like personally taking a bullet for a buddy – moral enough for you?

    Feelings aren’t facts. Facts are facts. Reason (aided by our senses) is the only way we can make conclusions about reality..

    The step-by-step descriptions of answered prayer seem pretty factual to me.

  50. Robert Says:

    “By taking all the world’s past, present and future sin,…” Key word here is ‘future’. The perfect god ‘creates’ imperfect beings and knows their future sins? ‘Creates’ them with full knowledge of their ‘future sins’. Where does ‘free will’ fit into that picture, Scott?

  51. Ron Says:

    “That is a whole other direction of debate, isn’t it? By the same argument, how do we verify that Jesus actually felt abandoned by God?”

    That’s the whole crux of the argument. Outside of the bible, no written evidence corroborates the amazing events purported to have taken place during his lifetime. Even so, it’s entirely plausible to accept the historical existence of a person without buying into the legends that surround them. History provides a long list of rulers who were considered deities during their time.

    “No, today’s postmodern, liberal, irreligious Western society would not accept it. But we’re talking about God’s standard’s put in place since eternity. Any argument on this issue basically comes down to the same beef as why those who do not believe must be condemned to hell, or why homosexuality is considered fundamentally unholy, or why not just smite Satan so that Adam and Eve were never tempted.”

    To which I might add – why create the temptation to begin with?

    The first chapter of Genesis states “And God saw that it was good” several times before closing with “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.”

    How does planting the tree which leads to mankind’s downfall fit in with that theme?

    “Also, even today’s postmodern society still looks on personal sacrifice for the sake of the undeserving as heroic and noble – see The Dark Knight’s ending for example.”

    That depends on what you wish to take away from the ending. Are the writers actively advocating such a belief, or simply engaging the audience to examine the validity said moral values?

    “Jesus willingly took up the burden of humanity’s combined sin. In fact, since Christianity believes in a Trinity, you could say that God Himself was sacrificing for the redemption of us. That’s more like personally taking a bullet for a buddy – moral enough for you?”

    First off, the bible itself contains no specific reference to a “Trinity.” That concept was formulated at a later date as part of a crude attempt to codify many competing beliefs. The Nicene Creed still remains a hot topic of debate amongst various denominations.

    And your argument fails to address how justice is served by sacrificing an innocent person for the sake of the guilty. Scapegoating might have appealed to the ancients, but the modern concept of justice seems a tad more refined, don’t you think?

    As for God taking the bullet, it might seem a noble gesture on the surface. But then again, he’s the one commanding the firing squad. Which makes the proposition even more absurd. Why inflict suffering on yourself to enact forgiveness when a simple acknowledgement of such forgiveness would suffice?

    “The step-by-step descriptions of answered prayer seem pretty factual to me.”

    Unfortunately, none of the examples cited entirely eliminate the possibility of chance occurrence, wishful thinking, or self-fulfilled prophecy.

    For me, the most convincing proof of God’s existence would be a direct appearance to all mankind.

  52. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron, please explain “the modern concept of justice”?

  53. Scott Thong Says:

    That’s the whole crux of the argument. Outside of the bible, no written evidence corroborates the amazing events purported to have taken place during his lifetime. – Ron

    I’ve actually covered quite a lot of this topic in earlier posts.

    The Cyrus cylinder vs Book of Ezra

    Non-Biblical ancient references to Jesus

    This one is not by me:

    Specific locations and personalities mentioned in Acts corroborated by archaeological finds (2 pages)

    ———-

    To which I might add – why create the temptation to begin with?

    The first chapter of Genesis states “And God saw that it was good” several times before closing with “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.”

    How does planting the tree which leads to mankind’s downfall fit in with that theme?

    Again, I’ve covered this several times before.

    A World of Happy Slaves – Why the Forbidden Fruit was necessary, explained with panels from Ultimate Marvel comics

    Point 5 – Without a way to disobey God, free will is a robot’s delusion

    Btw, the creation of plant life was three ‘days’ before the creation of humanity.

    ———-

    First off, the bible itself contains no specific reference to a “Trinity.” That concept was formulated at a later date as part of a crude attempt to codify many competing beliefs. The Nicene Creed still remains a hot topic of debate amongst various denominations.

    Once more, I have covered this plentifully – perhaps more than any other theological issue, since Muslim commentors find issue with this doctrine. Yes, the word ‘Trinity’ nevers appears in the Bible – but it is merely a convenient term used to quickly summarize a concept espoused in the Bible.

    Comment where I cite Communion, the Rapture, ‘Creatio ex Nihilo’ – also not mentioned by name in the Bible, yet accepted as doctrine

    Jesus said ‘God is one’ and ‘worship only God’, then let people worship Jesus

    Passages equating the Holy Spirit to God

    An intriguing Old Testament prophecy where God refers to Himself as ‘I, Us and He’ being publicly crucified

    Real life examples of ‘three as one’ that are accepted as scientific fact (e.g. spatial dimensions, chemical resonance)

    ———–

    And your argument fails to address how justice is served by sacrificing an innocent person for the sake of the guilty. Scapegoating might have appealed to the ancients, but the modern concept of justice seems a tad more refined, don’t you think?

    My argument was not designed to justify substitutionary sacrifice to postmodern thinking. As I said, many concepts in the Bible seem foreign to an audience that is 2000 years removed and – well – foreign to Middle Eastern norms.

    To cite but a few others, I myself personally think that some of the doctrines in the Bible seem less than perfectly just – for example, disallowing homosexuality even between consenting adults, eternal punishment in hell, the issue of those who have never heard the gospel to decide whether to accept or reject it, humanity as a whole suffering from Adam’s individual sin yet humanity as a whole benefiting from Jesus’ individual sacrifice.

    The worldly man looks at all these disagreements, in his self-wisdom decides that he knows better than God, and thereby rejects JudeoChristianity. But I think about just who knows better – myself who has a finite mind and short span of experience, or the infinite and eternal Creator who designed the entire of reality? Thus my conclusion is that despite my personal differences of opinion, in the big picture God knows what He is talking about.

    But put it this way: In modern-day America led by a liberal President, Senate and Congress, banks and insurance firms took incredibly dangerous risks and lost out to the tune of billions. What is their punishment? It should be bankruptcy, but in the end the taxpayer was thrown onto the sacrificial altar by the US government so that Wall Street gets off without a hitch.

    So who says officially-endorsed scapegoating is any less prevalent in modern life? :p

    ———-

    As for God taking the bullet, it might seem a noble gesture on the surface. But then again, he’s the one commanding the firing squad. Which makes the proposition even more absurd. Why inflict suffering on yourself to enact forgiveness when a simple acknowledgement of such forgiveness would suffice?

    As the hymn goes, There was no other way a God of love could find/To reconcile the world, and save a lost mankind/It took the death of His Own Son upon the tree/There was no other way but Calvary.

    Yet I’ll admit, I still don’t know the perfect answer to that one. Why not use some other way, or why not even send Jesus ten minutes after the Fall so that Earth never experiences millenia of suffering?

    But once again, who knows best – me, or God?

    Lee Strobel’s ‘A Case For Faith’ had a potential response though – on the issue of hell, Strobel asked why doesn’t God let those condemned to damnation work to better, cleanse, redeem and prove themselves worthy and then be let into heaven? The interviewed scholared replied, God already does that – it’s called ‘life’.

    So perhaps we have to go through all this suffering an unhappiness in order to fully appreciate just how much God loves us to pay for our tickets back to heaven. As the saying goes, you don’t appreciate the things you have until you lose them. Without mortal life and slavery to sin, we might never appreciate and strive to hold on to salvation.

    ————

    Unfortunately, none of the examples cited entirely eliminate the possibility of chance occurrence, wishful thinking, or self-fulfilled prophecy.

    Ah, I forgot. Coincidence is a really big thing with secularists. The highly improbable chances of life forming are just a coincidence, the highly improbable chances of complex organs like eyes being spontaneously evolved are just a coincidence, the highly improbable chances of the universe being able to support life are just a coincidence, so a prayer leading to a highly improbable sequence of events is just coincidence too. At least they’re consistent.

    (But then, why isn’t increasing CO2 concentrations and rising temperatures – if they really are rising, see the various Climategates – also considered merely a coincidence, especially when the data shows CO2 increasing 800 years AFTER temperature?)

    Wishful thinking and self-fulfilled prophecy are less likely, as many of the events that converge are totally beyond the believer’s control (if you’ve bothered to read them at all). Note that for myself, I weigh the ‘miraculousness’ of answered prayer according to how unlikely and uncontrollable the related events are. So in order to wow my blog readers, I only included the few most dramatic instances (again, if you’ve bothered to read them at all).

    ————

    For me, the most convincing proof of God’s existence would be a direct appearance to all mankind.

    That day is scheduled to come – either in this world with the Second Coming of Christ during the End Times, or in the next before the Judgment Throne of God.

    But be honest now, if God were to suddenly appear before your eyes in thunder and fire and proclaim directly into your very soul “I am here, Ron! Now repent and be saved!”… Would you later dismiss it as a hallucination, a dream, an elaborate prank, even an encounter with technologically advanced extraterrestrials?

    Religious folk are often accused of holding on to their beliefs in spite of all evidence to the contrary. I contend that self-proclaimed ‘non-religious’ people are no more exempt from holding firm onto their preconceived notions in spite of everything, be it global warming or the efficacy of socialism, gun control, appeasement of belligerent dictators, refusing to profile potential terrorists and other liberal norms.

    In another argument by Jewish philosophers, faith cannot exist without at least a small measure of uncertainty. God wants us to make the bold step of believing in Him despite the “What if I’m wrong?” factor – a declaration that we are unafraid of what the world says about our personal choice. This is in fact the purpose of a public water baptism. By proving His existence, God would render faith void.

    So we don’t have irrefutable, inarguable proof of God’s existence. But we do have corroborating evidence that He does exist – personal testimonies, personal encounters, evidence that the Bible is accurate and unchanged back to 400 B.C. or even 1000 B.C., more and more physical evidence that the Bible is factually accurate.

    And to paraphrase what Jesus said: If the Bible is accurate about things we can prove (like history in my first few lines of this comment), then it is likelier to be accurate about things we can’t prove (like spiritual and metaphysical matters).

    Besides, how much of modern life is based on 100% irrefutable evidence? Courts only require that ‘reasonable doubt’ be removed before convicting a defendant. Science runs on highly probable theories that can be disproven and replaced by new evidence (e.g. Newtonian physics to Relativity to Quantum Physics).

    Why does religion have to meet a much higher standard?

  54. Scott Thong Says:

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/the-gamebook-metaphor-gods-omniscience-and-human-free-will/

  55. Robert Says:

    At your game site –
    “If God knows everything that ever will be, then He is to blame for everything bad and wrong in the world! After all God knew that Satan would rebel against Him, that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, that humanity would sin – and yet God let it all happen!

    Ah, but to this I respond – What about the free will that God gave us?

    God gave us the free will to choose what we want to do …”

    And therein lies the flaw of your assumptions. There must be some rational rule to the game, otherwise it will not work. But that is only a game. In reality, one cannot exist if the other exists and that is based on man’s conjured concept of his gods.

    http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

  56. Scott Thong Says:

    I still feel my analogy stands – God can control everything if He chooses to, and like Nicolas Cage in Next He knows every possible outcome – but He would rather that we pick which of the infinite branching paths we prefer for ourselves. His omniscience is always switched on, but He only uses His omnipotence in certain situations. To wit, God knows everything that can happen but keeps hands off.

    On God having created evil, this not being a new charge so a response already exists: Evil is not a ‘thing’ per se, but rather merely an absence of good – just as cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light. Similarly, imperfection is the absence of perfection (hence the word being im slapped onto perfection).

    Humanity (and before us, the angels) were created to be close to God, but we were also given the choice whether to remain close to Him or to move further away – to places that God consciously separates from His presence, i.e. darkness and evil and imperfection.

    Hell can be defined as simply where God is absent (voluntarily, as He can be omnipresent). If God is all that is good and joyful and peaceful, therefore hell is where goodness and joy and peace are absent.

    On voluntary separation, I suppose that is what differentiates the JudeoChristian concept of God’s omnipotence with the Hindu concept of everything in existence actually being part of god. Free will would be pretty meaningless if in the end, we are all merely finger-puppets being roleplayed by one single actor.

  57. Robert Says:

    It doesn’t matter how you feel. It’s how you think. But according to legend, your god still knows the outcome; the finalé, the climax. According to the myths from antiquity and narrated today, your god knew millions of eons before the super giant star that collapsed to black hole whose singularity created our Big Bang [and I would bet there are “Big Bangs” happening all over our various Universes], of the outcome and results of its “test of mankind”.

    As far as your god creating evil? A perfect being cannot create imperfect or flawed beings, only things of equal perfection. Why would a perfect being create something that is not perfect? If humans and the universe are characteristically imperfect then it is impossible for your god to exist. If this being is perfect then it does not need anything less perfect than itself. Anything less perfect would cause affront and disharmony in the perfection of this perfect beings existence.

    How can there be a “choice” if the perfect creator already knows the choices made before it creates the imperfect beings, whether angel or human? “Free will” is a paradox in the legitimacy of the existence of a ‘perfect’ omnipotent deity. It is impossible to have if the “perfect god” exists.

    “Creation” is an assumption made in the absence of complete knowledge of something’s origin(s). As I said in the past, right now, we don’t know and we’re not afraid to admit that, but we are learning more and more about the origins of the Universe, galactic formation, stellar formation with planetary systems, how heavy elements formed and of life and the common elements required for the formation of life found in vast quantity throughout the universe.

    Will humans know it all? Unlikely, especially if we allow the crazies to destroy all life and a beautiful planet with one of their many “End of Days” scenarios. “Fundamentalism, of any type, due to its prerequisite lack of intelligent thought, could prove to be the worst weapon of mass destruction, of all.” – David J. Constable

  58. slake Says:

    “A perfect being cannot create imperfect or flawed beings, only things of equal perfection.”

    A perfect being should be able to create anything….including 4 legged people, talking monkeys, flying ants….anything. Learn Aikido for a start.
    A limited being would not.

  59. Ron Says:

    >> Ron, please explain “the modern concept of justice”? <> I’ve actually covered quite a lot of this topic in earlier posts.

    The Cyrus cylinder vs Book of Ezra <> Non-Biblical ancient references to Jesus <> This one is not by me:

    Specific locations and personalities mentioned in Acts corroborated by archaeological finds (2 pages) <<

    This covers events that transpired after Jesus death. I'm asking for non-biblical texts that were written during Jesus lifetime. For instance, Mathew 27:51-53 states the following occured at the time of Jesus death:

    "51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

    Now that's a newsworthy event one would expect to see mentioned by outside sources.

    I'll respond to the other points when time permits.

  60. Ron Says:

    Okay, my last post got messed up. Here it is again.

    “Ron, please explain “the modern concept of justice”? ”

    The principles are contained within The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    “I’ve actually covered quite a lot of this topic in earlier posts.

    The Cyrus cylinder vs Book of Ezra ”

    Unless I missed something, this appears to be an account of Jewish history predating Jesus.

    “Non-Biblical ancient references to Jesus”

    Isaiah? How is that non-biblical?
    And the few outside sources referenced are relaying secondhand accounts, mostly mocking the beliefs of early Christians.

    “Specific locations and personalities mentioned in Acts corroborated by archaeological finds (2 pages) ”

    This covers events that transpired after Jesus death. I’m asking for non-biblical texts that were written during Jesus lifetime. For instance, Mathew 27:51-53 states the following occured at the time of Jesus death:

    “51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.”

    Now that’s a newsworthy event one would expect to see mentioned by outside sources.

    I’ll respond to the other points when time permits.

  61. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Brother Robert..

    Tell us concisely..in short..why do you think there is no god? I would to listen to you..why. List down your top 5 or 6 reasons (sorry if you’ve already explained it previously..that I missed ?). TQ

  62. Scott Thong Says:

    Ron, sorry about the Cyrus cylinder thing – I included it as a reference on Biblical accuracy in general. And the Isaiah post also contains my most complete list of non-Biblical references to Jesus, so you can just skip the Isaiah prophecy parts.

    Remember that Jesus was just one teacher and claimant to Messiahhood among many other Jews of the time. A lone man among many claiming to be an obscure Jewish cultural personality, in a backwater part of the vast Roman empire that was soon afterwards crushed for rebellion… Remember that the news media wasn’t quite as pervasive as today! That Jesus even appeared in ancient writings at all is a testimony to the persistence of His followers.

    2000 years and countless conflicts have passed since the time Jesus was on earth. The Palestinians are busily destroying what little historical and archaeological remnants remain as well.

    However, I have faith that more and more evidence of Biblical claims will be uncovered over time. After all, the massive Hittite empire was believed to be a Biblical fiction because no evidence of their culture was uncovered until recently.

    Perhaps they will find contemporary non-Biblical records of the event you mention within our lifetimes.

  63. Scott Thong Says:

    Robert, there are two kinds of ‘perfect’ we can discuss here.

    One is ‘abolutely perfect’ which only God is and can be by definition. The other is the Jewish notion of ‘functionally perfect’, i.e. something good enough for what it is meant for. This is how Jesus can expect us to ‘be perfect as you Father in heaven is perfect’ – not in the absolute sense, but in the functional sense.

    God created the universe functionally perfect. If He made it absolutely perfect, it would be God – then why bother making anything at all since God already is?

    That leads us to deep questions about the purpose of things – why did God even make creation at all, instead of just existing as the sole entity inall reality?

    In any case, although at first glance it may seem to be, I don’t think that something perfect by definition cannot create something imperfect on purpose – if something imperfect was created by mistake, that would be an imperfection in the creator. And after all, God is omnipotent (feel free to raise the heavy rock criticism here if you so wish).

  64. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    yeah..I think it is an invalid application to ask “can god create a so big rock that he himself unable to move it..” (when we define His omnipotence)

    He is omnipotence..able to do anything He wishes..godly…and not “monkey tricks” which is ungodly. If He wishes..He can.. then…do we know (can we anticipate) if He wishes/wants to create such a thing (“a big rock that He himself unable to move..”)

    He can do anything He wants, (He cannot do anything He doesn’t want to?)..

    Any idea?

  65. Robert Says:

    Hello Nasaei,
    Sorry to disappoint you, Nasaei, but it is precisely those ‘monkey tricks’ as you would call them that negate the credibility of your god’s omnipotence. It is a valid paradox left unexplained by theists.

    On the subject of creation you establish that this physical universe was created by a god. If so then your god is a part of this physical universe which renders it imperfect; and also that it in itself was created. By whom or what? And for what purpose. Human conceit always assumed all existence was “created” for human purposes and I find it amazing how many human characteristics, and flaws especially, the many gods of the ages, right up to and including today, have in their very existence….which does not exist by your very own definitions.

    Well there’s two and I have already noted four above. Do you wish to see more?

    Please also keep this in mind. I can continue this list but I do know that you will attempt to rationalize the flaws as human ineptitude in our inability to comprehend the vast and endless knowledge of a being…that has absolutely no use for us, based on human description. Unnatural things cannot exist in a natural universe.

  66. hamid Says:

    “By whom or what? ”

    Vulcans

  67. hamid Says:

    “in a backwater part of the vast Roman empire that was soon afterwards crushed for rebellion…”

    Even during Jesus time there were many jew rebellions going on, and Josephus was one of them (mentioned in Mitchener`s “The Source”). Check,

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

  68. Robert Says:

    And now we have Islamic Fundamentalists who believe they have a divine right to anyone’s head. Why don’t they just kill each other? Oh. Excuse me. That’s right, they do kill each other when they don’t have westerners, Jews and whomever else they decide isn’t fit to be cattle.

    But don’t worry, Osama, you’re not alone in your divine quest for nothing. Plenty of delusional Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christian, and don’t forget us Atheists to go around for your killing pleasure…that is…if we continue to allow you to do it. I personally would have nuked your entire country out of existence at Mecca when you’re all stampeding around your precious rock and gibbering at nothing in the sky. I would have liked to remind the world of the lesson you apparently have forgotten at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And it would have been a ten fold.

  69. hamid Says:

    “And now we have Islamic Fundamentalists who believe they have a divine right to anyone’s head.”

    Of course they do. That cannot be disputed.

  70. Robert Says:

    On the contrary.

  71. hamid Says:

    Read the Koran and be set free…..or dont read the koran and you will be set free. Works either way.

  72. hamid Says:

    The U.S. seemed not to notice when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto made Islam the state religion of Pakistan in 1973 or when his successor General Zia ul-Haq Islamicized Pakistani courts and the economy, turned Pakistani madrassas into jihad factories, and demoted women to second-class status.

    Neither did the Pentagon pay the slightest attention when Brigadier S.K. Malik wrote “The Qur’anic Concept of War” in 1979, revealing Pakistan’s unswerving dedication to the doctrinal aspects of Qur’anic warfare (jihad). Malik stated unequivocally, “Jihad is a continuous and never-ending struggle waged on all fronts including political, economic, social, psychological, domestic, moral and spiritual to attain the object of policy.

    It aims at attaining the overall mission assigned to the Islamic state…” Gen. Zia ul-Haq wrote the forward to Malik’s book — which to this day is virtually unknown at U.S. national war colleges.

  73. hamid Says:

    “In war our main objective is the opponent’s heart or soul, our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts… Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision on the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose on him.” (p. 59)

    http://www.patrickpoole.com/2005/12/quranic-concept-of-war-and-terror.html

  74. bingo Says:

    Apostasy killing of former Muslims could become widespread in the United States if the U.S. government and Americans don’t “wake up,” a panel of three former Muslims said on Capitol Hill Thursday.

    The talk, hosted by three members of the new civil rights organization Former Muslims United, marked the first public appearance as a self-proclaimed “apostate” of Iranian journalist Amil Imani, one of the founders of the group. Imani and the panel’s two other speakers, authors Nonie Darwish and Wafa Sultan, told the audience that ingrained American religious and ethnic tolerance and myths about Islam are combining to gravely threaten the West.

    “Shi’a radical Islam and Wahhabism is coming to this country,” Imani said. “There are 6,000 mosques in the United States now. All the money [we] put into gasoline comes back here and is used in the teaching of hate, violence, etc., etc.” in American mosques, he said.

    http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/feb/19/panel-former-muslims-says-us-needs-wake-over-toler/

  75. Robert Says:

    I am especially impressed with how quick and brave you are to strap bombs onto your children to kill other innoocents. How you attack innocent’s in your ‘divine acts of terror’. If you’re so transfixed and obsessed with your archaic and mob mentality religion, why don’t you lead your people by killing yourselves rather than lying to your children? And why do you cowards use sex as an enticement to lure young men to kill themselves? How ridiculous.
    And you don’t think the USA will fight back? Remember Hiroshima. Remember Nagasaki. Remember that there are more guns in private ownership within the borders of the USA than 5 times the number of guns that exist in the rest of the world. But first you’ve got to fight your way through the Marines and Army first.
    But getting back to basics; odd how your god is the same god of Israel and Christiandom and all of you claim you are right and true, which actually proves that you are all wrong and your doctrines are all false. Personally, I would like to see you all annihilate each other the leave the rest of the world in peace but I have this affinity and an oath I have taken, to protect my constitution and my countrymen against evil crackpots who hide behind religion to commit their crimes while they babble in the name of their demon gods. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander of the Japanese Fleet said after the cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor, “I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant.”
    You sure did.

  76. loonytoons Says:

    “And you don’t think the USA will fight back? ”

    Weaklings, you lost in Indo China, you ran away from Sudan and Beirut. You are going to run away from Iraq. You have been in Afghanistan for 10 years with f-all to show for it. Pah!!! Now your muslim Prez bows to The Saudi King.
    “sleeping giant” my a$$.

  77. Robert Says:

    It will be your a$$, indeed.

  78. loonytoons Says:

    Why my a$$ (see how stupid you are). I`m not a muslim, they are already in yours.

  79. Robert Says:

    True. Yours is a waste of time

  80. loonytoons Says:

    Nothing like brownies up whitey`s back. Now whitey bows to the Crescent:

    New Obama Missile Defense Logo Includes A Crescent

  81. loonytoons Says:

    “sleeping giant” hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  82. loonytoons Says:

    “True.”

    Thank you for confirming. Enjoy it.

  83. loonytoons Says:

    “Yours is a waste of time”

    Thank goodness, I`m safe then….. longer than you.

  84. Robert Says:

    Your moniker says it all.

  85. loonytoons Says:

    Ahhhh finally you prove that the “sleeping giant” now belongs to a 6 year old kiddies playground, calling names.
    Incidentally, should it make any difference, when my neighbor calls his dog Bobby?

  86. Robert Says:

    You really should not venture unsolicited opinions and save yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your audience.

  87. loonytoons Says:

    Bobby talking to the mirror

  88. Robert Says:

    That’s all folks!

  89. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I would love to know, (and to understand) the reasons why atheists beleive God doesn’t exist. Robert seems to ignore or not entertaining my request to consisely explain..why there is no God.. Can you please ..Robert. Why…why…

  90. hitchens Says:

  91. Robert Says:

    Hello Nasaei,
    Here is the first part:

    # Robert Says:
    February 20, 10 at 9:45 pm

    It doesn’t matter how you feel. It’s how you think. But according to legend, your god still knows the outcome; the finalé, the climax. According to the myths from antiquity and narrated today, your god knew millions of eons before the super giant star that collapsed to black hole whose singularity created our Big Bang [and I would bet there are “Big Bangs” happening all over our various Universes], of the outcome and results of its “test of mankind”.

    As far as your god creating evil? A perfect being cannot create imperfect or flawed beings, only things of equal perfection. Why would a perfect being create something that is not perfect? If humans and the universe are characteristically imperfect then it is impossible for your god to exist. If this being is perfect then it does not need anything less perfect than itself. Anything less perfect would cause affront and disharmony in the perfection of this perfect beings existence.

    How can there be a “choice” if the perfect creator already knows the choices made before it creates the imperfect beings, whether angel or human? “Free will” is a paradox in the legitimacy of the existence of a ‘perfect’ omnipotent deity. It is impossible to have if the “perfect god” exists.

    “Creation” is an assumption made in the absence of complete knowledge of something’s origin(s). As I said in the past, right now, we don’t know and we’re not afraid to admit that, but we are learning more and more about the origins of the Universe, galactic formation, stellar formation with planetary systems, how heavy elements formed and of life and the common elements required for the formation of life found in vast quantity throughout the universe.

    Will humans know it all? Unlikely, especially if we allow the crazies to destroy all life and a beautiful planet with one of their many “End of Days” scenarios. “Fundamentalism, of any type, due to its prerequisite lack of intelligent thought, could prove to be the worst weapon of mass destruction, of all.” – David J. Constable

    And here is the follow up:

    # Robert Says:
    February 25, 10 at 10:50 pm

    Hello Nasaei,
    Sorry to disappoint you, Nasaei, but it is precisely those ‘monkey tricks’ as you would call them that negate the credibility of your god’s omnipotence. It is a valid paradox left unexplained by theists.

    On the subject of creation you establish that this physical universe was created by a god. If so then your god is a part of this physical universe which renders it imperfect; and also that it in itself was created. By whom or what? And for what purpose. Human conceit always assumed all existence was “created” for human purposes and I find it amazing how many human characteristics, and flaws especially, the many gods of the ages, right up to and including today, have in their very existence….which does not exist by your very own definitions.

    Well there’s two and I have already noted four above. Do you wish to see more?

    Please also keep this in mind. I can continue this list but I do know that you will attempt to rationalize the flaws as human ineptitude in our inability to comprehend the vast and endless knowledge of a being…that has absolutely no use for us, based on human description. Unnatural things cannot exist in a natural universe.

    So, what do you wish? Do I need to condense this for you? I know that even if I give you 25 or 1000 more reasons you will find the rationalizations to accommodate your particular beliefs. Let me know if this is good or if you need more.

  92. Ron Says:

    @Scott

    Re: Free Will

    The underlying premise in all these arguments is that every choice we make constitutes an exercise of free will, which is simply not the case. By definition, free will can not be an imposed choice. Otherwise an armed robber who yells, “Your money or your life” could (rightly) claim that he offers his victims an opportunity to exercise their free will. Somehow, I don’t think that line of defense would succeed in a court of law.

    God’s command — to love and obey him, or perish — is an imposed choice.

    In one of your links, you likened God to a doting parent who’s concerned for the welfare of his children. Let’s pursue that idea a bit further.

    Responsible parents assess their children’s capabilities and focus on creating a safe environment. They actively monitor their children’s activities and take action before things get out of control. Unsafe items which might appeal to a youngster are placed out of reach or locked away. During extended absences, guardianship is entrusted to caregivers who value and support those goals.

    Loving parents provide guidance, teach self-discipline, acknowledge honest efforts, praise achievements, and offer encouragement. They have reasonable expectations, set appropriate rules and guidelines, communicate them clearly, and apply them with fairness and consistency. Physical punishment is reserved for extreme misbehaviour, and administered only as a last resort once all other alternatives have been exhausted.

    With that in mind, how does God stack up as a parent?

    Well, based on the creation story, he comes across as the type of father who tosses his kids a pack of cigarettes, warns them not to smoke and sends in a smooth-talking tobacco lobbyist to test their resolve.

    Perhaps the greatest argument against free will is the Bible itself. God is shown meddling in human affairs and dictating his terms in almost every book from Genesis to Revelation. And Christians freely admit this whenever they quote scripture to talk of his divine plan for us, little realizing that divine will and free will are mutually incompatible.

    “Btw, the creation of plant life was three ‘days’ before the creation of humanity.”

    Yes, I know… an entire day prior to creating the sun which is required to sustain plant life. 8)

  93. Robert Says:

    Excellent post, Ron. Scott will probably quote scripture to rationalize a response…they just can’t help themselves.

  94. Scott Thong Says:

    Otherwise an armed robber who yells, “Your money or your life” could (rightly) claim that he offers his victims an opportunity to exercise their free will. Somehow, I don’t think that line of defense would succeed in a court of law.

    God’s command — to love and obey him, or perish — is an imposed choice. – Ron

    Agreed that an imposed choice is not a completely free choice, and yes, that does pose a problem for my modern notions of complete and utter fairness.

    The counter-argument is that spiritual perishing is an unavoidable natural consequence rather than a deliberate vindictiveness by God, much as gravity or the non-omnipotence of human beings is not usually considered a choice imposed by an unfair Creator.

    And note that many a Christian has become a martyr (a real martyr, not that jihadi self-killing type) by making a stand on a life-or-death imposed choice.

    With that in mind, how does God stack up as a parent?

    Well, based on the creation story, he comes across as the type of father who tosses his kids a pack of cigarettes, warns them not to smoke and sends in a smooth-talking tobacco lobbyist to test their resolve.

    In my version of this metaphor, it would be as a father who gives his kids everything they could possibly need and tells them not to smoke because it’s bad for them, and then has his kids light up some ciggies just to show dad who’s boss now – and a few millenia later, blaming dad for the fact they have lung cancer (polemicists on the existence of human suffering).

    Perhaps the greatest argument against free will is the Bible itself. God is shown meddling in human affairs and dictating his terms in almost every book from Genesis to Revelation.

    And yet in many cases, humans go directly against God’s stated preferences. But I suppose free will vs imposed choice would already decide this issue.

    Yes, I know… an entire day prior to creating the sun which is required to sustain plant life.

    Plants can also be sustained on other forms of light, which was present on the first day.

    On this note, see my puzzlement regarding Genesis 1 in this post:

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/creation-how/

    (In reading that, note that I have since then become more convinced of evolution theory by the DNA link between dinosaurs and birds.)

  95. Scott Thong Says:

    Robert, you pleasantly surprise me. Without revealing my exact stance (due to non-freedom of speech issues round these parts), I expected most liberal-leaning types to have the diametrically opposed view from mine on national security/global conflict issues.

  96. Robert Says:

    Hello Scott,
    I am a registered Independent. Raised Democrat, switched to Republican in the 70’s. Went Independent when Newt and the Republicans Breached their Contract with America and began what I considered to be a very nasty trend in politics which was brought to even lower levels of depravity by Karl Rove. I am a veteran of an era when they called us ‘baby killers’. And now they call their nieces, nephews and grandchildren “heroes” for completing boot camp. Dear, dear, what’s this world coming to?

    I’m a tad baffled, Scott? What does “(due to non-freedom of speech issues round these parts)” mean? Are you in a communist nation? And “liberal-leaning types” is an unfortunate habit many people of all influences fall into at times. They tend to forget that we are a world of individuals versus easily defined packaged goods stored in specific bins.

    Nice dodge on Ron’s response. I knew you would read my response and avoid quoting scripture at all costs. Now allow me to take my pinkie finger out of your nose a moment to clean it off and then we’ll embark on a new adventure.

