Atheists Are God


Atheists pride themselves on their logic. Their logic says that there is no God: Since they cannot find any evidence for God, therefore they conclude that there is no God.

But Earth-bound atheists haven’t looked hard enough yet.

God, being, well, a God, can exist anywhere in the universe.

(This is different from a unicorn, which is supposed to be an air-breathing mammal that eats grass on Earth and is actually comparatively easy to look for.)

To discover no evidence for God, atheists must therefore search the whole entire universe.

But while they are looking in Quadrant A, God could sneakily run off and hide in Quadrant B, giggling mischievously all the while.

Therefore, to know for sure that God is not hiding in some stuffy wardrobe behind a meteor somewhere far off in the universe, atheists must search every part of the universe at the exact same time.

If they could do that, they would know and see everything at the same time. They would be omniscient.

But God is very, very sneaky. He can exist as spirit, which means He would not have a corporeal form bound by the laws of physics. He would be invisible, untouchable, indetectable to the entire spectrum of energy wavelengths.

Therefore, in order to detect God in this cheating form, atheists must be able to defy reality, break the rules of time and space, and pierce into another dimension of spiritual energy.

That is technially impossible, but not if they could do anything without limit. If they could, they would be capable of anything within imagination. They would be omnipotent.

But since atheists are sure that there is no God, they must have already searched the entire universe and all non-physical dimensions simultaneously. They must have already demonstrated their omniscience and omnipotence!

And being omniscient and omnipotent makes them God.

Therefore, logically… Atheists are God.

Tags: , , ,

107 Responses to “Atheists Are God”

  1. sing lau Says:

    Well said… but then atheists are really irrational and inconsistent though they pride themselves to be rational.

    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

  2. wits0 Says:

    Sing Lau, your statement is too sweepingly general and cannot hold. Whilst it may be true of ignoramus and unstudied atheists ever in seeking of mores, it cannot be so for the well learned and cultivated atheists(like Buddhists). Being “atheist”, mainly mean that one does not believe in an all powerful Creator God of monotheism – especially when seen in the light of how It is illustrated and presented. Are you able and willing to put Buddhists in the same class of people like the American LLL(Loony Leftist Liberals, e.g.)? It isn’t true that merely because some people do not believe in a certain set conception of God that they are wayward, egoistic and lost. It takes more than that. There would have been no jihadists in this world without a belief in their Deity.

  3. hutchrun Says:

    Da bummer`s a mosquito:

    Any first-year seminary student could deconstruct such “works salvation” and wishful thinking. Obama either hasn’t read the Bible, or if he has, doesn’t believe it if he embraces such thin theological wisps.

    Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn’t meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called “false prophets.”

    http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2288

  4. Scott Thong Says:

    wits0, sorry forgot my disclaimer again:

    Humanistic, naturalistic atheists are God. They rely on their own knowledge and nothing else.

    Whereas Buddhists rely on the wisdom on the Buddha, which humanist/naturalist atheists would laugh at as being no better than any other ordinary human’s.

  5. Ben Says:

    You must convince others he exists, not expect others to prove he doesn’t. The onus is on you.

  6. Scott Thong Says:

    I do not believe that such a thing as God-Not-Existing exists.

    The onus is now on you to prove to me that God-Not-Existing is true.

    Thank you.

  7. Robert Says:

    What a load of self serving crap.

  8. wits0 Says:

    Monotheist asking for Science to prove non existence of God is queer and not really honest.

    Monotheists, on their part, might as well need to prove that God(according to their variously set and rigid conception exists).

    Science had earlier believed that the smallest indivisible particle was an atom. We know today it’s not so.

    Monotheistic religion once conceived of a God not far awy, within the orbit the planetary system. See the old medieval paintings and the forever binding koranic verse by the very letter.

    Since Science has and can wrought no instrument possibe to measure the 4th Dimensional Space, a mechanical expectation is futile.

    Religion is based on Belief, Concept, nothing of it can be demonstrated as true with regard to its tenets in 3 D Time and Space.

    But Science is more malleable to change as better theory evolves. The String Theory is certainly an improvement over the Daltonian style outlook.

    Religion(monotheistic sort), with its association with and vested interests politics and mundane power remains forever problematic. Less so with most Christians who are actually more flexible and adaptable to change.

    If one has the intuitive understanding that ALL things(aka Creation devoid of a personified Creator) are of shared Mental Construct(like, e.g., the Buddhists,)of all beings, then the said imbroglio really becomes a triviality.

    It isn’t as if Man must have a God(to fear) that he becomes moral.

  9. Scott Thong Says:

    What a load of self serving crap. – Robert

    I totally agree, those fellas can be that way some times… /snark

  10. wits0 Says:

    “What a load of self serving crap. – Robert”

    Then, pray enlighten us as to what is Reality aka Truth.

  11. Robert Says:

    Lift a hammer in your right or left hand, put your free hand flat on a steel anvil, raise the hammer high then quickly hit your free hand as hard as you can as close to the center as possible with the hammer immediately after praying “I believe that God will not allow the hammer to cause me pain in any way!” Count how many seconds it takes for reality and truth to catch up with your brain in shock.

  12. wits0 Says:

    No Robert, I don’t do such things, having a good measure of common sense.

    Scott, I guess, will say, in his expected parlance, not to tempt God.

    You have described one common reality which we’re presently focused in. Is that all that there is?

  13. Adifferentview Says:

    Robert, how mundane, how inconsequential…

  14. Scott Thong Says:

    Straw man argument. Actual Christian doctrine and belief regarding prayer and God’s intervention is not as simplistic as made out to be in the above example.

    If you base your idea of prayer on just one passage, you might come to that conclusion:

    Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” – Matthew 21:21-22

    But when taken in context:

    If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened. – Psalm 66:18

    This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.’ – Matthew 6:9-10

    Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will. – Matthew 26:39

    Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. – Luke 18:1

    Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. – Romans 12:12

    You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. – James 4:2-3

    The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. – James 5:16

    Pray continually. – 1st Thessalonians 5:17

    This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us – 1st John 5:14

    To summarize: Pray often, wholeheartedly, with selfless motives and in accordance with God’s will (i.e. no praying your boss gets a heart attack on Thursday for a 3-day weekend) and it will be answered.

    (Even Bruce Almighty had this lesson: Jim Carrey playing Bruce finally learned what real prayer is when he wanted his wife’s happiness over his own. “Now that’s a prayer!” replied Morgan Freeman playing God.)

    An excellent example is Nehemiah:

    When I heard these things, I sat down and wept. For some days I mourned and fasted and prayed before the God of heaven. – Nehemiah 1:4

    The king said to me, “What is it you want?” Then I prayed to the God of heaven, and I answered the king, – Nehemiah 2:4-5

    Taking just the second passage would seem to fit your instant-prayer-before-hammer model. However, the first passage clearly shows just how much heartfelt, sincere preparation and constant prayer Nehemiah made before that fateful split-second prayer while in the presence of the king.

    So I suppose if one knew that a hammer-hand ritual was going to take place of which he had no choice but to partake in (perhaps at gunpoint or to save someone’s life?), and he fasted and prayed, and God wanted to use that as an example to the unbelievers of His glory, then yes – no pain or damage could result.

    It has happened before – see Atheists: Can You Discount Every Single Testimony of Miracles and Answered Prayers?.

    See also Six Reason Prayers Are Not Answered .

    And try to find a better line of argument. Perhaps something new that has not already been used by atheists dozens of times, and therefore almost automatic to respond to.

    PS. And yes, wits0 is right:

    The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. For it is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’

    Jesus answered, ‘It says: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ – Luke 4:9-12

    Replace ‘throw yourself down’ with ‘whack your hand with a hammer’ and you’re pretty much there.

  15. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    If the hammer or mallet doesn’t hit you..then that is proof God does exist?

    If the hammer hit you, then God doesn’t exist?

    God doesn’t work the way you “unsmart” atheists thought ! He doesn’t need to consult atheist before doing, or not doing something..