  97. Robert Says:

    Oh, and, by the way, I really love that “unavoidable natural consequence” you’ve attempted to rationalize to support the existence of an unnatural paradox. Too funny!

  98. loonytoons Says:

    “Dear, dear, what’s this world coming to?”….Robert

    As a veteran you should know.

  99. loonytoons Says:

    “[I]f this movie was based on a war that never existed, I would have nothing to comment about. This movie is not based on a true story, but on a true war, a war in which I have seen my friends killed, a war in which I witnessed my ranger buddy get both his legs blown off. So for Hollywood to glorify this crap is a huge slap in the face to every soldier who’s been on the front line.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022506161_pf.html

  100. Scott Thong Says:

    I’m a tad baffled, Scott? What does “(due to non-freedom of speech issues round these parts)” mean?

    Insult certain individuals (or beliefs), get thrown in the slammer without trial for an indefinite period of time – no comforts, no freedom for religious rites, lousy food, regular intimidation and beatings (the real type with dead family and metal rod to feet, not threats of caterpillar use and flexible-wall bouncing). Perhaps you can see why I consider anti-Gitmo protestors to be extreme wimps.

    It ain’t called Third World for nothing.

    Nice dodge on Ron’s response. I knew you would read my response and avoid quoting scripture at all costs.

    Well actually, with the influx of comments while I was busy, I just read and replied on a last in, first out basis which is how WordPress arranges comments for the Admin. I didn’t even think of the scriptural angle.

  101. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Brother Robert…

    Below ..I retype some of the statements you made. Due to time constraint, I have no intention to comment them all (of your statements). However, in we were to verify them.. I strongly believe that.. if we ‘appoint’ peoples around world to be judges, we will definitely receive millions or billions of oppossing comments to your gibberish statements:

    i) “…As far as your god creating evil..?
    (God creates evil ???..)

    ii) “A perfect being cannot create imperfect , or flawed beings, only
    things of equal perfection..”

    (Who says this ???? “ROBERT SAYS !!!) . Who is Robert ? I don’t
    know…he is my “cyber atheist friend”)

    iii) “Fundamentalism, of any type, due to its prerequisite lack of intelligent
    thought, could prove to be the worst weapon of mass destruction…”
    – David J. (police) Constable, a big time Philosopher/
    World Renonwed Scholar

  102. Ron Says:

    “The counter-argument is that spiritual perishing is an unavoidable natural consequence rather than a deliberate vindictiveness by God, much as gravity or the non-omnipotence of human beings is not usually considered a choice imposed by an unfair Creator.”

    I’m not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that eternal suffering is something we just have to accept as a universal absolute? Because that blows the whole free will argument completely out of the water.

    And the following statement (from your link) amounts to little more than begging the question:

    “Whether or not you believe in it, whether or not it fits your opinion… According to the Bible, Hell exists. It’s not a matter of what ideally should be, or whether God is fair or unfair, or even what we prefer – It’s a matter of fact. That’s the way it is. It simply is.”

    How do we know hell exists?
    Because the Bible says so.
    Why should we trust the Bible?
    Because it’s the Word of God..
    How do we know God exists?
    Because the Bible says so.

    Rinse, lather, repeat… ad infinitum.

    However, for the sake of argument, let’s say I accept that statement. Can you honestly say that a relationship built on fear is healthy or desirable? Does God really want to surround himself with yes men, sycophants and ass-kissers for the rest of eternity?

    “And note that many a Christian has become a martyr (a real martyr, not that jihadi self-killing type) by making a stand on a life-or-death imposed choice.”

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/07/01/1766-chevalier-jean-francois-de-la-barre/

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/01/08/1697-thomas-aikenhead/

    “In my version of this metaphor, it would be as a father who gives his kids everything they could possibly need and tells them not to smoke because it’s bad for them, and then has his kids light up some ciggies just to show dad who’s boss now – and a few millenia later, blaming dad for the fact they have lung cancer (polemicists on the existence of human suffering).”

    Trouble is, dad doesn’t think lung cancer is sufficient punishment, so he decides to torture them mercilessly for simple disobedience, because truth be told, that’s the only issue that was ever really at stake.

    “Plants can also be sustained on other forms of light, which was present on the first day.”

    Plants need more than light to survive. Without the sun’s radiation, the blackbody temperature of the earth in space would be 30 K (-243 C) — a tad nippy.

    And without the sun, exactly what kind of light was God using?

  103. Robert Says:

    Gee Scott, sorry to hear that. Oh, and nice try on the scriptural angle denial.

    Looneytoons appears to have a soft spot besides that gelatinous crap between his ears. I wonder how many whiners we had whining about how the WW2 movies weren’t accurate and were all offended? Or Korea? M*A*S*H? Or Viet Nam [mine]? Apocolypse Now, Hamburger Hill and many others. But the looney is different. Looney is ‘sensitive’. Looney wants to pout! Pout, Looney, pout! Yeah, no shit, asshole. War sucks. Always did and it always will. Welcome to reality.

    If you’re going to be that dishonest, Nasaei, then don’t bother to ask questions in a sincere manner, not bother to read or understand the responses whatsoever and then crab about it. Your attitude, and those of your deluded brethren in the Christian and Jewish community are proof enough for me that there is no god, besides the reasons I gave at your bidding. You maly refute what I have to say but it really will not matter.

  104. loonytoons Says:

    “Dear, dear, what’s this world coming to?”….Robert

    As a veteran you should know.

  105. loonytoons Says:

    “Looney wants to pout! Pout, Looney, pout!”….Robert

    hmmm better than a potting freak veteran on the potty hahahaha sleeping giant going to end the world`s problems but still wondering what it`s coming to.

  106. loonytoons Says:

    Loony sleeping giant potty vets et al getting their teeth kicked in all over the world hahahaha and dreaming of sleeping giants ….climbing beanstalks

  107. loonytoons Says:

    “Nasaei, …… Jewish community…”………Robert

    And we got a wondering jew [..what’s this world coming to?”] hahahahahaha

  108. loonytoons Says:

    “Looney is ’sensitive’. …..Yeah, no sh*t, a$$hole. War sucks. Always did and it always will. Welcome to reality.”

    You must have been the stupidest vet in the whole Army and probably on latrine duty all the while. The fact remains that since Vietnam you fvckwits have been getting your teeth kicked in so much that you are so senistive these days. You are pussies now. The chaps in taliban got more balls than you snivellers (barring a few). You will be a muslim yet, and if not you, then for sure your children`s children`s children. From meatloaf you are now deadmeat.

  109. Robert Says:

    An apt moniker…bravo!

  110. loonytoons Says:

    “Looney is ’sensitive’. …..Yeah, no sh*t, a$$hole. War sucks. Always did and it always will. Welcome to reality.”

    You must have been the stupidest vet in the whole Army and probably on latrine duty all the while. The fact remains that since Vietnam you fvckwits have been getting your teeth kicked in so much that you are so senistive these days. You are pussies now. The chaps in taliban got more balls than you snivellers (barring a few). You will be a muslim yet, and if not you, then for sure your children`s children`s children.

  111. loonytoons Says:

    “Looney is ’sensitive’. …..Yeah, no sh*t, a$$hole. War sucks. Always did and it always will. Welcome to reality.”

    You must have been the stupidest vet in the whole Army and probably on latrine duty all the while. The fact remains that since Vietnam you twits have been getting your teeth kicked in so much that you are so sensitive these days. The taliban got more cojones than you snivellers (barring a few). You will be a muslim yet, and if not you, then for sure your children`s children`s children.

  112. loonytoons Says:

    “An apt moniker…bravo!”

    And like I said my neighbor`s dog is a Robert (Bobby, who is not a boobie).

  113. Robert Says:

    “The taliban got more cojones than you snivellers (barring a few). You will be a muslim yet, and if not you, then for sure your children`s children`s children.”

    Really? It’s pretty evident, by your own admission here, that you pansies didn’t do a very good job now did you? Unless of course you’re on the other side which would just make you more of a back stabbing coward.

  114. loonytoons Says:

    Really? YES It’s pretty evident, by your own admission here, that you pansies didn’t do a very good job now did you? WE NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOUR CIA CREATED THEM, LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT & STOP BEING A BOOBIE Unless of course you’re on the other side which would just make you more of a back stabbing coward.WHAT BACK STABBING? YOU A NIUT OR SOMETHING, I NEVER TOOK AN OATH TO PROTECT YOUR AR$ES. LEARN TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN BACK.

  115. loonytoons Says:

    MORE ON VETS:

    WHAT HAVE WE DONE

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/21591482/The-Muslim-Brotherhood-Nazis-and-Al-Qaeda-transcript-of-a-speech

    And someone has to be audacious to call others back stabbers.

  116. loonytoons Says:

    “CIA worked with Pakistan to create Taliban”
    [See end for comment from Emperor's Clothes editor]

    http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/pak.htm

  117. loonytoons Says:

    US Being Sucked into Pakistan’s World of Illusions

    http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers37%5Cpaper3657.html

  118. krishna Says:

    “….that you pansies didn’t do a very good job now did you?”….Robert

    In ALL the wars that India had with the Pakis, it was the US that interfered and threatened and stopped India from settling the problem with finality. Silarly the US did with Israel. US was the main supplier of arms to Pakistan since `47 to today. US being an Abrahamic religion country like the Pakis love muslims and hate idolatrous hindus (though these days a pretence is made of tolerating for economics sake).

  119. Robert Says:

    Nasaei should appreciate this; another answer to his silly riddles. I wonder what happens when one of the muslim cowards blows himself up and kills a Jew and a Christian at the same time; all three being martyrs to their respective and idiotic beliefs; does their silly god have an answer when the three of them meet in heaven and ask their god “What are they doing here?” Or if this slick god of theirs had it all planned out and has a separate heaven for each of them so it doesn’t get asked stupid questions.

    Humans are like fleas arguing and killing each other over who owns the dog.

    I think the USA should leave the middle east, develop self sufficiency with power, tell OPEC to kiss its ass and let the sand fleas return to the desert on their camels and their blood thirsty god. Let them all kill each other. Idiots.

  120. krishna Says:

    Today`s US military is made of pansies. Obama has given them green light to put on their stockings and high heels. Soon the pansies will be pushing up daisies.

  121. krishna Says:

    “I wonder what happens when one of the muslim cowards blows himself up and kills a Jew and a Christian at the same time”

    Muslim goes to heaven, others to Hell.

  122. Robert Says:

    “krishna krishna” “holly holly” “smegma krishna” “krishna smegma” “smegma smegma”

    Another brave anonymous braggard who sends his children to do his dirty work and die. How are you doing there, chicken sh*t?

  123. krishna Says:

    This chicken sh*t is ok, how you doing dog breath?

  124. Robert Says:

    There is no heaven and there is no hell, other than that third world cess pool you call home, and when you die you rot in the ground like a dog.

  125. krishna Says:

    “smegma krishna”? Been doing a lot of blow jobs have you? You like Indian d*cks.

  126. Robert Says:

    Just hanging around feeling glad to have been born in a free country.

  127. krishna Says:

    “when you die you rot in the ground like a dog”

    You stooopid fart, we cremate, you rot in the ground like a dead dog.

  128. krishna Says:

    “Just hanging around” yaaah a hang around

  129. krishna Says:

    You want an indian d*ck to blow job on come to democratic India….only it`s not done in the streets

  130. krishna Says:

    Or you can give that half-white in the White House (who carries a Hanuman in his pocket) one – blow job I mean (you might get much smegma on account of all those chitlins).

  131. Robert Says:

    Enjoy, you gutless coward!

    http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/insulting_Muslims.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4F9solJoTU

  132. Robert Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfT0LC5IOL8&feature=related

  133. krishna Says:

    The vet needs to see the vet, the smegma`s gone to its head. Hindus are not muslims.

  134. krishna Says:

    “The vet needs to see the vet,…”

    Sorely needs a distemper shot

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

  135. krishna Says:

    “Enjoy, you gutless coward!”

    ANKARA, Turkey, April 6 — President Obama made his most direct outreach to Muslims around the world Monday, telling Turkey’s Grand National Assembly that the United States “is not and never will be at war with Islam.”

    “I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace,” – George W. Bush

  136. krishna Says:

    “Hindus are gutless cowards” is what the Paki muslims say all the time…..notwithstanding the fact that pakistan lost in all its wars with India. Today Robert mimics muslims.

  137. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Robert..my fren..I appeal to everybody..(particularly you Robert…)
    Please avoid vugarity such as “a$$hole”, “sh*t” etc. In you response to our friend such as “loonytoons” above, you used such ..unspeakable words. I notice that..you are far more better than certain people..and I believe you are very competent, not like me.

    Pls. avoid such a thing…otherwise people here will be resorting to the same. Get back to the root of discussion.

  138. a-gutless-coward Says:

    “Hindus are gutless cowards”

    The American Left’s disenchantment with India rings true.

    The left is wary of India for the same reasons it remains wary of Israel: both democracies are fiercely nationalistic and unapologetically defend themselves against the “downtrodden” “other,” i.e., Islamic lunatics.

    The American left simply prefers to play hardball with allies than with adversaries. Recall President Carter’s handling of Iran: the allied shah was condemned as an autocrat; the enemy Khomeini, a “holy man.” For Carter, our anticommunist allies were violators of human rights first, second, and third; the Soviets, murderers of tens of millions, were benign enough for Carter to proclaim Americans had an “inordinate fear of communism.”

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-does-the-american-left-fear-the-rise-of-india/

  139. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Robert, perhaps there are some of the reasons you believe whay god doesn’t exist:

    i) Because you (like everybody else..) never seen God
    ii) God never came to sip coffee or cappucino with you.
    iii) If you (or anybody else..) pray to God and asked for food or money,
    the result is that…no food or money fallen from the sky..)
    iv) YOUR very own reson : amputees never get back their gangrined or
    cut off hands.
    v) Because you look/see things by eyes only (not mind and heart)
    vi) Because..even though you say something bad to God, you remained
    the same (you are not hurted or wounded)
    vi) Because you (and the rest of creatures, including myself) do NOT
    know every single things, but God is..) We are stupid enough.
    Atheists are stupidier than theists – yet they thought they are
    smart mind you !

    etc.

  140. Scott Thong Says:

    I’m not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that eternal suffering is something we just have to accept as a universal absolute? Because that blows the whole free will argument completely out of the water.

    However, for the sake of argument, let’s say I accept that statement. Can you honestly say that a relationship built on fear is healthy or desirable? Does God really want to surround himself with yes men, sycophants and ass-kissers for the rest of eternity?- Ron

    I’ll compare it to gravity once again – how often do you hear people complain that falling to your death after jumping off a ten-storey building is ‘unfair’ and that their free will is constrained by the fact that gravity exists?

    If God wanted only that type of followers, He would have made robots instead of free-willed humans in the first place. Or provided no way for humans to actually choose to disobey.

    Trouble is, dad doesn’t think lung cancer is sufficient punishment, so he decides to torture them mercilessly for simple disobedience, because truth be told, that’s the only issue that was ever really at stake.

    That metaphor is running away… The point of the comparison is to equate damnation to lung cancer as unavoidable, natural consequences of certain actions.

  141. Scott Thong Says:

    Gee Scott, sorry to hear that. Oh, and nice try on the scriptural angle denial. – Robert

    Really, I did as I said I did. Up to now I haven’t even bothered thinking what Scriptures you think I would go digging for, as I was satisfied with my response.

    If you don’t take my word on that, well, I won’t bother trying to convince you further (seeing as mind-reading devices are in the exclusive control of Cheney-Halliburton).

  142. seetrei Says:

    “Atheists are stupidier than theists – yet they thought they are
    smart mind you !”

    Higher IQ linked to liberalism, atheism

    http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/03/02/Higher-IQ-linked-to-liberalism-atheism/UPI-68381267513202/

  143. Scott Thong Says:

    Robert, I had to slightly modify your comments so that the Youtube links show up as text and not video (video with a certain title).

    You asked why I feel I don’t have freedom of speech? I can be arrested and jailed because I failed to prevent a commentor from rudely insulting Islam on my blog (and yes, it has actually happened before to others). In fact, I’m not even sure if everything else I let by will one day land me in the slammer – but I hope my editing of the most outrightly noticeable material is enough.

  144. Scott Thong Says:

    As for loonytoons et al… Self-bleep your own cuss words, and you can avoid the SPAM filter.

    In fact, I am expanding the words covered by the filter to encourage a reduction in swearing. Remember: use a *, avoid the bar.

  145. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert can only view others through his skewed viewpoint. Just because he is devious, he assigns to Scott his own deviousness. As his comments have proven, he is not in discussion for the sake of learning or for passing on his experience and knowledge but to win, execute, trash..whatever it takes to win an argument, he will do it. And always he goes for the jugular. I wouldn’t insult other war veterans by saying that it’s because he’s a Vietnam vet. I know other soldiers and they’re not like that. I know other atheists, too and they are rational and even-voiced.

  146. Robert Says:

    My apologies Scott. I will make it a pointed effort to refrain from the use of vulgarity in the future.

  147. Ron Says:

    “I’ll compare it to gravity once again – how often do you hear people complain that falling to your death after jumping off a ten-storey building is ‘unfair’ and that their free will is constrained by the fact that gravity exists?”

    That’s because gravity also serves a useful purpose — it keeps things from floating off into the atmosphere. Furthermore, the forces of gravity act on all physical matter in an impartial manner without moral conscience, whereas your imaginary deity does not.

    “If God wanted only that type of followers, He would have made robots instead of free-willed humans in the first place. Or provided no way for humans to actually choose to disobey.”

    Well mindless robots is all your god could expect under the conditions he’s imposed, because someone who unquestioningly obeys rules that don’t make sense isn’t thinking.

    And all of this completely sidesteps the real question: Why would a perfect being require love and adoration to begin with?

    “That metaphor is running away… The point of the comparison is to equate damnation to lung cancer as unavoidable, natural consequences of certain actions.”

    Why is it unavoidable? Your omnipotent god could have just as easily created a universe in which smoking carries no undesirable consequences.

  148. Ron Says:

    Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “Robert, perhaps there are some of the reasons you believe whay god doesn’t exist:

    iv) YOUR very own reson : amputees never get back their gangrined or
    cut off hands.”

    I’ve often wondered that myself… as have others:

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

  149. Scott Thong Says:

    Thanks Robert, however as a whole you have almost never used words requiring *-edits.

    Feel free to continue with non-crude/cuss insults however – they are a vital part of free speech (for as long as free speech lasts). And no, I’m not intending to be sarcastic or snarky when I say this.

  150. Scott Thong Says:

    That’s because gravity also serves a useful purpose — it keeps things from floating off into the atmosphere. – Ron

    Hell’s useful purpose would be to corral the jerks in, then. I like to envision that habitual queue-cutters will be repeatedly cut-in by an infitine number of others while waiting in line for their ration of water or whatever.

    On an aside, the Weak Anthropological Principle subscriber would argue that if gravity were non-existant, either life wouldn’t even exist or else we would be a life form adapted to a gravityless environment.

    Well mindless robots is all your god could expect under the conditions he’s imposed, because someone who unquestioningly obeys rules that don’t make sense isn’t thinking.

    And yet, here you are arguing against God’s existence.

    This is why I raised the whole issue martyrdom issue – because people faced with a constrained choice have often still made their own free will choice (whether in the name of religion or irreligion or whatever).

    And all of this completely sidesteps the real question: Why would a perfect being require love and adoration to begin with?

    I suppose that would depend on your definition of perfect, which in turn depends on your philosophical outlook. Why would God even make the universe? Can anyone do any more than conjecture at this point?

    Why is it unavoidable? Your omnipotent god could have just as easily created a universe in which smoking carries no undesirable consequences.

    In which case God could have created a world where 20-storey falls don’t hurt, or humans are omnipotent extradimensional beings, or red is a taste and light is non-light.

    Again, why create the universe at all?

  151. Robert Says:

    Thank you Scott.

    “I suppose that would depend on your definition of perfect, which in turn depends on your philosophical outlook. Why would God even make the universe? Can anyone do any more than conjecture at this point?”

    And there you have it, Scott. It is not one human’s ‘definition of perfect’ and it does not depend on any philosophical outlook. It is what most of the world believes as the true word of their respective god and that the definition of perfect is an irreducible primary. What you’re saying is “Perfect” is only what you may believe it is and not what the concept of “Perfect” really is, especially in assigning it as a true condition of a god which makes it impossible to exist. And anything less would no longer fit the mythical concept of “god”.

    Atheists do not think the Universe was “made” or “created” at all and we are not afraid to say, as I have done so many times in the past, “I don’t know. But we are working on it.” And that is what makes life and the unexplored unknown much more exciting than any delusional myth ever conjured in history.

    “Again, why create the universe at all?”
    It never was “created”, Scott. Try wrapping your head around that concept.

    Nasaei – I thought I gave you the number of reasons you asked for but you evidently want them in an numbered outline format. Next time be a little more specific and we’ll get there sooner. You must be a bean counter in your country. Keep this in mind, everything that has been described and defined by alleged divine instruction in many cultures:

    1. “Perfection” negates the existence of a god.

    2. “Free will” as an imposed choice [thanks Ron].

    3. The insistence of the existence of Hell negates the existence of a god.

    4. To imply creation, there must be a creator and the creator must be of this natural realm then it too must have been created and on , and on, and on….negates its existence.

    5. Fore knowledge. God knows the future? Then why did the perfect being create complete imperfection that would retaliate against it? We’re being tested? It already knows the outcome.

    There’s more and more, Nasaei. Most of it logical, some of it personal. Now that I know how you like it I will try to adhere to your wishes.

    “Simon says…..” Simon must be a psychotic, er, sociopath, er, psychic! That ‘s it. He knows all about me having never met me or spent any personal time with me. Amazing. You fit the mold as perfectly as a human can achieve. What’s it like to be so boringly predictable?

  152. Ron Says:

    “Hell’s useful purpose would be to corral the jerks in, then. I like to envision that habitual queue-cutters will be repeatedly cut-in by an infitine number of others while waiting in line for their ration of water or whatever.”

    Ah yes, how could I forget? The Christian concept of divine justice — “an eye for an eye” meted out in perpetuity — is the cornerstone of any devout, god-fearing, bible-thumping fundamentalist. And for the likes of Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps, watching the unredeemed suffer in everlasting agony will be the highlight (dare I say “climax”) of their heavenly stay.

    But what about you, Scott? How long do you reckon it will be, before this celestial version of “Groundhog Day” becomes a tiresome re-run? A week? A month? One year? Ten?

    Or will Hell be a special channel you can tune in every once in a while to relieve the tedium of flattering YAHWEH (“Dude, I’m soooo not worthy!”) and singing “Oh Hosanna” for the umpteen-gazillionth time?

    “And yet, here you are arguing against God’s existence.”

    True, but according to Christian dogma, I’ll be punished for having had the audacity to question his existence. Heaven only accepts believers… skeptics can go straight to Hell.

    “This is why I raised the whole issue martyrdom issue – because people faced with a constrained choice have often still made their own free will choice (whether in the name of religion or irreligion or whatever).”

    “The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one” — Wilhelm Stekel

    “I suppose that would depend on your definition of perfect, which in turn depends on your philosophical outlook.”

    I’m simply adhering to the definition advanced by religious adherents: an infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God — i.e., All-Perfect.

    “Why would God even make the universe? Can anyone do any more than conjecture at this point?”

    Well, that’s precisely what non-believers have been asking. What evidence is there for a supreme being? Or its designs for mankind?

    To date, it’s all been little more than conjecture.

  153. Simon Thong Says:

    Correction: “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is the Hammurabi Code, and Jewish…the Christian concept is “turn the other cheek”..

  154. Ron Says:

    Are you sure?

    Because according to Matthew 5:17-18, the Jewish code is still in force.

    In any case, Jesus contradicts himself (Matthew 10:34-36) and didn’t follow his own advice (John 18:22, Mark 11:15-16)

  155. Simon Thong Says:

    Yes, sure..And the passages you quote are not a contradiction. Turning the other cheek is not applicable to the actions of Jesus in those places.

  156. Scott Thong Says:

    And there you have it, Scott. It is not one human’s ‘definition of perfect’ and it does not depend on any philosophical outlook. It is what most of the world believes as the true word of their respective god and that the definition of perfect is an irreducible primary. What you’re saying is “Perfect” is only what you may believe it is and not what the concept of “Perfect” really is, especially in assigning it as a true condition of a god which makes it impossible to exist. And anything less would no longer fit the mythical concept of “god”. – Robert

    Yes, the problem of relative definitions. It just so happens too that Rome: Total War is throwing me the angle that the non-Romans considered Rome’s laws and practices to be barbaric – why imprison and flog someone when a good old fashioned blood fued properly settles disputes?

  157. Robert Says:

    So “relative” is relative when rationalizing the paradox of your particular dogma? “Let’s see. That shoe doesn’t fit. Let’s try a different size until we get it right.”? And you never, ever, get it right!

  158. Scott Thong Says:

    Ah yes, how could I forget? The Christian concept of divine justice — “an eye for an eye” meted out in perpetuity — is the cornerstone of any devout, god-fearing, bible-thumping fundamentalist. And for the likes of Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps, watching the unredeemed suffer in everlasting agony will be the highlight (dare I say “climax”) of their heavenly stay.

    But what about you, Scott? How long do you reckon it will be, before this celestial version of “Groundhog Day” becomes a tiresome re-run? A week? A month? One year? Ten? – Ron

    Well, think of it this way, Ron.

    Hell is simply a place that all the jerks of the universe can have all to themselves. If meeting one or two every day at the office is unbearable enough, what do you think an entire dimension filled with that sort of people would be like?

    Ergo, hell will be the result created by the own attitudes and behaviour of its jerkaholic occupants. We define hell as ‘where God is not present’ and God as ‘everything good’. Therefore, we conclude that hell is a place that sucks by virtue of its occupants rejecting all that is good (and continuing to do so for all eternity).

    Perhaps one can theoretically escape hell simply by repenting and changing one’s mind. But practically, it is likely none of its occupants will ever do so.

    “I suppose that would depend on your definition of perfect, which in turn depends on your philosophical outlook.”

    I’m simply adhering to the definition advanced by religious adherents: an infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God — i.e., All-Perfect.

    Yes, but what does each term mean? What does it encompass? The definition differs from person to person.

    For instance, Christians feel their concept of God is perfect for His forgiveness, love and sacrifice through Jesus Christ. Whereas Muslims feel such a concept is flawed because for Allah to become a human would be to become a part of imperfection.

    For you, the JudeoChristian concept of God is imperfect because He ‘requires love’. But to me, the opposite holds true – an entity that has absolutely no need or use for love sounds to me like the definition of Khorne (Chaos god of war and bloodlust) or likewise fantasy dark deity.

  159. Scott Thong Says:

    Are you sure?

    Because according to Matthew 5:17-18, the Jewish code is still in force.

    In any case, Jesus contradicts himself (Matthew 10:34-36) and didn’t follow his own advice (John 18:22, Mark 11:15-16) – Ron

    Matthew 5:17-18, correct that the Law is still in force. However, Jesus also mentions that He came to fulfill them, which He subsequently did. Note that most of us are not Jews. Also note that Jesus uses the term ‘the Law and the Prophets’ instead of referring to ‘the Laws of Moses’, implying that He means the spirit and intention of God’s guidance rather than the detailed letter of the Law (as He accused the Pharisees of doing the opposite of).

    Matthew 10:34-36 in context of the whole Chapter refers to the division that will arise because Christians are persecuted for their faith. Jesus brings a sword to His followers in the same way that sugar brings ants. A text without the context is a pretext for a subtext.

    John 18:22, do you mean turning the other cheek? It is not actually mentioned that Jesus was struck on His cheek. In any case, He responded meekly instead of using Summon Archangel Legions to smite the courtroom, which fulfils the intent of what He said about turning the other cheek.

    Mark 11:15-16, do you intend to mean that Jesus was being violent in contradiction to His alleged code of pacifism? Note that there is a time and place for everything (ref. The Byrds, I mean, Ecclesiastes). While Jesus is often portrayed as being peaceful, remember that He is also a conquering king who will defeat countless armies in the End Times. Also note that Jesus is not recorded as actually physically injuring anyone in this scene.

    Please also note that I do not always have time, or bother with, the effort of posting well thought out and complete responses to offhand polemical attacks on individual passages. The cost-to-output ratio is much higher for the defender than the attacker. Only when I have the time and it interests or amuses me.

  160. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert, don’t be churlish. You can’t get a shoe to fit every size, and you know that. If sniping is what you’re interested in, sorry, no time or interest..

  161. Robert Says:

    Well hello Simon! I wasn’t talking to you so please assert your assumptions elsewhere. Thanks!

  162. fugitive Says:

    Dr. Jansen was looking for a one-armed man

  163. Simon Thong Says:

    You can’t pick and choose who you’re talking to, Robert, coz this is an open blog..it’s not even your blog; if you can’t hack it, too bad.

  164. Robert Says:

    Of course I can, Simon. I am a citizen of the USA and I can choose who I wish to speak with or not, but since you insist on injecting yourself into what I would consider a stimulating conversation then why not respond with a sound argument rather than admitting a defeat with your self professed ignorance via insult?

    This is what your smarter brother Forrest said: Yes, the problem of relative definitions. It just so happens too that Rome: Total War is throwing me the angle that the non-Romans considered Rome’s laws and practices to be barbaric – why imprison and flog someone when a good old fashioned blood fued properly settles disputes?

    Where I replied: “So “relative” is relative when rationalizing the paradox of your particular dogma?” and gave the shoe example which means theists will either conform to exactly what their bible tells them to think until it conflicts with their agenda or contradicts its own logic.
    What one interprets as literal another relates as “relative”. When you have both for the same topic, both are false. Neither can be proved no matter how insistent the believer may be. “Maybe its a little bit of both?”

    One thing is certain, Simon. I would never trust you with a gun.

  165. banshee Says:

    “Dr. Jansen was looking for a one-armed man”

  166. banshee Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch#!videos=ByxvE5EM0H0&v=EcSFovL87-4

  167. banshee Says:

    O dear now he has to write for exams

    http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/california-judge-rules-that-god-is-allowed-back-in-the-classroom/

  168. Ron Says:

    “Yes, but what does each term mean? What does it encompass? The definition differs from person to person.”

    infinite – boundless, without limits
    omniscient – all-knowing, having total knowledge
    omnipotent – all-powerful, possessing unlimited power and ability
    omnipresent – present everywhere at the same time
    omnibenevolent – all-loving, infinitely kind and generous
    perfect – complete, without blemish or defect

    The definitions are fairly concise, unambiguous, and require no further interpretion.

    “For instance, Christians feel their concept of God is perfect for His forgiveness, love and sacrifice through Jesus Christ. Whereas Muslims feel such a concept is flawed because for Allah to become a human would be to become a part of imperfection.”

    That’s nice to know, but may I remind you that feelings are not a source of knowledge. The meanings of the above words are immutable, regardless of how individual Christians or Muslims may wish to interpret them.

    “For you, the JudeoChristian concept of God is imperfect because He ‘requires love’. But to me, the opposite holds true – an entity that has absolutely no need or use for love sounds to me like the definition of Khorne (Chaos god of war and bloodlust) or likewise fantasy dark deity.”

    What can I say? Logic dictates that a perfect (complete) being cannot have needs or desires. However, I would agree your chaos god of war and bloodlust is an apt description for the entity we encounter in the Hebrew bible.

  169. Ron Says:

    Re: Matthew 5:17-18

    Sorry Scott, but Jesus was most definitely referring to the Laws of Moses. (Luke 24:44, Luke 24:27). And the verse clearly states (NASB) “not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law” which is fairly self-explanatory — the letter of the law, not just spirit.

    I find it amusing that Christians selectively quote OT law to deny gay rights, yet simultaneously argue those same laws no longer apply in respect to other rules they’re uncomfortable with.

    Re: Matthew 10:34-36

    The context is fairly clear. He’s commanding his disciples to abandon their earthly possessions, sever their familial relations, proselytize the one true message, and prepare for the immediate end times… sounds exactly like every other doomsday cult.

    Re: John 18:22

    Not exactly mentioned? I guess if you want to be a literalist. Most translations say he was struck in the face. And a mild rebuke still goes against the principle, doesn’t it? Or does Jesus get a free pass?

    Re: Mark 11:15-16

    Does your “time and place for everything” policy also condone the bombing of abortion clinics, disruption of gay pride ceremonies, and desecration of church property owned by religious groups whose views you vehemently abhor?

    “Please also note that I do not always have time, or bother with, the effort of posting well thought out and complete responses to offhand polemical attacks on individual passages. The cost-to-output ratio is much higher for the defender than the attacker. Only when I have the time and it interests or amuses me.”

    Your call. However, my response was to Simon.

  170. a hindu Says:

    “I would never trust you with a gun.”

    Neither would I, you.

  171. Simon Thong Says:

    good one, a hindu:)

    Robert, isn’t what you say relative?

  172. Scott Thong Says:

    I find it amusing that Christians selectively quote OT law to deny gay rights, yet simultaneously argue those same laws no longer apply in respect to other rules they’re uncomfortable with. – Ron

    Well, for the homosexuality issue at least, I have gone in depth into it.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/bible-passages-that-oppose-homosexuality-including-the-words-of-jesus-and-god-himself/

    Key point: Jesus had an excellent chance to say “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife or husband, and the two will become one flesh.” But He didn’t.

    There, add that to what Jesus says about adultery, and you have a non-OT, non-Paulian example from Jesus regarding whether homosexual acts are permitted.

    Btw, I am personally neutral on the issue of gay rights. While I am steadfast that JudeoChristianity condemns homosexuality, I also accept that there is no basis to force non-JudeoChristians to adopt the same beliefs. That would be akin to forcing religion on people against their will. (But then again, doesn’t any administration force particular philosophies onto about half the populace against their will?)

    Sorry Scott, but Jesus was most definitely referring to the Laws of Moses. (Luke 24:44, Luke 24:27) And the verse clearly states (NASB) “not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law” which is fairly self-explanatory — the letter of the law, not just spirit.

    Once again, Jesus mentions the Law but not alone.

    Yes, the Law still exists – where did we ever claim that the Old Testament has vanished?

    But why don’t we take out someone’s eye or punch out his teeth today in accordance with Mosaic (Jewish) Law? Because Jesus has paid for his sins, and we should choose forgiveness over prosecution. All the eyes and teeth of the world were taken out of Jesus at Calvary. Jesus has fulfilled what was in the Law as He said, which is why we live under grace and not the Law (which still exist as our guide).

    Again, I am not a Jew. But this guy is, and he explains why Jews don’t stone people to death today: http://www.win.net/ratsnest/archive-articles-4/fog0000000021.html

    Q: When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    A: You ought not to be making sacrifices at all. It is forbidden to offer any sacrifice outside of the Bet haMikdash. Read tractate Kodashim instead.

    All that said, that doesn’t mean we should stand idly by while people live in sin. If we love our fellow man and truly believe that eternal judgement awaits, we have to persuade them (gently) of it.

    Re: Matthew 10:34-36

    The context is fairly clear. He’s commanding his disciples to abandon their earthly possessions, sever their familial relations, proselytize the one true message, and prepare for the immediate end times… sounds exactly like every other doomsday cult.

    Well, the Christians were considered a dangerous kooky cult at first, all the way up to Emperor Constantine. But they usually were killed by others, not themselves.

    Re: John 18:22

    Not exactly mentioned? I guess if you want to be a literalist. Most translations say he was struck in the face. And a mild rebuke still goes against the principle, doesn’t it? Or does Jesus get a free pass?

    If we want to be really literalist, then as long as Jesus didn’t punch him back ‘eye for an eye’ style, it’s all good. Or as I said, Jesus didn’t summon the armies of heaven to smite those who dared raise a hand against God.

    If we want to be more sandbox, then what did Jesus say that was even rude or demeaning? How did He resist or fight back? All He did was ask for what reason the official was hitting him – an act that is not prescribed anywhere in their Laws, btw.

    Re: Mark 11:15-16

    Does your “time and place for everything” policy also condone the bombing of abortion clinics, disruption of gay pride ceremonies, and desecration of church property owned by religious groups whose views you vehemently abhor?

    That was a cheap shot, Ron. Are Stalin and Mao as the standard examples of atheists? Should I be worry that you’re going to make renounce Jesus under threat of execution military style? Or maybe you’re one of the UTSA kids who will give me porno mags if I surrender my Bible?

    But in answer to your question… No, inciting violence is not condoned by Christianity.

    Your call. However, my response was to Simon.

    Indeed. But your comment touches on my beliefs as well.

    That’s nice to know, but may I remind you that feelings are not a source of knowledge. The meanings of the above words are immutable, regardless of how individual Christians or Muslims may wish to interpret them.

    You just don’t get it, Ron. Yes, the dictionary definition of those words is neatly defined as you provide above. But the definition of any concept can differ from person to person.

    For an easy to grasp example, take beauty. Beauty is defined as something that looks good – but what looks good to one may not necessarily look good to another! Do you find grossly elongated necks attractive in a woman? I don’t. Yet the Ndebele find it the epitome of beauty, and would probably take offense at my use of the word ‘grossly’.

    So it is with perfection. It’s easy to say what a perfect mathematical equation is, or a perfect engine. But how about a perfect

    To you, a perfect deity would have no emotions. But to me, a cold and machine-like AI god is the opposite of perfection – the kind of Skynet or that would wipe out flawed humanity, or Viki from I, Robot who would enslave humans to protect them from themselves. But a Viki is exactly what you would need YHWH to be in order to avoid any sin in the world.

    And you know, as I say this, it feels almost like Optimus Prime disagreeing with Megatron’s belief that mercy and compassion make Autobots weak, because Prime believes it makes them stronger.

    (Hey, all that sounds like a new blog post to me… Thanks for the inspiration!)

    What can I say? Logic dictates that a perfect (complete) being cannot have needs or desires.

    I would really need you to explain that logic. What equation or propositonal calculus do you use to determine that desire is imperfect?

    For someone with my worldview, needs and desires are not necessarily flaws. As Simon says, emotion=bad is a very Eastern understanding of emotions. And if I may add, very Old Republic Jedi as well.

    PS. I don’t know why your responses keep getting held for moderation. They don’t contain any of the watch-words.

  173. Simon Thong Says:

    I don’t know of any absolutes in life except for mathematical formulae, and they are very limited in application when confronted with the complexities of life and thought. One size doesn’t fit all. It is very true of religious truths.

    You may be a citizen of Neverland, or whatever, but in blogsphere, you are not free from the comments of others. No man is an island is particularly apt in blogsphere.

  174. dorcas Says:

    “No man is an island is particularly apt in blogsphere.”

    Cat`s whiskers would lead us to think otherwise no matter how flawed

  175. Robert Says:

    Well it’s too bad that I own many, Simon and Hindu, as do over 100 million US citizens and sundry. But that is not important.
    What’s important is that you look around, study science and discover all of those absolutes you appear to be overlooking. It may explain why Atheists think the way they do to you or at least give you a small grasp as to why we reject myths and recognize terms like ‘religious truths’ as an oxymoron; and the ‘complexities of life’ as simple logical constructs.

    “You may be a citizen of Neverland, or whatever, but in blogsphere, you are not free from the comments of others. No man is an island is particularly apt in blogsphere.” So why was your brother worried about being censored and arrested? It appears that your overlords are okay with lambasting Americans, Liberals, Gays, and Atheists but they’re not tolerant of anyone pulling the rug out from under Islam. Classic third world behavior.

  176. nasaei ahmad Says:

    Sorry, might be previously I missed some explanations by atheists friends ..Robert..Ron or the company here. Thus, I still am not understand the following issue.

    If God is NOT the creator for every creatures in the universe (including the universe itself – stars, planets etc)..then from where all these creatures originated ?

    Robert..are you absolutely SURE (or confirmed.. by modern science) that
    anything CAN create itself..by its own ? (Since God is NOT the creator..you and atheist said/ believe).

    I repeat (sorry for redundancy/repetetion).. If God is not the creator..anything that ever existed in this vast universe must have been (somehow) creating/existing by itself/ by themselves…right ?

    Now..a layman with little scientific knowledge like wonder..

    Imagine..at time before the existense of space and time..let us say..19 or 20 billions years ago…when NOTHING exists, not even air, hydrogen or other gaseous element..not even darkness perhaps…then..THE FIRST EVER CREATURE..start to exist..(be it non-living thing..or life; inanimate or animate.

    It came into being by itself ? That means IT CREATED ITSELF ? Before we say that..bear in mind.. at this particular moment.. IT had yet to appear for the first time. IT HAD NOT EXIST YET. I mean..in order fot itself to “CREATE ITSELF” …IT must first EXIST in the fisrt place (“TO create itself…” !

    How can anything create itself if “itself was not there ?” Remember… that was the situation when the first even thing/creature mutated or came into being..

    Unless it if was created by another “forces”, “power” or “Creator” that has no beginning or already there..before the first creature was created by him/it. ?

    My thingking is that..”for something to create itself..IT MUST FIRST EXIST EARLIER in the first place…otherwise it CANNOT create itself if “it itself” was not there at that particular moment !

    Secondly…where did “itself came from…from the zero existence..or the stete of “nothingness” (nothing exist..not even air..or vacuum, or space etc..). Unless if it was created by God will.. (by God).

    Any idea Robert, Ron ..you in scientist circle and fraternity?

    Of course..we have knowledge limitations ..and keep searching the info, knowledge on this..and many, many other things. TQ

  177. Robert Says:

    Hello Nasaei,
    No. Don’t really know but each day brings science that much closer to understanding the origins of the Universe. There are speculative ideas galore based on what we see and understand now but it can all disappear with a discovery that answers critical questions.
    I am not, for a lack of a better word ‘stuck’ on the idea of a creation. I don’t include the concept as a satisfactory explanation of our origins; and there are many different concepts today and those that have existed in the past of really strange creation lore.
    So creation doesn’t even enter my vocabulary when it comes to cosmic, solar system and life origins and evolution.
    And more importantly, I find no shame in our ignorance because we have be pretty diligent so far in defining how things work and explaining the origins of the heavy elements and their relation to our own bodies.

  178. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    TQ Robert for short response. Therefore I think..we should NOT say for sure yet “God is not the creator” because we are not absolutely sure..at this moment..that thing “created itself” or so because it is tantamaount to guesswork..even the popular hypothesis as such. WE are NOt sure.! How come we made up our mind without a sure, confirmed knowledge ?

  179. Robert Says:

    You miss my point, Nasaei, as I am sure you are thinking that I am missing yours but I do not. You may believe that creation is true. I do not accept creation in any shape or form, therefore, WE do not agree at all. The “guesswork” have much more systematic understanding and far reaching data in the origin theory than religious myths of all time have in showing any proof of creation. We have something, you have nothing but the legends of a dead, archaic race of men who didn’t even know what fire was or what stars were. Once again, it is the theists who have originated and made an extraordinary claim which they expect to be believed without providing a shred of proof other than to say the one who questions or opposes the concept cannot prove it to be incorrect. Did you know that god also created a giant, invisible elephant that holds the sun in place with the tip of its trunk? You cannot prove that it is not true so you must accept my statement as truth, on pain of everlasting torment and eternal death….because god is all loving and just.

  180. Ron Says:

    @Scott

    “Key point: Jesus had an excellent chance to say “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife or husband, and the two will become one flesh.” But He didn’t.

    There, add that to what Jesus says about adultery, and you have a non-OT, non-Paulian example from Jesus regarding whether homosexual acts are permitted.”

    Remember what you said about ‘a text without the context is a pretext for a subtext.’

    If you read those passages from Matthew and Mark in their entirety it becomes evident that Jesus was responding to a very specific question regarding divorce laws, not his thoughts on same-sex marriage.

    “Btw, I am personally neutral on the issue of gay rights. While I am steadfast that JudeoChristianity condemns homosexuality, I also accept that there is no basis to force non-JudeoChristians to adopt the same beliefs. That would be akin to forcing religion on people against their will. (But then again, doesn’t any administration force particular philosophies onto about half the populace against their will?)”

    I’m glad you’re more open-minded than most hardcore fundies. But realize this: according to the members of Westboro Baptist Church, you are considered a “fag enabler” who’s going straight to Hell. And they have plenty of Bible verses to back up those assertions.

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Most_Hated_Family_in_America

    “Yes, the Law still exists – where did we ever claim that the Old Testament has vanished?”

    Where? Most modern day Christians insist that all OT laws except the Ten Commandments and one chapter in Leviticus addressing sexual morals have been abolished. That’s where.

    “But why don’t we take out someone’s eye or punch out his teeth today in accordance with Mosaic (Jewish) Law?”

    Wasn’t it Gandhi who said: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

    “Again, I am not a Jew. But this guy is, and he explains why Jews don’t stone people to death today”

    Then we can safely ignore everything in the OT, because based on the answer given to question (e): “The death penalty may only be administered by a court of 23 ordained rabbis (see tractate Sanhedrin). Since there are no genuinely ordained rabbis (and won’t be until Elijah returns), no competent court can be convened.”

    “That was a cheap shot, Ron. Are Stalin and Mao as the standard examples of atheists? Should I be worry that you’re going to make renounce Jesus under threat of execution military style? Or maybe you’re one of the UTSA kids who will give me porno mags if I surrender my Bible?”

    Your offended, as well you should be. Because this has been the real life manifestation of your principle put into practice. And that old chestnut about Stalin and Mao is getting kind of stale. Neither man’s atrocities were committed under the banner of atheism. It’s the equivalent of saying that all men with bushy mustaches are dictators.

    As for trading porno mags for Bibles, where do I apply. I’d much rather spend my leisure time admiring the human form than plodding through countless tales of misogyny and genocide.

    “But in answer to your question… No, inciting violence is not condoned by Christianity.”

    Crusades, witch hunts, inquisitions, forced conversions, burnings at the stake, religious conquest, annihilation and/or enslavement of foreign inhabitants, … yeah, you could’ve fooled me.

    “You just don’t get it, Ron. Yes, the dictionary definition of those words is neatly defined as you provide above. But the definition of any concept can differ from person to person.”

    You’re right, I don’t get it. Dictionaries exist for a reason: they define terms so that every speaker is on the same page. Otherwise conversation disintegrates into the ‘Humpty Dumpty’ language of Lewis Carol’s “Through the Looking Glass” where the meaning of particular words is determined by the speaker: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

    “To you, a perfect deity would have no emotions. [...]”

    No, to me a perfect deity would be in control of his emotions. The biblical text repeatedly confirms the opposite. To quote an excerpt from Richard Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion”:

    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

    “I would really need you to explain that logic. What equation or propositonal calculus do you use to determine that desire is imperfect?”

    To reiterate – perfect means complete, .i.e. lacking nothing. Recall a moment in your life when you were so thoroughly engrossed in an activity that all awareness of time and earthly concerns ceased to exist. That sir, is the state of completeness a being possessing all your ‘perfect’ deity’s attributes would enter… if he were perfect.

  181. Ron Says:

    “PS. I don’t know why your responses keep getting held for moderation. They don’t contain any of the watch-words.”

    My guess is that swear-checking flags a false positive on words containing the letters ‘a s s’ — my posts contained the following:

    ‘e-n-c-o-m-p-a-s-s ‘
    ‘p-a-s-s’

    No biggie. I don’t begrudge any moderator tasked with the endless chore of filtering out spam and comment trolls.

  182. Ron Says:

    Addendum: Apparently my comment dated March 8, 10 at 3:19 was flagged for the word ‘a-s-s-e-r-t-i-o-n-s’ as well.

  183. Ron Says:

    @Nasaei

    You ask how could things come into existence unless they were created by God. Which leads me to ask: Who created God? And who created God’s creator. Before you know it we’re caught in an endless regression.

    You might say that God has always existed and didn’t need a creator. But if that’s the case, why can’t the same argument hold true for the existence of the universe?

    BTW, I prefer to call myself a skeptic rather than an atheist — slim as the chance may be, I would never rule out the possible existence of a deity with absolute certainty.

  184. Scott Thong Says:

    It appears that your overlords are okay with lambasting Americans, Liberals, Gays, and Atheists but they’re not tolerant of anyone pulling the rug out from under Islam. Classic third world behavior. – Robert

    It’s the same for the Second World – criticize the party, get the gulag. For the First World, it just means that the White House tries to exclude Fox from press conferences.

  185. Scott Thong Says:

    My guess is that swear-checking flags a false positive on words containing the letters ‘a s s’ – Ron

    Thanks for the tip. Ah well, I suppose it’s an acceptable enough cuss to let slip until I manually edit it, and a common enough part of other words to make auto-filtering backfire.

    Painstakingly discovering the presence of the letters a-s-s in perfectly legitimate words makes me think we’re the late Chris Farley.

  186. veteran Says:

    “It appears that your overlords….Classic third world behavior. “– Robert

    That would depend on which thread you are on dearie.

  187. one-armed man Says:

    “It appears that your overlords are okay with lambasting Americans, Liberals, Gays, and Atheists but they’re not tolerant of anyone pulling the rug out from under Islam. Classic third world behavior.”…..many whiskers Robert

    Joltin’ Joe Biden is visiting Israel for three days starting Monday, and the ‘Palestinians’ have prepared a greeting he’ll always remember. The ‘Palestinians’ will be dedicating Dalal al-Mughrabi Square in beautiful downtown Ramallah on Thursday morning, the last day of Joltin’ Joe’s visit. Al-Mughrabi was the perpetrator of the Coastal Road Massacre in 1978 in which 37 civilians, including 12 children, were murdered by ‘Palestinian’ terrorists. But why should Joltin’ Joe’s presence interfere with the show?
    US of A is a 3rd World Country.

  188. one-armed man Says:

    USA & Europe are the major islamic terrorist sympathizers, nurturing and protecting them as long as the terror is not on their soil.

  189. Tryphon Says:

    The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Inc., filed a defamation lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead, of Anti-CAIR (or ACAIR), a grass-roots project whose name explains its mission: to expose the largest, most vocal, and dangerous Islamist organization in North America.

    http://www.danielpipes.org/2811/cair-founded-by-islamic-terrorists

  190. Robert Says:

    My we’re bristling with activity since I decided to enjoy the week end away from my blasted computer. My wife was ready to leave her wedding ring on my keyboard.

    Anybody out there like Billy Joel? His song “Angry Young Man” reminds me of many of this crew including myself at times. So many opinions, so little time. Yes, my friends. Opinions. We’d be in serious danger is a quarter of what we opinionate here were true, especially from our Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist Sympathizers intent on smearing the west. I suggest you all take a good laxative to clear your minds. Papaya would work well in your part of the world.

  191. Robert Says:

    Angry Young Man
    By Billy Joel

    There’s a place in the world for the angry young man
    With his working class ties and his radical plans
    He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
    And He’s always at home with his back to the wall.
    And he’s proud of his scars and the battles he’s lost,
    And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on his cross-
    And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

    Give a moment or two to the angry young man,
    With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand.
    He’s been stabbed in the back, he’s been misunderstood,
    It’s a comfort to know his intentions are good.
    And he sits in a room with a lock on the door,
    With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor-
    And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

    I believe I’ve passed the age
    Of consciousness and righteous rage
    I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
    I once believed in causes too,
    I had my pointless point of view,
    And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.

    And there’s always a place for the angry young man,
    With his fist in the air and his head in the sand.
    And he’s never been able to learn from mistakes,
    So he can’t understand why his heart always breaks.
    And his honor is pure and his courage as well,
    And he’s fair and he’s true and he’s boring as hell-
    And he’ll go to the grave as an angry old man.

    There’s always a place for the angry young man
    With his working class ties and his radical plans
    He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
    And He’s always at home with his back to the wall.
    And he’s proud of his scars and the battles he’s lost,
    And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on his cross-
    And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

  192. pawpaw Says:

    “I suggest you all take a good laxative to clear your minds.”

    CAIR [The Council on American-Islamic Relations] as the name suggests, is not “your part of the world”. They finance what happens in the “your part of the world”.
    It would be nice if Robert would stand with papayas outside their offices every Friday. It might help the angry young men there to break out into songs even if it is not the same as Arabs sitting on oranges outside synagogues waiting for the “juice” to come out.

  193. pawpaw Says:

    “…especially from our Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist Sympathizers intent on smearing the west”

    Thank you, but you chaps are doing fine on your own and dont need help from this side. Btw half-white/half muslim Obama is going over to Indonesia to connect with his roots this month.
    Hahahaha maybe they should paint the White House half green too. Darnit, that stars and stripes is missing some green too.

  194. pawpaw Says:

    Europe advocating for the inclusion of Turkey into the EU. The claim is for most of India, Burma and half of Sri Lanka, Bhutan, a bit of Spain [usually it's more of Spain] and a big chunk of China …etc etc…according to this the union will be achieved without the shedding of blood. And that may well happen, as everyone is appeasing. The US supports it.

  195. stella Says:

    In 1993, the government of Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic issued a passport to bin Laden at the Bosnian Embassy in Vienna, thereby enabling themaster terrorist to visi tboth Bosnia and Kosovo on several occasions. In his book “Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa’ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad,” professor John R. Schindler, formerly with the National Security Agency, made the following points: The Bosnian conflict has been misrepresented by the mainstream media, which has covered up the large role played by radical Islam and al Qaeda; bin Laden used Bosnia as a base for terrorist operations worldwide; and the Clinton administration, in collaboration with Iran, secretly supplied Bosnia’s mujahideen, including al Qaeda, with weapons and supplies.

    At the urging of President Clinton, NATO forces bombed the Bosnian Serbs in 1995. Yossef Bodansky, in his book “Offensive in the Balkans,” wrote that the mortar used to bomb Sarajevo’s main marketplace was designed and built with the help of Hezbollah. Mr. Bodansky wrote, “This callous self-killing was designed to shock the West, especially sentimental and gullible Washington, in order to raise the level of Western sympathy to the Bosnian Muslims and further demonize the Serbs so that Western governments would be more supportive of Sarajevo’s forthcoming aggressive moves, and perhaps even finally intervene [militarily].”

    In a 1995 interview with the Dutch publication De Standaard, Mr. Karadzic said, “This war is an example of what modern media and governments can do. They can arrange anything. Put on a show so that their people believe anything. While watching their television pictures or their radios sometimes I myself almost came to the conclusion: We Serbs, we are real swine. They could put their stories together that well.”

    It is hypocritical for our administrations to blame Islamic militants for the atrocities committed against us but not for the atrocities the Islamists committed against Bosnia’s Christian Serbs.

    STELLA L. JATRAS
    Camp Hill, Pa.

  196. stella Says:

    BBC advises Muslim suicide bombers on optimum bomb placement, size & altitude for detonation

    http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/bbc-traitors-assist-muslim-terrorists/

  197. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Hi Ron…! By Muslims’ understanding or standard (or maybe by other theists’ concept as well), the question “Who created is INVALID. Be sure we REALLY talking (OR asking, referring, assuminng) “God” or not.. When we refer (or say/meant “God”…then He doesn’t need a creator. If He needs one..He is NOT God ..that means we are not talking about “God” but something else..or the rest of His creatures..like you said.

    Might be we didn’t really meant “god” then?

    Then your question on : …”Why can’t the same argument hold true for the existence of the universe..?” ??

    To me universe is not god, it is also a creature (because theists believe only God is NOT been created). Therefore it is invalid again to apply “why..THE SAME ARGUMENT..

    Muslims believe God is NOT like (NOT same) like anything. How come..we generalize?

    Actually this is the difficult part..not only between atheist vs. theist; but also between Christians vs Muslims. Muslim believe “God” will NOT, should have not appear, incarnate, imposted as a man callled Jesus etc.. NEVER He will do that.. But Christian things it is probable.

    Muslim do not believe that God needs foods, drink or horse (or ass ride) etc; but Christian would think otherwise.

    Surah Ikhlas /verse Ikhlas of the Quran..among the verse that tells God is definitely different from the rest..He is NOT like anything..not even you (wrong..or right imaginations).

    Then this is difficult because the concept we have is different to one another. For us (muslims), “Who created God is invalid question, because when we say “God” He doesn’t have any more creator. Otherwise …He is NOT God…

  198. Scott Thong Says:

    Well we have quite the crew here. At least two Christians, two atheists, two Muslims, and a couple of others I’m not exactly sure of, each with wholly different styles.

  199. Robert Says:

    True, and you know something? Chances are pretty darn good, close to say 100% that we are not the first to broach these topics and certainly not the last. Religion & Politics, the bane of humanity.

  200. spock Says:

    http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/God

  201. Robert Says:

    Funny you should mention that Spock. A friend of mine and I [in our teens] would go to church [catholic mass] to grimace at the “Eat my body and drink my blood” aspect of it, exchanging glances of the diabolical nature of this non-entity, pondered on a Force far beyond the wit and understanding of humans that had better things to do than hang around Earth and be a jealous and petty little pest, as those who worship it describe it. Live long and prosper.

  202. Robert Says:

    An ironic thought occurred to me. Having been raised under the auspices of Catholic dogma and in the USA and heard the phrase “All men are created equal.” Strange indeed that science would prove that simple fact.

  203. ugottamoveit Says:

    Journey of Mankind, Peopling of the world

    http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

  204. ugottamoveit Says:

    A group of Jarawas who live in isolation on the Andaman Islands Credit: Andaman Association

    http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-16073.html

  205. ugottamoveit Says:

    African Gods in Ancient India

  206. ugottamoveit Says:

    Google that to get the link, it`s getting discarded here

    http://mamiw*ta.com/india1/African_Gods1.html

  207. Robert Says:

    Fascinating stuff no doubt. People wonder why “white men” invaded the world with such swift brutality. The short answer? Humans appear to get grabby once they’ve ‘conquered’ their immediate environs. Those in Africa and Equatorial/Tropical climes didn’t really need to combat the severe elements their migrating brothers needed to do. The northern people had to develop better tools for skins, hunting and gathering to survive the winters. They didn’t have the year round pleasure of picking fruit off the tree and wandering herds of large, tasty bovine. But they did have goats and venison. I can see why those humans that ventured into the northern regions got more aggressive as they turned white.

  208. obelix Says:

    “But they did have goats and venison.”

    …..and wild boar

  209. Robert Says:

    I had to throw that in there. And how in the world did I forget the boar? It’s been too long I’m afraid. The closest thing I get to boar now is Boar’s Head low salt ham at the deli.

  210. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Ron, Robert, not only during my childhood..but untill now..as an adult..I keep wondering of the functions that other creatures ..and our body organs servicing us all wery well..

    As I said..I also wonder..how unintelligent things (creatures)…created and developed themselves TO FUNCTION “perfectly” to be “purposeful” presence (or came into being) in the universe or on earth.. for certain functions. Can we try to explain this ? (Can any unintelligent things plan, think, and fix their existence to serve and function? I mean..our eyeballs (its function is to see, look); oxygen for our lungs (otherwise we human..and other living things/ animal cannot survive without it); water for our survival etc. Can water think..i.e. “water should meticulously think, ponder to try to exist..so that other creatures that depend on it could survive..all living creatures need it very much…).

    Foods, (vegetations, grains, animals, and other living/ non-living creatures)
    are all presence simply to serve certain/ specific functions for us.)

    Our body..its organs..all functions perfectly..All of them doing god job for us..including our kidney, heart, lungs, colon etc.

    (God says in Quran: “If you count my blessing and grants to you..then you’ll won’t be able to count them all (because they are too many to be counted..). You’ll be exhausted to count them all” (roughly trslation).

    My question is: Can anything plans, thinks or charts for themselves, or for us..or for the benefit of other creatures..so that their very presence in the universe will serve certain functions/ purposes ?

    Yusuf Estes (former priest) said: Anything that came into being..or exists by chance will definitely (or unlikely) not serve any purpose (useless to anything oround them. He said..if anything exists by itself, by chance..they will not serve any purpose. Simple experiments can be made, he said. For example.. if a glass is dropped (or let it drops itself to the ground)..then..we will see if the glass then serve any function to benefit anything then.. (The galss will just became a usless mess, NOT functions at all).

    How wonderful is our brain, our eyesights, our wisdom in general?

    I don’t think my parents made (or “give” such wonderful organs) for me..

    Then..my body..my cell made it for me? Thanks cell, thanks DNA ! Great job.. I’m fully indebted to you all. You must be planning, charting, anticipating well for me, for my survival !

    My body knew in advance (my body is thinking body)..it knew beforehand..that I need blood circulation, and blood itself to regulate my body’t temperature, to metabolise, to serve food and oxygen to all body’s parts…so ? So..in knowing that..my body made for me my blood, it platelets, it hemoglobins, cell etc. How nice them all to work for me well..

    And stars in the sky ? And the Sun..its sunlight is higly needed by living creatures… The Sun knew..from billion of years ago…that it must emit it light..otherwise human beings..and other living things will be perished without it.. How intelligent Sun is.. Thank you Sun..for you service..

  211. Robert Says:

    Hi Nasaei. Nice to hear from you again. It’s called Evolution.

  212. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    The unproven Evolution. (plus a heap of guessworks, supertitions.. and its hotchpotchs.) altogether.

    (Note: Muslims definitely believe in Evolution. God’s works evolution)

    Can evolution make evolution ? Can “itself” make itself ??

  213. burp Says:

    God also evolved from many gods to one god simply bcos too many sacrifices were economically unfeasible. Man created god in his own image mainly due to fear of death. Religion is a crutch.

  214. Scott Thong Says:

    Fascinating stuff no doubt. People wonder why “white men” invaded the world with such swift brutality.

    I think Europeans were pretty late on the scene. Before the Colonials and the Ottomans, Arabs and Mongols stealing the scene, and before the Romans and Greeks the Persians and so forth.

    Those in Africa and Equatorial/Tropical climes didn’t really need to combat the severe elements their migrating brothers needed to do. The northern people had to develop better tools for skins, hunting and gathering to survive the winters. They didn’t have the year round pleasure of picking fruit off the tree and wandering herds of large, tasty bovine. – Robert

    Sounds like the opposite of what Guns, Germs and Steel proposes, which is that Europeans had it easier to due laterally-distributed land (vs extreme local clime changes if you go up and down Africa) and a handy selection of farmable animals.

    But it would agree with you on being forced to adapt to all sorts of harmful microorganisms, largely due to living around said farm animals.

  215. hahahahaha Says:

  216. Simon Thong Says:

    burp: what you spout is old hat..goes back to early philosophy of religion and sociology of religion; specifically to an evolutionary view of the development of religion when scientists played philosopher(very poorly). Outdated.

  217. burp Says:

    One can only agree Adam & Eve are old hat indeed, Zeus et al came before them.

  218. Simon Thong Says:

    And why is Adam & Eve old hat?

  219. Robert Says:

    Hello Nasaei,
    I’ll stack my terabytes of factual data supporting Evolution over any physical evidence [aside from our obvious existence] you can provide to support the Muslim creation myth. Remember, yours is not the first and all are as equally unsupportable.

  220. Robert Says:

    “And why is Adam & Eve old hat?” It’s been over 6000 years according to the Young Earthers but granted, that is relatively new in Cosmic Time which should not exist, thereby their denial of existence. There is no god, there are no ghosts, and there never was magic. There is no proof of a supernatural dimension whatsoever and there never was. Never was and never will be.

  221. Simon Thong Says:

    Some people seem to think that saying something enough times makes it appear of disappear.

  222. Simon Thong Says:

    ..appear or disappear.

  223. Robert Says:

    And some people are so out of touch with reality they expect others to share their delusions.

  224. Ron Says:

    God: A make believe friend for grown ups .

  225. Simon Thong Says:

    hundreds of million of believers are reality..u, one of a minority, is out of touch…atheists: adults too afraid to grow up into the reality of God

  226. Robert Says:

    And billions of believers are dead and gone without a shred of proof in any of their superstitions. What you call “reality” we call delusion. We’ve been where you are. Some day you may grow up and smell reason.

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

  227. Simon Thong Says:

    and all atheists go the same way..from dust to dust…believing that they return to dust, deluded and deluding others by false reasoning, unable to see beyond their haughty noses, engrossed by their petty thoughts that can’t go beyond their five limited senses.

    Smell? you can’t even smell God’s presence, let alone smell reason..

    Yat til sei lo, gwei lo…

  228. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    You are right Simon. When talking about religion, believe or ‘faith’, they usually deal with the ‘unseen’. Senses such as touch, smell, eye is not always the right tools (somehow) to recognise truth. So does the eyesight. It has something to do with mind, heart and wisdom.

    Religions deal with th “unseen” (whether atheist believe or not is another matter). So..no point grabbing the torchlight to seach for truth. Their science lab also would be ‘of no avail’, futile to check the unseen.

    Can science trace how voodoo, black magic, hypnotization, or telepathy work? All those thing are NOT present ? Try to answer that..they present, exist..OR NOT? Yet our naked eyes unable to see them all. Hundreds (if not thousands)… the unseen things exist, but we unable to see them all I think. Our naked eyes can’t even see microvave, sound frequencies, radioactivity, gravity forces etc.. (can we rule out..they don’t they exist??), Our eyes can’t even see electricity current, avian flu-viruses etc.

    Not to mention the ‘mechanism’ of feeling (anger, sadness, happiness etc that we all feel. If atheists thought that their mental capability is limitless, that is a fallacy, incorrect I think. The mystries remained unsettled.