  16. Robert Says:

    Why am I not surprised that I’m ambushed with scripture? Notice how it’s ‘Matthew said that Jesus said…’ or ‘Luke said that Jesus said….’ Makes you wonder of the son of god was functionally illiterate considering his ‘message’ was of ultimate importance to humanity. How predictable. Since we’re on the subject, here’s a few more for you.

    1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
    2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people “to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.'” Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?
    3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.
    4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.
    5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.
    6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.
    7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.
    8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.
    9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.
    10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.
    11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.
    12) Was John the Baptist Elias? “This is Elias which was to come.” Matthew 11:14 “And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not.” John l:21
    13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.
    14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.
    15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.
    16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.
    17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24
    18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 “And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.” Mark 7:26 “The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.”
    19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.
    20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.
    21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.
    22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works.” 1 Peter 2:12 “Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that … they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret.” Matthew 23:3-5 “Do not ye after their [Pharisees’] works … all their works they do for to be seen of men.”
    23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.
    24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 “And it was the third hour and they crucified him.” John 19:14-15 “And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?” John 19:14-15.
    25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.
    26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 (“For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel”) Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…” Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.
    27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7
    28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary” (Jesus’ mother) went.
    29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.
    30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5
    31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.
    32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22
    33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17
    34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51
    35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
    36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.
    37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.
    38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14
    39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16
    40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? “The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die.” John 19:7 “The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” John 18:31
    41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” 2 Kings 2:11 “No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man.” John 3:13
    42) Is scripture inspired by God? “all scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: “But I speak this by permission and not by commandment.” 1 Corinthians 7:6 “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 7:12 “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord” 2 Corinthians.

    Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:

    Dear Dr. Laura:
    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

    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?

    I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

    Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

    Your scriptures, people, represent a period of about a nanosecond in cosmic time and the phenomenon of the universe, including the evolution of life from inanimate matter is far more exciting than any delusions you happen to conjure. At least to me, that is.

    But please, feel free to babble on.

  17. Scott Thong Says:

    Notice how it’s ‘Matthew said that Jesus said…’ or ‘Luke said that Jesus said….’ Makes you wonder of the son of god was functionally illiterate considering his ‘message’ was of ultimate importance to humanity. – Robert

    Wow, how snarky yet supremely shallow. Tell me, how often have you seen Obama carry a pen and notepad to record – personally, all by himself – what happened and what was said during his visits to foreign dignitaries?

    How predictable. Since we’re on the subject, here’s a few more for you.

    Before I deem to begin answering you, one question to you: Did you type these questions all by yourself?

    See, I did not even waste time asking if you thought up these questions all on your own from your reading of the Bible, or maybe recalled them from memory after reading.

    I’m going straight to the bone and asking you directly, did you type these question all by yourself, or did you simply copy and paste them?

    (It’s really a rhetorical question… A single Google search immediately reveals where you ripped your polemics from, http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm )

    Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

    And when I reach this part, I don’t even need to ask… As I have already come across this exact same article before and posted a response at length.

    And I found a really original response to it too – an Orthodox Jewish response, of all things! After all, they share the same Old Testament as we Christians – and they have had 3000+ years to our 2000 of rebutting such attacks.

    To quote: You didn’t ask, but I’ll tell you anyway: I know you’re trying to be funny. Next time, though, try to find some questions that haven’t been answered in three thousand years.

    I’ll be straightforward with you: When commentors can’t even be bothered to phrase their attacks in their own words, but resort to Googling for the nearest attack site and copy-pasting entire chunks of text someone else worked hard to research and type out, I simply call them out on it and skip what they wrote.

    It’s a standard troll tactic designed to waste their opponent’s time – after the attacks are painstakingly typed out and posted, the troll simply moves on to new attacks. I’m not about to get suckered in like that – it’s not like I haven’t seen this tactic like dozens of times, dude.

    To quote you: How predictable.

    In short, I simply ignore what has been copy-pasted, thus defeating the purpose of the troll which is to rile me up and waste my time and effort. Or when I have free time and since I enjoy it, I call out the amateurishness and naivete of said commentor (as I am doing now).

    If I’m feeling generous, I’ll even sometimes reply with a reference to http://www.carm.org/ or a similar site and ask them to start reading up for themselves the long-stated answers to their questions (which in all likelihood, they themselves have not actually read in their haste to copy-paste). After all, what’s good for the goose…

    Honestly, Robert, I have this Muslim commentor-slash-troll on another post whom I’ve being going back and forth with for over a week now. I find his/her/its efforts far more professional than what you just demonstrated, despite the constant insults and occassional copy-paste, because at least he/she/it provides plenty of original and paraphrased material.

    Ouch! An educated, knowledgeable, logic-based atheist bested by – of all people – a Muslim? One who doesn’t even have that good a command of English? That has to sting!

    Get back to form, Robert… You’ve previously proven that you are capable of better than this attempt!

    Your scriptures, people, represent a period of about a nanosecond in cosmic time and the phenomenon of the universe, including the evolution of life from inanimate matter is far more exciting than any delusions you happen to conjure. At least to me, that is.

    But please, feel free to babble on.

    If that is so and my conjured delusions are sooooooooooo boring (at least to you, that is), then pray tell why do you keep coming back to my blog again and again to debate me on them?

    Busted! But please, feel free to babble on! lololol!

  18. wits0 Says:

    Scott :

    “I’ll be straightforward with you: When commentors can’t even be bothered to phrase their attacks in their own words, but resort to Googling for the nearest attack site and copy-pasting entire chunks of text someone else worked hard to research and type out, I simply call them out on it and skip what they wrote.

    It’s a standard troll tactic designed to waste their opponent’s time – after the attacks are painstakingly typed out and posted, the troll simply moves on to new attacks. I’m not about to get suckered in like that – it’s not like I haven’t seen this tactic like dozens of times, dude.

    Exactly!

    Evidently, if one cannot put things in his own words according to his understanding, one can hardly be regarded seriously. I avoid assertive quotation and circular logic which is only based on illogical fundamental presumption that begs the question so glaringly. One grows weary of long “treatises”.

  19. Robert Says:

    So you’re suggesting I reinvent the wheel? Of course they were copy/paste! Why Reinvent The Wheel? Then again, that’s what you theists are good at; rehashing the same nonsense in your own words. Or would reciting the rosary and mumbling the same old incantations over dinner be closer to the point? If you morons would like to reread what I pasted in short order I can do that for you.

    Your scriptures have no credibility because the authors are ancients who, aside from blaming some ghost for floods, earthquakes and famine, cannot get the details of what is supposed to be The Scoop of Eternity And The Final Salvation of All Humanity correct. And it isn’t even interesting fiction for that matter. Tolkien did a better job with the Lord of the Rings than what the biblical bozo’s tried to put together.

    And you cite my copy paste a waste of time? You suckers have been doing exactly that, and arguing and killing each other over whose interpretation is correct, for the last 5000 years. And illuminate us here; what’s your version? King James? You do know that if your version is lacking the imprematur and nihil obstat of the Roman Catholic Empire then it is bogus?

    I see it this way. 5000 years from now your voodoo will be as relevant as Zeus and Isis are today. Talk about a waste of time.

    “Evidently, if one cannot put things in his own words according to his understanding, one can hardly be regarded seriously. I avoid assertive quotation and circular logic which is only based on illogical fundamental presumption that begs the question so glaringly. One grows weary of long “treatises”.”

    – another copy/paste for you. And yet you don’t consider provocative questions or statements to elicit commentary from a select group as troll bait in your pathetic attempts to convince yourselves that some omnipotent ghost has endowed you with an esoteric knowledge far more elevated and puissant than us mere mortals comprehend?

  20. Robert Says:

    Balderdash Watson!

  21. wits0 Says:

    Bah, humbug! Thus said cold hearted Scrooge.

  22. najibmustdie Says:

    “Chain letters,” said the Tyrant. “The Chain Letter to the Ephebians. Forget Your Gods. Be Subjugated. Learn to Fear. Do not break the chain — the last people who did woke up one morning to find fifty thousand armed men on their lawn.”

    — (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

  23. najibmustdie Says:

    Bishops move diagonally. That’s why they often turn up where the kings don’t expect them to be.

    — (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

  24. najibmustdie Says:

    The trouble with being a god is that you’ve got no one to pray to.

    — (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

  25. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Don’t get mad with the ‘copy n paste’ stuff Robert.. keep it kool !

    Better if you help us explain why everything happened by chance, or by ‘nothingness’ for nothing, like our universe..yet it serves certain functions (grains to fill your stomach, sunlight for all living things; oxygen for our lungs, petrol and rubber latex for our cars..etc, etc (uncountable function). Better explain it to our kids too.

    Let us do simple test to find out if anything happen by chance does serve any function, or not.

    Hold a glass in you hand. Drop it. Does it (debris, mess, brken glass) have any function ?. Drop it again up to 100 time (if it, at any single chance it serve a function or system like our neatly arranged universe..).

    That was a simple good test my kid told me to try an error..

    After all we have waited for millions of years for science to create a single hair, or grain (to serve as our food).. or a flower (no plastic flower please…)

    Clearly to us.. (but not to atheist) the universe is a system CREATD to serve many funtioned need by the living and non living creatures. Who created the all ?

    “No, no… they created themselves you atheists said. How smart are you atheists. You see things by eyes, not by heart, mental, or concience, intuition. PLEASE create one single flower to show us you too can make one..like what God did for us..

  26. najibmustdie Says:

    “All holy piety in public, and all peeled grapes and self-indulgence in private.”

    — (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

  27. najibmustdie Says:

    The figures looked more or less human. And they were engaged in religion. You could tell by the knives (it’s not murder if you do it for a god).

    — (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

  28. najibmustdie Says:

    YOU HAVE PERHAPS HEARD THE PHRASE THAT HELL IS OTHER PEOPLE? “Yes. Yes, of course.” Death nodded. IN TIME, he said, YOU WILL LEARN THAT IT IS WRONG.

    — (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

  29. wits0 Says:

    ““No, no… they created themselves you atheists said. How smart are you atheists. You see things by eyes, not by heart, mental, or concience, intuition. PLEASE create one single flower to show us you too can make one..like what God did for us..” – Nissaei.

    You are, in essence, calling people like Buddha and others not raving about an anthropomorphous ‘God’, heartless, mentally deficient, without conscience and intuitionless?

    If your religion is so compellingly all efficacious, why do the the islamic countries stay so backward and internally troubled for so long? (The ‘Godless’ countries OTOH often seem to be doing very well, by comparision, even when without oil) in a short period of time.

    The Caliphage of the Ottoman empire collapsed under the weight of its own karma. It didn’t even last as long as the Roman Empire. And its running (while it lasted) depended plenty on the non muslims.

    Nay it’s not the others who are sightless but your own conditioned supremacist outlook which breeds no self-reflection or depth beyond the mundane craving for world dominance and control of all humanity – to surely bring them all back into the grime and squalor of backwardness.

    Wait till an alternative fuel comes along to replace petroleum and we’ll see how the presently oil rich islamic countries will fare! We won’t have to wait that long!

  30. kesava Says:

    You are, in essence, calling people like Buddha and others not raving about an anthropomorphous ‘God’, heartless, mentally deficient, without conscience and intuitionless? – wits0

    It was of course the muslims who destroyed Nalanda University and Buddhism, and later Hinduism and look at all the mess muslim countries are in today. Islam never contributed anything to humankind – except for culling.

  31. Scott Thong Says:

    Ah, see Robert? That’s more like it! Now we can see that some thought has actually gone into crafting your attack.

    Imagine if we both resorted to Googling for established polemic and apologetic sites, and copy-pasted the hundreds of points without bothering to even read them. What would be the point of that? Any schoolkid could do that without even being aware of what he is rehashing.

    Whereas if you present your arguments personally – and better yet, one or a few at a time – then your opponents would be more motivated to bother reading and understanding them, instead of getting turned off by the pages and pages of copied text and skipping ahead to the next short comment.

  32. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    You Wits0 has transgressed into kiddy polemic ! “Backward” or otherwise..
    is not simply religious issue. Do you think Buddhist controlled countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Sikkhim all are advanced ? Japan’s Shito maybe yes. What an inanity are Wits0 !! And Christian dominant country like Phillippines is very developed and not “backwarded” ?? Laugh at youself ! lol.

  33. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Kasava.. I will never go to your Kovil and do anything to your Lord Krishnan. Your Lord will hunt me?? I am nothing to do with those lost Afghanis who destroyed the ancient Bhuddha statue. Islam never taught Muslims to do such things.

    In Malaysia, as we all know, demolition be allowed for any mosques, suraus or temples that been built on the roadsides or lands belongs to someone, or without permit from local authority.

  34. wits0 Says:

    ‘..is not simply religious issue.” – Nasaei

    If islam is regarded as, “a way of life”, (in your own terms) and actually is controlling all aspects of life of its fold, it’s really dishonesty to deny the obvious.

    Other religions are actually religion in the sense that they’re persuasion not a compulsion.

    Taqqiya is blatant Machiavellianism in another form.

  35. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “A way of life” = “economic booming” ? Thanks for the newly found terminonoly. Hopefully wrong definition or ‘murky’ understanding won’t
    make you be “karma-ed”. Hopefully no such thing in Shangri-la. (pls forgive me.. i’m just joking)

  36. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “Other religions are actually religion in the sense that they’re persuasion, not a compulsion..”

    – Wits0

    I never said to you “if you continue practising Buddhism and if not convert to Islam..I’ll decapitate your ugly face !”. Never !

    You exprienced it before? WHO FORCED YOU? Lodge a police report..better.

  37. kesava Says:

    “Kasava.. I will never go to your Kovil and do anything to your Lord Krishnan. Your Lord will hunt me??”

    Nasi Ah-mad, my Lord dont give a fark about you, so y waste time hunting you? You are not even a speck of dust in the eye of Shiva. He dont have to hunt you when he wants to, he just call you, just as millions of your brothers and sisters pay pilgrimage to him to him every year.

    Kaaba a Hindu Temple?

    [Note: A recent archeological find in Kuwait unearthed a gold-plated statue of the Hindu deity Ganesh. A Muslim resident of Kuwait requested historical research material that can help explain the connection between Hindu civilisation and Arabia.]

    http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm

  38. kesava Says:

    “I am nothing to do with those lost Afghanis who destroyed the ancient Bhuddha statue. Islam never taught Muslims to do such things.”

    Definitely a flying pig moment.

  39. edgygated Says:

    “You exprienced it before? WHO FORCED YOU? Lodge a police report..better.”

    Another flying pig moment. Now the nasi jadi bubur trying to get police reports lodged when the police are 99% muslims. In S`gor state they don`t even allow that Asri felr or khalid without a lie-cense.

  40. kesava Says:

    “In Malaysia, as we all know, demolition be allowed for any mosques, suraus or temples that been built on the roadsides or lands belongs to someone, or without permit from local authority.”

    Took more than 20 years to finally build the Shah Alam Mosque. Temple land allocated next to rubbish dump and incinerator. Churches operating from shophouses. Attempts to force the Sikh temple in Petaling Jaya to move. Sri Sentosa attempts by muslims to attack the temple resulting in clash. When the malays took a beating the stupid malay muslim police came and parked themselves out the temple for a month. Intimidation.

    Definitely nasi jadi bubur, now it`s pork porridge.

  41. wits0 Says:

    A flying pig moment is an ever so glorious one in the defense of an indefensible pedagogy.

  42. kesava Says:

    Took more than 20 years to finally build the Shah Alam Mosque
    should read
    Took more than 20 years to finally build the Shah Alam Church

  43. kesava Says:

    Catholic paper loses permit to publish
    http://freemalaysiatoday.com/english/?p=1087

  44. kesava Says:

    Malaysia Bibles seized
    http://www.google.co.id/#hl=id&source=hp&q=malaysia+bibles+seized&btnG=Telusuri+dengan+Google&meta=&aq=f&oq=malaysia+bibles+seized&fp=a8e5610364cc8fce

    That`s more flying pigs

  45. wits0 Says:

    Flying pigs get refueled in mid-air by water from the River of Denial in M’sia.