    If anything can’t be seen by eyes..it doest not mean thy do not exist. Including God.

  229. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    A hypothesis sometimes be mistaken as theory maybe. Evolution theory..like any other theory..supposed to be confirmed by experiments in the lab. It should be proven, repeatedly (or even once) to confirm.

    So..the theory goes..”Man..Homo Sapein..Homo Erectus.. bla..bla originated from monkey. ‘professor’ Darwin said. Then everbody (atheists alike) made the chorus..”monkey is atheists’ ancestors..they said.

    Can this theory be tested in any lab to prove it? BIG LIE man ! NEVER TESTED/ EXPERIMENTED CORRECT!

    Never a monkey turned human ecxept perhaps atheists themselves. (frankly..I sincerely believe they are not monkey..just the simple arrogant men..). If monkey turned man, we would find monkey populations is reduced (because many of them turned mae..).

    But the professor tell us..the moment monkey turned men..just once in the past.

    Therefore the theory is a big lie, not believe by all scientists, NEVER BEEN PROVEN in any experiment ! Let atheist keep dreaming.. As I said above.. in 70 million yrs..the ancient primitive fishbone and palm leaf found in a cross-cut of a solid rock..look EXACTLY the same like today’s fishbone and leaf that we have at our backyard/ pond ! Pls. visit Chicago Nature Museum to find out the exhibits..

  230. Scott Thong Says:

    There is no proof of a supernatural dimension whatsoever and there never was. Never was and never will be. – Robert

    Agreed, because by definition it would no longer be supernatural once it were proven.

  231. Simon Thong Says:

    How would atheists understand that?

  232. Ron Says:

    Nasaei, in common-day use the word theory means a hunch.

    But in science the word theory means a coherent explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs based on facts and observations about the natural world.

    The premise of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor, not that man descended from apes,

    And while it’s true that we cannot detect wavelengths outside the visible/audible spectrum or observe nature directly at molecular levels, we can build instruments that can.

  233. Simon Thong Says:

    Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has two aspects, one based on data which became evolutionary science, and the other which became a philosophy which a pseudo-science. The science is good. The philosophy is lousy. Unfortunately, some people can’t separate the two.

  234. Ron Says:

    Simon, what part of the theory is a philosophy based on pseudo-science?

  235. Simon Thong Says:

    the part that life began with one single cell that eventually became man

  236. Robert Says:

    …but the assertion that some supernatural fairy just Poofed everything into existence is more credible….right.

  237. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert, Christians don’t consider God a supernatural fairy, and it is both insulting and irreverent to take the discussion down to that level.It doesn’thelp the discussion (and it is a multi-party discussion, not a quarrel). As always, when you lose control over your emotons, and your mouth wants to run away from you, try to control your words.

    With Darwin’s theory, we tend to also get a series of drawings of man’s ascent from ape to man after various stages. That, too ,is philosophy.

  238. wits0 Says:

    The problem is that God is a CONCEPT and all “Creation” is collectively by MIND(Intelligence) that manipulates Energy into Matter and vice versa.

    All concepts are limited by the minds of the people who conceptualize them. Once a “Creator God Concept is foisted it seldom escape from the anthropomorphic stricture that binds perniciously like Elephant glue.

    And the madness of living by the very letter of the word in scriptures are hence nourished ad infinitum. Forever lost in absolutism within an impermanent universe and unable to break out.

  239. Simon Thong Says:

    Since you and I are aware of the limitedness of concepts, we, of all people, require humility. We try not to be absolute; we try to avoid hubris.

  240. wits0 Says:

    Simon, Christians have evolved God into One of Love and this is a good thing. Anything less is really untenable. I cannot stomach any monotheists who tells me to Love and Fear God in one single breath. That’s like selling a square wheel.

  241. Simon Thong Says:

    Intellectually, I find the hardest aspect of Christian theology to be the holding of two contradictory concepts at the same time. We call those paradoxes, which in itself conceptualizes this tension between a concept and its contradiction. Love and Fear are twin aspects of a paradox. Intellectually, no explanation has been satisfactory to me. That doesn’t drive away my belief. I believe, and try to find a solution that is more or less acceptable.

  242. wits0 Says:

    “Intellectually, no explanation has been satisfactory to me. That doesn’t drive away my belief. I believe, and try to find a solution that is more or less acceptable.” – Simon.

    Kudos to you, Simon, that you exercise the right and self responsibility :). You know, there are some ‘strutting’ Buddhists around Cyberspace who hasn’t reached an equivalent stage.

  243. Simon Thong Says:

    I think that being honest to self is important. We can tell others how wonderful our Deity is, and how intellectually superior our belief sm is…but that can be no more than false pride (hubris) or self-deception.

    For me, the starting point of faith was “meeting” a God who loved me by giving me someone to love me..in contrast to the fearsome chinese gods of my culture. Such a “meeting” is, of course, impossible to substantiate since none of our 5 senses are involved. I have also had other “meetings” with supernatural entities that would have terrified me if I had not felt an equally powerful “presence”. Ghosts, ghouls, evil spirits, demons..can’t substantiate these but for me, they were/are real. Some of the people I know also “see” these entities.

    Now, reconciling such experiences with understanding and belief is very difficult, not least because, by education, training and tendency, I am skeptical. Still, I am 60 and not a spring chicken..so I do know what I believe while aware of the limitedness of everything. Especially the limitedness of my own short life in the face of man’s existence.

  244. Scott Thong Says:

    …but the assertion that some supernatural fairy just Poofed everything into existence is more credible….right. – Robert

    The fairy’s name was ekpyrotic, and the poof was the Big Bang.

  245. Robert Says:

    I am impressed, Scott! You do indeed have a ‘brane’. Sorry, couldn’t help myself with that one. I hope you haven’t lost your sense of humor.
    It’s definitely an interesting assertion if the two concepts did not conflict. Of course, I suppose one could call the eruption in the ekpyrotic model a “Big Bang” of sorts but the term is generally used for the singularity origin.
    Though in the ekpyrotic the universes are separated by another dimension and the occurrences are cyclic. Plausible certainly and fascinating yet still physical. Not supernatural.
    You see ghosts? May I suggest that you also go see a psychiatrist?
    You’re the one who sounds like they’ve lost control of their emotions every time you hit the brick wall of logic. If you did not wish Atheists to comment on your World Wide Web blog then why do you throw a tantrum every time someone disagrees with you? I find it insulting and irreverent to the human intellect that religion continues its attempts to impose their hoax in order to control the lives and purse strings of those who are rationally challenged. And since you started this blog with quotes from scientists may I add another?

    “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. – Carl Sagan

    Oh dear, I copy/pasted again…something I am sure you did not do in the beginning of this blog, eh Scott? Had all those quotes committed to memory?

    Anyway, you are among a majority that prefers to believe in myths versus the harsh realities of human history and why they conjured “explanations” for natural disasters or the conditions of their brutal existence under the heel of Pharaoh, Caesar, Genghis, Hitler, Republicans, etc., and the inexplicable wonders of space which were originally known as ‘the heavens’. I find that odd considering you apparently live in a repressive country; a continuance of the human condition until men broke free and traveled west breaking the chains of guilt, fear, monarchy and war lord; no longer needing the god of one-upmanship that will punish their enemies and ‘non believers’ for an eternity after their death. A concept that many of faith still love to imagine; riding a cloud and gloating over their enemies in hell. How sad is that?
    No Scott. You may continue to believe you are far above us mere atheists and continue to quibble over nonsense in your spiritually anointed esoteric strata of pseudo intellectuals, wasting your time discussing the minutia of an idea that amounts to nothing. I find the real world much more interesting.

  246. Ron Says:

    Simon, for a basic primer on cell evolution see:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=cell&part=A61

    For real life examples of how single cells develop into multicell organisms see:

    http://universe-review.ca/R10-18-slimemoulds.htm

    http://silicasecchidisk.conncoll.edu/LucidKeys/Carolina_Key/html/Volvox_Main.html

    http://universe-review.ca/R10-33-anatomy.htm#sponges

  247. Simon Thong Says:

    It’s actually the other way around: (1) you throw a tantrum every time you are taken to task; and (2) you consider yourself far above christians, for you (and other atheists) remain in your ivory tower, unwilling to mix with us mundane believers.

    You don’t see ghosts? Then you can’t see beyond your nose. See a psychiatrist? The head psychiatrist in my city, before his retirement, was known to have counselled patients to go see a priest or minister to get help. Psychiatry could not help them. Good advice for you. Lots of shrinks in America. Would help if they reduce your ego to size.

    Science fiction? Nothing we ordinary people read?

  248. Simon Thong Says:

    Did you fight in Vietnam? Saw only war? Spent your R n R whoring and drinking? Didn’t notice the spirituality all around? No time for God? Saw no ghosts? Poor robert, missed a whole dimension of existence.

  249. Ron Says:

    3001: The Final Odyssey — Arthur C. Clarke

    Chapter 19 – The Madness of Mankind

    ‘I take no position on this subject. My field of interest is the psychopathology known as Religion.’

    ‘Psychopathology? That’s a harsh judgement.’

    ‘Amply justified by history. Imagine that you’re an intelligent extraterrestrial, concerned only with verifiable truths. You discover a species which has divided itself into thousands – no by now millions – of tribal groups holding an incredible variety of beliefs about the origin of the universe and the way to behave in it. Although many of them have ideas in common, even when there’s a ninety-nine per cent overlap, the remaining one per cent is enough to set them killing and torturing each other, over trivial points of doctrine, utterly meaningless to outsiders.

    ‘How to account for such irrational behaviour? Lucretius hit it on the nail when he said that religion was the byproduct of fear – a reaction to a mysterious and often hostile universe. For much of human prehistory, it may have been a necessary evil – but why was it so much more evil than necessary – and why did it survive when it was no longer necessary?

    ‘I said evil – and I mean it, because fear leads to cruelty. The slightest knowledge of the Inquisition makes one ashamed to belong to the human species … One of the most revolting books ever published was the Hammer of Witches, written by a couple of sadistic perverts and describing the tortures the Church authorized – encouraged! – to extract “confessions” from thousands of harmless old women, before it burned them alive … The Pope himself wrote an approving foreword!
    But most of the other religions, with a few honourable exceptions, were just as bad as Christianity … Even in your century, little boys were kept chained and whipped until they’d memorized whole volumes of pious gibberish, and robbed of their childhood and manhood to become monks…’

    [...]

    ‘Perhaps the most baffling aspect of the whole affair is how obvious madmen, century after century, would proclaim that they – and they alone! – had received messages from God. If all the messages had agreed, that would have settled the matter. But of course they were wildly discordant – which never prevented self-styled messiahs from gathering hundreds – sometimes millions – of adherents, who would fight to the death against equally deluded believers of a microscopically differing faith.’

    ‘There’s never been anything, however absurd, that countless people weren’t prepared to believe, often so passionately that they’d fight to the death rather than abandon their illusions. To me, that’s a good operational definition of insanity.’

    ‘Would you argue that anyone with strong religious beliefs was insane?’

    ‘In a strictly technical sense, yes – if they really were sincere, and not hypocrites. As I suspect ninety per cent were.’

  250. Simon Thong Says:

    Arthur C Clark, atheist; Isaac Asimov, agnostic, self-confessed user of cannabis; who else in your pantheon of science gods? F Herbert and the Dune series? how pitiful…

  251. Ron Says:

    And John of Patmos, wrote the Book of Revelation while hallucinating on psychedelic mushrooms on a Greek Island.

    What’s your point?

  252. Robert Says:

    Thank you for proving my point, Scott.

    And Ron? One of my favorite Arthur C. Clark short stories is “The Star”.

  253. Simon Thong Says:

    The conjecture that the author of Revelation ate psychedelic mushrooms is exactly that, conjecture..Indeed, the blogwriter from which you pick this up probably wrote it tongue-in-cheek although I suspect “foot-in-mouth” to be a more appropriate label.

    What’s my point? Does everything have a point?

  254. Simon Thong Says:

    It seems strange, and definitely irrelevant, to ask someone tone deaf whether Beethoven’s Ninth is majestic. Agnistics or atheists, with no “feeling” for the supernatural, make pronouncements about the experiences that others have, and rubbish them. It makes me laugh…

  255. Robert Says:

    My friends schizophrenic aunt laughed at things no one else but she could see as well. Our minds are affected by our physical surroundings. You had mentioned war earlier. Many, many young men of any army have returned from battles with broken minds. P.O.W.’s have experienced and witnessed horrors that most of us will never fathom. It was one reason I did not vote for Senator McCain, though I honor his service, I think he lacks the rational stability required for the Presidency. Psychedelic drugs, alcohol, anesthesia and a sharp blow to the head causes temporary disorientation.

    I must assume, however, that you are correct when you say I have no “feeling” for the supernatural. I cannot feel that which does not exist. And I know that you cannot support your claim of that experience because we do not share that point of reference. I have very close life long friends and family who have claimed the same yet we are still the best of friends. I have friends who believe the Caribbean Makumba and Santoria, that are Catholic, that are Evangelical and agnostics; who all had their share of what I refer to as ‘the willies’ just as I had as a kid when the idea of spirits, malicious ghosts and angels were implanted since birth. Logic just chased them all away as I experienced and witnessed the harshness and beauty of our natural world and humans interacted within it. And yes, you may laugh at me or those like me until we are dead then it won’t really matter. Like the billions who have lived and passed away before us; all with their own brand and mix of faiths or none at all.

  256. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I hope Robert and his atheist peers won’t be tired or ‘exhausted’ to explain to people who needs explanations like me.

    I think, atheists and those who believe in Evolution sometimes made the “wholesome” or “wholesale” lumpsum assumptions,.. or statements without recognising or distinguishing the differences. Evolution, evolution..they said. Everythings is “evolution”.

    I wonder…how do we know, notice or explain (so that more people understand)..how evolution has or ‘commit’ its role in the developments or others’ activities, for example in the development of fetus in mother’s womb/ovary. Is that the case? Does evolution has any role (directly or indirectly) ? What do you mean by evolution?

    They would rather say..”itself made itself”..(it develops itself)..Why attribute it to evolution since you cannot explain the involment, the role evolution has played in such a process. Where is “evolution” there ?

    You may say (whatever it is, whatever you like to say) :

    “Evolution evolved things from certain stages to to another..in the past..and the rest things develops itself, froma more primitive, primordial stages to more modern features” (or something like that for example.

    My question is , how, where, when is “evolution” has been noticed..or observed to have played its role in anything ? What is evolution actually, where is it, when it involved ? (Since human being don’t see its involvements..anywhere..anytime..)

    What is evolution actually = answer: It is a hypothesis,or a hunch ? that remained UNPROVEN. (=a guesswork). By Darwin.

    If you can prove it, experiment it again in any lab..Then we common peoples will accept it. That’s it. We believe in knowlegible peoples or scientists too.

    Please do not make the “wholesome/wholesale statement by generalization – everything is evolution, done by evolution, decided by it, made by it, charts by it. Is not wrong, false ? (Since we can’t explain it!).

    Unles if you say your blink of eyes is controlled by your body, your brain or psychomotor..or..whatever it maybe ..(where is the involvements by the so-called “evolution” there ?). Or you couls say: I control it/them” (not evolution).

    Or..you mean..in the past things have evolved from different stages/ form..over time..untill now..it still develops. Is it “its) refers to evolution or to the creatuires themselves?

    Do you think..you really control your brain activities ? Yes, it is your brain..then you are the owner..you monitor, decide, and control it ?

    You are NOT man ! You let it “controls” itself ! (Ooops..you let “evolution” controls it for you ??) I might have been wrong, I don’t know.

    How do we describe it? Evolution ??

  257. Simon Thong Says:

    When you write like you just did, you sound wholesome, human, and not narrowminded at all. Amicable. Amiable.

    Infants are often already sensitive to the”other world”; my grandson and his parents live down the road from a Hindu temple. Grandson was 8 mths old yesterday. It has been interesting to watch him grow. I have come to expect him to be slightly but obviously more mature on every 13th of the month, and have not been disappointed yet. At 2 mths old, he began to show an awareness of the presence of the “other world”. It disturbs him with its presence..he watches it, showing emotions that range from slight irritation to anxiety to fear. We don’t dismiss it as nonsense but chase it away, at which point grandson relaxes, smiles, falls asleep…He will grow up and like most teens, lose that perception. But some don’t. Two of my three sons never lost it. One lost it but has since recovered it.

  258. Simon Thong Says:

    Correction to last sentence: The one who lost it has since recovered it though it is not as strong as before.

  259. Ron Says:

    Robert – yeah that’s a classic! But most Christians I know would miss the irony and say “who are we to question the Almighty?”

    Religion is like a mental monkey trap; an unwavering faith wards off reason and ends up enslaving the mind.

  260. Ron Says:

    Simon Thong Says:

    “The conjecture that the author of Revelation ate psychedelic mushrooms is exactly that, conjecture..Indeed, the blogwriter from which you pick this up probably wrote it tongue-in-cheek although I suspect “foot-in-mouth” to be a more appropriate label.”

    Conjecture, eh? Island full of magic mushrooms, wild apocalyptic fantasies… yeah, I’d say that dude was tripping out.

  261. Ron Says:

    Oh BTW, what your grandson is experiencing is called ‘colic’ – an unsettled baby with lots of wind.

  262. Simon Thong Says:

    colic? conjecture on your part :) He is breatfed and given soybased milk powder; his dad had colic, so I know more abt that than most people, including your good self. :-) No chance of colic. No cause, no symptom.

    reason or faith? nope, reason AND faith. The mindset of agnostics or atheists is dichotomous..which reveals limited intellectual ability. Can’t cope with both and.

  263. Ron Says:

    Reason: a rational motive for a belief or action.
    Faith: belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

    Ergo, what you’re really advocating is that one should be rational AND irrational at the same time, that logic and illogic have equal merit, and that superstition and evidence are both reliable sources of knowledge.

  264. Simon Thong Says:

    Reason: a rational motive for a belief (Christian beliefs) or action (worship of God).

    Ergo: you don’t even understand what you wrote.

  265. Simon Thong Says:

    Faith: the confident trust or belief in someone based on good reason (logic)

  266. Robert Says:

    Hello Nasaei,
    The reference sources for the Theory of Evolution are vast. I found this article on line that gives a glimpse into Darwin’s ideas and practices.

    http://lateralaction.com/articles/darwin-theory-of-evolution/

    I suppose it is a good place to begin to understand the man’s mind and methods within his routines, etc. It is not really that lengthy but it is a good place to start and follow additional references that it leads you too including those proposed by those in opposition.

    Keep in mind that the scientific methods are always open for scrutiny and by the very nature of your questions and this entire blog, it continues with science baring the greatest brunt with systematic advances over the last 150 years. Think of Evolution as a puzzle that Darwin discovered whose pieces have been and are currently being found and pieced together perfectly; and yet still incomplete.

    Remember what I have said many times in this blog. Science does not know it all, nor does it claim it does. It simply continues to make observations that have so far accumulated to a mountain of data that works within the scope of the theory. It is not a hypothesis.

    Darwin’s motive was not to challenge the religions of the day. It was the religious collective that felt insulted and threatened by the research and theory Darwin proposed because of the ramifications it imposed concerning the variety of creation myths.

    There were Atheists on this planet long before, during and after Darwin’s Theory was published. Evolution is not an “Atheist Thing”. It is a scientific theory. You may correct me here if my knowledge of Islam is not correct but it is my understanding that in the earliest days of Islam, their followers embraced the scientific methods and attributed their discoveries to the greater glory of Allah. Is that true? Because if it is then it also contrast’s with a quote from the late scientist Dr. Carl Sagan where he said,

    “In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.”

    That is an idea that occurred to me long before I discovered the quote. It led to other thoughts as well such as, “If there is a god then why did it share its presence with humans that make it look like an idiot?” and “If there is a god then it is much smarter than humans make it out to be. It would be a master of all natural sciences far beyond our wit to completely understand.” which finally led me to the conclusion that god is actually Nature. That’s why I refer to god as “it” unless you can support the claim that it has male genitalia requiring Him to reproduce? Why is Man so obsessed with the idea that god has a gender when there are so many other forms of life on the planet?

    Attempts are made to separate ourselves from the rest of the animals of the planet yet we still have binocular frontal vision to hunt prey, canine teeth evolved to eat that prey, mammary glands to feed our young and hair that once kept us warm and protected our hides. We are omnivorous mammals whose greatest evolutionary tool is intellect; which continues to develop but still has a long way to go, in my opinion, judging by the archaic and tribal superstitions that still exist today.

    Nasaei, in brief, what I ask of you is NOT to view the scientific community as some kind of enemy organized to challenge your beliefs or those of any faith. Their work is far too complex and indifferent to support such a cause. It would be a waste of time. Just as I recognize the very real fact of this blogs subject and the fact that it intentionally excludes just as many or many, many more to the contrary.

    So, did Islam once embrace the study of science and attribute the discoveries to the greater glory of Allah, or did it not?

  267. Robert Says:

    As a footnote, “Attempts are made to separate ourselves from the rest of the animals of the planet yet we still have binocular frontal vision to hunt prey, canine teeth evolved to eat that prey, mammary glands to feed our young and hair that once kept us warm and protected our hides. We are omnivorous mammals whose greatest evolutionary tool is intellect…” may also be construed as a challenge to those who insist that being a vegetarian or Vegan is a superior choice of lifestyle.

    I can’t imagine life without a lovely pork roast seasoned with garlic and rosemary or linguine without meatballs. If it weren’t for meat, garlic’s purpose on this planet would be sorely limited.

    Bon Appétit

  268. Robert Says:

    Hey Ron! There goes Simon bantering semantics again. I remember when the word ‘gay’ meant happy and carefree and ‘faggot’ was a cord of firewood. Looks like Simon has his own idea as to what the word ‘reason’ means? Simon says therefore it is! Ahahahahahaa!

  269. Ron Says:

    “If it weren’t for meat, garlic’s purpose on this planet would be sorely limited.”

    Garlic also wards off demons and vampires, and I can state with absolute certainty that this works because I’ve never been bothered by either. Simon might argue that he’s seen demons, but that’s only because his faith in the power of garlic is weak.

  270. Robert Says:

    I agree. Growing up in an Eastern European household in upstate NY and surrounded by Italians for neighbors and relatives, I can attest to the fact that, having eaten garlic at an early age is specifically the reason I have never seen ghosts or been bitten by vampires. And I hear it cures colic as well! Thanks for making the connection. I forgot just how important it is to remember that natural substances affect the supernatural world!

    Goes back to the days when Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn would throw dead cats at a demon whose come to collect a soul or cutting the wart and putting the blood on a half a bean and burning the other half so it draws the wart away….this can go on forever, ya know?

    Now you got me interested in looking up “Stupid Superstitions” online. I think I will and do a bunch of copy/pastes [which annoys Scott to no end, unless of course he does it] for Simon to verify whether or not they have any credible basis in reality.

    “At 2 mths old, he began to show an awareness of the presence of the “other world”. It disturbs him with its presence..he watches it, showing emotions that range from slight irritation to anxiety to fear. We don’t dismiss it as nonsense but chase it away…” I wonder if they go outdoors, build a bonfire while they dance and bang sticks together while yodeling at the moon? Poor kid. Doomed at birth to fear what doesn’t exist. I wonder how they knew there was an unseen [key word here] presence disturbing the baby? And what exactly would be the unseen presence’s goal and intent? Great lines come to mind from the annals of SNL “You’re mother sews socks that smell!” “The bed is on my foot!” – gagging with laughter here…

  271. Robert Says:

    Wait a minute, Ron, there’s something I just caught that isn’t quite adding up here. “Simon might argue that he’s seen demons, but that’s only because his faith in the power of garlic is weak.”

    Oh dear, I copy/pasted again.

    “Faith”? Don’t you mean “Reason?” He said faith is reason and reason is faith so what could his reasoning be if he has no faith in garlic?

  272. Ron Says:

    Simon, please explain the RATIONAL motive for believing in: virgin births; zombies; infinite punishment for finite crimes; talking snakes, bushes, and donkeys; floating zoos capable of housing over 2 million pairs of (predatory) species requiring unique diets and habitats; unicorns, giants, and satyrs; men capable of great feats of strength due to long hair (Samson); living inside the belly of a big fish (Jonah); altering the genetic characteristics of cattle by letting them view a striped rod (Jacob); birds and insects with four legs; rabbits that chew their cud; suspending both the earth’s and moon’s motion (Joshua); fire that consumes wet wood, stones, and dust; iron axes that float; 11-year-old fathers (Ahaz); sons can be two years older than their father (Ahazia); God deceives his own prophets; God sends evil spirits; moon-stroke; there is a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen (i.e., a flat earth); shadows on sundials can move backwards; stars can fall from heaven; Jesus assurance that all disciples (including Judas his betrayer) will have a place in the kingdom of heaven; a man who shares an infinite and eternal existence with God (Melchisedec); at least three heavens; believers can handle deadly snakes and drink poison without suffering harm; faith can move mountains; thought occurs in the heart; etc., etc.

  273. Ron Says:

    “He said faith is reason and reason is faith so what could his reasoning be if he has no faith in garlic?”

    He obviously doesn’t even have the faith of a mustard seed, which Jesus claimed was the smallest of of all seeds (and who can argue with Jesus, the all-knowing botanist?).

    But to answer your question, the reason garlic wards off evil spirits is because I believe in the power of garlic, and the fact that it works is evidence that my faith is based in reason.

  274. Robert Says:

    Oh. Works for me.

    Every wonder why Jesus never wrote anything down? I mean, here is what all are expected to believe to be the Son of God doing his first Gig on Earth, I mean the Scoop of Eternity, The Big Kahuna and writes nothing down. No perfect penmanship on gold leaf bound in pearl and onyx. No notes on papyrus that never rots. Not even a few notes scribbled on whatever it was they used for toilet paper. Nada. A few circles in the sand next to the temple. Was the god-man functionally illiterate? He leaves a dozen others to tell his story and only four of them know how to write and their stories don’t even jive! Something fishy here…all appearing out of a one basket to feed a thousand people. Now we know why they call them “Fish Stories”.

  275. Ron Says:

    Well, maybe the basket had coupons to the grand opening of “Zebedee’s Fish ‘n Chips” near Galillee.

    But in all seriousness, the gospels can’t even get that story straight.

    Mathew 15
    – Jesus went up a mountain
    – Jesus called his disciples to feed the crowd
    – disciples ask where they should get food from in wilderness
    – 7 loaves and a few small fishes
    – multitude of 4,000 men besides woman and children
    – 7 baskets of meat left over
    – Jesus disburses crowd and sets sail for the coasts of Magdala

    Mark 8
    – unspecified wilderness location
    – Jesus called his disciples to feed the crowd
    – disciples ask where they should get food from in wilderness
    – 7 loaves and a few small fishes
    – multitude of about 4,000
    – 7 baskets of meat left over
    – Jesus sends crowd away

    Luke 9
    – desert place of Bethsaida (a fishing village surrounded by a fertile valley along the Sea of Galilee)
    – 12 disciples approached Jesus to send the crowd home
    – 5 loaves and 2 fishes
    – multitude of 5,000 men
    – 12 baskets leftover

    John 6
    – on a mountain
    – Jesus asked Phillip about feeding the crowd
    – 5 barley loaves and 2 fishes
    – multitude of 5,000 men
    – 12 baskets of bread leftover
    – Jesus departs alone up the mountain
    – disciples left for Capernaum without him
    – big storm, Jesus does his famous water-walking routine

    So much for the veracity eye-witness testimony and oral traditions.

  276. Ron Says:

    Of course, if you understand astrology and ancient mysticism, the fish references of the New Testament make sense. The entire Jesus story took place during the Age of Pisces (Fish), which is why there are so many fishing references.

    Prior to that was the Age of Aries (Ram). Which accounts for all the goat/lamb/ram sacrifices following the Exodus. One of the reasons Moses was pissed when he saw the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf was because that practice belonged to the Age of Taurus (Bull).

    A critical reading of the Bible reveals many references to astrology.

    Genesis 1:14 refers to signs in the heaven

    “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:”

    Jerusalem had twelve gates. These correseponded to the twelve tribes of Israel, which in turn corresponded to the twelve astrological Signs.

    In Genesis 49, Jacob likens each of his children to a zodiac sign:

    Aquarius=Reuben
    Gemini=Simeon/Levi
    Leo=Judah
    Pisces=Zebulon
    Taurus=Issachar
    Virgo/Scorpio=Dan
    Libra=Asher
    Capricorn=Naphtali
    Sagittarius=Joseph
    Cancer=Benjamin

    The three wise men followed the Star of Bethlehem to worship baby Jesus.

    Jesus birth was fixed at winter solstice (northern hemisphere) to celebrate the pagan feast of Saturnalia.

    Easter was fixed to the first Sunday following the first full moon following veranl equinox. (a pagan tradition)

    Jesus had twelve apostles.

    Luke 21:25 says “And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars”

    There are 24 elders around the throne of God and 144,000 of the saved (Revelation 4:4; 7:4). The perfection of the new Jerusalem is seen in its 12 gates, each “a single pearl,” and 12 foundations, each adorned with jewels. Its circumference is 12,000 furlongs, and its walls are 144 cubits high (Revelation 21:10-21; Ezekiel 48:30-35).

  277. Simon Thong Says:

    I am led to believe, with some reason, that Ron and robert are either twins, or the two selves of a scgizophrenic.

    Garlic doesn’t work on ghosts, or vampires, or whatever..,except on friends who smell your garlic-tainted breath. Italians were NOT the first to use garlic. Asians, particularly Chinese, eat it all the time, especially raw. Not only are you unmusical in spiritual or supernatural things but in matters of culture you are ignoramuses. chun teik.

    Faith: I took its definition from wikipedia, and you took the definition which detractors of faith take. It is just a matter of semantics as far as you’re concerned: you twist things to your liking, which is evidence of a serpentine mind.

  278. Simon Thong Says:

    How do you explain to the tone deaf the beauty of Tschaikovsky’s Pianoc Concerto No 1 in B-flat minor, or the majesty of Beethoven’s Symphony No 9 in D minor, or the gentle beauty in Chopin’s collections of Nocturnes? It would be futile.

  279. Simon Thong Says:

    Astrology and mysticism? You dont believe, and yet you use the beliefs of other belief systems to try to explain away the beliefs of Christianity. Hupocritaes.

  280. Simon Thong Says:

    As for fear of the “other world”, it is you, Robert, who fear, and in suppressing that fear, you have turned to what you think is reason. Having as a child been scared by talk of ghosts, your little-boy self, so superstitious and scared, rejected your own perception and turned to the belief that such entitities do not exist. Your little-boy self still controls you, poor man…cling onto your crutch, your faith that there is no God, you spiritually retarded cripple. Orang cacat.

    I don’t fear, and need no crutch. We, believers, say the name of Jesus Christ, and that is enough. My grandson will grow up musically attuned to God in Christ Jesus, and the “other world” will fear him.

  281. Ron Says:

    Face it Simon, you’re religion is a flypaper for shamanism, astrology, pagan myths, polytheism, animism, tribal rituals and entheogenic sacraments.

  282. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert, your comprehension is lacking, or is it your serpentine mind that won’t let you see straight? I did not say reason is faith is reason is faith. I DID say that a dichotomous mind, basically a western-product (poor mat salleh!), cannot but separate faith and reason, that you tend to see EITHER faith OR reason, while I advocated faith AND reason.

  283. Simon Thong Says:

    As I’ve said before, you would stoop to anything just to win an argument. Thus, you would never consider that Darwin was both a great scientist and a great science fiction writer. You pick and choose, trying to tear other people’s words to shreds, to discredit them. You may, but that is about all you do. Who could see past your dishonesty and subterfuge, to understand? If at some time, you realise your folly and have a tinge of conscience, that soon passes, and you’re back to your combative I-must-say-and-do-anything-to-discredit-others-and-win self. Yuin wong.

  284. Ron Says:

    Don’t need to say much of anything to discredit the Abrahamic religions. They’re sacred texts pretty much do that on their own.

  285. Simon Thong Says:

    You did not discredit them. You tried, in vain. Look into yourself, not outside, and you may give yourself some help…

  286. Ron Says:

    I don’t see your response to my question dated March 15, 10 at 2:55 am

  287. Scott Thong Says:

    Though in the ekpyrotic the universes are separated by another dimension and the occurrences are cyclic. Plausible certainly and fascinating yet still physical. Not supernatural. – Robert

    I like to point out how the pre-Big Bang universe and the cause of the Big Bang are pretty much as sensible to laypeople as Creatio ex nihilum is to atheists. And how cyclic universes with no beginning or end are acceptable, but people demand that God have an origin to make sense.