  46. throwaway Says:

    “We love death more then (sic) you love life!”……
    To quote another lone jihadist, “it’s in the Koran.”

    Under the “Conclusions” page, Hasan wrote that “Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam,” and that “Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly — will vary!”
    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/09/muslim-soldier-nidal-hasan-to-fellow-military-doctors-we-love-death-more-then-sic-you-love-life/

    I`ll have some pork nasi bubur tonite

  47. wits0 Says:

    You don’t love life and yet consider yourself holy?

    That’s the ultimate flying pig!

  48. edgygated Says:

    “holy” i.e. full of holes and therefore should be “holey” which is very apt

  49. Robert Says:

    See Scott? I managed to get the old juices flowing once again to your dull and sluggish blog. I mean, who likes a party where everyone agrees on the same thing? “Atheists are god?” Impossible! We don’t believe in the existence of any gods past, present or future. Or are you sadly attempting to say we don’t believe in ourselves?

    And I love the way you side step issues with ‘I discussed this elsewhere’ after chastising one for not reinventing the wheel in his own design. You expect disinterested parties to research your blogs to see what you said somewhere at some point in time? You can’t remember or are you too lazy to once more bestow your divine wisdom upon us mortals? Yes, we mortals who have already tread the path you are still plodding on only to find the same answers. Life and the wonders of the Universe are more interesting, trust me, so give yourself a break away from hating life and worshiping death for a change. Go out and have a beer.

  50. Loop Says:

    ‘..nasi jadi bubur, now it`s pork porridge.’-kesava

    Can take along your pork nasi bubur to some other place. Like Australia maybe.They will add some papadom to make it tasty.

    Poddachitt

  51. royrogers Says:

    hahahaha Loop another stupid lame duck in-denial empty muslim. All malay muslims should be sent back to Indonesia.

  52. hahaha Says:

    Loop is Nasi (Bubur) Ah-Mad.

  53. Adifferentview Says:

    “..your dull and sluggish blog..” - Robert.

    Robert, Lopak in Cantonese, is so full of himself that it spills over.
    Don't think so higly of yourself. Let your writing do the advertising.I'm waiting for something new..atheists haven't said anything new for a long time. 

  54. OSS Says:

    We will need a Navajo to break that code like we did in WW2

  55. OSS Says:

    Navajo code talkers, whose secret vocabulary never was broken and who helped win World War II in the Pacific
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1112/p90s01-usgn.html

  56. Loop Says:

    royrogers,

    Your c*ck has a hole in the end so you can be open minded.

    Indonesia = Malaysia

    Stupid.Stay at home.Eat your pork nasi bubor!

  57. royrogers, Says:

    hahahahahahaha by his own idiot malay muslim logik Loopy has no hole so close minded and pees through his cloaca.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca
    Najib is also Bugis from Celebes, Mahathir keling from kerala, TAR from Siam. Most Malays are migrants from Indonesia…..khir toyol from java also e.g. some malays can fark off to cambodia or south thailand also.

  58. royrogers, Says:

    Oi Loopy, Allah also got cloaca ah?

  59. Scott Thong Says:

    And I love the way you side step issues with ‘I discussed this elsewhere’ after chastising one for not reinventing the wheel in his own design. You expect disinterested parties to research your blogs to see what you said somewhere at some point in time? – Robert

    I anticipated your response from the moment I typed my comment, and here is what I have to say:

    1) A reference link defense in reply to a copy paste attack. Looks fair to me!
    2) The reference link from way back when shows just how old and unoriginal your copy paste attack is.
    3) At least I typed out the defense in the link myself, albeit years ago. Now that’s more than generous for a copy paste attack!

    Life and the wonders of the Universe are more interesting, trust me, so give yourself a break away from hating life and worshiping death for a change. Go out and have a beer.

    Funny, hating life and worshiping death is what we paint on our anti-abortion protest signs.

    And again, if life and the Universe and beer are more interesting, then why are you still here being bored to death day after day?

  60. Adifferentvoice Says:

    No need for code, OSS, as it’s English..some kind of a glitch caused that.🙂

  61. Adifferentvoice Says:

    I know about that, and even watched a movie about its use against the Jap army..As for Robert, I thought he meant to liven up the discussion but what he wrote is old hat..very boring stuff. He seems to think more highly of himself than his words warrant.

    Btw, leave Loopy alone for a while, and avoid references to certain parts of the human anatomy, particularly extremities.

  62. royrogers Says:

    # Loop Says:
    November 13, 09 at 12:35 pm

    royrogers,

    Your c*ck has a hole in the end so you can be open minded.

    Indonesia = Malaysia

    Stupid.Stay at home.Eat your pork nasi bubor!

  63. Loop Says:

    ‘Najib is also…….. south thailand also.’

    Same old song also. You also go back to the estate school.Learn history again.

    By the way, your pork nasi bubur also goes stale.Change to pork nasi dubur.

    hahahahaha

  64. royrogers Says:

    Hahahahaha “You also go back to the estate school.Learn history again.”

    Typically stupid islamic response. We know all about that rubbish. Start eating pork your Loopy brains might get better.

  65. royrogers Says:

    “Same old song also.”…..loop

    The Pendatang joke from Penang
    http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2009/03/11/the-pendatang-joke-from-penang/

  66. royrogers Says:

    Son: *I told her, I wish all the Pendatangs would be sent back to where they
    come from*.
    *Is that Tun Dr Mahathir s/o Iskandar Kutty and
    **Uncle Samy there selling roti ????
    Dad, is this India ??? Badawi in China ….
    Najib in Acheh rebuilding the home…..
    **Khir Toyo busy tending his farm in Indonesia ….
    Syed Albar and the rest of Arab SYED’s clan riding his camel in Yemen ’s
    Arab desert.*

    *** Indonesia population increases by 18 million while Malaysia population* shrink back to 10 million in 15 minutes !!!

    Those descendants with more than 3 generation remained in Malaysia .

    180 years….. 6 generations : Tun Tan Cheng Lock’s descendants.

  67. Robert Says:

    “I anticipated your response from the moment I typed my comment, and here is what I have to say:

    1) A reference link defense in reply to a copy paste attack. Looks fair to me!
    2) The reference link from way back when shows just how old and unoriginal your copy paste attack is.
    3) At least I typed out the defense in the link myself, albeit years ago. Now that’s more than generous for a copy paste attack!

    Funny, hating life and worshiping death is what we paint on our anti-abortion protest signs.

    And again, if life and the Universe and beer are more interesting, then why are you still here being bored to death day after day?”

    Sure you did, Scott, and I anticipated this response as well. Tell your self righteous and pompous nonsense to a mother of five who may lose her life with her child if she takes it to term. Yell your baloney to the family of an impregnated 12 year old daughter who was gang raped. Consign women to the back alley chop shops of the past. But remember one more thing. Abortion is legal in the USA.

    You read yet you do not comprehend. I’m simply here to twist your nuts.

  68. Loop Says:

    royrogers just come from rubber estate.There already a long battle on the issue pendatang.If you so interested than go to the https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/indian-origin-for-malay-history-words-customs/
    You can meet loop aka joy there too as you wish. Bring along your pork nasi bubur. Just happy to see what you look like when pour the pork’s on your own head.

  69. wits0 Says:

    Loop, you’re frenzied and quite loony, stewing in your own swill of denial.

  70. Scott Thong Says:

    Tell your self righteous and pompous nonsense to a mother of five who may lose her life with her child if she takes it to term. Yell your baloney to the family of an impregnated 12 year old daughter who was gang raped. Consign women to the back alley chop shops of the past. But remember one more thing. Abortion is legal in the USA.

    You rehash typical pro-death straw man arguments.

    Are pro-lifers really against all abortions? Even extreme cases like the life-threatening or rape examples you gave? Or are we protesting abortions of convenience?

    There are 1.2 million abortions per month worldwide. Can you seriously claim that even a fraction of these are because the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy, or the pregnancy is a result of rape? In reality, possibly only 10% actually face physical health difficulties, and a mere 0.2 percent involve life threatening complications.

    Why do we always see pro-lifers wanting to repeal Roe v. Wade? It is because ever since this landmark mistake, ‘protecting the health of the mother’ was somehow extended to psychological and emotional health. The definition of these is so loose, that a woman can get an abortion on the basis that she is ‘upset’ that the baby wasn’t planned.

    “Upset?!! Quick, we must save her mental health from this life-threatening depression!”

    1,080,000 babies are killed every month for convenience, not for health reasons. Or do none of these count as ‘lives under threat’ or even potentially human beings to liberals? (The same bunch who want to give voting rights to chimpanzees and trees.)

    I thought liberals were supposed to be enlightened… Wouldn’t a condom be cheaper, less messy and have lower risk of actual danger to health than knifing/vacuuming/poisoning the woman’s womb after the fact? Or is the distribution of free condoms in kindergartens just meant to be another marked-up Democrat boondoggle to put money into Senator Dodd’s pockets?

    But I digress… There’s not much point in using logic and reason with a ‘logic and reason based’ atheist like yourself, whose objectivity is tainted by the corrupting touch of liberalism (and a desire to ‘twist my nuts’).

  71. royrogers Says:

    “royrogers just come from rubber estate.”

    Yes they maight, and yet infinitely better than Loopies coming from kampungs, eat ikan biliis, get ikan bilis brains and remain stupid till they die. Now this IUD Loop wants to teach.
    Another Nasi Bubur Ah-Mad. No wonder Nazri the “Law Minister” was so proud of the malay propensity for going “amok”.

  72. Loop Says:

    ‘Amok’- Oo.. maybe that the greatest risk that knock you out from the estate.

    Actually the word to have an Indian origin, and the act is certainly far from unknown in Indian history. Some notable cases have occurred among the Rajputs. Thus, in 1634, the eldest son of the raja of Jodhpur ran amok at the court of Shah Jahan, failing in his attack on the emperor, but killing five of his officials. During the 18th century, again, at Hyderabad (Sind), two envoys, sent by the Jodhpur chief in regard to a quarrel between the two states, stabbed the prince and twenty-six of his suite before they themselves fell.-Rudyard Kipling.

    Frenzied and loony podachitt, go back to yr estate and keep stew in yr own swill

  73. taxi Says:

    Madness can occur to any race, but only Malays are proud of being mad. Nazri is a walking e.g. of a proud 2009 mad babi melayu, but he has not met Loop who is a better e.g.

  74. taxi Says:

    Most malays and sultans are mad muslim idiots resulting from inbreeding. They f*ck their own daotters.

  75. uzdeks Says:

    Mahathir also said malays F*ck their own sisters and daughters and that is malay dilemma. Malays agreed and kept him for 22 years so mahathir can teach muslims who to f*ck, but khomeini said muslims can fark goats, sheep, donkies and babies. Now the malay muslims stay in towns and kampong is still inside them.

  76. Loop Says:

    ‘Most malays and sultans are mad muslim idiots …’

    So on the next transmission to Malaysia for those with your taxi please remind them not to bring their Jungle Book .Bring the Aurangzeb’s book. The book is at least equivalent to malays and sultan of Malaysia

    So many f*ck in india until all ran amuck including monkees and elephant.(You are the lucky one)
    6 people are dead in police shootings and sectarian violence after hundreds of Hindu…
    goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/…/26-Dead-as-Hindus-Run.html

    India runs dry; clones run amok;-sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/02/..
    Mad Monkeys Run Amok in Indian Capital!-lists.ibiblio.org/…/monkeywire/2001-January/000036.html
    elephant ran amok in India’s northern Uttarakhand state -earthtimes.org/articles/show/208804,elephant-kills-four-in-northern-india.

  77. taxi Says:

    “Bring the Aurangzeb’s book”………no need for books you stupid Loopy mad jerk off….the ah-mad muslim pakistanis and wahabis are already in malaysia.
    ‘Most malays and sultans are mad muslim idiots …’ – yup malay muslim mahathir said too much incest, go and read his book which is about malay dilemma instead of running after mad elephants and mad monkeys in india.

  78. wits0 Says:

    Stupid Loopy mad jerk off is also completely rabid to mention Farkistan like it has anything great to contribute to the world except hubris, dysfunction and terrorism.

  79. Loop Says:

    Malay Dilemma inspire and beam up the Malay,giving prestige and dignity.Strongly built and self respect.

    Your Jungle Book crack you and the coupler -only monkeywires act like Hanuman but only scratching and jerk on the wire showing the sharp teeth transmitt with saliva.

    Parpu curry!

  80. I am an A-atheist (Because Atheism is an Unproveable Faith) « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT Says:

    […] I have been corrected… Atheists can prove that God does not exist, because atheists are god! Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Atheists Are GodTears in Heaven – Atheist […]

  81. Miranda Says:

    You directed me to this post via link at the end of one of your responses to me, and since God’s existence or nonexistence happens to be a subject with which I have struggled (and continue to struggle), I feel I have at least some basic experience with it and would like to respond to this post. Please forgive the length of the following.

    “Atheists pride themselves on their logic. Their logic says that there is no God: Since they cannot find any evidence for God, therefore they conclude that there is no God.”

    I want to refrain from speaking for other atheists, but as an individual atheist, I do not believe that it is possible to logically conclude, with absolute certainty, the nonexistence of something simply because there is no discernible evidence for its existence. I do believe that it is possible to have a reasonably justifiable—if not absolutely certain—belief about a particular subject; for example, I can’t be absolutely certain that I’ll wake up tomorrow morning, but I’m still reasonably sure that it will happen for the sole reason that I have no evidence to the contrary.

    Of course, being “reasonably sure” of something does not necessarily make you correct. I could very well be dead before morning, and the Judeo-Christian God could be waiting for me in Heaven right now. Therefore, although many atheists may feel, personally, that reasonable assurance is enough to warrant their atheism, I believe that it isn’t a particularly strong argument against the existence of God as they have not offered any evidence. In summary, your claim that “Since [atheists] cannot find evidence for God, therefore [sic] they conclude that there is no God,” while perhaps true for other atheists, is false when applied to this individual atheist.

    I do, however, believe that it is absolutely possible to prove that the statement “There is no God” is true, by basic tenets of logic, which I’ll attempt to demonstrate to the best of my competence in the remainder of this response.

    The latter half of your post—namely, everything after “…they conclude that there is no God”—dedicates itself to demonstrating the basic principle that atheists must have demonstrated both omniscience and omnipotence in order to have discovered no evidence that God does not exist, the point being, of course, that atheists are neither omniscient nor omnipotent and therefore cannot do any such thing as discover no evidence for God’s nonexistence—or, if they are both omniscient and omnipotent, then they are, in fact, God themselves (although I feel pretty certain this bit is just for the snark factor).

    However, having both omniscience and omnipotence is not the only method of determining that a thing does not exist. For example, I am neither omniscient nor omnipotent, but I know that there is no such thing as a round square. We could change the definition(s) of “round,” and/or “square,” but the original concept behind a round square as we know it today would still remain fundamentally self-contradictory and therefore renders such a thing as a round square nonexistent. Therefore, I can logically conclude that if the concept of God is fundamentally self-contradictory, then God does not exist, which would essentially prove that there is no God.

    It’s at this point that some atheists refer to the “unstoppable force meets immovable object” argument with the age-old question, “Can God create a rock so big that He Himself can’t move it?” The idea is that if He can neither create nor move this rock, He must therefore not be omnipotent, which is fundamentally self-contradictory (Matthew 19:26: Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible”); if this is valid, then God does not exist. However, this argument has, in the past, been met with the idea that “omnipotence” is defined as “an ability to do everything within logical possibility,” thus making the “unstoppable force meets immovable object” argument obsolete and incapable of demonstrating that God is self-contradictory, therefore potentially debunking the previous explanation for why God supposedly does not exist.