    You see ghosts? May I suggest that you also go see a psychiatrist?

    I don’t recall seeing any, nor mentioning that I see any.

    You’re the one who sounds like they’ve lost control of their emotions every time you hit the brick wall of logic. If you did not wish Atheists to comment on your World Wide Web blog then why do you throw a tantrum every time someone disagrees with you?

    Define tantrum. I define it as raving angrily while slinging insults in every direction… You know, like if I were aiming for a show on MSNBC.

    So far, I believe my standard methodology is to provide linked citations or Biblical exegesis.

    Oh dear, I copy/pasted again…something I am sure you did not do in the beginning of this blog, eh Scott? Had all those quotes committed to memory?

    Copy/paste is not the issue per se. It is when instead of typing out an argument in one’s own words, a commentor rips several thousand words wholesale from some other site, dumps them on my blog and demands an answer to every point.

    and why they conjured “explanations” for natural disasters or the conditions of their brutal existence under the heel of Pharaoh, Caesar, Genghis, Hitler, Republicans, etc.,

    Funny, I was under the impression most atheists vote Dem. So they pray to whom exactly be saved from Bush?

    No Scott. You may continue to believe you are far above us mere atheists and continue to quibble over nonsense in your spiritually anointed esoteric strata of pseudo intellectuals, wasting your time discussing the minutia of an idea that amounts to nothing. I find the real world much more interesting.

    And yet, once again, here you are on wasting your own time on my blog rather than being out there in the much more interesting real world.

  288. Scott Thong Says:

    Is that the long one after my last long response to you? I saw the length, checked my schedule, and decided to save it for some other time. I’ll get round to it eventually, time and interest permitting. FYI I haven’t looked through most of the back and forth on this post over the weekend either, so do inform me if there’s anything that needs my urgent attention.

  289. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron, your friend’s comments are so petty that they deserve no reply; perhaps he could better occupy his time researching answers to them. You know, peer-reviewed articles? I’d rather deal with the bigger picture: Why people like you won’t face the issue of why you are unable to sense spiritual things and thus, miss out on the most important dimension of life.

  290. Simon Thong Says:

    Scott, kindly overlook the feverish ramblings of a much-confused Ron who seems to have mixed up the two of us simply because we share the same name. Just as he can’t tell the difference between “both faith and reason” from “faith equals reason”..or am I confused? Did Robert or Ron say that? But then, they are twin expressions of an ambiguous atheistic collusion, one echoing the other…so it is difficult to assign one statement to one and not to the other.

  291. Simon Thong Says:

    They have to keep coming back to your blog, Scott…like a moth to a flame!

  292. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert wants to know why Jesus never wrote anything down. Why should he? Just to satisfy you and other insignificant entities (whom God loves!) who don’t believe and don’t want to believe? You want every little miracle explained to you? Honestly, you don’t want that…you just want an opportunity to tear into whatever is said, to mock, to tear down, to undermine. You make little or no contribution to any discussion.

  293. Robert Says:

    Hello Scott. My apologies, your brother is correct. I used your name in response to his statements. I really pity the guy, so full of hate, superstition, assumptions and vehemence. Sounds like a loose cannon, hair trigger. Was he a problem when you were kids? You impress me as the Brain and he the Brute. Then again, far be it from me to claim I’ve never been both and I do admit that I can be a bit caustic at times, usually when I am confronted with the same old excuses and evasions versus logical responses to direct questions. And I will admit that some of the questions I have posed were meant to be rhetorical; what I consider a response to the status quo; garbage in, garbage out.

    So, as he put’s it, why should Jesus bother to satisfy us “insignificant entities”[that God loves]? They why did he bother to “create” this insignificant universe, send himself here as a human to be tortured to death? Why did he leave his legacy to the scribblings of four men who conflict in their “eye witness accounts” and now it is discovered there is a gospel of Peter AND Judas who conflict with the M, M, L & J? You all don’t see the complete and overwhelming significance of the story you all fabricated and the implications that are left with conflicting reports?

    Earlier I had mentioned the Shroud of Turin and you cast it aside like it were some insignificant fabrication when it could very well be the only physical evidence of a living deity? The first and final signature of Jesus on Earth, regardless of conflicting accounts? A couple in Ohio were intrigued with the shroud and did a bit of research to discover that the samples taken for radio carbon dating were actually tainted with a repair that had taken place in France over 700 years ago. This had been verified by the very scientist who was initially there in the first place, before he died. The scientific jury is still out, yet even if it were a hoax it is so elaborate that it took 20th century science to make astonishing discoveries; like the fact that the image is a 3D photograph that science cannot determine how it was imprinted, the blood is the rare AB- and serum is discovered under ultraviolet photos, the carbon dating has a 200 year spread in the 4 samples, and forensic scientists verify that death was caused by crucifixion. But I do respect your view that what is important is your personal faith.

  294. wits0 Says:

    “Robert wants to know why Jesus never wrote anything down. ” – ST

    Is that an issue?

  295. Robert Says:

    Is the very foundation of your belief an “issue”? You base your faith and cling to the conflicted writings of first century ‘witnesses’ concerning the living embodiment of what you claim to be the Creator of the Universe visit to this little planet of one of it’s trillions of galaxies but the idea of this ultimate being not leaving anything in writing or anything behind to verify its presence is not a questionable issue? Then why bother having a Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade?

  296. wits0 Says:

    Never heard of similar figures writing down their own teachings. Not, e.g., Mo, Guru Nanak or the Buddha themselves.

    The authorship of the classic Tao Te Ching is still debatable – whether Laozi actually wrote it.

    Socrates didn’t write down anything himself

    The Veda’s actual authorship is unknown.

    So are all these invalidated as a result?

  297. Ron Says:

    None of those authors is cited to push political agendas.

  298. Robert Says:

    Good question, wits0! Do any of them also claim to be the one, true, King of the Jews and Master of the Universe and the spiritual realm of Heaven? Do their words give human kind the ultimate ultimatum of “Worship Me or I Will Torture You Forever. Because I love you. Have a Nice Day.”?

  299. Ron Says:

    Simon says:

    “Why people like you won’t face the issue of why you are unable to sense spiritual things and thus, miss out on the most important dimension of life.”

    It’s quite possible to experience strong emotional reactions to the “wonders of life” (gazing out at the universe, admiring nature, seeing a newborn infant, etc.) without subscribing to religious beliefs.

    “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
    — Douglas Adams

  300. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Robert, Ron.. How do you manage your digestive system, metabolism, and other bodily activities ? Didn’t you ? Or you just leave it to you body to manage it..? Therefore do you directly have any role or involvement in it ?
    Or “evolution” always have its role in it ? I don’t see evolution did it at all, frankly. Where is evolution there ??

    Who/ what is responsible in running those systems actually..

    1) You
    2) Your body
    3) Evolution
    4) ? (not God)
    5) DNA
    6) Your parents (who knows if they secrectly manage it for you?)

    If your body is..why sometimes your kidney, heart etc fails ? At that particular time..your body control itself? Lastly you die. Why can’t your body keep it, or continue living, living…Does NOT every living think wish to..or like to live (not die instead).. I don’t understand this.

    I don’t think, all life like to die. Die is NOT their wish !

    Where is evolution there ? Does evolution has it role in…for example the process of fetus development in the ovary/ womb?

    Are you also manage your brain activities ?

  301. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I wonder..how people decidedly say : “evolution” did it when (actually)
    they themselves NEVER fully understand, unsure of it.. yet they say, confirmed ‘evolution. What a fallacy !

  302. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert, your statements are full of hate and vehemence and presumptions: look in the mirror. But then, your mirror is cracked. My words were made coolly, and if you can’t see that, you are deprived in yet another area. Garbage can be so strong that you can’t detect other smells though they may be sweet-smelling words. I offer perfume to you but you can’t help smell it, except your own foul stink. And to think that, for a while anyway, you seemed amicable and amiable. But then, your pride won’t let you lose in anyway, even if it means being less wholesome.

    The words of the 4 Gospels have such authority that, inspite of the attempts of detractors, people have accepted their veracity. Why? Because they have met the Resurrected Christ in the Gospels. But you wouldn’t know anything about that since you are merely a parasite (atheists are a-theists, after all, and the very definition of one depends on atheism), feeding on your hate against believers.

  303. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert, what is the rationale in basing your faith in the writings of Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, et al, when they are mere humans with human minds, limited, and whose calling cry is “I don’t believe” or “I don’t know”? Hardly anybody believe them, except in the limited areas of science.

    You really matter to God, but fall in line.

  304. Simon Thong Says:

    Douglas Adams overlooked the fact that the garden was cultivated by a gardener, not fairies…he, therefore, overlooked the fact that the universe had a Creator. Couldn’t see past his nose. What’s the term for it, myopic?

  305. Simon Thong Says:

    WitsO made a counter argument, and it proved you wrong, but you then ignored it and brought in something else. That is sly. You can’t eat your cake and still have it. Oooo but you can..you have proven that you can create something out of nothing, or make things disappear, simply by changing terms and definitions, by “picking things out of the air”. You can say anything. Sly, sly..

  306. wits0 Says:

    Creation? Not by any anthropomorphic Entity.

    Evolution? Heck. I know I didn’t come from monkies or apes. Imagine Psychology stuck fast with Freud without advancing!

    Sagan? Oooh… that starry eyed guy with a matching look, literally all his life.

    Sly one? Hahaha, and a mite strange.

  307. apologetics4dummies Says:

    I cannot believe that Simon and Scott are Christians. As a Christian, I am completely appalled by their disgusting, overbearing, arrogant, Pharisee-like responses to readers such as Ron, Robert and others.

    How can you be a light shining to the darkness in this world if you strut around and mock at others who do not share your faith?

    How can you proclaim that you believe in a God of love when you say things in a I am holier than thou, I know better than thou tone which smacks of sheer arrogance and self-pride?

    Example of Self-righteousness and Pharisee-like stand ie I am holier and better than thou attitude:

    Simon Thong Says:
    March 16, 10 at 9:41 am

    Robert, your statements are full of hate and vehemence and presumptions: look in the mirror. But then, your mirror is cracked. My words were made coolly, and if you can’t see that, you are deprived in yet another area. Garbage can be so strong that you can’t detect other smells though they may be sweet-smelling words. I offer perfume to you but you can’t help smell it, except your own foul stink. And to think that, for a while anyway, you seemed amicable and amiable. But then, your pride won’t let you lose in anyway, even if it means being less wholesome.

    The words of the 4 Gospels have such authority that, inspite of the attempts of detractors, people have accepted their veracity. Why? Because they have met the Resurrected Christ in the Gospels. But you wouldn’t know anything about that since you are merely a parasite (atheists are a-theists, after all, and the very definition of one depends on atheism), feeding on your hate against believers.

    EXAMPLE OF ARROGANCE:

    Simon Thong Says:
    March 15, 10 at 3:52 pm

    Scott, kindly overlook the feverish ramblings of a much-confused Ron who seems to have mixed up the two of us simply because we share the same name. Just as he can’t tell the difference between “both faith and reason” from “faith equals reason”..or am I confused? Did Robert or Ron say that? But then, they are twin expressions of an ambiguous atheistic collusion, one echoing the other…so it is difficult to assign one statement to one and not to the other.

    – in christian apologetics – one must NEVER attack another person on the basis of difference in faith – sorry – i dun see that in scot or simon and for that – their faith is quite meaningless and bring disgrace to the Christian faith.

    I leave you to the judgement of the Lord! Remember that you have to account to the Lord on judgement day for every loose canon/word that you blast to your readers or anyone for that matter.

    Go confess and repent! When you are healed of your ailments, come back and write again – this time with HUMILITY as encouraged by the Lord and forbearance.

    Demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit for crying out loud!

    Sheesh! Does your pastor know that you write this way? What sort of testimony are you showing?

    Do you think you are spreading the aroma of Christ? How many would want to be Christians if they read your responses?

    I am so ashamed that you are SUPPOSED to be my brethren.

    Good Lord, deliver them, PLEASE!

  308. Simon Thong Says:

    Gosh, the very things you said are judgemental, arrogant and hypocritical. Look in your mirror, and may it be not cracked for it wwould show you to be the grovelling worm that you are, a shame to all Christians who defend the Lord and His Word. Apologist,a re you? Apologising, rather…

    There is no humility in you. Does YOUR pastor know you open your mouth to let the other put his foot in, instead of turning the other cheek?

  309. Simon Thong Says:

    Your proper name is Dummies4apologetics, by the way..And don’t claim to be my brother in Christ..I think you’re the enemy masquerading as a christian.

  310. Simon Thong Says:

    Btw, Apologetics4dummies, what is the meaning of your name? Are you calling others, including ron and robert, and nonbelievers, dummies? That doesn’t say much about your attitude, does it? Smacks of arrogance, doesn’t it? Treating them as dummies! Or are you the dummies (many in one)?

  311. apologetics4dummies Says:

    The meaning is that YOU ARE THE DUMMY for not getting the meaning of my nom de plume, you arrogant idiot!~ Goodbye AND i WILL NEVER VISIT YOUR BLOG EVER AGAIN.

  312. Simon Thong Says:

    It seems to me that you don’t know the Lord Jesus Christ or the Scriptures. For you, a self-announced “brother” judging someone you call a “brother”, Matthew 7.1-6 is most appropriate.

  313. Simon Thong Says:

    Haha, no need to come back, but you WON’T get away from the JUDGEMENT of the Lord Jesus Christ for pretending to be a christian! HE will know you. A non de plume to hide your identity? Can’t escape His judgement. He is all-seeing and all-knowing. Come back when you want to learn the Sinner’s Prayer.

  314. Scott Thong Says:

    You are soooooo right, apologetics4dummies. I will go and repent of my arrogance and Phariseeness right away. Probably beginning with taking your comments as an example of what NOT to follow:

    - in christian apologetics – one must NEVER attack another person on the basis of difference in faith – sorry – i dun see that in scot or simon and for that – their faith is quite meaningless and bring disgrace to the Christian faith.

    I leave you to the judgement of the Lord! Remember that you have to account to the Lord on judgement day for every loose canon/word that you blast to your readers or anyone for that matter.

    Go confess and repent! When you are healed of your ailments, come back and write again – this time with HUMILITY as encouraged by the Lord and forbearance.

    Demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit for crying out loud!

    Sheesh! Does your pastor know that you write this way? What sort of testimony are you showing?

    Do you think you are spreading the aroma of Christ? How many would want to be Christians if they read your responses?

    I am so ashamed that you are SUPPOSED to be my brethren.

    Good Lord, deliver them, PLEASE!

    The meaning is that YOU ARE THE DUMMY for not getting the meaning of my nom de plume, you arrogant idiot!~

    Ah, the risks and vagaries of involving the ‘do not judge’ clause, yes?

  315. Simon Thong Says:

    he’s gone, he’s gone…no, he’s not! He’s surreptitiously (it means secretly, A4Ds) reading all this, taking satisfaction in the NEGATIVE attention he’s getting, deprived “kid” that he is..but he can’t come back since he threatened not to, not until his insipid mind thinks of a new nom de plume.

    apologetics4dummies=a4ds=A4Ds (AIDS?)

  316. Robert Says:

    And that’s all it takes to observe Christian brotherhood at its hypocritical finest. What a hilarious band of louts! They carefully plan the fishing trip, gingerly bait the hook and angrily attack the fish for taking it. Christian Contradiction in its finest form with the quasi-intellect risking all credibility to defend his psychotic brother the brute.

    Looks like we got the best of them, Ron. Touche!

    In the west there is a style of women’s panties and swimsuits that is very dainty and doesn’t amount to much more than a string that rides tightly between their buttocks. It is called a “Thong”! Ahahahahahahaaa!

  317. Robert Says:

    Well Nasaei, I made an attempt to hand you the olive branch and communicate in a civil manner and you decided to slap my hand away. It appears you sorely lack in the field of biology as well? Perhaps you need to return to school and study the marvels of the human brain and how it controls your body versus some mystical puppet master you’ve been hoodwinked into believing.

    You’re all a bunch of hypocrites and clowns. Why am I an Atheist? And I admit it proudly? Go look in a mirror and listen to yourselves bickering and scolding those you have no wit to understand beyond your own voodoo. You are all many of the last pathetic reasons why I am an Atheist. By your words and actions, and yet the least of reasons.

  318. Scott Thong Says:

    It is called a “Thong”! Ahahahahahahaaa! – Robert

    Indeed, and it has brought much benefit to my blog (6th most visited all time).

    Go look in a mirror and listen to yourselves bickering and scolding

    I looked in the mirror, and I saw only Robert.

  319. Robert Says:

    Just takes a few good USA citizens to liven things up a bit and shine some light in the dark corner of your world. Nothing like an ugly American to get in your face and draw some attention. Don’t worry, you’re not the only jealous third worlders on the planet.

  320. Simon Thong Says:

    A a third-world mind living in the USA. The ugly american is ugly in more ways than one, especially in his assumption of intellectual superiority.

    As for that so-called christian, he isn’t. He definitely knows all the christian words. But he hasn’t got the courage or backbone of a christian. Scold and run, is all he can do. That is why I don’t think he is an atheist, since an atheist also knows all the christian words but is no coward. More of a bulldog, our atheist, for he holds on, bravely thinking he has a grip on the throat, about to choke to death the believer’s faith, only to find he’s holding onto the leather collar. We try not to shoot it..bulldogs have their purpose in God’s scheme of things.

  321. Simon Thong Says:

    By the way, you’ve got a Thirdworlder as president…the tables are turned, the shoe is on the other foot. Just what the USA deserves for its 3rd world conduct.

  322. Robert Says:

    Please, go invent toilet paper, Simon. Better yet, try to install some indoor plumbing. I can smell you from here. The land where scent’s that waft through the air makes one ask, “Is it dead or is it dinner?” You clowns wish you had half the nads we got. You’re no christians, you’re quasi’s looking down your noses at the world and discovering that you must look up to see it.

  323. Simon Thong Says:

    wooo, robert’s having kittens…nothing rational to say any more, just venom. Not to take things too seriously, robert, don’t let me get your goose up. But nothing much can be done about the fact that you’ve got obama :) Or that toilet paper’s been invented and the USA is using it (made from third world trees, it must be said.

    Anyway, I’ll let you have 5 comments before I reply…maybe I won’t until and unless you’ve got something new to say. We could trade insults all thro the day and nite, but what’s the point?

  324. blahblah Says:

    “..you’re quasi’s looking down your noses at the world and discovering that you must look up to see it.”

    I look down my nose and see an arachnid ( that`s not even quasi) robert taking lessons from the half-white in the Black House.

  325. Robert Says:

    And I’m laughing while I say this as I was laughing through most of my posts including those immediately above, Simon, so once again, you read it all wrong. You apparently possess the personality type that mistakenly judges others by your own shortcomings. Too bad, you miss a lot of what is actually being conveyed if you cannot properly read the mood and follow the groove, baby!

    Are you kidding? The President of the United States of America outclasses 90% of the world leadership. I support the President and think he is doing a great job considering what the Republicans left in their wake, as everyone is attempting to forget to the point where Karl Rove and Fox Snooze are attempting to rewrite history, and I hear your pal, Glenn Beck has now turned a jaundiced eye and his blistering accusations on Christians, but I can’t really comment there thoroughly because all I’ve seen are the headliners on TV and, tell you the truth, I find both topics, being Glenn Beck and Christians, not in the least interesting.

    “half white in the White House” You’re so predictable and another reason why you reject Evolution and choose Ignorance. You don’t want to see the data that links all human origins to Africa. Yep, your origins are black as are mine and I don’t have a problem with that at all. In fact, it all makes perfect sense to me. I grew up and currently live in a multicultural environment so food and language varieties are the norm for me and I’m sad to say that I wish it were the same for all US citizens.
    You many notice that I avoid using the name “Americans” to describe US Citizens when I can most often. We have three America’s in the west being South, Central and North America so my Panamanian wife is also an ‘American’ and it really gets my goat when I hear and see Anglo citizens whining about English. They fail to realize that Puerto Rico is as much a part of the USA as Hawaii. It just is not a state. Puerto Ricans enjoy US citizenship BUT the USA isn’t making any big push to ensure that the children of Puerto Rico are taught English in schools. Puerto Rico is not a bi-lingual land. So, for all intents and purposes, why should English be the Official Language? And if it was, how many school districts can afford to send their “English” teachers to Cornwall, UK to learn the King’s English so they may return to the USA and teach proper English because the people in Brooklyn do not speak the same English as the people in Baton Rouge or Chicago or Charleston, etc.
    I have to laugh at my own fellow citizens sometimes because many naively think that most other countries are not ‘racist’, which is really simple minded considering we are one race biologically. Anyway, I tell them they must be kidding. It is precisely why those countries exist. Italians just like to be around Italian people. Japanese consider non Japanese ‘gaijin’, and on and on, until you come to the USA. Different States United under one flag and constitution. Different but equal and yes, we’ve had our hard lessons in the past and we still face more today but we do face them openly. I challenge any Anglo in the USA to show me their Native North American roots and that usually shuts them up. We are from everywhere. People tired of persecution because of their skin color, religion, politics. And I proudly belong to the USA’s most hated minority – Atheists.

  326. Ron Says:

    Whoa, what happened here?

    First Nassei reveals his need for remedial courses in neurology and biochemistry; then the X-chians engage in a holy war over over how to best defend their book of fairy tales; and now the peasants are angrily shaking their fists and throwing rocks at the castle.

    Not cool.

  327. Ron Says:

    Simon says

    “Douglas Adams overlooked the fact that the garden was cultivated by a gardener, not fairies…he, therefore, overlooked the fact that the universe had a Creator.”

    Non sequitur. Gardners don’t prove the existence of a supernatural creator.

    “What’s the term for it, myopic?”

    You mean as opposed to “blind faith” in things unseen?

  328. Robert Says:

    Beats me. I thought I was pretty level with Nasaei giving direction to a starting point he could branch out from. I think he may be afraid to answer my question for fear of being monitored? Perhaps the current mode of thought is to reject what the believers of early Islam embraced. Doesn’t fit in with the current model. Looks like they’re falling right in line with their competitor’s obstinate intolerance practices.

  329. Ron Says:

    True. I forgot this blog originates from a theocratic state.

  330. Scott Thong Says:

    And I proudly belong to the USA’s most hated minority – Atheists. – Robert

    Funny, and here I thought that ‘separation of religion and state’ was being over-used to remove all traces of religion from religious holidays such as Christmas… I mean, X’mas… I mean, Winter Solstice… And Hannukah… I mean, Whatever-you-Wannakah

    Except Islam of course. Gotta be multiculturally sensitive to Muslims, especially using state funds, right!

  331. Simon Thong Says:

    The President outclasses 90% of the world leadership, robert? Haha, that’s nothing. It’s like the best student in my English class. He has 50% and they all score 30% and below. YOUR President is falling over himself separating state and religion by pandering to the muslims.

  332. Scott Thong Says:

    What a coincidence, here we are talking about ‘Third World President’, and here I read a transcript of Rush Limbaugh whom I seldom follow:

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031610/content/01125112.guest.html

    He’s simply pragmatic and practical. So he knows even if — even if — he doesn’t get the bill passed, he’s toast. He’s toast. Whichever way this goes, his popularity is going to continue to plummet. So have you noticed all of a sudden out of the blue we’re talking amnesty now? Why? Replacement voters. Twenty-five million or 12 million, whatever it is — new voters just in time for 2012, who will owe their citizenship to him — to replace the voters that he’s losing in this process. He doesn’t care. People do not understand, and it’s very difficult to get your arms around a personality that you don’t associate being president of the United States. We think of presidents as decent and good and patriotic Americans who love us and love the country.

    We don’t have any of that. We got a Third World president. We’ve got a guy who is willing to destroy his country in order to still love himself when he looks at himself in the mirror. Third World. People like Kim Jong-il do that. People like Kim Il-sung did that. Castro. Chavez. You name it. They destroy their country to make themselves look good or to save face. That’s what we have going on here with health care. So we’re past the point of return here where he can turn everybody around and make him loved again. I mean, the Obama of the campaign will never be again. That Obama will never be. But he’s still gonna need to get reelected if he wants to. How does he do it? He’s gotta find replacement voters. Bammo! Here comes amnesty being discussed right on the heels of this. Make no mistake. However this turns out, there’s no let-up. None whatsoever.

    In context, Rush is referring to giving amnesty to all the illegal immigrants in the USA for instant, grateful, scratch-my-back votes next election.

    It wasn’t me who said before, but I paraphrase: Liberals are all about non-traditional marriages and families, abortion and so forth… If that was all there was to it, their voter base would shrink every generation. Hence – give votes to incarcerated criminals and illegal immigrants to bolster to voter base.

  333. Ron Says:

    Scott says:

    “Funny, and here I thought that ’separation of religion and state’ was being over-used to remove all traces of religion from religious holidays such as Christmas… I mean, X’mas… I mean, Winter Solstice… And Hannukah… I mean, Whatever-you-Wannakah”

    Scott, the Gap promo was designed to target a wide audience. Corporations generally avoid promoting one set of religious beliefs over another (especially during the holidays) as it has a negative impact on their bottom line.

  334. Robert Says:

    Hi Scott. Love your source of reference…Rush “The Flaccid Junkie” Limbaugh. But that’s okay, we all have our opinions and you’re entitled to yours however weak and parroted it may be. The President impressed me personally as a very level headed, articulate and intelligent guy with sound convictions and a sense of humor. He wasn’t the President when I met him but even then I knew he would be recognized on the national scene at some point sooner or later. Sooner, as it turned out to be.
    Your talking points are pretty second hand and frayed on the edges. We’ve already heard them all in the campaign and yet the sheep continue to bleat there animosity and frustration as losers. It’s to be expected.
    You fit in quite well with the right-wrongers and their tendency to shotgun label what you refer to as ‘liberals’. ‘All liberals are in favor of this or that…’ or whatever it is that you oppose directly. You would be surprised at how many liberals are more centrist than left and those I know who are extremely left know the difference between their ideal and reality, giving careful thought to solutions.

  335. Scott Thong Says:

    Robert, all those qualities you mentioned may make Obama potentially a very good President… But they aren’t always enough to handle the running of a country, much less one post-Bush-fallout (as you would claim) while trying to implement sweeping changes on an unprecendented scale. It might have served him better if he had run for President after a decade or so of real leadership experience, instead of just 143 days of Senatorship (cut short by campaigning, voting ‘Present’ on many issues). I mean, even ‘that-idiot-Sarah-Palin-thank-providence-we-dodged-her’ ran a town and a state before… And she was just running for VP.

    And you might be surprised to know that I and others are not so far right as you think. Doubtless, it can’t be only Tea Partiers being polled who view Obama, Obamacare, the Senate and Congress unfavourably. It isn’t just the neocons who are getting frustrated over the direction the country is heading while the elected representatives ignore the people’s wishes.

    All snarking and zings aside, I would seriously advise you to take a close look at exactly how the Democrat ‘solutions’ are being received by the common American on the street. Ignore what us rabid fundies think for a while. The middle ground voted for Obama based on his promise of Hope and Change – but he has only delivered empty words of Hope and the non-Change of even worse corruption, (Chicago style) intimidation, lobbyist coddling and bald faced lying than previous administrations.

    He promised no lobbyists, no earmarks, no tax hike on middle class, no abortion funding in Obamacare, all legislation online for the public to view before voting, CSPANning debates… Then promptly went on to do the exact opposite. He said you can’t spend like it’s Monopoly money during a deficit, which he partly inherited from Bush but then increased to 2 trillion, and then spends more after saying that. The Stimulus takes billions and mostly spreads it to Dem areas and Dem voter pet projects and non-productive sectors, then tries to fudge it with nonexistant figures and districts. The GM dealership closures blatantly targeted GOP donors. Dude, if you want to screw over your political opposition/the country, at least be honest about it.

    Of course, you could always dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as ‘uneducated class’ by default, as David Brooks has. (A sure winner… How can anyone argue against that kind of logic?)

    Or if you defend Obama’s means as justified due to the ends he is trying to accomplish, or pass off his every fumble and frown as an idealist bogged down in Washington’s inertia, then I would have to suggest that you are an atheist who just happens to think Obama is god.

  336. Robert Says:

    There are no ‘gods’ in my vocabulary whether person, place or thing. ‘Partly inherited from Bush’? Entirely inherited from Bush. You appear to forget as conveniently as the Republicans that the great President Clinton left Bush a surplus that Bush promptly squandered. Another thing everyone is evidently forgetting is that the items you mentioned were not promised but items of concern to be addressed. The President also said repeatedly “Yes WE can.” Key word here is “We” meaning everyone willing to roll up their sleeves and support him in his endeavors including the Republicans. “I can’t do it alone.” Reiterating the former point. And finally, “This may likely take more than eight years to heal.” Being the critical condition of the country left in the wake of the Republicans.
    And the Republicans, at the risk of doing further harm to their nation, and they did, by virtue of the divisional riffs between parties, continue to stall and be the party of “No” even on items that were identical in their nature and they vigorously support in the past. They leave a very, very strong impression that they simply do not care, that they hate the President because he is a Democrat and refuse to do the jobs they were elected to do in defiance of their own constituents. Now the Tea Baggers are gaining ground within the right throwing the Republicans into disarray.
    I don’t dismiss anyone whom I do not know that has something important to say, Dude, but I do live here. I’ve been born & raised in it, in the middle of it and actively take part in it while you sit on the sidelines and critique. As I’ve said before. You’re entitled to your own opinion. I wonder if you realize that it is only an opinion, based on other opinions.

  337. hahahaha Says:

    I am absolutely thrilled with the denuding and unravelling of the half white, half muslim in the Black house. Never has one squandered the many opportunities that came his way, he nearly walked over water, now he is bunkered in the Black House.

    Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20. That’s just one point above the all-time low

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

  338. Robert Says:

    Polls schmolls. He is still the President and you can whine all day long. Another whiner on the sidelines with no ideas to contribute.

  339. hahahaha Says:

    “Another whiner on the sidelines with no ideas to contribute.”

    I am absolutely thrilled …… thrilled thrilled thrilled [if one is thrilled, one is not whining. Poor white man needs brownies these days to larn his own language], …….with the denuding and unravelling of the half white, half muslim in the Black house. Never has one squandered the many opportunities that came his way, he nearly walked over water, now he is bunkered in the Black House.

    Btw Robert`s missing arm isn`t contributing either, but Lt. Gerard was looking for him.

  340. Robert Says:

    No one? Then you missed the Bush years? Amazing how cognitive dissonance can affect the mind…

  341. Scott Thong Says:

    You appear to forget as conveniently as the Republicans that the great President Clinton left Bush a surplus that Bush promptly squandered. – Robert

    Look at it this way… Despite two wars and Katrina, Bush was redicing the deficit from around 400 bil (2004) to less than 200 bil (2007).

    Then came the financial crisis led by Fannie and Freddie whom Bush wanted to investigate 17 times in 2008 alone, but the Democrat Congress continually blocked him (and stayed in bed with, literally in the case of Barney Frank and boyfriend).

    Usher in 2008… And Obama manages to turn 200 billion into 1.8 TRILLION debt, somehow without even slowing down the job losses. And now he’s all healthcare healthcare while the economy stagflates.

    The President also said repeatedly “Yes WE can.” Key word here is “We” meaning everyone willing to roll up their sleeves and support him in his endeavors including the Republicans.

    And the Republicans, at the risk of doing further harm to their nation, and they did, by virtue of the divisional riffs between parties, continue to stall and be the party of “No” even on items that were identical in their nature and they vigorously support in the past.

    You know as well as Obama that if his own Dems weren’t frightened witless by his incredibly inpopular policies, every single Republican voting NO wouldn’t be able to stop the Dem supermajorities in both the Senate and Congress. Both of you need to stop blaming the GOP and take a close look at why Obama’s own Dems are bailing ship.

    “This may likely take more than eight years to heal.” Being the critical condition of the country left in the wake of the Republicans.

    Then what the heck is he doing preparing to throw another trillion at healthcare which is one of the few things Bush isn’t maligned for ‘breaking’?

    They leave a very, very strong impression that they simply do not care, that they hate the President because he is a Democrat and refuse to do the jobs they were elected to do in defiance of their own constituents.

    You recently said Polls schmolls, indicating an apathy towards how the voters feel. Barely a third of America wants Obammacare to pass, but the Dems are still trying to either buy/coerce enough votes to seal the deal or else skip a vote entirely (yay democracy!). And you are accusing Republican representatives of not doing what they were elected to do in defiance of their constituents!??

    As I’ve said before. You’re entitled to your own opinion. I wonder if you realize that it is only an opinion, based on other opinions.