    However, redefining the word “omnipotence” in order to place limitations on God’s alleged omnipotence and therefore make it compatible with basic logic does not necessarily mean that God is, in fact, omnipotent, only that semantics have become involved. The prevalent question now becomes, “Is God capable of doing anything, or is He only capable of doing those things which logic dictates can be done?” If God is, in fact, capable of doing anything as suggested by Matthew 19:26 and as generally understood by the public, then the concept of God is self-contradictory and God does not exist according to the “unstoppable force meets immovable object” demonstration. If God is only capable of doing those things which logic dictates can be done, then He is no different from either you or I, which makes the concept of God fundamentally self-contradictory; therefore, God does not exist.

    I have logically concluded that the concept of God is fundamentally self-contradictory; therefore, God does not exist, meaning that there is no God.

    I’m not so pretentious as to believe that an eighteen-year-old with a relatively limited education has all the answers and understands all the rules of logic, but I did my best to provide a respectful rebuttal to this post which will hopefully allow me the chance to see someone else’s perspective on an argument to which I have yet to receive a calm, intelligent response—not because there is no such response, but because debate so easily dissolves into rhetoric and personal attacks, these days. My goal is not to suggest that what I have written is, beyond all doubt, The Absolute Truth™—since any portion of my comment may be fatally flawed without my realizing it—but to promote the gradual and logical discovery of the actual truth, whatever it may be.

    Thank you for taking the time to read my comment, Mr. Thong.

  82. craighitchens Says:

    http://www.lamiradafilms.com/debate/dge_e01.html

  83. Scott Thong Says:

    I want to refrain from speaking for other atheists, but as an individual atheist, I do not believe that it is possible to logically conclude, with absolute certainty, the nonexistence of something simply because there is no discernible evidence for its existence. I do believe that it is possible to have a reasonably justifiable—if not absolutely certain—belief about a particular subject; for example, I can’t be absolutely certain that I’ll wake up tomorrow morning, but I’m still reasonably sure that it will happen for the sole reason that I have no evidence to the contrary.

    Miranda, this sounds closer to agnosticism than ‘hard atheism’. Correct me if I’m wrong!

    herefore, I can logically conclude that if the concept of God is fundamentally self-contradictory, then God does not exist, which would essentially prove that there is no God.

    An excellent point. The standard apologetic response to this would be to rebutt individual examples of contradictions (as you yourself provide one starting example of below), or to highlight the fact that God transcends our current limited reality (example: ‘God created everything, but who created God?’ is not an issue as God is uncreated).

    (I also have an interesting take on the Trinity if you’re interested.)

    However, redefining the word “omnipotence” in order to place limitations on God’s alleged omnipotence and therefore make it compatible with basic logic does not necessarily mean that God is, in fact, omnipotent, only that semantics have become involved. The prevalent question now becomes, “Is God capable of doing anything, or is He only capable of doing those things which logic dictates can be done?”

    My preferred line of defense is that it is a misconception that God can do anything. Elsewhere in the Bible, it says or can be extracted/concluded that God cannot sin, commit evil, lie, or break His word. Similarly, God cannot do something illogical – such as making black white, yes no, or pair immoveable objects with unstoppable forces.

    Looking at Matthew 19:26 with the Strong’s numbers (a very useful tool), we do see that the original Greek does have Jesus saying that ‘all things are possible’ with God. But we must also take into account the context of the verse and the style of the writer of the Gospel.

    Taking this angle, ‘all things’ is not necessarily defined as ‘every action that can be taken’.

    Elsewhere in the Bible, we find phrases such as the following (with what a completely literal reading would entail):

    These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert east of the Jordan – Deuteronomy 1:1 (Moses spoke to each Israelite individually, or his vocie was so loud that the entire gathering of tens of thousands could hear him)

    Then all Israel stoned him, and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them. – Joshua 7:25 (Every single Israelite contributed at least one stone to hit the one man)

    Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. – Joshua 10:36 (Even women, children and invalids joined the assault)

    So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he lay with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel. – 2 Samuel 16:22 (Everyone in Israel walked by in that period, or some method of pre-television image projection already existed)

    All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. – Daniel 9:11 (Even the prophets and Daniel himself?)

    The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. – Mark 1:5 (Even the Pharisees and Saducees? That’s a lot of people mucking up that one river!)

    It can be therefore concluded that the phrase ‘all things are possible’ is likely a figure of speech (by either Jesus or the writer paraphrasing Jesus’ actual words), meaning that all things within reason and within God’s unchangeable traits is possible with God.

    On a side note, but one that can be used as an illustrative comparison: The Jewish idea of ‘perfect’ (Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect) is not the same as our current idea of ‘100% achieved’. Instead, it means ‘functionally perfect’ – our ‘good enough’.

    I did my best to provide a respectful rebuttal to this post which will hopefully allow me the chance to see someone else’s perspective on an argument to which I have yet to receive a calm, intelligent response—not because there is no such response, but because debate so easily dissolves into rhetoric and personal attacks, these days.

    Agreed. You should feel proud of yourself, benefit of age and experience or not, for I seldom have seen such well thought out comments and have far more often seen 100-point copy pastes combined with insults from others.

  84. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    if possible, please Scott explain more about “can God create a big rock that is so big and he himself cannot move it?” so that some atheists could understand. I don’t think your short explanation here would “clear the air”.
    That misconception idea was old question, perhaps been asked 40 yrs ago, and we find many still starked their mind with it.

    I dont think, if no satisfied explanation to atheist means ‘no God exists’ (god doesn’t exist)! That was not the proof God doesn’t exist.

    Quran advised mankind not to say something “which they have no knowledge of” (about God attributes, existence etc). Meaning that we mankind do NOT know all think about Him, except mostly pure guesswork.
    We cannot even explain his “no beginning” attribute. How can we describe that ? All things including universe had the beginning, but this doesn’t apply to God. Pls. Scott explain more about it. TQ

  85. Robert Says:

    When it comes to Health Care reform the Christian Right, which is neither, stand on the mountaintops and proclaims that the government has no right coming between the individual American and your doctor. Government has no right or place in your personal lives especially regarding your medical needs….oh, ahem, unless of course your name is Terri Schiavo or the subject is abortion.
    ABORTION! The Big “A”! A woman’s right to choose as upheld by Roe Vs Wade. Now not only does a system of religious belief wish to impose its opinion of relative morality on an entire society, they wish to force the government to do so in law. But the government said “No” and it’s still not good enough because the Christian Right, which is neither, said so via its god. Well sorry people, you know? “Give unto Caesar..Give unto God..”, etc?
    Too bad, Scott. The USA is a secular nation and it is legally questionable to attempt to influence the law of the land based on a select group of religious principles. We are not a theocracy.

    Nice post Miranda! Do you like the way Scott dodged your logic with the old quote scriptures flanking maneuver followed by a silky pat on the back? Yes I am the 100 item [could have been thousands] copy/paste dog who needs to rewrite everything in the same language. Evidently a rearrangement of the words is required for Scott and his type because they like to take their scriptures and rewrite them to mean what they wish them to mean and not what they say. A continuing divisive situation you will find among “believers” over time and it is what they call their interpretation of the “Truth”. Take comfort in knowing that you are right and that there is no god or gods. Any claims to the contrary require a burden of proof which does not exist.

    And which Atheist, people, said that existence came from “nothing”? Scott’s buddy Ray Comfort seems to think so and here I must regress and copy paste yet once again, however this is an original response composed and presented by myself –

    Ray Comfort has put up a billboard in LA that claims Atheists believe that everything was “created from nothing.” I don’t know where he gets his information from and I suspect he enjoys putting his words in our mouths or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, that is what he believes we are saying.

    Unfortunately, to his ongoing embarrassment, he is wrong. We don’t “believe” that the Universe was “created from nothing”. We theorize by the precise evidence of galactic trajectory measurements that all matter has originated at one point. Those trajectories are facts of Nature. Do you think that ‘Nature’ is simply limited to the varieties of flora and fauna on this planet? We, being all of known existence including the matter of the Universe, are products of Nature. Nature is a lot crueler than any religious zealot can imagine. Perhaps that is why humans came up with the deity concepts in our early years? They had yet to evolve their understanding of scientific methods and principals; which, by the way, began to blossom once they rejected theocratic rule and entered that period of history we now call The Renaissance.

    What is pre Big Bang? We don’t know! See? We aren’t afraid to say “I or We Don’t Know” because that is an honest truth to our current knowledge at this point of our existence. It is an aspect of Nature that is currently unknown to us at this time!

    Now you believe otherwise and that’s just fine in this country as long as you stay out of politics and don’t commit any crimes against society because the USA is a secular nation. Our forefathers had the good sense to ensure that in our constitution because most of them lived during the later years of state sponsored religion and were aware of its pitfalls. Yet, at the same time recognized the many beliefs of the world and guaranteed that the state nor societies nor individuals had any right to persecute those of faith so they may worship without fear of intimidation. I took that oath to defend our constitution and hold it true to this day.

    We can go on and on about the fallacies of all religious concepts here but let us suffice to say that all are in irrational conflict with Nature and leave it at that. Atheists do not make any extraordinary claims. The burden of proof lies with those who do and theists throughout history have a myriad to contend with…and none are “True” in the presence of diversity. It is the very diversity that renders all faith systems as False.

    Playing on what I would consider to be theist assumptions “What sort of egotistical arrogance do I possess to dare question God?” to answer “What level of divine effrontery does one possess to foist their notion of some preposterous ghost story that has been hashed and rehashed for over 10,000 years in some ridiculous form or another? Each vehemently claiming to be “The Truth” and using all means necessary, including war, to force its acceptance upon those who don’t believe it?

  86. Adifferentview Says:

    Robert, you sound like a preacher I once heard, all talk..so much so we thought he had verbal diarrhoea…all preaching and hardly any evidence or logic.
    Some of us always thought Nature was all encompassing of the universe..what, did you just realise it isn’t only flora and fauna?

    All are the products of Nature? What produced nature? Nature produced Nature? A Philosophy 101 student would call that a circular argument.

  87. Adifferentview Says:

    “We don’t know.” That sounded proud. Now, why are you allowed to get away with such a disclaimer when people of religious faith must answer every question thrown at them? That is downright dishonest and hypocritical.

  88. Adifferentview Says:

    “Evidently a rearrangement of the words is required for Scott and his type because they like to take their scriptures and rewrite them to mean what they wish them to mean and not what they say” – Robert. Robert, you are sly, cunning and dishonest I see no rewriting of the scriptures in the quotes given by Scott. Unless you are using your OWN version, the scriptures according to Robert. You mislead and misguide..some may suggest that you are unethical and immoral. I merely state the obvious: you accuse Scott of something he has not done.

  89. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Robert says (above): “..Nice post Miranda! Do you like the way Scott dodged your logic with the old quote scriptures flanking maneuver followed by a silky pat on the back..?

    No point using scriptures to explain to unbelievers (atheists especially) because they DO NOT believe in scriptures. Perhaps Scott needs to elaborate more, and more..

  90. Robert Says:

    What is sly, cunning and dishonest is the religious shell games you shucksters attempt(ed) to pass off over the millenia as pious and righteous and when confronted with greater evidence of your delusional double talk grasp at even greater lengths, like that pathetically and thankfully short lived hocus pocus act you called “intelligent design”, and all that did was allow you to insult your own intelligence.
    What is immoral and unethical is religion in all its delusional forms.

  91. Adifferentview Says:

    Don’t be presumptuous, Robert. At no time did I mention intelligent design. Don’t foam at the mouth. You must have had a bad history with religious nuts, et al, but this is a rational blog. All you have to do is re-read what various people have written and be open-ended, and whether you agree with what Scott says, you will realize that he is NOT a religious nut.
    Are you so messed up that you are unable to be involved in a rational discussion and focus on the issues at hand?

  92. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Better for you ‘Adifferentview’ cater the issues put forward by Robert (or other readers), rather than counter-attacks, ‘counter-accuses’ others. Help atheists or other agnostic understand our / you position would be better. I notice that atheists are trying hard to find God but failed. A man in the street like me is not in the position to clarify to them. Manybe many other peoples including are competent or ‘well versed’. I sympathized with them, for thousand of years, yet failed to find God. Pity them.. To them, if you cannot see or watch God, then it is a clear proof that God doesn’t exist !

  93. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I think atheists believe in something they themselves do not sure enough. Yet they believe in it (atheism/agnosticism- or whatever term we called).
    How can you believe in anything, whereas you do not know for sure?? Wasn’t it a “delusional form” as they accused us to be ?

    Take for example, no body for sure what were there before ‘Big Bang’, (before time and space), NO ATHEIST / scientist could tell us FOR SURE where does matter (either soil, water, planets, air, etc) comes from, (since billions of years ago, nothing were there. Not even universe, dust, gaseous, particles, air etc.. Yet they come up with an idea..”no god ever exist” they say. It seems to me obviously they believe in something that they themselves are NOT sure. Their only “concrete evidence” (according to them) is that.. they never seen God. Can you call it “evidence” ? So God is not there they say. (sorry for repetition).

    I every life, I, like atheist too depend on logic sometimes. The logic is that, if the universe was there exactly 19 billion yrs ago (let say), this means 20 billion yrs ago, it was not there. So, where does it comes from ?? If you say before that, it was gaseous form (say 25 billion yrs ago), then this means, 26 billions yrs the ‘gaseous form ‘ were NOT there. Where does it comes from? I know this won’t settle the issue. I just need a sure answer from anyones, atheists please..

    In fact so many thing atheist could be sure enough. Besides scientific “evidences” and logic, of course SHEER GUESSWORK ! Guesswork is our faith, our religion..

    Plse consider my poor reasoning to be from an ‘unknown little boy’ who is hungry for explanations..

  94. Scott Thong Says:

    Gee, Miranda. I wonder if you would happen to be proud of your fellow atheist?

    Robert, I’ll see your ‘using all means necessary, including war, to force its acceptance upon those who don’t believe it’ and raise you purging of all forms of religion under officially atheist states in the past century to the tune of about 100 million lives.

    I’ll also see your nationalized healthcare and raise you 56-36 public opposition to Obamacare.

    Oh wait… I forgot, you don’t like to deal with facts, figures, statistics and reality.

  95. Robert Says:

    Wrong again Scott. Facts are facts and I have no problem dealing with them whether I like them or not. But I also have a clear understanding of the facts as well.

    And I’ll call and raise your “purging of all forms of religion under officially atheist states in the past century to the tune of about 100 million lives” though I’ve seen sources quote as low as 60 million, regardless, with the fact that none of those deaths occurred because the victims refused to call themselves “Atheists”. None died to preserve or enforce a non-belief or a non-ideology. Hitler was a catholic, Stalin a Russian orthodox, Pol Pot thought he was a god, Mao thought he was the embodiment of his communist doctrine which is considered just as religious as any existing dogma. So you may conclude that the competing religions were eliminated by the new dogma whose leaders saw them as a threat. And you would still be wrong. The purges were carried out against those who were perceived to be “enemies of the state” to further a political agenda, not in the name of or for “atheism”.

    And if you like to play numbers games, as you most certainly made it a point to quantify your argument with “..in the past century…”, the past century’s population growth indeed has surpassed the entire10,000 years preceding it by a factor of what? 5 + or -?