    Y’know, it’s kind of odd… That a facts and reality based atheist like yourself can be so out of touch with facts and reality when it comes to things other than religion. Or is that actually part of the trend?

  342. Robert Says:

    Scott. In all sincerity, I grew up the son of an elected official. A democrat who was elected in a predominantly republican district and was re-elected to four additional terms. Trust me, politics is the most befuddling business and course of study on the planet…next to theology. What’s the saying? “Never talk about politics or religion if you want to avoid trouble.”? I watched my pop age 20 years in 10 and I swore I would never, ever run for office. But I do vote and keep an eye on them.
    As far as your opinion on what you assume to be “facts and reality”. When you listen or watch Fox the polls are against Obama yet MSNBC sources say the opposite. Yes, polls – schmolls. I would rather see the results and that will occur on Sunday barring unforeseen events.
    The President’s mistake was overconfidence in the workings of the Senate and House. Yes, Dems hold the majority but they also represent their districts and think for themselves. Dems are not like the Republican Lemmings ready to rubber stamp everything our previous President threw at them.
    But it all comes down to playing politics and it is one dirty game.

  343. Ron Says:

    Politics is a blood sport.

  344. incognito Says:

    “Amazing how cognitive dissonance can affect the mind…”

    Sure seems like it, Bush was never the Messiah that the half white was portrayed.

    http://images.google.com.my/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=obama+messiah&oq=&gs_rfai=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=GqGjS8SyNZOtrAeWpPTQCA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQsAQwAw

  345. incognito Says:

    The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

    The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn’t a surplus under Clinton.

    http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

  346. incognito Says:

    There is a difference between debt and surplus, no matter where the funds are coming from. The government doesn’t have unique sources of production, and must rely on external sources from which to extract capital. Therefore, a true surplus can only arise by reducing spending.

    Even by raising taxes, this only represents debt owed to the public. Clinton relied on the dot-com bubble by funneling funds through the SSA, which allowed him to mimic a surplus by obscuring the source of his funds. This is a clever accounting game, but it is not a surplus.

    So when the dot-com bubble burst, and Social Security was left in debt, the federal government couldn’t give the SSA its surplus back. The money had been put towards the public debt already. By that time, Clinton was already out of office, so the effects of the dot-com crash could be blamed on the Republican George Bush anyway.

    http://www.sbstatesman.com/2.870/the-clinton-surplus-myth-1.35974

  347. incognito Says:

    The reporters didn’t even provoke or needle in their questions. They seemed hushed. They looked like people who were absorbing the information that we all seem to be absorbing, which is that the wheels seem to be coming off this thing, the administration is wobbling—so early, so painfully and dangerously soon.

    Thursday’s decision followed the most revealing and important broadcast interview of Barack Obama ever. It revealed his primary weakness in speaking of health care, which is a tendency to dodge, obfuscate and mislead. He grows testy when challenged. It revealed what the president doesn’t want revealed, which is that he doesn’t want to reveal much about his plan.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575130081383279888.html

  348. hahahaha Says:

    Jihad as American as apple pie, says US-born cleric

    Violent jihad, or Islamic holy war, is “becoming as American as apple pie,” US-born fugitive cleric Anwar Al-Awlaqi said in an unauthenticated message released Friday.

    “Western jihad is here to stay,” warned Awlaqi as he commented on a blonde American who dubbed herself “JihadJane” and has pleaded not guilty to trying to recruit Islamist militants to murder a Swedish cartoonist.

    “Jihad is becoming as American as apple pie and as British as afternoon tea,” the US-Yemeni cleric said

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100319/ts_alt_afp/usattacksyemenawlaqi_20100319210134

  349. hahahaha Says:

    “Sure seems like it, Bush was never the Messiah that the half white was portrayed.”

    Half wit, half white, half black, half christian, half muslim, ……………maybe he should occupy half the White House.

  350. wits0 Says:

    “Half wit, half white, half black, half christian, half muslim, ……………maybe he should occupy half the White House.”

    Half a breath of fresh air and half that of foul air, that mulatto.

  351. Simon Thong Says:

    Just had a chat with an American, visiting…Obama, in his view, is like the rest of the politicians in Washington; he doesn’t have the interests of Americans at heart, just those of his party. That makes Obama better than 90% of Presidents/Prime Ministers/Dictators, who care only about their own interests. Slightly better.

  352. wits0 Says:

    “Slightly better.”?

    Plenty worse elsewhere, this empty suit.

  353. end_is_near Says:

    Obsequious black slave has been bowing to his Masters:

    President Obama greeted the king of Saudi Arabia with a full bow from the waist yesterday, a move one commentator described as a violation of protocol and not worthy of the office he holds.

    “I am quite certain that this is not the protocol, and is most unbecoming a president of the United States,” writes Clarice Feldman in an American Thinker commentary.

    The situation developed as leaders of the world attending the G20 summit in London assembled for a photograph to mark the event.

    In this first image, after the king extended his hand while Obama approached, Obama bends from the waist until his head is nearly at the monarch’s waist.

  354. Robert Says:

    So, incognito, if the Clinton surplus was smoke & mirrors then would you call those checks that Bush sent to everyone…to return the surplus to the people….fiscal prudence? If it was never there, they why did Bush do that?

  355. Robert Says:

    Well, end is near, I would prefer to shake his hand and bow than kiss his greasy face and hold his hands like Georgie Boy licks, er, likes to do.

  356. Robert Says:

    Well Scott you met an American expressing his own opinion. Once more – Opinion; and there’s 330,000,000 of us here who may probably differ on some issue now and then.

  357. Robert Says:

    Health Care is going to pass this Sunday. Heh, heh, heh. So you all can swing around and the trees and gibber all day. One thing is certain, Scott. This blog is great for laughs.

  358. Simon Thong Says:

    I met an American, not Scott.

  359. Simon Thong Says:

    swing around the trees and gibbber all day..thanks for the reminder about obama.

  360. end_is_near Says:

    “..I would prefer to shake his hand and bow than kiss his greasy face and hold his hands..”

    We know you would

  361. Robert Says:

    Gee, Simon! Sorry I always forget about you being there! Hard to tell one monkey from the other, know what I mean?

  362. Simon Thong Says:

    I know just what you mean…an ugly american with his adorable monkey of a president mistake bananas for monkeys.

  363. wits0 Says:

    Obama is Monkee and America will suffer from buyers regret at an accelerated pace.

  364. Robert Says:

    No problem, Simon, I understand. You sound like a real tolerant man of the world. Please share your travel stories with us and tell us all about life in the USA and how you came to your knowledgeable conclusions, please!

    wits0 – Is an excellent and totally accurate self description.

  365. Simon Thong Says:

    You keep reading and coming to the wrong conclusions, but you keep saying that you know what is meant, and that you’re misunderstood. Can’t help you any more, duke.

  366. wits0 Says:

    “Can’t help you any more, duke.”

    You can’t ever help a LLL dude, Simon.

  367. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I was away, attending a short course last week. Robert is super in “words gymnastics”, word play, play of words. However he has yet to answer my simple previous questions..for example (one of the question that I asked: is it confirmed by modern science, and can be proven in lab..or re-expriment to prove man’s origin is “from monkey..”). As far as Darwin theory is concerned..it has NEVEN been proven in any lab in any parts of the world. So the so-called theory (hypothesis/hunch?)..remain unproven..but believe by some people..including our atheist friends Robert, and Ron here. You see..people believe in something which their scientists themselves could’t confirm it.. Ponder it yourself..you believe in heresay (even though you called it a “theory”).

  368. tukartiub Says:

    Muslims know Allah changed the Jews into apes and pigs.

  369. atem Says:

    Geneva, March 20, 2010
    Atom smasher sets record

    Operators of the world’s largest atom smasher on Friday ramped up their massive machine to three times the energy ever previously achieved, in the run-up to experiments probing the secrets of the universe.

    The European Organisation for Nuclear Research, or CERN, said beams of protons circulated at 3.5 trillion electron volts in both directions around the 27-km tunnel housing the Large Hadron Collider under the Swiss-French border at Geneva.

    The next major development is expected in a few days when CERN starts colliding the beams in a new round of research to examine the tiniest particles and forces within the atom in hopes of finding out more about how matter is made up.

    The collider in December had already eclipsed the record of the next most powerful machine, the Tevatron at Fermilab outside Chicago, which has been running just shy of a trillion electron volts, or TeV.

    The extra energy in Geneva is expected to reveal even more about the unanswered questions of particle physics, such as the existence of dark energy and matter. Scientists hope also to approach on a tiny scale what happened in the first split seconds after the Big Bang, which they theorize was the creation of the universe some 14 billion years ago.

  370. hahahaha Says:

    Even the Administration’s Chief Actuary at HHS cannot provide cost analysis of latest Democrat health spending bill before the vote

    Chief Actuary: ‘I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.’

    http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_Id=cbd6f99a-426d-4635-bde1-f28d1afbc057

    it`s not even worth the paper it`s printed on

  371. hahahaha Says:

    Ring aroses in congress,

    March 20 (Bloomberg) — Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are “nuts” to think tomorrow’s vote on health-care legislation will resolve the issue.

    If the measure passes, Senate Republicans have enough votes on at least two points of order to alter the measure and send it back to the House for a second round of votes, Hatch said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abC_cO2_URXA

  372. Scott Thong Says:

    Health Care is going to pass this Sunday. Heh, heh, heh. – Robert

    Socialized healthcare has shown a dismal performance in Britain and Canada.

    The US government in general has shown a dismal performance in managing the DMV, postal service, Social Security, Medicare, etc.

    The Obama Administration in particular has shown a dismal performance in executing the Stimulus and Cash for Clunkers.

    Take all three combined, and you seriously expect that Obamacare will do more good than harm? For an atheist, you sure do show a lot of faith!

  373. infirmary Says:

    The $2.59 trillion of Treasury Department sales since the start of 2009 have created a glut as the budget deficit swelled to a post-World War II-record 10 percent of the economy and raised concerns whether the U.S. deserves its AAA credit rating. The increased borrowing may also undermine the first-quarter rally in Treasuries as the economy improves.

    “It’s a slap upside the head of the government,” said Mitchell Stapley, the chief fixed-income officer in Grand Rapids, Michigan, at Fifth Third Asset Management, which oversees $22 billion. “It could be the moment where hopefully you realize that risk is beginning to creep into your credit profile and the costs associated with that can be pretty scary.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYUeBnitz7nU

  374. bmg Says:

    “For an atheist, you sure do show a lot of faith!”

    They are keeping a Black Monkee God.

    http://www.physorg.com/news180367535.html

  375. wits0 Says:

    “They are keeping a Black Monkee God.”

    Except that this one is not Hanuman, certainly not as noble. That the Bill got scrapped through makes him a black and white Gibbon rather than a Mandrill baboon.

  376. Scott Thong Says:

    As far as your opinion on what you assume to be “facts and reality”. When you listen or watch Fox the polls are against Obama yet MSNBC sources say the opposite. Yes, polls – schmolls. I would rather see the results and that will occur on Sunday barring unforeseen events. – Robert

    That’s odd, and here I thought I was looking at the CBO calculations and raw statistics. Darn that sneaky, reality-altering Karl Rove!

    Thank you, incognito, for your links. But everyone knows that the WSJ is a mouthpiece for Bristol Palin!!!111one!

  377. Scott Thong Says:

    So, incognito, if the Clinton surplus was smoke & mirrors then would you call those checks that Bush sent to everyone…to return the surplus to the people….fiscal prudence? If it was never there, they why did Bush do that? – Robert

    http://www.redplanetcartoons.com/index.php/2007/11/04/the-bush-economy/

    October 2007

    The U.S. budget deficit fell to the lowest level in five years last week, but three of America’s leading newspapers — the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times — couldn’t find the space to mention the dramatic drop.

    Journalists who have spent years trashing President Bush’s tax cuts appeared to suddenly lose interest when the budget picture brightened. That’s not surprising, however, considering that mainstream reporters frequently ignore upbeat economic news…

    Despite the pessimistic attitude of the press, the U.S. economy keeps ticking. Last week’s encouraging news about the deficit was another indication that the economy is prospering thanks to Bush’s tax cuts, which encouraged economic growth and, as a result, brought in higher revenues to the federal treasury…

    The deficit now stands at $163 billion or 1.2 percent of the economy. That’s half of the 40-year average of 2.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By comparison, during former President Ronald Reagan’s administration, the deficit averaged 4.2 percent of GDP.

    For three consecutive years under Bush, the deficit has fallen by $250 billion, putting the federal treasury on course for a surplus in 2012.

    The Laffer Curve is a hoax created by James Cameron!!!!!!!

  378. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Robert, I know science tells us our brain controls or activates our body’s systems. However, it is unclear to me..(as my teacher didn’t elaborate further).. what controls the brain ? I heard doctors sometimes proclaimed the brain was dead…or so. To me, this is the proof that the brain has no control over itself (it is somehow true..it manages the body’s activities/ system?)

    You have not made it clear to everyone also..whether science confirmed (or not)..that Darwin’s “monkey theory” can be re-experiment in on any lab, or never been proven ? Never?. So..you believe in anything which is NOT or NEVER been proven ? You believe in falsehoods, hearsays? Mind you..!

    The other thing you have yet to tell us is..whether science also confirmed already ..any lifeless matter..inanimate matter could turn to life ? I imagine how..for example..dust, sand or amino acid turns life (I talking about the appearance of the first ever life billion of yrs ago..). So, my questions are so simple, straight foward, no complicated ones.

    I need “yes” or “no” anwsers only. “probably”, “possible”, “”likely” answers won’t help. TQ

  379. Simon Thong Says:

    Yes, I would like answers to Nasaei Ahmad’s questions, too.

  380. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Hi Robert, we missed you..

    Perhaps you are so hectic with new undertakings..don’t you?

  381. Simon Thong Says:

    “Man who has undertakings: Undertaker.”

  382. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I like that great wrestling actor Undertaker..

    However..I keep wondering..about Robert’s science.

    Thomas Alva Edison’s, Gallileo’s, Newton’s and Einstein’s theory are all proven to be true and can be tested in labs to prove it true. But Darwin’s
    nonsensical theory..(monkey turned human) NEVER been proven to be correct, CANNOT be proved by peer scientists. Yet SOME smart people believe it. I simply can’t understand how those people believe in “falshoodness”. Really.

  383. wits0 Says:

    Robert came from apes ; I’m sure I didn’t.

  384. Simon Thong Says:

    But before that, at the beginning, from one cell…

  385. wits0 Says:

    “At the beginning’ or “In the beginning” are convenient terms limited by our own human understanding.

    http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/avijit/buddist_QM.htm

  386. wits0 Says:

    If there be “a beginning”, it means that there was “a time” before that.

  387. Robert Says:

    Nasaei,

    Yes, No, Yes, Yes, No, Yes, No. Yes, Yes, Yes, No, Brain, Yes, No.

    Arrange them in any manner you like because that is what you will do anyway.

    You ask questions that require the understanding of the science in itself. I attempt to help you by showing you a direction so you may read and understand but you choose to ignore that and continue with your completely wrong idea that Darwin suggested we evolved from monkeys. I don’t know if you’re just being snotty, or you are really that far out of the educational loop or you are, as a saying goes here in the USA, playing “dumb like a Fox.” You choose to remain in ignorance and that is the real sin.

    Simon, you couldn’t find your butt in a dark room with both hands and a flash light.

    And if any of you creationist proponents bothered to actually read Darwin’s theory you would know that he never said that we evolved from monkey’s or ape’s. He proposed his theory in the 19th century and in order to explain what earlier man may have looked like he used the comparison of an “ape-like creature” to his later and continuing chagrin, because the populace, mostly christian and hopping mad took that out of context as you do now and parrot “Man from apes!”

    But judging by your obstinate insistence to the contrary, one may think we did evolve from apes and monkeys.

  388. tess1410 Says:

    “But judging by your obstinate insistence to the contrary, one may think we did evolve from apes and monkeys.”

    Hahahaha FINALLY well said

  389. say_what? Says:

    This one sure looks like an ape/monkey

    http://www.google.com.my/imglanding?q=ahmad%20said%20hamdan&imgurl=http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/images/stories/2009aug3/ahmad-aug5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://national-express-malaysia.blogspot.com/2009_08_05_archive.html&h=326&w=250&sz=13&tbnid=H5wEhDstN5sWrM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=90&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dahmad%2Bsaid%2Bhamdan&hl=en&usg=__AV3CefGN_l5KzkLyIzugplSSGeo=&ei=pieqS8jILILHrAfwhaigAg&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=15&ct=image&ved=0CDkQ9QEwDg&start=0#tbnid=H5wEhDstN5sWrM&start=12

  390. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert is full of _____. He acts like he knows so much. Patronising. Very american old style, old age..yes, THAT old. Very american period in suffering from verbal diarrhoea. Can’t hold a discussion. Can’t even swear profanely anymore either, coz of the filter on the blog, haha..But whether swearing or being insulting, not creative at all…like monkeys and apes, limited in ability to learn. Insult him and he parrots (apes) your insult. No sense of humour. Can’t understand a joke, can’t understand that we’re pulling his chain with the Darwin and man from the apes stuff! just like monkeys can’t…

    Monkey hear swear words, monkey speak…

  391. Robert Says:

    Bravo, Simon! Very original. I’m sure the sheep in your flock all follow your playground logic. “I know you are but what am I?” is so old. I’m still waiting to hear a joke from you, Simon. All you seem to do in here is whine, complain and insult; then whine some more when someone responds accordingly.

    Good one, say_what.

  392. wits0 Says:

    Good old American chicken soup is good for everyone – undisputable.
    Stanley Miller’s primeval soup is Robert’s equivalent.

    They had Rasputin’s phallus preserved in formalin. Maybe Robert has Darwin’s starched beard preserved like Buddha’s tooth relic in Sri Lanka.

  393. Ron Says:

    The crationist’s guide to debating evolution:.

    Set up strawmen; equivocate; introduce a faulty premise; appeal to authority, the masses, and tradition; make hasty generalizations; employ special pleading; use circular logic; beg the question; present opinions as fact; create false dilemmas; attribute things to false causes; shift the onus of proof; appeal to fear; and when all else fails… resort to ad hominem.

  394. Robert Says:

    True to your name Zero Wits.

  395. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron, not sure if ad hominem is possible with you, considering your ancestry (amoeba or ape?). Robert, no sense of humour, uptight and not able to understand what he reads (failure of English teachers).

    Both Ron and Robert say they hate Scott’s blog but keep coming back: Just like two robins chasing the sun, Like two moths to a flame…Recognise the lyrics, guys?

  396. bleep Says:

    Professor Leclerc said that too many opponents of Darwin – above all Creationists – had mistakenly claimed that his theories were “totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality”, as did proponents of Intelligent Design.

    Darwin’s theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, Monsignor Ravasi insisted. His rehabilitation had begun as long ago as 1950, when Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans. In 1996 John Paul II said that it was “more than a hypothesis”.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece

  397. Simon Thong Says:

    My objection is not to evolution as a science but to the theory of evolution as a philosophy masquerading as science. The former does not contradict Christian faith or the Creation passages. The latter does. Atheists like Ron and Robert have not made a distinction between the two. Instead of explaining, they merely pontificate, thus failing to win over any minds. Arrogant, they think that a simple claim of “I know better than you coz I know my science” is enough to browbeat others into submission to their faith in (the wrong) science.

    I put little worth to whatever the R. Catholic church says..

  398. wipro Says:

    okey. but there are more than 1 billion of them also…..same like muslims

  399. Simon Thong Says:

    Yea, more than 1 billion catholics..many lapsed catholics, several (more?) paedophile-priests.

  400. wits0 Says:

    1 billion catholics does not mean that they (all) subscribe to an oppressive Demiurge.
    Demiurge, def: A subordinate deity, in some philosophies the creator of the universe. Re: Book of John wrt ‘Word’ and ‘God’.

    Nor do I regard the Dalai Lama as THE infallible authority in his area.

    Darwin, the Robert’s icon, is so frayed. Imagine a Freud being the last word in that field!

  401. Simon Thong Says:

    Perhaps his defence of Darwin was a Freudian slip?

    Although Darwin did not mean to propagate a fraudulent ape-to-man theory, this is what has happened; think of all the scientists who were searching for the missing link. Unintended consequences.

  402. Ron Says:

    Simon squawks:

    “Both Ron and Robert say they hate Scott’s blog but keep coming back: Just like two robins chasing the sun, Like two moths to a flame…Recognise the lyrics, guys?”

    No can you hum a few bars?

    And who said anything about hate? Just chalk it up as a divine test of your faith.

    Besides, I think Scott enjoys the verbal sparring, not to mention the added traffic which raises his google stats. Without the atheist counterpoint, this blog would become a virtual echochamber of like-minded drones and sink into oblivion.

    So it’s actually a blessing in disguise.

    The lawd sure moves in mysterious ways.

  403. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Thanks Robert. So…the “ultimate” answer is..”Darwin didn’t say we originated from apes/monkeys..”. I agree. I believe. Therefore..the theory was not about a Freudian slip” but..to certain extent..it could be classified as science fraternity’s “fraudulent” theory, a lie, or a “cheating.” An insult to man’s intellect.

    Everybody believes in evolution e.g. millions of yrs ago, many of earth surfaces or lands were covered by sea water. People in my village dug their well and found many sea shells in the muds, 6 meters down. That was 35 km from the sea. In some parts of the world, there were glaciers, erosions, water activities..and even winds like in deserts that made the surface ‘evolved’. However we don’t believe monkey became man. No proof in that. Monkey populations keep expanding..non of them turned man..as we witnessed for thousand of years.

  404. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Robert mentioned previously..perhaps one reasons he could not believe in scripture (vs. science) is that..according to him..Bible (roughly)says from time of Adam till now is 6,000 yrs which is inccorrect because as we all know, Homo Sapien and Homo Erectus aged approximately.or oround 1 million yrs. (Recently new excavation finding found in Eithopia of human remains aged more than 2 millions yrs old.

    Some people said, ancient Jews/ Egyptians had difficulty in letter zero. Zero did not exist at that time. If, 2 or 3 zeros were missing from the 6, it means differently 600,000 is possible for man first existence/ appearance. I don’t know..

    However Quran doesn’t say any year, or specific time of Adam settlement on earth.

  405. Ron Says:

    Actually the Bible doesn’t state the earth is 6000 years old. That number was formulated by an archbishop during the 17th century.

    I can’t speak directly for Robert, but the things I find implausible are:

    – talking snakes
    – talking bushes
    – talking donkeys
    – unicorns
    – satyrs
    – 969 year old men
    – virgin births
    – pregnancy after menopause
    – zombies
    – city walls crumbling after a seven day parade and trumpet solos
    – floating zoos
    – floating axes
    – giants
    – superhuman strength attributable to long hair
    – living inside the belly of a big fish
    – suspending both the earth’s and moon’s motion to win battles
    – 11-year-old fathers
    – sons who are two years older than their father (Ahazia)
    – moon-stroke
    – shadows on sundials can move backwards
    – stars can fall from heaven

  406. Scott Thong Says:

    Some of those I can say are misreadings or taking figures of speech literally.

    Others I can say are miracles, where the supposed impossibility of such a thing is kind of the point.

    Of those miracles, many are your interpretations of how they can be achieved and are not actually explicitly detailed.

    A few have me wondering what you’re actually referring to under the snark.

    And I would have to say, what’s so flabbergasting about a talking donkey really, compared to the claim of an infinite extradimensional being?

    And you’re probably right about the echo-chamber oblivion thing. LGF seems to be (barely) living proof.

  407. stake Says:

    “Therefore..the theory was not about a Freudian slip” but..to certain extent..it could be classified as science fraternity’s “fraudulent” theory, a lie, or a “cheating.” An insult to man’s intellect.”

    Utter nonsense

  408. wits0 Says:

    To, similarly burden Man with the idea of a medieval Demiurge is also, ” An insult to man’s intellect.”

    Whatever was Niccolo Machiavelli’s personal beliefs and intention in writing, “The Prince”, his name has become associated with Machiavellianism to mean all that’s deceitful and cunning in human politics.

  409. Robert Says:

    I can’t help but think that these conversations could be in any coffee shop in the world among friends who differ in opinion but revel in the comradery. Much can be said for eye contact and body language, however. Where Simon alluded to me missing the humor it can very well be. Were we face to face that aspect of the conversation would not have been lost. We would arrive at our points more definitively.

    Nasaei, there was no ‘science fraternity’ that built any form of consensus when Darwin proposed his theory. Perhaps I am mistaken by what you mean. Unless you are referring to the following 150+ years of accumulated [and continuing] data which supports it? Of course, you would realize that if you follow up on it. And no, that is not the ‘ultimate’ answer. Those take years of study, observation, work and are rarely achieved. Clearly, life doesn’t require magic to form and propagate.

  410. oofs Says:

    “Clearly, life doesn’t require magic to form and propagate.”

    Flying horses will do nicely, thank you “Bigger than a donkey but smaller than a mule. Long ears and two wings on the thighs.”

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/buraq-hussein-obama/

  411. Ron Says:

    Scott, are you saying that you interpret the Bible stories as allegory?

  412. Scott Thong Says:

    Scott, are you saying that you interpret the Bible stories as allegory? – Ron

    Not at all. Especially for events reported as ‘history’, I take the majority of them as being literal. I mean, there’s nothing amazing about walking across a shallow inland sea that was already dried up due to drought, or Jesus got well-stocked people to share their food with the rest of the 5000 – why would any of the Israelites feel that YHWH had any intervention in those cases?

    However, in certain cases it is quite clear that a figure of speech is being used. For example, when the Gospels say that ‘all Judea’ came to hear John the Baptist and be baptized, is the first reflex to understand it as every single man, woman, child, infant, invalid and geriatric in the whole region showed up and got baptized – including the Pharisees? Or to understand it as the whole physical terrain of Judea uprooted itself and flew to where John was, rocks and trees and mountains included?

    To wit, in ‘Everybody Loves Raymond’, not everybody loves Raymond.

    So let’s look at ‘stars falling from heaven’ which is what I was referring to specifically. Does the writer mean it literally, using 20th-century scientifically-accurate terms? Was he relating a contemporary occurrence to an audience of trained astronomers, rather than a prophecy received in a vision to slaves and exiles? Don’t laypeople today still refer to meteor showers as ‘falling stars’ even if they know that they are actually chunks of rock and ice?

  413. stake Says:

    “walking across a shallow inland sea that was already dried up due to drought,”

    When Napoleon set his army in motion, Bourienne recorded,

    On the morning of the 28th we crossed the Red Sea dry shod…Near the port the Red Sea is not above 1,500 meters wide, and is always fordable at low water…at high tide the water rises five or six feet at Suez, and when the wind blows fresh it often rises nine or ten feet. [11]

    Napoleon was almost drowned in the rising tide.

    http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/scholarship98/c_palestine.html

  414. Simon Thong Says:

    There are also proverbs, parables, poems, prophecy..this list is not exhaustive.

  415. Robert Says:

    Thankfully, fiction novels have improved over time.

  416. Simon Thong Says:

    the novel of amoeba to man remains warped science fiction of the lowest order…

  417. Robert Says:

    And all creation myths are pure fantasy.

    Now, Simon, you know that there is more evidence in support of Evolution than creation. The dividing factor will always remain the same, fact versus faith. I do respect that, believe it or not, until some loonies start cutting off heads and claiming they have a divine right to do so.

  418. morning star Says:

    There was a time when everything was still. All the spirits of the earth were asleep – or almost all. The great Father of All Spirits was the only one awake. Gently he awoke the Sun Mother. As she opened her eyes a warm ray of light spread out towards the sleeping earth. The Father of All Spirits said to the Sun Mother,

    “Mother, I have work for you. Go down to the Earth and awake the sleeping spirits. Give them forms.”

    http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_13.html

  419. Robert Says:

    Thank you for sharing that, morning star. That was very beautiful and I will follow your link.

  420. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert, evidence for WHICH evolution? The creation accounts are statements of faith, so how would you – a man of no faith, a man with no ability to perceive spiritual truths, lesser than a man – understand or believe them?

  421. Ron Says:

    Scott, I was referring to the passage in which Jesus says:

    “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken (Mathew 24:29)”

    Why couldn’t the ‘author of the universe’ just say huge chunks of rock and ice will collide with the earth? Here was a perfect opportunity for Jesus to set the astronomical record straight: “Look guys, those things you call ‘shooting stars’ are not really stars. They’re called meteorites — the billions of pieces my dad had left over because he decided to assemble the universe without following the instructions. Oh!…and another thing… the moon does not produce its own light, but reflects light from the sun.”

    Or course that still leaves the prickly problem of explaining how you darken a gigantic fusion reactor called the sun.

  422. Simon Thong Says:

    ..that still leaves the prickly problem of explaining how you darken a gigantic fusion reactor called the sun.

    No problem if your God is the Creator. In Cantonese, we say “sa sap soi”. But then, your mind must be big enough to hold such a big concept of God!

  423. Robert Says:

    Yea Ron! If you’re God you can throw a boat over a hedge or, or, or make a fish you can’t catch or, or, or any ridiculous thing Simple Simon can think of and still be clever enough to toss in an insult when you’re finished!

    We have found the missing link, and it is Simon!

  424. Robert Says:

    Hey, Simon! Is that short for ‘simian’ or are you normally this profound? Is it farther to California or by plane? Do you walk to work or carry your lunch? Do you vacation in the mountains or in the summer?

    I think I’m beginning to follow your logic, Simon. With a little more practice, I think that I too may believe in fairies and goblins one day!

    Oh and don’t forget. Easter is nearly upon us so don’t forget to clip your toe nails and put them under your pillow so the Easter Bunny will leave you chocolate.

  425. Simon Thong Says:

    We have Easter, no Bunny, no need to especially clip toe nails..are those what you grew up with? We have an empty cross and songs of joy for the Risen Lord at church service.

    Men with pea-sized brains who resort to petty riddles, silly insinuations and childish insults are NOT rational atheists. The atheists I know have adult intellects and mature personalities.

  426. wits0 Says:

    “The atheists I know have adult intellects and mature personalities.”

    Hehehe, this one here also knows that Simon’s name came from Jesus’ disciple, Peter(who was also called Simon). How come Simian is suggested? If you wanna insult, know ye that that’s an art too, not a weapon easily well wielded by swollen headed loonies.

    I don’t share the Thong’s Creationist belief but I’m completely adverse to the LLL types.

  427. Simon Thong Says:

    Those guys are blunt and crude, ugly americans? (at least one is), and think that they are macho..but they come across as simple-minded, uncouth retards; or rednecks? or hill-billies?…and suddenly some logic comes from one of them (which makes me have a teeny-weeny hope that, under all that bluster is a person, a thinking-feeling person) :)

  428. Simon Thong Says:

    I lived in NZ in 1976-82, and met many who were ignorant of what christian faith meant. Quite a few atheists, too. It seemed to me then, that those who were 2nd or 3rd generation christians never discovered personal faith. It is true that God the father has children (born again of the Holy Spirit), but no born-again grandchildren. Each one has to be confronted and make his own decision. It was so with me in Malaysia. My parents were first generation born-again believers. I had to find my own pesonal faith. I was not forced to attend church. I went for a year at 8, for sunday school, and never went to church again till 14. My own children made their own choice also. We avoid having nominal christians.

  429. Simon Thong Says:

    Reading what some people write, you will realise that their knowledge and experience of God is second-hand, and often negative in nature. They went to church, or to catholic schools, or had superficial contacts with christians, and then rejected God. I knew a man in NZ who fought in the 1st World War, fought in the artillery, and had his mates die on his left, on his right, in front of him and behind him. Blown up. He survived trench warfare and artillery bombardment..Returning to NZ, he went to church as usual (a habit), married his childhood sweetheart, had children, but never prayed. From the end of WW1 till 1980, he never prayed. It didn’t work, he said. I became the student-pastor of the little church he went to in 1980. One day, he told me that he had started praying again. For me. That was wonderful. And humbling. I, his pastor, needed his prayer so badly! He had found personal faith again. He would be 110 if he were alive today.

  430. Simon Thong Says:

    He would be 115, not 115, if he were alive today. My friend, Colin. The only one he told his WW1 experiences to.

  431. Robert Says:

    Here we come full circle again. So Simon, you have first hand knowledge and experience with your god? How long were you dead before you came back to share your divine knowledge with us? Which one is it? Why would it create living, thinking, breathing beings to live under threat of eternal damnation if they don’t worship it? What do they do in this heaven after say 6 billion years of steady worship? Do they eat? Is the experience an eternity of constant bliss? Are there alternate realities and universe’s? What is the Unified Law of Physics? Your god apparently does not get angry with you for insulting others and your humility evidently does not exist to prevent you from getting angry when they insult you in response so is your god as petty as you are? And you’re a clergy member? That is actually expected and not shocking because you do fit the classic condescending and hypocritical profile of most clergy. How can one have faith in something that doesn’t exist? Since you have first hand knowledge and experience then who is the one true god? Jesus? Allah? Zeus? Thor? Bill Gates?
    If a Muslim wants to cut off your head because you worship Jesus will you meet him in heaven when he dies because the both of you pleased the same god? How do you reconcile your faith in the face of so many conflicting religions of history? What makes your faith more real than the myths of the past? If you are so divinely inspired then why do you have your ‘take’ on me so completely wrong?

    Wow! Witless knows who Simon Peter was! I learned that one in first grade. Tried to see things from your perspective but I could not get my head that far up my butt.

  432. Simon Thong Says:

    That’s silly, robert, reading into things, fell right into the pit you yourself dug..I’m not clergy. Yes, really full circle..so much to say, all trivial, all demonstrating the fact that you are spiritually tone deaf. And suffers from verbal diarrhoea. I insult very few people, and if you feel insulted, it’s because you’re someone I choose to insult: you deserve it. Oh, don’t like it when the boot is on the other foot? What a hypocrite you are. What a poor loser.

  433. Simon Thong Says:

    You mean that you, robert, “learned man of atheism”, don’t understand the spiritual truth of being born again? You sound just like Nicodemus talking to Jesus!

  434. Simon Thong Says:

    No wonder that you are still argung over peripheral issues when the central truth confronts you; robert, open yourself to hear the truth of the gospel of jesus Christ

  435. Simon Thong Says:

    clergy and atheists have so much in common: condescending, hypocritical, arrogant, having the I-speak-you-listen attitude. I am not clergy but you are an atheist.

  436. Robert Says:

    So you are a Liar as well. That doesn’t surprise me either. And the correct phrase is “the shoe is on the other foot” not the “boot” but you ‘re a man of many talents that can now add “Liar’ to his list.

    You’re a foolish man, Simon. You don’t know me, where I have been, what I have seen and studied nor what or how deep I can think. I walk eyes wide open in the real world while you cower in fear and long for death so you dream you may enter a realm that doesn’t exist any further than your besotted imagination. You and those like you are the left over remnants of the ancient era of men. Frightened every moment of their lives and accepting the guilt and blame of some angry ghost who think they’ve displeased and must endure their wrath under falling stars, terra motto, tsunami, hurricane or drought. Clueless to any of the sciences you experience and are surrounded by. You don’t even know what fire is, you just use it and erroneously impute it with mystical powers greater than your own comprehension and attempt to lure those of even weaker minds with the falsehoods you preach to them.

    I’ve been around your kind long enough to know you are charlatans of the body and mind. Witchdoctors too lazy to study reality you mooch your living from the able for grandiose fantasies that you don’t believe in any more than an atheist does. Bloodsuckers on the weak and killers of any who oppose you. You have nothing to show, nothing to prove, nothing to share and nothing to give. A zero.

    Being born once in life is enough for me because I know who and what I am without needing some simpering crutch to blame for my shortcomings.

  437. wits0 Says:

    Robert recalls to my mind what Anne Coulter wrote about some Dems being like 6 yr olds calling another, “You idiot!”

    Somehow, consequent to his typical dissonance with all things Christians, he thinks Jihadis are lesser threat than his own Southern Baptists notwithstanding history and the reality of the present.

    Most wise Obamessiah’s followers indeed!

  438. Robert Says:

    Oh, it’s you again, witless. Tell us, Zero, do you live here in the USA or are you just talking out of your butt again?

  439. wits0 Says:

    Everyone talks out of their butts except some libs who are so progressive that they’ve liberated themselves from their brains.

  440. Robert Says:

    You should understand the meaning of words before you use them to expose your witless banter.

  441. wits0 Says:

    “All your understanding of words are belong to us” – Da Borg ala American Libs.

  442. Simon Thong Says:

    robert (lopak), type on your keyboard, and you show only self-destructive and witless raving anger. You’re so angry and so self-deceiving that when told the truth, you can’t believe it. I am NOT clergy. I WAS clergy. Can you tell the difference? No?

    Yes, I changed it to boot from shoe to stress how hard you got kicked intellectually. As for calling me a liar, is it because you’re constantly lying to yourself and others? Do you expect me to be like you? Well, call me a liar if you wish but here’s another proverb for you, modified like the last, “People in glass houses should only undress in the dark.” U’re stark naked, lopak.

    Wits0 has shown with his words that he is WITS COMPLETE, the 0 being a circle, complete in itself. The 0 he uses is merely a cover for his highly intelligent and creative self..or are you so thick that you couldn’t understand that nom de plume? Then you’re a Tai Kow Soi.

  443. Robert Says:

    You two are really stuck on each other. Do you hide in the closet together or what? That’s what right wing theists like to do. Hide their lies in shame. But at least here you are relatively anonymous so you can dare to be brazen with your genetic predispositions. Oh well.

    Odd. I always considered a zero…exactly that. Nothing. A null. Void. Zero.

    But you Simon, like the rest of the clergy, will attempt to B.S. your way out of every corner you paint yourself into. And it is so obvious that I think I should have pity for you rather than view you as comic relief.

    Time for bed, gents. You boys can go back to patting yourselves on the back and tickling each others brain bones in your mock victory and intellectual self deception. You’re both boring me to death here.

    Good night or whatever time of day it is over there in the jungle.

  444. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Pls be fair Robert..and Simon. Sparring barbed, whipping, hitting out hard at others is not the way. Robert frantically (and enjoys) hitting.. pls bury your manchete or hatchet..

    If one cannot prove anything..that doesn’t mean his believe or conviction/ faith is wrong..because you will never prove the ALL the truth of any religion in any science lab. Most religions say..you will only know your fate or truth..once you died. Personally I beleive (like the rest of Muslims do believe)..that God is testing man..to believe or not to believe. You’ll definitely responsible of you choice here..

    Science also CANNOT prove all things. Am I right ?

  445. wits0 Says:

    “Good night or whatever time of day it is over there in the jungle.”

    Snooty American Simian descendent believes we live in the jungle atop trees.

  446. Ron Says:

    Let’s say I wanted to cast aside all reason and become a monotheist. How would I choose which of the Abrahamic faiths is the correct one? Judaism has at least five sects. Islam has over 70 sects. Christianity has over 38,000 sects.

  447. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron, you’re dealing with peripherals…those are not even second steps, maybe third and fourth. The most important step is also the first step: let God into your heart, soul and life through the Holy Spirit. That is the crux of the matter. Don’t evade the issue.

  448. Simon Thong Says:

    Alas, poor Robert, ex-GI? vietnam war veteran? ugly american? A snooty and pretentious..feels-insulted-atheist coz some thirdworlders don’t accept his word as truth. He doesn’t realize he sounds just like a thirdworlder altho he may live in america. He thinks living there in the firstworld guarantees him a firstworld brain. I haven’t read enough reasoning from you to fill a tea spoon, lopak.

  449. Simon Thong Says:

    Nasaei, methinks robert isn’t quite enjoying himself any more..can’t you tell from the aimless and endless vitriol emerging from his keyboard these past few days? I hope he sleeps well, and won’t get feverish nightmares about all this. You know how it is: atheists NEVER EVER lose an argument. But his machete/parang can’t get through my body armour as he isn’t coping at all with the cuts from my scalpel.

  450. Ron Says:

    Well Simon, there’s the first problem. Neither the Jews nor the Muslims believe in the Holy Spirit or a trinity. So I need to know which faith is correct before I can make a proper choice. I wouldn’t want to end up worshiping the wrong deity.

  451. Robert Says:

    Have you explored the Native North American gods yet? I hear there are hundreds of them to choose from! ……and they are all “True”…..
    Careful, the “Thong Brothers” have a whole new approach to what “Truth” truthfully is and attempt to mask it in some quasi philosophical hyperbole. Verdad?

  452. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron, your line of inquiry is hypocritical. You don’t want an answer, just something to shoot at in the hope that you could shoot it down. Know yourself. I know you, so transparent.

    And Robert, barking up the wrong tree, with the Thong Brothers stuff.

  453. Ron Says:

    Actually, Simon is Scott’s father according to this post:

    scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/atheists-can-you-discount-every-single-testimony-of-miracles-and-answered-prayers

    (See the second last miracle, about the exorcist father who went to New Zealand.)

  454. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron is so much better at sleuthing…congrats, Ron. What took you so long?

  455. Ron Says:

    Truth be told, I’ve know it since Scott posted a link to that blog entry (in this thread) on Feb 18, 2010. (He later accused me of not having read it.)

  456. Ron Says:

    Simon accuses:

    “Ron, your line of inquiry is hypocritical. You don’t want an answer, just something to shoot at in the hope that you could shoot it down. Know yourself. I know you, so transparent.”

    In other words, you can’t answer the question.

  457. Robert Says:

    Thanks Ron. Just got back from that site after leaving my comments.

    Don’t flatter yourself, Simon. Few care what your relationship with Scott is besides yourself; yet now I am a less ignorant man.

  458. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron, the answers are not what you want; you just want targets to shoot at..attention to yourself for being such a good atheist, demonstrating your dog-like worship at the altar of a false science.

  459. Robert Says:

    In other words, Simon, you can’t answer Ron’s question.

  460. Simon Thong Says:

    Robert, don’t flatter yourself..you’re still the same ignorant person.

    You don’t know yourself. You may say that it doesn’t matter. You may actually believe that; but the fact that you kept harping on that relationship betrayed your pre-occupation with it. I wouldn’t say obsession; your obsession is over something else altogether.

  461. Simon Thong Says:

    I don’t give answers to people who are not looking for answers. Christ said, don’t cast pearls before swine..

  462. Robert Says:

    Ron, notice Simon’s fragmented thinking? It’s not like he can type and think at the same time. He will type down a thought and post it. Then the next brain storm hits and he posts that. It’s apparent he is reactive, often playing the reversal of the text. I suppose I should pity the old guy.

    That’s okay Simon. We understand. Have a cup of tea and relax a moment to collect your thoughts.

  463. Simon Thong Says:

    From recent experience, I’ve learnt that you can’t deal with two ideas at any one time. Or long paragraphs. Something to do with your poor comprehension skills; short posts are for your benefit. Call it christian charity. Definitely no pearls for you.

  464. Simon Thong Says:

    Dealing with you requires no brainstorm; nothing new, nothing surprising, and even the insults are run of the mill. Mostly tedium. I get more creativity from 18 year olds. Old is in your mind. Tea? Is that what’s rot your excuse of a brain?

  465. Ron Says:

    In all honesty, I truly empathize with Simon. Cognitive dissonance is a merciless beast.

    I know the struggles I went through before finally renouncing my own faith. Both parents were devoutly religious. Regular church service, Sunday school, prayer meetings, devotional gatherings, and family Bible readings featured heavily during the first 16 years of my life. Up until the age of twelve, I bought into the gospel wholesale. But by age 14, the doubts clouded in and grew persistently stronger. I desperately wanted to believe and asked youth ministers for guidance many times. Their advice was always the same: read the Bible and pray for god’s guidance — so I did. Redoubling my efforts, I read the Bible from cover to cover (including all the boring begats). However, the more I read, the less I believed.

    Somewhere around 16, I realized that my choice was clear — choose between the red pill or the blue one. It was not an easy decision, because religious dogma deliberately sets mental booby-traps — faith always trumps reason, divine revelation supersedes direct knowledge, subservience is more virtuous than self actualization — which can be easily triggered by people who press the right emotional buttons. My depression lasted for close to two years.

    Happily, I recovered and have lived a god-free existence for my entire adult life.

  466. Simon Thong Says:

    I would be guilty of Robert’s crime if I were to accuse you of being a liar but I won’t. You could be telling the truth or you could have lifted it straight off some place. I lean towards believing you. If it were robert, I would tend towards the other side. I think, ron, you mean that you truly emphatize with robert and others, particularly atheists, faced with cognitive dissonance.

  467. Simon Thong Says:

    I have run through the whole gamut of philosophy, sociology, psychology and natural science…the last, natural science, has provided the mildest challenge to faith. Suffice to say, there is no cognitive dissonance. Indeed, there is elective affinity between faith in Christ and reason.

    I know about limitedness, especially the finiteness of the human mind and the hubris of the human mind.

  468. Ron Says:

    “Whatever gets you thru your life it’s alright, it’s alright” –John Lennon

  469. Robert Says:

    Crime?

    Okay Simon. Let us bury the hatchet here and discuss the topic of this blog shall we? What was the purpose for creating it?

  470. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Ron, it is true there are many sects, in Christianity, Islam, Judaism..perhaps as a result of deviationist ‘leaders’.. They claimed to be leaders of of certain groups/ belief. In fact they are lost, deviated from the true teaching/path. Take for example, Islam prohibits killing, yet we find ‘suicide bombers’ etc ! Just imagine. However, the main group follow the true path. And not all sects are deviated (I’m talking about Islam, I don’t know much about other religions).

    The best way is to care to learn, read sufficiently..and ask the right people
    (If you want to know about Christianity, ask not the enemy, but clergy. Same to Islam. Many enemy of Islam interpret wrongly the teaching. The sources of your reading may influence.

    Read, learn, ask, study.. is the good things to do all of for us.

  471. Simon Thong Says:

    Quoting John Lennon, ron? Try one of the other Beatles: Yesterday, all my troubles seem so far away, Now it looks as though they’re here to stay, Oh I believe in yesterday.

    What’s the whole purpose of creating it, robert? Ask Scott. I came late on the scene, just a commenter…

  472. Robert Says:

    “Read, learn, ask, study.. is the good things to do all of for us.” That is basically what I asked you to do, Nasaei, concerning your questions about evolution. I even provided you a link to start. Have you?

  473. Robert Says:

    So tell me your comments on the topic of the blog, Simon that are revealed to you by divine inspiration.

  474. Simon Thong Says:

    No need for divine inspiration. Can’t you understand English? I know that the English in the blog is often hard but surely for someone who claims to have a high level of comprehension? Same advice you repeated: read, learn, ask, study…If you haven’t done so but made comments all this while..?

  475. Robert Says:

    So, in essence, you don’t know.

  476. Simon Thong Says:

    In essence, you (1) don’t know; or (2) are too lazy to read and learn; or (3) tried but could not understand; or want me to do the reading for you; or (5) all of the above.

  477. Ron Says:

    Simon, you completely missed the irony of the Lennon quote. He picked that phrase up from a televangelist.

  478. Ron Says:

    Robert, the purpose of this blog is to continuously bash atheists, Americans, homosexuals, liberals, and Obama on a rotating basis, under the umbrella of free speech using wordpress webservers located in the USA..

  479. wits0 Says:

    Ron :
    “Happily, I recovered and have lived a god-free existence for my entire adult life.”

    The gods that I have consult in a temple are not problems but may be helpful and are benevolent. They do not claim to own us.

    It’s the Monotheistic ‘God’ that is falling short because it’s a Man-Conceived Antropomorphic Insufficiency most of the time.

  480. Scott Thong Says:

    Why couldn’t the ‘author of the universe’ just say huge chunks of rock and ice will collide with the earth? Here was a perfect opportunity for Jesus to set the astronomical record straight – Ron

    You must remember who His audience was. To use another parable as example, it would have flown over the heads of the Jewish commoners if He had said that told them the smallest seed is from an epiphytic orchid, and the biggest tree is the sequoia – scientifically factual as that may be, no one in ‘all Judea’ would have known what they are.

    Jesus’ purpose was not to give lecture notes on the physical world, but to turn the listeners’ focus to heaven. I think you kinda answered your own question with the ‘explaining solar fusion’ part.

  481. Scott Thong Says:

    Here we come full circle again. So Simon, you have first hand knowledge and experience with your god? How long were you dead before you came back to share your divine knowledge with us? – Robert

    If I may ask… What would happen that could ever convince Ron and Robert, 100%, that God exists? Your own standard for ‘personal experience’, put it that way.

  482. Scott Thong Says:

    You two are really stuck on each other. Do you hide in the closet together or what? That’s what right wing theists like to do. Hide their lies in shame. – Robert

    Bold emphasis mine. So totally not spot on assumption… Especially since wits0 already said something about this earlier, several times in fact. I’ll let him explain why personally.

  483. Scott Thong Says:

    Let’s say I wanted to cast aside all reason and become a monotheist. How would I choose which of the Abrahamic faiths is the correct one? Judaism has at least five sects. Islam has over 70 sects. Christianity has over 38,000 sects. – Ron

    Inter-denominational.

  484. Scott Thong Says:

    Okay Simon. Let us bury the hatchet here and discuss the topic of this blog shall we? What was the purpose for creating it? – Scott

    Oo, I know, I know!

  485. Robert Says:

    Hello Scott!
    Welcome back. I guess I didn’t give your pappy enough to copy, paste and edit and repeat back what I wrote to him for response. Did he blow a gasket? Reminds me of a joke:

    Now that we danced around the issue and got sidetracked into the rut of personal insults, may I ask a simple question and get an intelligent answer versus the childish one you just provided? Or am I to believe that the answer you just gave is the correct answer? Snide, vain, condescending and childish? That appears to be the running theme in all of your blogs. Pose some ridiculous question to lure atheists, quote scripture and toss around some philosophical platitudes and tired bromides until you run out of impressive second hand vocabulary then insult and condescend, since you really have no ground, proof or wit to understand and refute any of their questions or responses. And in this case, your pappy would be apt to say that I am the one who is doing exactly that. And that’s his response. Like father, like son.

    Have a nice day. Try to stay dry.

    Ron and I gave what I thought was pretty good argument and posed legitimate questions only to be treated with derision and disrespect. When I return the disrespect, naturally, it is met with animosity and returned with a more vehement response to the degree of what would appear to be haggling for the best come back, which is actually funny in a way, reminiscent of my teenage years and our group of friends tossing insults, elaborating with each response to top the last.

  486. Ron Says:

    Scott says:

    “You must remember who His audience was. To use another parable as example, it would have flown over the heads of the Jewish commoners…”

    Let’s stick to this parable for a moment. Rocks and chunks of ice ‘falling from the heavens’ would not have been a foreign concept to his audience. I’m pretty sure the commoners had all seen rocks and ice before.

    “Jesus’ purpose was not to give lecture notes on the physical world, but to turn the listeners’ focus to heaven. I think you kinda answered your own question with the ‘explaining solar fusion’ part.”

    For me, Jesus’ lack of scientific credibility casts doubt on his metaphysical knowledge as well.

    “If I may ask… What would happen that could ever convince Ron and Robert, 100%, that God exists? Your own standard for ‘personal experience’, put it that way.”

    An instantaneous appearance to everyone on earth and healing all the amputees and terminally ill people would do it for me.

    “Inter-denominational.”

    How do you reconcile holding multiple conflicting beliefs at the same time? And on a more personal level, didn’t you bash Obama extending his hand to other faiths (including atheists) during his inaugural address.

  487. Robert Says:

    Well Ron, one thing appears to be certain. Right wing conservatives tend to be the same on a global scale with a central theme of ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’ [or-Think as I think and say what I say-trust me or suffer the consequences] among other things. If the world gets any more ‘Christian Love’ then certainly those of us who manage to survive need to plan for a nuclear winter.

  488. Simon Thong Says:

    ron, you misled me, quoting john lennon but not revealing his source, but it doesn’t matter; no harm done except to your reputation: ron, untrustworthy atheist, will use anything to win; win at all costs..so how many stories have you made up so far?

  489. Simon Thong Says:

    Poor little spoilt firstworld brats..GIMME GIMMEE GIMMEE what I want or I won’t play with you. Gimme me MY demands and I won’t believe in God..sniffle, sniffle…that’s how you come across, ron and robert.

    If you’re so smart, and now believe that scott’s blog is to lure atheists, how come you got caught and are still hooked? I wouldn’t say he caught a couple of big fish. Rather that he caught two pint sized sharky types out to pick on what are perceived to be easy targets. All christians are easy targets, right?

  490. Ron Says:

    How did I mislead you? The information is readily available to anyone with internet access and a willingness to use a search engine.

  491. wits0 Says:

    “For me, Jesus’ lack of scientific credibility casts doubt on his metaphysical knowledge as well.” – Ron.

    Ppl also forgot to ask the Buddha directly whether the Earth was spheroid or flat. Does that mean therefore that the rest of the stuff he taught became invalidated?

    However there is a tale of the Buddha’s miracle by way of demonstrating his SuperNormal power by way of Siddhi(translated as Perfection, Accomplishment) where He” parted the Earth”, enabling the denizens of one end to see those at the other. Some may take that to imply that the earth was not flat, surely.

  492. Ron Says:

    Robert, the sad thing is that we have enough religious kooks right here in North America looking forward to the prophesied Armageddon and end times.

  493. Ron Says:

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” –Carl Sagan

    Sorry Simon, but the onus is on YOU to provide evidence for the existence of YOUR supernatural skydaddy.

  494. wits0 Says:

    “Armageddon and end times”?

    Ain’t gonna happen for a very very long time yet.

  495. Ron Says:

    wits0, if I weren’t an atheist, Buddhism would probably be my natural choice for religious beliefs.

  496. wits0 Says:

    Be warned, Ron, there are also many strutting big ego Buddhists around too! Hahaha. The sort that wears the raft(Dhamma) they used to cross the Great Stream with on their head all their lives!

  497. Ron Says:

    On second thought, Pastafarianism would be a better fit. A heaven filled with beer volcanoes and stripper factories is right up my alley. And who doesn’t love linguine with meatballs and marinara sauce?

    Hail Pastafari!! Ramen!

  498. Robert Says:

    Don’t forget the cheese, Ron, the cheese. Mozzarella, Parmesan, Romano and Provolone. Oops and the Italian Bread. That way the strippers can make us hot meat ball sandwiches and pizza with the leftovers. What? Say what? No left overs in Pastafarianirvana? Are there lazy boys, delis, and waitresses in togas with walls of TV’s tuned in to every sport on the planet? Oh, wait a minute, that’s Caesar’s Palace in Vegas. Got carried away.

    Notice how Simon responded in his standard sub-standard knee jerk insults? Talk about transparent.

  499. Ron Says:

    Cognitive dissonance in action. How can any sane person defend an idea not based in reality? With no logical basis from which to take a stand, the only options left are insults, threats, and ultimately (as history has shown us, repeatedly)… violence.

    Re: Caesar’s Palace

    FSM, in His Infinite Wisdom saw fit to provide us with an earthly foretaste of the all the wonderful things to come. We are truly blessed by His Noodly Appendage.

  500. Simon Thong Says:

    I took you at face value, ron, and won’t do so again, now that I know you will say absolutely what is necessary to win. You don’t google everything, and neither do I. I try to be honest. We call that integrity. You are an atheist, no absolutes, reason pandering to your OWN whims, no integrity. Btw, still hooked, right? Where else could you go to get a hearing..so its addiction.

  501. Simon Thong Says:

    robert, you brought derision and disrespect upon yourself.

    ron, the proposals were made at the beginning of this blog, thet Physicists Believe in God, and the onus is on you and all atheists to prove your case against this thesis; like mad bulls you rushed at the red flag waved in your face only to fall into a miry pit….

  502. Ron Says:

    Posted after the first quote:

    “Note: The following are not all exact quotes. Some have been paraphrased.”

    Where’s the integrity in that?

  503. Simon Thong Says:

    robert, weren’t you the one who said, simon I wasn’t talking to you? and later, I’m an american, etc…was that the first time you showed your petulance? next thing we know, you’re engaging me with guns shooting;

    and weren’t the one who wanted to bury the hatchet? for 5 seconds? and then you brought out an axe?

    integrity, man, integrity..

  504. Simon Thong Says:

    God exists. Christians believe in Him. Atheists, A-Theists, come to disprove Him. Any success? No. Who are atheists? The disillusioned, for whatever reason. What is their prime purpose in life? To tear down, not to enlighten. Their method? Warped logic, passing off as reason. Their gods? Carl Sagan, et al. Their worshippers? robert, ron…Their last resort? Mocking..when warped logic fails, what else is there? Can’t admit that they have failed in their mission impossible. Main form of attack now that mission has failed: anything goes, including lies and blunt insults.

  505. Simon Thong Says:

    The integrity there is that Scott told readers what they were. He did not pass off all as direct quotes. In scholarly work, that is to be seen, though not as common. He made a distinction. You did not. Methinks, the story you spun about your childhood and youth is a good tale. Used to gain my empathy? Lull me to allow an underhand stab? Whatever, once bitten twice shy.

  506. Simon Thong Says:

    Don’t feel sore because no one has lost. I didn’t win anything. You haven’t lost anything. It seems to me that we are at a stalemate: and why should that be surprising? Our discussion is but one small episode in the debate. Still, one thing is important: you may win an argument, but lose a friend. We have had a prolonged series of arguments, point and counterpoint; thesis, antithesis though no synthesis; much repartee; personal insults; caustic remarks; what else? No one has apologised but is that necessary? Surely you must have enjoyed it, to return for more? And may this continue..

  507. Ron Says:

    Paraphrasing others thoughts to peddle a personal viewpoint is hardly making a case for the position that Physicists Believe in God.

    As for my story, it was an honest account of where I’m coming from. I won’t insist you believe it, but please note, I don’t ridicule your personal reflections or call you a liar.

    I note it’s now half past one in Malaysia. Before you get tucked in and dream pleasant thoughts of Yahweh, perhaps you should meditate on these verses:

    “Do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity.” (Ephesians 4:26)

    “My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.” (James 1:19-23)

    “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” (Ephesians 4:31-32)

    “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

    “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:14-21)

  508. Robert Says:

    And for my part, I apologize for calling you a liar and causing you any personal anguish. It is correct that we should discuss our points openly and honestly without undue provocation or emotional upheaval.

    Have a peaceful evening and perhaps we can start fresh on the topic at a later time.

  509. wits0 Says:

    Hardcore atheist versus “Science-leaning” Buddhist:
    God’s Existence and Buddhist philosophy: An Interesting Debate -4

    http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/avijit/buddist_QM4.htm

    ——————————————————————————-
    Somewhat informative but considerable patience required for the verbiage involved. :)

  510. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron, the post was to show physicists who believe in God, and that he agrees with those who believed. Limited but that was the intention as far as I could see. If people found that provocative, well, others did not. No anger on my part, and if my words imply that, not my intention.

    Robert, the recent past is past. A new start. With you, too Ron, a new start. Openness, sincereity, avoidance of personal insults.

  511. Simon Thong Says:

    By the way, Robert, while the saying is Like father like son, in our case, it is often Like son like father.

  512. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    That is good. Nice. No barbed tradings, no insults. Pulling your trigger to immediately shot is not the way..sometimes sound sarcarstic. Respect is the better. We need Robert, Ron and Simon and all here. I find most of you are resourceful and knowledgeable. Of course..if you start insulting..people may resort to the same reply.

    Sometimes funny too. “You can’t find your butt in the dark”.. that’s what
    Robert ‘bullet’ for Simon to dodge few days ago.. that made me laugh quitely..

    Teasing, attacking academically is okay I think.

    Now..let us get back to the root of discussion..So, the purpose of this Scott’s blog is to find truth..in any issue..especially with regard to the truth of religion that many peoples in this modern time seem to ignore. To exchange views.

  513. Robert Says:

    AS I said in an earlier post, I think that the absence of personal presence can affect how we react as well. Eye contact and body language have a lot to lend to a conversation. Where Simon or Scott may have been joking with me or I with them or your, Nasaei, none of us can see if we are serious or not. The joke or point can be missed without being able to visually read the other person.

    For instance:

    You’re all wrong and I am right and there is no arguing this point!

    That can be taken very seriously since no one can see the self mocking expression and the smile on my face.

    Time for me to retire, gents. Have a pleasant day.

  514. Scott Thong Says:

    Well, maybe the basket had coupons to the grand opening of “Zebedee’s Fish ‘n Chips” near Galillee.

    But in all seriousness, the gospels can’t even get that story straight.

    Mathew 15
    – Jesus went up a mountain
    – Jesus called his disciples to feed the crowd
    – disciples ask where they should get food from in wilderness
    – 7 loaves and a few small fishes
    – multitude of 4,000 men besides woman and children
    – 7 baskets of meat left over
    – Jesus disburses crowd and sets sail for the coasts of Magdala

    Mark 8
    – unspecified wilderness location
    – Jesus called his disciples to feed the crowd
    – disciples ask where they should get food from in wilderness
    – 7 loaves and a few small fishes
    – multitude of about 4,000
    – 7 baskets of meat left over
    – Jesus sends crowd away

    Luke 9
    – desert place of Bethsaida (a fishing village surrounded by a fertile valley along the Sea of Galilee)
    – 12 disciples approached Jesus to send the crowd home
    – 5 loaves and 2 fishes
    – multitude of 5,000 men
    – 12 baskets leftover

    John 6
    – on a mountain
    – Jesus asked Phillip about feeding the crowd
    – 5 barley loaves and 2 fishes
    – multitude of 5,000 men
    – 12 baskets of bread leftover
    – Jesus departs alone up the mountain
    – disciples left for Capernaum without him
    – big storm, Jesus does his famous water-walking routine

    So much for the veracity eye-witness testimony and oral traditions. – Ron

    Due to the mass influx of comments, I didn’t notice this one. It just so happens I’ve been thinking about doing a post on just this issue.

    In brief, why are there ‘discrepancies’ between the Gospels? For a similar reason to why Jesus didn’t give a science lecture – the point is not to quibble on details, but to relate to the audience the writer’s personal recollection.

    For example, round up ten people who were eyewitnesses to the 9/11 attacks. Without allowing them to compare notes or browse the Net, ask them what happened that day. Doubtless, some of their details will not match – did they actually see the planes, or just heard a crash? Did people run away or to the scene? How many people jumped out the window? However, the main point of their accounts will be the same – that on the fateful day, the WTC towers collapsed.

    Using that same kind of context – four writers recalling what they remember of their experiences (or collecting the experiences of others), I see little issue with one of them remembering that Jesus took them out to the countryside, while another had a clearer recollection that it was up a hill. Yet they all agree on the key point – that Jesus fed thousands with pitiful starting resources.

    Using the walking on water example, Matthew and John both record Jesus as walking on water and Peter trying to go out to meet Him, then sinking. On the other hand, Mark records Jesus walking on water, but omits Peter’s flailing. Tradition holds that Mark was a follower of Peter – so it would be quite understandable if Peter ‘forgot’ to mention that part to Mark, or asked that it be left out of the written copy.

    Btw, I’m surprised you didn’t know that the 4000 and 5000 fed were two different incidents – Matthew 16:9-10 even has Jesus mention both events to the disciples. Or were you intentionally excluding that simple explanation in order to bolster your argument? (Something which I occassionally do myself, I must admit.)

    So we can’t judge 1st-Century, mostly formally-uneducated writers by 21st-Century scientific/historian/journalistic standards where every minute detail must be triple-checked and referenced. (That being said, with all the Glaciergate and Amazongate and Dan Rather and other liberal media fakery/can’t-bother-to-Google-first going on, the evangelists probably have higher standards of accuracy.)

    If anything, the minor differences between the Gospels actually testify to their genuineness. If they are merely fakes or redacted compilations as everyone from Dan Brown to the Historical Jesus bunch postulates, they surely wouldn’t be left with so many mismatches. The RC is a super-manipulative sekrit organization, remember?

  515. Scott Thong Says:

    Posted after the first quote:

    “Note: The following are not all exact quotes. Some have been paraphrased.”

    Where’s the integrity in that? – Ron

    Done because some of the quotes were not in the first-person.

    Let’s stick to this parable for a moment. Rocks and chunks of ice ‘falling from the heavens’ would not have been a foreign concept to his audience. I’m pretty sure the commoners had all seen rocks and ice before.

    How often do meteorites actually hit the ground intact? Hail wouldn’t really count as it doesn’t burn up while re-entering the atmosphere.

    For me, Jesus’ lack of scientific credibility casts doubt on his metaphysical knowledge as well.

    Good point if it were true, as I have posted on before that Jesus said exactly such a thing.

    An instantaneous appearance to everyone on earth and healing all the amputees and terminally ill people would do it for me.

    Keep on asking, and ye shall receive. Even the bad guys?

    How do you reconcile holding multiple conflicting beliefs at the same time? And on a more personal level, didn’t you bash Obama extending his hand to other faiths (including atheists) during his inaugural address.

    I forget, but I don’t recall covering his address.

  516. Scott Thong Says:

    Robert, the purpose of this blog is to continuously bash atheists, Americans, homosexuals, liberals, and Obama on a rotating basis, under the umbrella of free speech using wordpress webservers located in the USA.. – Ron

    You’ll have to take that up with loop… According to him/her/it, the purpose of most of my site is ‘to go against Islam’.

    Back then, I calculated that Out of my current 1392 posts, only 138 posts even mention Islam in any way – whether positively, negatively, neutrally or merely in passing. That’s not even 10%, let alone how many can be somehow argued to be anti-Islam.

    So let’s use the same methodology for atheists, homosexuals, liberal and Obama (Americans are left out for this exercise).

    atheis – 78 posts

    lib – 332 posts

    homo – 89 posts

    obam – 221 posts

    So the number of posts that even passingly contain the above word fragments – never mind what the word containing the fragment actually is, no matter the context, whether positive or negative or neutral, without accounting for overlap with other fragment searches – comes to 720. This is out of 1411 posts to date.

    That just reaches 51%! Congratulations, I guess my blog’s whole entire purpose is to bash atheists, homosexuals, liberal and Obama!

  517. wits0 Says:

    ‘You’ll have to take that up with loop… According to him/her/it, the purpose of most of my site is ‘to go against Islam’.”

    Loop should ask him/her/itself ‘WHY’, if that be the case. That’ll be the logical thing to do!

  518. wits0 Says:

    Similarly, why are atheists, homosexuals, liberal and Obama so ‘sacred’?

  519. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    One of my friends said..”you know, we sometimes forget the fact that the planet Earth which we all living is somehow ‘hanging’ and floating in the mid air in the space..like million of other planets”. So, I imagine..we all are like ants creeping and walking, living and doing whatever activities in our daily chores – without realizing that the planet earth moves, rotates in its orbit untill its circumnavigate full 365 day around the sun. (We actully know it, we learned it in school, but noboday cares to imagine it. We do not interested in it).

    I imagine..since Earth is ‘hanging’ in space, most likely, everythings (non -living matters) – what is found here (soil, water, rock etc) were all originated or came from outer space and not started right here. This probably happened after ‘Big Bang’..a reddish hot with fire on it.. ..then travelled at the speed of meteorite from it ‘epicentre’ of couldron of ‘hotsoup’ of fire. Here it is. here we are (much later). So, I was thinking..in other planets also soil, rocks etc (except water maybe) are also found here on earth. (Muslim believe Adam and Eve started their lives in the heaven, not here. We all are descendants of ‘aliens’ called ‘human beings’ ?.

    Then..imagine the amount of mass weight of soil, water the earth bears..
    AND..the mass weight/ amount of matters other planets have..

    To fill a vessel/ barge tanker with soils, probably we need hundreds of lorries amount of soil. Earth has how many trillion tons of soil ??

    Then earth is relatively small. So small, if compared to other planets, such as Antares, Sun, Arcturus or hundreds more out there! I mean..this must be so great amount of matters might be originated from outer space..but we cannot determine its origin ..it sources. Antares is hundreds of times bigger than Earth. If from outer space..where is it base, it origin?

    In the Quran, Allah says..when He wishes for something to happen or take place..He just says : “Be..and it was.! (Kun fayakun in Arabic).

    Only God knows best.

    Of course..we can read the many science statements about the origin of the universe.

  520. Scott Thong Says:

    Look at how Fox grossly misrepresents the crowd estimates at a Tea Party!

    Ron and Robert are so right, Faux News is shameful compared to its betters in the cable!

  521. Ron Says:

    Scott, here’s a little allegory.

    Soviet Russia once had two main newspapers: Pravda (which means “Truth”) was the official voice of the Communist Party, and Izvestia (which means “News”) was the Official voice of the Soviet Government.

    The running joke by the non-Communist citizens was: “There is no truth in News, and there is no news in Truth.”

    Ditto for CNN an FOX. Two corporate media empires shamelessly catering to two distinct sets of viewers.

  522. Ron Says:

    “Btw, I’m surprised you didn’t know that the 4000 and 5000 fed were two different incidents – Matthew 16:9-10 even has Jesus mention both events to the disciples. Or were you intentionally excluding that simple explanation in order to bolster your argument? (Something which I occassionally do myself, I must admit.)”

    Nice catch. I’m tempted to say I was testing your Bible knowledge, but that would be a lie. My bad. I mixed up the two stories from Matthew and Mark. So the crowd and basket numbers in all four accounts do match. However, the locations and activities leading up to it are still out of sync. The synoptic accounts differ on what happened after Jesus heard of John the Baptist’s beheading. John fails to mention the event at all, which is very peculiar, because that’s not the type of thing you would forget. These accounts were supposedly written by his closest disciples. While I don’t expect them to recall what color garment Jesus was wearing on any given day, I would expect better corroboration of there whereabouts during those events.

  523. Ron Says:

    “Keep on asking, and ye shall receive. Even the bad guys?”

    Jesus appeased doubting Thomas. Why does he ignore doubting Ron?

    “I forget, but I don’t recall covering his address.”

    I vaguely remember a passing comment on “racist prayers” during his inauguration, but perhaps it was in one of your links.

    Re: your blog’s purpose

    My comment wasn’t meant to be taken as a detailed statistical analysis. It was more a general observation of a recurring emphasis on four or five common themes.

  524. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    A random quote from Holy Quran for all of us to ponder:

    “Say thou: present no excuses: we shall not believe you. God hath
    already informed us of the true state of matters concerning
    you. It is your actions that God and His apostle will observe. In the
    end ye will be grought back to Him, who knoweth what is hidden
    and what is open: then He will show you the truth of all that ye did.”

    – Quran:Surah/Chapter IX, verses 95-98.

  525. Scott Thong Says:

    Ditto for CNN an FOX. Two corporate media empires shamelessly catering to two distinct sets of viewers. – Ron

    It’s one thing to state one’s opinion on a talk show like Beck or Olbermann – opinions are by default slanted left or right. If Beck says Obama is a socialist without bothering to show hard evidence, that is his opinion and it is assumed to be so by viewers.

    It is another thing entirely to report imaginary numbers or scenarios as fact during a news broadcast, or intentionally misrepresent data to support your viewpoint.

    If CNN reports that only half a dozen people showed up at a rally when photo/video evidence shows more than a thousand, that is false information.

    When MSNBC talks about the dangers of violent, black-hating racism at Tea Parties and shows a photo of a guy with an assault rifle – that has been deliberately cropped to hide the owner’s African American race – that is false information.

    Viewers still take the news as ‘accurate fact’ – they don’t assume they have to Google every name they see reported on primetime to check if he really is the mayor of such-and-such. They assume that when a gunman shoots up a mall screaming in Arabic, the newsfeed is not going to report the shooter as Amish. (Conservative bloggers, however, now fact check everything they see in the mainstream media on a regular basis.)

    I do not deny that Fox may have reported some totally false facts or numbers before, but I am not aware of any in particular. Care to enlighten me?

  526. Scott Thong Says:

    Jesus appeased doubting Thomas. Why does he ignore doubting Ron? – Ron

    In time, Ron, in time. But would you really believe if everyone were to be healed, hey presto?

    My comment wasn’t meant to be taken as a detailed statistical analysis. It was more a general observation of a recurring emphasis on four or five common themes.

    Lol, and my remark was more for snark and fun than anything. I enjoy statisticizing.

  527. Robert Says:

    I suppose we can start here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/fox-news-newspaper-ad-mak_n_291494.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/fox-news-we-report-even-i_b_80698.html

    http://www.newshounds.us/2007/07/04/fox_sued_for_false_report_that_led_to_harrassment_and_ridicule.php

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

    http://rawstory.com/2010/01/fox-false-report-uncorrected/

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200911190043

    Some interesting tidbits:

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

    And there is much, much more that is very easy to find on the internet. Glad I can be of help.

  528. Scott Thong Says:

    Glad for the info, Robert. This balances out my knowledge of intentional misreporting and outright hoaxes from the other media.

    So just to be clear, do you disregard everything that comes from Fox just because “Well, it’s Fox”, or do you judge on a case by case basis? After all, even the National Enquirer broke a story that later turned out correct.

  529. Robert Says:

    I want the news. World, National, State and Local, I like BBC, NPR, CNN, ABC, NBC & CBS and Fox, pretty much handle the same Breaking Headlines and days events. It’s the prime time political commentary that will vary toward the bias and nearly ridiculously insane. Left, MSNBC. Right, Fox. As an Independent I tend toward middle left so I’ll chuckle at the political analysis of MSNBC where, and I have tried, oh my, how I’ve tried, to objectively watch Fox and I often find it unbearable. Loud, brash, insistent, intolerant, outlandish accusations bordering on hysteria; appealing to an audience of wild eyed and what I would consider to be gullible and obstinate.
    And yes, I ask myself if I am giving them a fair shake and how many of those things am I being? Which would be a good point. There is a lot to be said for cognitive dissonance because I know I prefer to watch what I do…and I believe what I watch is true so there it is in action, so to speak.
    Yet I recognize and remain loyal to our constitution and think that those I oppose in the deepest recesses of my being have every right to do so as long as they treat me with the same level of respect. And it’s tough. I remember back, I think it was in the late 70’s watching Neo Nazi skinheads marching in the streets on TV claiming the holocaust never happened and their usual hate filled diatribe. I thought how great it would be to have a few camera operator film me going up to one of them and beating them to the edge of unconsciousness, letting them rest, them show them the playback on videotape yet exclaim in a loud, obnoxious voice in their ears “See that? That never happened! It’s all in your imagination! It’s part of a plot hatched by you against me!” and then repeat the violent cycle until the moron admitted to reality.
    Not the proper method of diplomacy, I can assure you and of course, I have never done anything like that. But it was a moment of weakness on my part contrary to my oath to preserve and protect, knowing adverse reaction in such a case would be disrespectful.
    Now that same ilk is organizing under the banner of the right and I think that those of the right who are loyal to this country should distance themselves from their darker side, so to speak. And I would also caution the left to do the same.

  530. Scott Thong Says:

    You and I are more alike than you might think, Robert… At the very least, we both lean to the hawkish side of things. What else do we agree on?

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/sociopolitical-views/

    Fill in the blanks for your own views if you will spare the time.

    As I’ve said before, Christians and atheists should focus on the physical fight against terrorism-of-the-brand-that-shall-not-be-named. Once that’s done, they can get back to the philosophical and ballot box sparring.

  531. Robert Says:

    Looks like we’re on a 50-50 agreement on the items on your list at that blog. I think solar energy is also a great way to go with battery back up at night and always be hooked in the grid. I’m sure you’ve read about homes whose electric meters run backwards during peak sun exposure. I envision national grids whose sun belt areas can supply the excess to other parts of the country, feeding east to west then reverse during sunset hours. It is a viable source here in the sun belt at least, especially post violent storm when grid electricity is down. I see solar as a large part of an alternate mix and yes, we should be drilling and refining our own oil and focus heavily on the electric vehicle market. Nothing I’d love more than to tell OPEC where they can shove – er – store their oil.
    My best friend doesn’t like Obama. He’s an avid hunter and gun enthusiast, I am as well, and he believes the stories the right tries to push about ‘taking away your guns!!!!!’ I told him ‘Look. Stop and think about how long this country has not only allowed, but promoted and mandated in its constitution the rights of citizens to own guns. Now think of the years since then and the number of guns, which were essential to our nations growth, have been made and sold or passed down in families. People are still finding guns that are national treasures hanging on mantelpieces or collecting dust in attics. There are people who still own Tommy Guns from the 20′ and 30’s, legal and otherwise. There are hundreds of millions of guns, three of which belong to me, and there are not enough police in the entire nation to confiscate them. And that is what is in private hands not counting the National Guard and police armories. No, Obama nor any future president has the ways or means to take anyones guns.

  532. Scott Thong Says:

    Agreed on the solar power – I for one think the desert has little practical human use otherwise, sorry tortoises and lizards, go cry to your animal activist lovers. My motivation is less reliance on terror oil, CO2 is a non-issue in my book (and producing all those millions of panels releases what?), and mass production will drive down the overall cost.

  533. Robert Says:

    The animals would only suffer a minor inconvenience of a pylon structure holding the solar cells and the occasional truck carrying a maintenance or repair crew. BUT, you’re right. The animal activists will still scream for the rights of the insects we may disturb! Ha! I can’t stand the extreme left either.

  534. Ron Says:

    “But would you really believe if everyone were to be healed, hey presto?”

    I’d consider that as convincing evidence for the existence of a higher power.

    “Lol, and my remark was more for snark and fun than anything. I enjoy statisticizing.”

    Just remember, there are lies, damned lies… and statistics.

  535. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Recently Robert advised me to read abot Evolution. However, I do not really interested to know everything about the so-called “Evolution”, thus I didn’t read it extensively. So, I guess I missed some of the explanations regarding developments of creatures.

    My childhood imagination still boogging my mind, even today. I wonder if “evolution” itself has certain degree of intelligent to chart out, plan many thing in this universe. AND, how actually “evolution” made things so ‘perfect’ to the extent that their existence would serve certain functions or purposes. For example, fruits.

    I keep asking this because ther is no satisfactory explanation by anybody here, or maybe in the ‘theory’ itself. Or, at that point (the creatures) themselves, not evolution that decided it (to function, serve certain purposes)

    I just think, that anything (living or non-living creatures) CANNOT, or incompetent to chart or plan such perfections – their usefulness exixtence in the universe.

    I just think that..evolution and/or creatures at their pre-existence stages has NO intelligent to think. Did “evolution” receive its education in Havard, Oxford etc ? (Sorry this is teasing, joking to provoke our thinking here).

    Did creatures/things in this universe, at stages of maggot, cocoon or their parents womb capable of planning or charting so that their later development (existence) will be functioning, serving certain purposes or become beneficial to other ?

    Explanation by simple language needed. Robert, Ron, Tq.

  536. jonathan gord Says:

    This is the best webpage ever. I was getting down by all of the atheist people and then i was like wait…but if science disproved god then my question is whyt he big bang? why water? why here? why now? why why why why why? humans are so self entitled especially atheists.. Least humble creatures on the planet. Then I came across this site. Any atheist who wines on here obviously is just clinging to the hatred they spew and do not want to beleve that all of the people they insulted had something right. Thank you science for proving to me that their is a higher power. Thank you> GOD!!!!!!! Bless. I love you. You love me. What a world you have given us to bicker back and forth in thanks to ignorant fools.

  537. Robert Says:

    And we really don’t care if you choose to deny your own existence. Evolution is very real so that makes it part of what you call ‘creation.’ Why do you all deny your own god?

  538. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “..And we really don’t care if you choose to deny your own existence.”

    Perhaps .. we really need further interpretation for the above statement..because believers (in religion) said exactly the same thing towards atheists i.e – “they deny their existence, they don’t believe in their Creator God”.

  539. Jonathan G Says:

    Robert Robert Robert…You spew the same things every Atheist spews…Did you even read the quotes from these genius intellectuals or just scroll down to where you can argue? I mean c’mon man…Give up.. You lost. I believe in evolution but I believe that obviously, God caused it. You take the bible way too literally. Wayyy too literally. How do you know that for example in creation…The first day did not consist of a billion years? To him it was a day…To us? Maybe a million 2 million billions? It is not saying ok. 7 Days and then poof. You got a guy walking around saying hi. Oh eve. You want to go get some lunch? For all we know.. God, Supreme being, created the universe aka the big bang.. Then after that expanded he created the earth…Created the atom….Now it does not say he did not create dinosaurs. It does not ever once say that he did not create creatures that came and went…It skips through to our existence. Now, do you really truly in your heart believe that this was all by chance? I think you should stop reading the bible and finding things that don’t coincide or at least try to decode it before you speak on it. Read the quotes more…It will help you. I really don’t want you to believe in a higher power if it makes you feel uncomfortable but I do know that you owe it to yourself to stop worrying about it so much if you won’t accept it. I have accepted that their very well could be a God. In fact I have accepted that I may go to Heaven. I have also accepted that we may be very intelligent beings but to say that all of this came from nothing is insane. I know you want to disagree but I believe that you should read the bible and try to find evidence supporting something good. Not try to disprove a book over 1000 pages long. Too much to disprove with no evidence to the contrary. Their is a long book claiming to be our history starting from 8000 years old and just because a few atheists or humans try to discredit it does not mean that I am going to believe my mother and father are not in Heaven with God. My faith in God has saved me from a lot of horrible times in my life and I wish that you could believe that some one cared about you as well. Stop being hateful. It will be ok. I am sorry that you do not believe in a higher power.

  540. Jonathan G Says:

    What caused evolution? What caused everything? What created the atom? Just throw a couple particles at eachother enough over a gagillion years and you got a cat. Meow. So I solved it. No God. No creator. You just have to have the nothing from the never ending story throw a couple things around and bam…cactus..bam OH LOOK I made a piece of poop OHhhh my goodness…I made a human gee wiz im good. So the nothing is God? sweet. Oh Nothing I worship you please let me get a pony and a dog and a….OH geez…Stop celebrating Christmas by the way…Selfish patzy…You can reap the benefits but won’t accept that maybe Jesus did die for our sins? Watch Ancient Aliens…It might show you that their is a higher power and the ancients from the bible were smarter then you give them credit for. You really think learned people who can read and write would waste their time making up fiction? I think that in such times they had a lot more to worry about then making sh*t up. Sorry you cannot understand writing of intelligent people from 8000 to 2000 years ago. Sorry that you deny your God and your ancestors. Just stop while you are behind.. The fact that genius physicists other than Stephen Hawking who is atheist and is just like you wishing that the all powerful nothing just happened to make the big bang…I mean not every religious person is stupid.. We read through the dotted lines and noticed that the bible is poetic and written in code. Read it and try to find out what the verses really mean and you might be entertained. Maybe even a bit thankful that you have the honor of having the knowledge passed to you. Well take care my friends. I hope that you all enjoy my 2 cents and that I made sense to atleast one of you. Bye.

  541. Robert Says:

    Nice tirade, Jonny. I don’t believe the universe was created. Your old book is preceded by older myths that they gleaned from and rehashed. Take some time to study outside the box of the bible and perhaps you will understand humans a bit better.
    I enjoyed many novels in my life but just because they are old doesn’t mean that they are true…a word that holds much significance.
    I believe in the highest power I know, the human intellect.

  542. Robert Says:

    Nasaei, you believe in a creator. I don’t. End of story.

  543. Jonathan G Says:

    I have studied many many areas outside of the box and inside. It seems that you are very set in your ways though. It is obviously a lost cause to try and explain to you that humans are not the highest intellectually. That is the human condition though. Very self centered. We think therefore we are entitled to think that we are the allmighty ourselves. Nothing above us. I am a mere mortal and I know that is it impossible that we are the allmight. We are so young compared to the age of the Universe and I cannot blindly believe that we are the allmighty ourselves. It is kind of ludicrous to think that we are but then again humans are naturally selfish. I have studied atheists claims of why their can not be a higher power and it does not make sense. I understand that you cannot fathom the idea of a higher powere therefore you argue to the end that humans are the highest because that is all you know as you say. I think that if you dug deeper you would find that there is more to a higher power then you could dream up. Speaking of dream why do we dream? Have scientists really cracked that bottle open? I don’t think they have. There is a lot yet understood by humans and I think that until the day you realize that we are merely highly intelligent animals that were given a gift you will always seem like a typical ungrateful Atheist. I have given you the oppurtunity to google around or to download or watch Ancient Aliens which describes how intelligent our ancestors actually were and you did not mention anything about that where lies the dilemma I have. Everytime I ask an Atheist to explain to me why there can be no higher power or I offer them reason from other sources they ignore it. I think that you as an Atheist are so set in your ways and if you want to believe sometihng then you will not change your mind for anyone but yourself. I have ready many novels including the novel by erich von daniken Chariots of the Gods. The Ancient Sumerians worshippd gods who came from the sky as deitys. Literally written in the history on tablets. Look that up as well. Sadly, you are one of those people who only believe what is in front of you. I bet you would not believe that lightning can be seen during volcanic eruptions unless I showed you pictures. The worls is a miraculous place and we do not understand most of it. Our brains are not developed enough yet. Explain telepathy or your explaination is it is impossible…Everything is unreal to you until you witness it therefore you will never believe in anything higher then yourself and you will never accept that people are sometimes a lot happier that have accepted it. My main concern for you is that you are so inademate about disproving something you cannot. Humans are just a pin prick or less in a puzzle that is so compelling. “The most amazing thing to me is existence itself. How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?”

    “Can a person be a scientist and a Christian? Yes. As I said before, the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone.”

    “God is the explanation for the miracle of existence.”

    It is sad that you will never accept anything anyone says that has faith of any kind. You will never agree with anyone and you will argue anything and try as hard as you can to find any flaw. The only way you will believe in God or any higher power is if he walks up to you and says “Hi, I’m God” Want some wine? You don’t accept the fact that the world is miraculous. The world is so incredible. You really take what humans think seriously compared to that? How long ago did we think the Earth was flat? I mean seriously…Humans are still dumb and they are getting dumber. Scientificlly proven is the fact that humans go through dumbing periods and it is probably due to outside assistance from other worldy visitors. We went from going ugh ugh meaning how are you? To building tools and then miraculously i repeat miraculously quicly we had civilizations with laws and marriage. Is that just coincidence? The main issue with man kind is they long to understand and they will always long because if you do not accept what a higher power literally said to us from the bible then you will always long until the day you meet your maker who sorry to say was not a man. You were conceived from flesh and blood but you will never accept the fact that that flesh and blood is a miracle in itself. Our very existence and reason and thought. Our very logical minds are miracles. Whenever I ask an atheist to explain to me how there is no God they say ignorant things mocking the bible. When they ask how we know there is God you can simply say look around? Can you explain all of that? Do you see in the sky the beauty? Do you speak and I understand you and it is just that way? I know it is disturbing to think of a higher power but it is obvious to most and then there are those scared of it which is fine. I am not scared of it though. I accept science and religion due to the fact that science can prove many things but the non existence of a higher power is not and most likely never will be one of the those things. No matter how far you try and try to trace back you cannot find a solution without realizing that the possibility of a higher being is very very possible. A lot more possible then saying well we just came from nothing. ya know. Then our planet formed from nothiing smashing together. Our sun was effected by nothiing to be the perfect distance from the Earth. A couple metorites hit the Earth and we just ended up talking and walking from there on after a bunch of chemicals sprang from the molten lava. These cooled and we ended up having women. I honestly think…poor poor Robert that you skimmed through what I said so you could just discredit me. Not with facts….But just with merely saying I was wrong. You bring no factual information and ignore mine and everyone elses. Face it please before you give us all headaches again that their is something higher then us. We came from mere monkeys. Humans can’ even splice monkey genes to make a human monkey hominid but somethiing can and did. Until the day you accept that you will be in the stone age in my opinion. Selfish and only willing to look ahead and not up in the sky. You are missing out bud. Really bad. You don’t have to go to church and pray to see the beauty in the world. Which I am sory to say but man and “nothing” did not create. Please before you ignorantly discredit me by only saying I am wrong without supportive information…Do some research.

  544. Jonathan G Says:

    Atheists say read a book…..I read the Bible and hundreds of other scientific books and I love astronomy. I love physics. I love nature. I love everything but there is, to date, No book whatsoever that explains the non-existence of the Lord allmighty. There never will be. They have plenty of books explaining how there is a God though. Every scientific book written by some one who is not an angry atheist explains how miraculous the world is. The universe is so vast and just incredible. The wonders of it all are not comprehensible by man in just words. You cannot fathom even our star let alone all of the others. Your self centerdness is making you look more ignorant then the “brainwashed cult” you so passionately hate and wish to destroy. You should spend more time studying the wonders of the world and accepting that is it amazing and not man made and dr. nothing did not make it. You might be happier if you just accept it. I am sorry. good luck on your quest of knowledge. seems we all have beat you to the answers though. it is simple. we are not alone. We are not the highest. The highest is God. God is the answer. HUmans have tried to humanize God but it is impossible and that is probably why you hate God. You can’t understand something that is omnipotent. You only know of this Earth and what other monkeys tell you. You have not opened up your heart. You would rather be worm food then accept a place in Heaven. You don’t want to part of the bigger picture. You want to stay here on Earth. Our Gift from God that you use yet don’t appreciate. Man. Atheists have no points and they still believe. Probably why they hate the more learned scientific Theologians who actually know the answers.

  545. Jonathan G Says:

    They proved that the ancients knew more then we did 100 years ago. Sumerians were better astronomers then we were 100 years ago. So were the mayanz. Don’t worry though. There were people who were close minded back then as well. They crucified a man who was here to help us and free us of our sins. Those who are big monkeys with small brains try to squash that which they do not understand. Hitler is another example. I guess I found the tie between athiests and nazism. Self centered arrogant people with a vendetta for those who love their fellow man. Hitler was christian but he acted like an atheist. He did not lead a religious life. He persecuted those who were different much like you. You hate us for believing in somehing higher then ourselves. We show humility and you show arrogance. You would have been one of those stoning Jesus. You would spit on him instead of helping him with the cross. Correct? You don’t like the son of God. You only worship the son of man.

  546. MiracleMan Says:

  547. Robert Says:

    Well Jonny, better get used to the fact that people like me think people like you are delusional. The burden of proof lies with those making the outlandish claims and your it.

  548. Simon Thong Says:

    Jonathan G, welcome to the slightly acerbic world of the can’t-stomach-Scott Thong’s-blog-but-must-visit-it Robert. Think of it as trying to talk sense into a close-minded atheist.

  549. Robert Says:

    I need to slum around once in awhile and twist Simon’s little raisin-nuts, besides, you quasi-intellectual delusional payaso’s are always good for a few laughs.

  550. Scott Thong Says:

    The burden of proof lies with those making the outlandish claims and your it. – Robert

    The universe existed since eternity and will exist for eternity. Prove it.

    Alternatively, all matter and energy were created from nothing, by nothing, due to nothing. Prove it.

    DNA, cells and complex organisms spontaneously appear from nonliving matter. Prove it.

  551. Simon Thong Says:

    You need to have a very low threshold of laughter to be amused by Robert’s remarks. It is as if the slum has arrived when he says something. It’s just too pathetic to even offer a smile. Yet he can laugh, or smile? “A man may smile and smile, and be a villain.”

  552. Robert Says:

    The universe existed since eternity and will exist for eternity. Prove it. Prove otherwise.

    Alternatively, all matter and energy were created from nothing, by nothing, due to nothing. Prove it. Prove otherwise.

    DNA, cells and complex organisms spontaneously appear from nonliving matter. Prove it. Prove otherwise.

    You base everything you claim on the premise that it was all ‘created.’ Prove it. The fact that existence exists in a universe that doesn’t support anything but its own physical reality contrasts with every imaginary myth to the contrary. Which of your myth’s are true? Our reality is true.

    Seriously, we can all argue for and against each other till the sun goes red giant and consumes the Earth and neither of us will convince the other of their respective thoughts. We live in this very real universe. The only proof you can suggest is “you’ll know when you die.” And that is not proof.

  553. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “..What caused evolution? What caused everything? What created the atom?..” – Jonathan G says.

    Yea. That was the ‘core issue’ everybody is interested to know. Theists believe God made it; atheists say “evolution”.

    But no proof?

    Don’t forget, believe in religion (in Day of Judgment, angels, God) is believe in the unseen.

    Then, atheist want us (believers) to proof the unseen.

    Hellfire is not now, but later.

    Maybe God is testing arrogant man – to believe, or not..

  554. Terry Randall Says:

    Excerpts of Mr. Terry’s statement:

    As the wise and powerful rush to condemn the planned burning of Qurans, two questions should be asked: Is burning a Quran just? And next, is it prudent? I, like many others, am troubled by what is happening. Some historical and theological perspective will help…

    Throughout the Old and New Testaments, fire is a sign of the judgment of God.

    Fire came down on Sodom and Gomorrah; Moses burned the golden calf; Joshua burned cities in Canaan; God ordered enemy chariots and ‘sacred’ pagan idols to be burned in fire; Elijah called fire down to consume military men who came to capture him; when Israel forsook God, God brought the Babylonians to burn Jerusalem — including its palaces and Solomon’s temple — to the ground…

    Similar to burning a Quran, St. Paul the Apostle oversaw the burning of ‘sacred’ books on witchcraft (see Acts 19:19); and of course, the lake of fire is the final place of torment for all who reject the Lord and his Christ (see Rev. 21:8).

    In the Christian era, the ‘sacred’ places of pagan Greek and Roman deities were desecrated; many of their idols were defaced and burned. Delphi and the Roman Forum — the respective centers of pagan Greco/Roman deities — both lie in ruins; the stones of their ‘sacred’ temples were taken away to build Catholic churches, including St. Peter’s Cathedral…

    Should we condemn St. Paul for burning witchcraft books? Should we condemn Joshua for burning the pagan cities of Canaan? Should we condemn the Church Militant that conquered the pagan Greco-Roman deities, and then destroyed their idols and plundered their temples?

    Should we condemn our spiritual forebears because they did not ‘show respect’ to false religions?…”

  555. Robert Says:

    All religions are false.

  556. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “..All religions are false..”

    Brother Robert says.

    I would say evolution could have NOT created any single thing REALLY, because if you say such a thing, it “automatically” means anything happens by chance, by itself… (it creates itself). This is absolutely impossible – by science principle..and by logic. It must be something (e.g a ‘force’) behind it..or ’cause and effects factor..or such a thing).

    Evolution, genetic, DNA, protein etc is the way God done it..made it. All those things CANNOT create themselves at time they appear first time ever in the universe.

    Since atheists failed to meet God thus far, they mistakenly thought lifeless “evolution” to be the “force” behind it. What a lost brain…!

    I will easily agree with Robert if anyone of evolution idea can be proven true. But..alas.. never. Never be proven. Never be repeated. Empty thought, wrong believe. Absolutely lost.

  557. harriet Says:

    Allan Sandage is not a Nobel Prize winner.

  558. gates Says:

    orange county…

    Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer): A Collection of Quotes « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON…

  559. number 1 graphics card for gaming Says:

    best graphics card for gaming…

    Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer): A Collection of Quotes « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON…

  560. jzz2say Says:

    about mother teresa i have a verse to quote-
    “Happy are those who know they are spiritually poor;
    the Kingdom Of Heaven belongs to them”–Matt 5:3-10
    “god is mysterious n believing in him is better than boasting out that humans can find out everything in universe…sometimes we all have to humble ourselves and accept that we cant understand certain things while we are here!..
    whenever science has created something new there has always been its own “side effects”
    people who have suffered terribly were the only ones who tasted success…they always had these gifts of persevering throughout till their success!
    atheists are simply “easy going people”!

  561. hungarian goosedown duvets Says:

    hungarian goosedown duvets…

    [...]Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer): A Collection of Quotes « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON[...]…

  562. Robert Says:

    Well folks, we’re not that long “out of the cave” so to speak, as still evidenced by the amount of religious delusion that still exists on the planet. I’m sure that when we stop to consider that Earth is a living planet with millions of species thriving in addition to humans, and that millions of species are already extinct, and the fact that astronomers have already discovered hundreds of planets outside of our system, many of which reside in the ‘habitable zone’ we will find that life is quite a common occurrence within the Universe and the thousands of hokey religions we’ve conjured amount to nothing.
    As far as your ‘stumping the physicists’ game, the last I heard, opinions only count as ‘facts’ in the realm of theist fairy tales, as I am sure you will find mine!

  563. Scott Thong Says:

    Your rambling makes close to no sense.

    What does the potential existence of life outside of Earth have to do with religions in general?

    Doesn’t the fact that there are many habitable zones gel with the fine tuning of the universe as a whole to parameters that support life?

    And opinions seem to count as facts whenever liberal ideology is at stake, to the point where hard facts absolutely contrary to the thesis can be completely disregarded – say, in global warming, gun control, family composition, economics, you name it!

  564. Dorian Mattar Says:

    All these posts of religious people arguing for their god. I wonder why this all powerful god can’t defend himself.

    The same goes for all the argument straight out of ignorance. We don’t know how it happened, so god did it. Just unbelievable amounts of irrationality.

    But the most fallacious is that god created everything.

    If that’s the case, how the hell did he create himself?

    For him to create himself, he would have to not only be there ALREADY, but WANT TO BE CREATED and KNOW HOW to create himself BEFORE he actually could.

    Which means that he would have to be THINKING before he even could THINK!

    You can go ON forever with the amount of completely irrational thinking this believe entails.

    But I’m sure religious people simply say “he was always there”.

    To which I say, sure and so was Bugs Bunny.

    LMAO

  565. Scott Thong Says:

    Many things our limited minds cannot comprehend. For example, explain to me how Einsteinian gravity works by mass bending spacetime would you?

    How can three be one? How can the soul exist which is undetectable by our five senses and extended scientific gadgetry? How can something have existed forever without ever having a beginning?

    Just because one does not understand something fully, does not mean it does not exist or cannot exist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 119 other followers