    Estimated world population at various dates (in millions)
    Year World Africa Asia Europe Latin America * Northern America* Oceania
    Notes
    70,000 BC < 1 [37]

    10,000 BC 1
    9000 BC 3
    8000 BC 5 [38]

    7000 BC 7
    6000 BC 10
    5000 BC 15
    4000 BC 20
    3000 BC 25
    2000 BC 35
    1000 BC 50 [38]

    500 BC 100 [38]

    1 200 [39]

    1000 310
    1750 791 106 502 163 16 2 2
    1800 978 107 635 203 24 7 2
    1850 1,262 111 809 276 38 26 2
    1900 1,650 133 947 408 74 82 6
    1950 2,519 221 1,398 547 167 172 12.8
    1955 2,756 247 1,542 575 191 187 14.3
    1960 2,982 277 1,674 601 209 204 15.9
    1965 3,335 314 1,899 634 250 219 17.6
    1970 3,692 357 2,143 656 285 232 19.4
    1975 4,068 408 2,397 675 322 243 21.5
    1980 4,435 470 2,632 692 361 256 22.8
    1985 4,831 542 2,887 706 401 269 24.7
    1990 5,263 622 3,168 721 441 283 26.7
    1995 5,674 707 3,430 727 481 299 28.9
    2000 6,070 796 3,680 728 520 316 31
    2005 6,454 888 3,917 725 558 332 32.9
    Jul. 1, 2008 6,707 973 4,054 732 577 337 34.3 [1]

    And considering the industrial revolution and development of sophisticated weaponry of “the Past Century” you can easily come to the conclusion that the armies of the latter years had a means to kill many more a lot quicker than the armies of the former years.

    But the numbers game, though it holds more water against your argument, does not touch the causal reasons for slaughter. None of the religions purged were done because they refused to be atheist as you’re attempting to imply. And the weak assumption that the regimes were Atheist doesn’t hold any water because Atheist’s are not religious. So there was no religious cause for slaughter. I’ve used this before; you may as well blame my mother, a devout Roman Empire Catholic, for the Spanish Inquisition.

    What is ‘Obamacare’? Yes, I can understand why 56% [according to Rasmussen Polls] would not be in favor of what the right wing has conjured as ‘Obamacare’. I am a registered Independent that leans center left on some issues and right on others. I am for Health Care and Health Insurance Reform with a robust public option but I had to support my house representative for voting No because the current bill had been watered down so badly to become a shadow of its former self. And yet, I can see the Democratic position that at least it is a start. Let’s compare that to say, cars. How advanced was the interstate system and how many service stations existed when the Ford Model A was introduced to the market? See my point?

    So Scott, facts don’t frighten me. Enjoy the holiday.

  96. Miranda Says:

    “Gee, Miranda. I wonder if you would happen to be proud of your fellow atheist?”

    No one is my default “fellow” by sheer benefit of a common, public label, Mr. Thong, and nor do I bestow either pride or ire upon those who come to their own conclusions about life and the issues we face within it. If what you meant to say was that you wonder whether I respect him or his comments, then I must tell you that I don’t know him personally well enough to say and nor do I have any personal regard in either direction for what I happen to discover on the Internet except within the information I find to be personally useful in my own enlightenment, which I value greatly. Since I have fact-checked absolutely nothing either Robert or you have written since I last commented, no such enlightenment has been attained.

    With all due respect, I think your blog is a treasure trove of thoughtful words for many different reasons, but I have not commented here as part of an atheist movement, and where I have nothing new to contribute, I will not comment out of respect for those who actually do know what they’re talking about–or, at least, appear to know more than I do. If you wish to continue your dialogue with Robert, then that is no concern of mine so long as you remember that it is a dialogue with Robert-the-individual and not Robert-the-representation-of-other-atheists-like-Miranda.

  97. Scott Thong Says:

    And again, I don’t blame your mother for anything. I do, however, attribute much of the capability and willingness to deprive others of their rights, dignity and lives to the rejection of accountability to a higher power and discarding all ‘religious dogma’ including such outdated concepts as ‘thou shall not murder’.

    Why are you so supportive of ‘Health Care Reform’? Is state-run healthcare really all that good? If so, why do so many Canadians fly all the way to America for private healthcare instead of enjoying their ‘superior’ nationalized healthcare? Why do British and European women have higher rates of death from diagnosed breast cancer than American women?

    Does reform mean it will necessarily get better? Obama came promising Change, and look what Change he has brought to the economy and employment rate.

  98. Scott Thong Says:

    Indeed Miranda, and I apologize if I gave the impression that I associate you two together in any way.

    What I was getting at is what you think of Robert’s antagonistic style, as opposed to the calm and collected manner in which you have presented your own remarks.

  99. Miranda Says:

    “What I was getting at is what you think of Robert’s antagonistic style, as opposed to the calm and collected manner in which you have presented your own remarks.”

    What I think is that it’s awfully self-righteous to compare myself to another commenter on your blog post when you’ve already openly established that you consider Robert’s remarks “antagonistic” and mine “calm and collected”. If I have presented myself as respectful, then it was a successful effort on my part to do so because I find debate much easier and more profitable when respect is offered from both sides of the table, not so that I can be used as a point of comparison.

    Robert can express himself in any way he likes, even an offensive one, because I believe adults like you have enough sensibility to separate fact and logic from raw emotion. What I think of Robert’s remarks has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this blog and its comments and in no way affects the arguments being presented, so I will refrain from offering a personal opinion where it is neither necessary nor constructive.

    I enjoyed our exchange.

  100. Scott Thong Says:

    You are surprisingly objective and neutral, Miranda – even after I have already earlier witnessed your calm demeanor. This is an excellent ability, and one that will earn you much respect if you continue to post comments or even blog yourself. I admit to not being nearly as even-headed – I find argumentativeness too much fun to give up…

  101. wits0 Says:

    Miranda, nice description. “Robert-the-representation-of-other-atheists-like-Miranda.”

    He speaks only for a certain shade of atheists. Why is he overly upset with Scott’s insistence about Christianity in particular when it is in islam that carries the problem with its jihad, syariah and curbing of liberty?

    No one, Miranda, can prove the existence of any real anthropomorhic God because such a One is a wrong presumption because It is a Concept. Creation is a Product of Mind, we create our own Reality. individually and en masse. This fundamental understanding is well described from both the Buddhist teachings and The Seth of Jane Roberts’ books.

  102. wits0 Says:

    What if I change that famous expression about “beginning”as that in John to such:

    In the Beginning was the Mind, and the Mind Creates
    And Creation is Mental?

    I don’t think I go to eternal damnation tho’, for that, for helping human understanding. 😀

    At a higher level, “time” itself can be seen as a phenomenal variation.

  103. Scott Thong Says:

    Note that Robert is not merely anti-theological religion, he is anti-religion of all stripes – which going by his denunciation of Communist states as religiously deluded, includes atheistic forms of religion.

  104. wits0 Says:

    Robert may like to throw the baby out with the bath water. Because God does not work for him, human values, morals and ethics can have any validity in his worldview?

  105. Robert Says:

    Sorry for dragging you into this, Miranda. I don’t in any way mean to imply that because we may both be Atheist we share anything beyond that common denominator. But notice that Scott hasn’t commented on his flanking tactic? You nailed him down and he dodged you with scripture.

    And gents, you have this knack of avoiding the issue with assumptions. You are where I’ve been and have moved beyond. Keep this in mind. Your blog title is provocative and invites argument and negative criticism from Atheists. You start with a snarky insult and then whine and condescend when you receive like kind in response.

    Personally I find the concept of inanimate matter reacting to the pressures of gravity and thermonuclear reaction to ultimately form life producing planets from the products of their explosions a far more interesting and exciting mystery to study over an archaic rehash of a multitude of creation myths that contradict themselves in their very essence.

  106. Adifferentview Says:

    Lopak, desperate for support…..

  107. Scott Thong Says:

    Describe my alleged flanking tactic.

    And again, if the wonders of nature are so much more interesting than rehashed theological doctrines, then why do you find my blog so irresistable?

    (Then again, as you say we shouldn’t assume… Maybe you spend 90% of your time on National Geographic?)

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


%d bloggers like this: