27 April 2010

Why the religious engage and then withdraw in a discussion?

From Amazon's discussion forum:
People believe because they are afraid to not believe.

Fear of death is a powerful driving force common to all animals.
It is even a part of our physiology. When we are threatened we produce adrenalin and prepare to defend our lives. We do everything we can to avoid death. But human self-awareness means that we are able to consider the inevitability of our own death in the future. This is physically inescapable and must therefore create some sort of internal conflict or fear. One way of resolving this and `escaping' death is to form the belief of an afterlife. The physical body dies but we continue. Tension resolved. To deny this belief returns the tension and the fear and that is what makes it so hard for believers to give up their faith. They spend their whole lives shoring up their beliefs in order to keep the fear of death at bay.

The fear of atheists comes from the challenge to the certainty of their beliefs. If it is so clear that God, Jesus, the Bible, hell, whatever, is actually so obviously true, then how is it conceivably possible to not believe. It must create some doubt, however small, that must be expunged. If they dare to engage in discussions with atheists it is with the intention of invalidating any view contrary to their own. If the discussion begins to show up chinks in their armour they usually just disappear. Or they might side-step the issue at hand to avoid facing a possibly uncomfortable truth and, heaven forbid, any loss of faith. And it is not surprising that often the fear manifests itself as hatred towards those that do not hold the same cherished beliefs.

James Randi's fiery takedown of psychic fraud

10 Commands, 10 Voluntary Initiatives and 10 atheist Recommendments

There are different versions of ten commandments from different part of the bible, see source Here is the summary from Wikipedia:
Division of the Ten Commandments by religion/denomination
Commandment Jewish (Talmudic)* Anglican, Reformed, and other Christian Orthodox Catholic, Lutheran**
I am the Lord your God 1 preface 1 1
You shall have no other gods before me 2 1
You shall not make for yourself an idol 2 2
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God 3 3 3 2
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy 4 4 4 3
Honor your father and mother 5 5 5 4
You shall not murder*** 6 6 6 5
You shall not commit adultery 7 7 7 6
You shall not steal**** 8 8 8 7
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor 9 9 9 8
You shall not covet***** your neighbor's wife 10 10 10 9
You shall not covet***** anything that belongs to your neighbor 10

The following is Ted Turner's 10 voluntary Initiatives:
1. I promise to care for planet earth and all living things thereon, especially my fellow human beings.

2. I promise to treat all persons everywhere with dignity, respect, and friendliness.

3. I promise to have no more than one or two children.

4. I promise to use my best efforts to help save what is left of our natural world in its undisturbed state, and to restore degraded areas.

5. I promise to use as little of our non‐renewable resources as possible.

6. I promise to minimize my use of toxic chemicals, pesticides and other poisons, and to encourage others to do the same.

7. I promise to contribute to those less fortunate, to help them become self‐sufficient and enjoy the benefits of a decent life including clean air and water, adequate food, health care, housing, education and individual rights.

8. I reject the use of force, in particular military force, and I support United Nations arbitration of international disputes.

9. I support the total elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and ultimately the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction.

10. I support the United Nations and its efforts to improve the conditions of the planet.

The following is William Crawley's Atheist 10 Commandments:
(1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

(2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.

(3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

(4) Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

(5) Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

(6) Always seek to be learning something new.

(7) Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

(8) Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

(9) Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

(10) Question everything.

Here is my version:
(1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

(2) In all things, strive to cause no harm. Do no harm to the environment. [The second part is already covered by the first part, however, at this time, it is worth emphasising.]

(3) Do not have more than two children.

(4) Live a simple life. Reduce, reuse and recycle.

(5) Treat all human as equal. Help those in need and those less fortunate.

(6) Object the use of force, in particular military force, and support peaceful negotiation to resolve disputes.

(7) Seek to be learning via evidence-based methodology.

(8) Reject and condemn dogmas, object indoctrination of the young with unsupported belief.

(9) Support freedom of speech and freedom of association.

(10) Apply logic, reasons and evidence-based facts for all my daily deeds.

What is yours?

23 April 2010

Catholic church

On a thread titled: Having Tried Blaming Victims and Jews Already, Vatican Settles on Homosexuality as the Cause of Church Abuse Scandal, the very patient Michael Altarriba explains again:
"Well all atheism...by its very definition....... is hate."

Atheism is the lack of a particular belief... the belief in the existence of Deities. That is all that atheists have in common, the lack of that one belief. Otherwise, the set of atheists are as diverse as any other group of people. Blanket statements about atheists are as likely to be valid as blanket statements about people who don't collect stamps... which is to say, not at all.

"It exists to hate, to justify hate and provide excuses for vile acts in the name of that hate. Without that hate, atheism is an empty thing devoid of life."

Again, it isn't even a belief... it's the *lack* of one. How can a simple lack of one belief "exist to hate", "justify hate", or "provide excuses for vile acts"? Which acts would those be?

This accusation just doesn't make any sense.

"And the funny thing is by devoting so much time and energy to that hate.....hence this thread for example...atheists simply prove the hypocrisy and fallacy of what they say they believe."

At the moment, I'm trying to counter the slander and misinformation inherent in this post.

"It is not that God exists that drives them to a frenzy but that he does."

Given that I lack a belief in the existence of Deities, any of the thousands which humans have worshiped (including the one referred to here as "God"), I could hardly be driven into a frenzy by something which doesn't exist. Now, the actions of a *few* theists, those do annoy me, even anger me on occasion... but I remain frenzy-free.

"If they truly believed that God did not exist then this thread would not exist."

What does my lack of belief in the existence of Deities have to do with my outrage over an organization which, as an institution, knowingly hid evidence that some individuals were likely to have molested children, knowingly attempted to blame the victims, and knowingly moved these individuals around, allowing them to find new victims.

I'd say that was worthy of outrage... wouldn't you?

"All their shrieking and poison would cease."

Shrieking? Poison? If anything, it is posts like the one to which I respond which deserve such a description.

"The Attacks on the Catholic Church and the Jews. All of it."

Don't you think an organization which aided and abetted the abuse of children should be called to account? I certainly do.

"A normal person does not expend so much effort on a nullity."

Child abuse is hardly a nullity.

"A normal person would just get on with their lives."

One wonders if you would give this advice to the victims as well...

"It would like me starting a thread on why THREE'S COMPANY was a terrible show or why I hate football."

You must be new to the internet. Discussions like these get started all the time.

"Why would a normal person do that?"

Curiosity? Interest? Entertainment?

"Do not watch football. Do not watch THREE'S COMPANY."

Not everyone agrees with you. Indeed, I'd say that most people don't.

"Ah but our Atheists and Gay Agenda friends, they are at war with an enemy and by being at war with that enemy they show the falsity of their stated beliefs."

I'm "at war" with ignorance, prejudice, discrimination, injustice.

"So yes of course they respond with anger and hostility. That is all there is.

You're the one who seems to be in a frenzy here...

22 April 2010

How can you not be angry?

a Dr. Gregory Thompson:
"The government schools are anti-Christian, atheistic and pagan, and they are against God, family, and country. Do not call yourself "Christian" saying you love the children, yet have children in a government school, k-12 through college. Christian priests, pastors, and bishops hate their congregations if they do not warn their people to get out of the government schools. Pastor, you must help the parents with this issue of education. Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself". If you do not tell your neighbors to get their children out of the government schools, you hate them instead of love them. To know this truth, and not do anything about it in your area of influence is sin. James 4:17 - "Therefore to him that knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin." If Church or Government leaders say otherwise, it is a lie from hell. ...."

WOW, how can you not be angry?

5 Things Theists Shouldn't Do When Arguing With Atheists

19 April 2010

What next?

"Many psychologists, many psychiatrists, have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true. That is the problem. - Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone" [source]

What a load of sh*t! Can it be more wrong than this?

1. It is morally corrupted to deny justice to the victims. It is morally corrupted to cover up the horrible deeds that have been done to children. It is morally corrupted to abuse the trust placed up these priests who have committed crime against children. Oops, they do it all the time, indoctrinating young minds. Molesting is another small step!

2. It is factually wrong. Salon's news offers this link. I think there are certainly more research on that.

14 April 2010


Is Nature obeying some sort of law?

There is a fundamental hypothesis of nature: nature behaves consistently. By this I mean no matter who do a test, when the same test is done and where the same test is done, the result will be the same under the same conditions. Other than that, the nature is chaotic. However, human are clever enough to find order among the chaos.

Science is a systematic ways of removing personal and observational biases, isolates the variables and tries to make a pattern out of the chaos. So far we have been quite successful. Human has figured out many physical laws - models of reality which can explain many observed facts. These physical laws can predict - based on the consistence of the nature. These laws are short-hand for describing a large number of observations. We may use language like nature obeys the law of thermodynamics. The fact is that we have figured out a law (by careful observation of nature) to describe one aspect of nature. A better way should be the law of thermodynamics describes an aspect of nature.

With this in mind, the argument of god as a creator changes. God does not create nature's laws. Nature's laws are human's model of the reality. We may find better model to describe the nature - which happens regularly and is called scientific discovery. The behaviour of nature remains the same. Only our description of nature which has changed.

During such a process, science and god should not be in any conflict. In fact, whether there is a god or not does not matter. That's the position of Einstein. He believes that there may be a god who created the universe and then let the universe runs its own course without further intervention.

The rest of this post is my hypothesis of how religion gets formed.

The starting point is that human has an urge to find pattern and explain things. In the old days when human knew little about how universe behaves, when thunder strikes, when there is earth quarks, when there is ellipse of the sun, people, being less knowledgeable, felt fear and anxiety. Some invented the god concept. God became a knowledge-filler, explaining superficially the natural events. These stories were transmitted orally, exaggerated and mystified. later these stories were hijacked by religion, organisations for the purpose of controlling the common people.

The sad side of this is the dogma propagated by religion. The tragedy is that many believe the story to be literally true. The harm is that many were falsely led to acting out some commands from god and committed atrocities to humanity.

Frankly, we should have grown out of the shackle of religion. Science has shown us how simplicity can lead to complexity. Science has enabled us to send men to moon and back safely. Science has enabled us to radically changed the surface of earth to suit our life style.

Human, as society animals, has basic instinct for co-operation. On the other hand, human brain has also evolved to learn to cheat on others. Human has selfishness. Human are short-sighted. After all, why should not we? In the time of the universe, we are just a blink of eye. Sometimes, we do things which actually harm ourselves without realising it. Among all these weaknesses, we do not need a religion to tell us what is best for ourselves. There is no use for a blind to lead a blind. Religious dogma is old - too old to be useful. New understanding is better as a guide than old exaggerated and mystified stories. Stories, such as creation, have been proven to be completely wrong.

To justify the old stories, new understanding of reality is being condemned, being prosecuted, being denied and being misrepresented. This is not helping anyone except those who have selfish reasons to maintain the status quo. Some are mistakenly led to defend their religion. While they conduct their life logically and evidence-based for every aspect of their life, in matter related religion, all these are thrown out of the water. That is totally unnecessary. Drop the religion baggage. Unit. Let not be divided by religion. Both theists and atheists are human. We are brothers and sisters. Try embrace rationality, apply reason and treasure the luck we have as the most evolved species on this planet earth.

11 April 2010

AtheistAussie calls Satan

God of the Gaps?

Chris Sissons wrote:
The flaw in this argument is of course that Christianity and science are not trying to explain the same things.

Wrong. The bible gave an account of the creation of the universe which is completely wrong. The religious are forcing their outdated ideas into the school (as in intelligent design). This is the overlap of science and religion and this is where the battle is.

Are the gaps getting wider? There are plenty of places in the modern universe for God. For example, dark matter, dark energy and the quantum vacuum. Certainly this should give the atheists pause (how do we know God is not concealed in dark matter - we know very little about it). However, it is not a place I'm prepared to consider because science moves on and dark matter may not even be thought to exist in a few years.

This is dishonesty. Where in the bible did it say that god is in the dark matter? This is making up of an excuse to make the irrelevant god looks possible. It is not. Why god needs to hide in the dark matter?

The argument is that as science advances and more is explained the need for God diminishes and so the Christian faith is superseded on all fronts.

So Sissons actually knew the correct interpretation of "god of gaps" but deliberately chose to look elsewhere in order to protect his blind faith.

10 April 2010

The holely books

I cannot speak for god. What the best I can do is to reason what a god would do when it dictates a set of books for human to model.

1. Being all knowing, god should expect that some time in the future, there will be people who challenge the truth in the books. For an intelligent god, actually for us as well, is to tell the truth - however incomprehensible it may sound (after all the stories in the books are incomprehensible anyway). So the creation story should start like (it takes 13.7 billion years for the earth on which human will leave). Even better would be to give a more accurate time (say to 10 decimal places or even more).

2. If the book is to be interpreted metaphorically, would it not be wise to state so at the beginning, at least will avoid misunderstanding?

3. Would it be wise to dictate to a group which will have more population? China or India?

4. Would it be wise to dictate to the most civilised society at the time?

5. In turns of timing, would it be better to appear today (instead of 2000+ years ago) when human has the ability to spread the truth much faster and more efficient?

6. After dictating the books, why leave us?

07 April 2010

Jesus of Nazareth

Was there a Nazareth township at Jesus time? Short answer, no.

Reality and circular logic

This is a comment I posted on a discussion thread on Amazon;

Yes, everyone has illusion, delusion and lapses of logic. On the issue of god, many have thought about it seriously. The conclusion that there is no god is not a delusion and not a lapse of logic. There is simply no evidence for existence of god.

We can form our world view two ways (for the purpose of this discussion)
1. based on a circular logic that god exists (god exists because the bible said so. the bible is the words of god)
2. based on evidence which are observation of reality

Forming one's world view basing on 1 above is your choice. USA constitution has the beauty that everyone has the right to be stupid. However, the dissociation of the religious from reality are sources for ridicule which again is protected by the USA constitution.

If we condense 13.7 billion years of the history of the universe into 1 year, modern science has occurred for about 1 second. There are many things we still do not know. We can either honestly accept this reality (we do not have answer to a lot of things) or we can lie to ourselves that everything we need to know is already known. However, as science progressively build a better understanding of reality, the number of things which previously were explained in the bible began to shrink. What are left in religion today are dogma and many claims which require huge mental juggernaut for reconciling. Noah ark is a good example of how impossible it would be to argue that it would be built using wood and large enough to house 2 of every kind of animals. Noah lived to "matured 900 years" is another source for comedy. Killing innocent babies, killing 42 children for the crime of laughing at someone's baldness (2 King 2:23-24) are just impossible to defend as moral acts.

Of course, for this thread of discussion, demanding people to prove a negative is REALLY a lapse of logic.

04 April 2010

Australian religious D*ckheads' reaction to Rise of Atheism during Easter

Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, says atheists hate God.
Cardinal Pell of St Mary's Cathedral delivered a similar attack on atheism in his Easter message yesterday. He praised government organisations "paid for by the Christian majority" for helping make the Australian way of life the envy of the world, but noted that atheists sponsored no community services.
The new Catholic Bishop of Parramatta, in Sydney's west, Anthony Fisher, continued the attack in his Easter message, "Last century we tried godlessness on a grand scale and the effects were devastating: Nazism, Stalinism, Pol Pot-ery, mass murder, abortion and broken relationships - all promoted by state-imposed atheism." [source]

Frankly, as pointed repeated by everyone who does not believe in a god that the position of atheism is that there is no evidence of the existence of a god. My position is that "no proof, no god". It is ridiculous to think that atheists hate a god which does not exist.

Christians believing in the writings of a few ancient people about their world using stereotypical religious beliefs of their time and we all are expected to bow down or suffer ETERNAL TORTURE. - Jave & Capricornrising

There are basically 2 kinds of atheists: 1. those who have a higher criteria of reliablity, and demand more than blind faith to accept the truth of a proposition; 2. those who question unlimited power, blind obedience and unswerving devotion to an unquestionable authority (remember: Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely). - S.C. Chase

Laws of Thermodynamics and Evolution of species

The discussion on an Amazon forum was on the second law of thermodynamics recently. A participant puts this up:
The second law of thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system. [it was later found by another participant to be a direct copy from Henry Morris, from the Institute for Creation Research]

Second law of thermodynamics is a law in Physics and the above quote has obviously been adopted for life systems. Physicists are not interested "ingestion-storage-converter" and would not include such references in stating a physical law. In this adoption, Morris injected two additions to the law and missed out an important part.

Amazingly, I found an easy to understand description of laws of thermodynamics in a website claiming evolution theory is against the law of physics. (science against evolution SAE):
The Zeroth Law simply says there is no heat flow between objects that are the same temperature.
The First Law is that heat cannot be created or destroyed.
Second law needs a bit more explanation:
Entropy: For a closed system, the quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
second law: Entropy in a closed system can never decrease.
From SAE, it is stated as
A natural process that starts in one equilibrium state and ends in another will go in the direction that causes the entropy of the system plus environment to increase.
The Third Law says that an ideal engine would convert 100% of the heat into useful work only if its exhaust temperature were absolute zero.

Comparing Morris's version with that from SAE
  1. Morris missed the "closed system" part of the law
  2. Morris arbitrarily added the needs of "informational program" and "ingestion-storage-converter mechanism"
Hence, I can dismiss any reference of violation of laws of thermodynamics by evolution theory as claimed by Morris because he is just plain wrong in his interpretation of thermodynamics. BTW, here is a rebuttal of Morris's work based on the myths of Noah's ark.

Two links further SAE claims that evolution violated laws of physics:
So, what does this have to do with the origin of life? Well, according to the grand theory of evolution (molecules to man), the evolutionary process began with abiogenesis. Organic molecules spontaneously combined to form amino acids, which combined to form proteins, which spontaneously combined to form DNA, RNA, and cell membranes, etc. Somehow the first cell formed, which reproduced, and natural selection caused it to evolve into all the life forms we see today.
The theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Somehow simple molecules have to assemble themselves into more complex molecules (the “building blocks of life”), which assemble themselves into the first living thing, which reproduces itself, in order to get the evolutionary process started. Molecules will not assemble themselves this way because they have to obey the same laws of thermodynamics as the wooden Building Blocks of Life do.
Here, we have a case of good Physics with bad biology. Watch these short clips to have an idea of how abiogenesis may have started the life:

Spontaneous combination is not uncommon. Basically, all chemical process are combination, some spontaneous and some with help from catalysis.

02 April 2010

The Burden of Proof: How Atheism Has Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended

Josh Schrei wrote in the Hoffington Post arguing for some form of value of religion.
Atheists obviously don't know the value of spiritual practice, because they don't experience its value. Its a bit like someone who has sat idle in front of a computer for most of their lives telling a soccer player that there's no value in soccer. Coming from a non-soccer player, the statement means absolutely nothing. There are 4 billion+ people in this world who practice some form of religion. They are not all -- every single one of them -- enslaved by fear or ignorance as some atheists seem to imply. Clearly many of them are getting some personal value out of it.

Truth is not a popularity contest. With billions dollars pouring into the religious propaganda machinery, continuous expansion of wealth gathering and power grasping by religion is obvious. The illusion of people getting value out of religion is just an illusion. Granted socialising with like-minded people, having some quiet reflective time and doing some repetitive tasks (prayers) can help reduce some of the modern life stresses. Similar activities, without the illusion of a god and without the side-effects of religion gathering more wealth and more political influence could be organised in more healthy ways, such as get together with friends, read and discuss books of common interest, play some music, sing some songs or offer a hand for the needy.

Creativities come in two forms:
(1) Malcolm Gladwell, in Outliers: The Story of Success, talked about a 10,000 hour rule - in a wide number of different cognitively complex disciplines, word-class expertise cannot be attained without at least 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. With such amount of practice, the product of the creation, in almost any measure, shows some form of creativity for a layman.
(2) Aha moments - an instant at which the solution to a problem becomes clear, an unconscious shift in mental perspective that can abruptly alter how we perceive a problem. An 'aha' moment is any sudden comprehension that allows you to see something in a different light.  This requires two pre-conditions: (a) one has to be on the task for a extended period of time and have accumulated sufficient experience in solving problems in near-by domains, (b) extensive knowledge base. The shift in perspective is looking at the problem from a different angle, based on the understanding of a discipline different to the problem at hand. It is a sudden connection between two parts of the brian - which has been experimentally verified.
In fact, our brain may be most actively engaged when our mind is wandering and we've actually lost track of our thoughts, a new brain-scanning study suggests. "Solving a problem with insight is fundamentally different from solving a problem analytically," Dr. Kounios says. "There really are different brain mechanisms involved."
By most measures, we spend about a third of our time daydreaming, yet our brain is unusually active during these seemingly idle moments. Left to its own devices, our brain activates several areas associated with complex problem solving, which researchers had previously assumed were dormant during daydreams. Moreover, it appears to be the only time these areas work in unison.
"People assumed that when your mind wandered it was empty," says cognitive neuroscientist Kalina Christoff at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, who reported the findings last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. As measured by brain activity, however, "mind wandering is a much more active state than we ever imagined, much more active than during reasoning with a complex problem." [source]

Pointing out Newton,.Freidrich Kekulé and Srinavasa Ramanujan got their insight "intuitive" has nothing to do with believing in a god.

There is a reason that Hindu mystics after studying, debating, and meditating over hundreds and hundreds of years came to conclusions about the nature of the universe that have been substantiated by modern physics.

I have never come across any Hindu's understanding of the universe being substantiated by modern physics. I do not know much about Hindu, but I was a student of Physics. If someone can point me to some resources to verify this claim, it will be much appreciated. However, making statement, like the quote above, without reference and evidence, does not make the argument for religion any stronger.

Finally, DaveyDavey put in a comment which I agree:
This article [linked to the title of this post] is based on a false premise. Nobody has proven what gravity is, but we all have to live by its rules. No one has proven what time is, but its effect is undeniable. We understand the universe by what we can sense and intuit, and what we can deduce from observation. While the inability to know the unknowable has no doubt driven some deep thinkers mad, most of us are content to take some things for granted even though it seems that they will never be understood. Science keeps the door open for learning more about the universe, and religion has tried for a thousand years to slam the door in our faces.

The scientific method of understanding the universe by bearing and overcoming the burden of proof is a testament to human intellectual capability. To seek an end run around the burden of proof to gain acceptance of one's view of the universe is a measure of human deceit and gullibility.

I can only add that living with the false illusion of god does not make life any easier or worse. Life, as it is, is already interesting enough, complex enough and challenging enough. There is no more reason modern society should still move with the heavy shackle of religion. The used-by date of religion has long gone. Human has finally found a method of investigation which helps us to remove our biases and helps us, the whole species, to move on with better understanding of the physical reality we are in.


Science, via the scientific method, tries hard to *dis-prove* hypotheses, and those that are left standing are given the *provisional* status of being true, with the understanding that new evidence, or a new analysis of old evidence will show the hypothesis is false. - Michael Altarriba

God's killing

We all know that the christian god is blood thirsty. How many has god killed? Steve Wells at Dwindling in Unbelief did a tally, about 2.4 millions. Some of the comments are really interesting:

You will rightfully burn in the realm of nothingess forever when you die you silly fool; unless you get out of that shallow paradox you think you're so smart in and start believing in the One and Only God that created you and gave you a choice to acceot It or deny It in the fist place. And if you deny It, you will be destroyed by your own making. All Satan did was feed you many lies and prove you are an obvious sucker that has bought into this shallow thinking. Lies and people kill people, not God, not guns. Suckers like you do deserve death. But you can also save yourself by believing in Who Jesus said He was. I feel sorry for your shallow, tainted brain. - Anonymous

WOW so christian, don't even have the backbone to put in a name!

"SoldierUnderCommand said...
The question you did not ask was; Is God justified in killing these people.
If God is who He says He is, then He is justified in all that He does. He is the ultimate standard for what is just and unjust.
He can kill who He pleases and is righteous in doing it."

If we are to follow the bible as a moral guide, what should we do? Kill like god or not? Not a good guide for human co-operation and mutual survival, I would say.

The reason that parents cannot kill their sons is because we live in a world of laws.

This one really scares the shit out of me. What does s/he mean "because we live in a world of laws". In other words, without our human laws, this being is ready to kill its off spring! If this is an indication of the typical christian world view, we are in deep shit!

I like the following:
It is bad enough that god takes credit for killing two million plus people in the old testament, but in the new testament he must top himself by promising to send billions of unbelievers into eternal suffering after death. What a wonderful expression of love??

The count given by Stephen is in the bible, one of the commenter asks if we know how many were killed, for real, by this religion, in the name of this god. Some one suggested this link.

01 April 2010


Religion is the ultimate in pyramid selling schemes.
And at the top of any of those pyramids is always wealth or power or both. brunumb

What this child will become?

From a thread on Amazon's discussion forum:
Take for an example a normal child (man). Place him in a household with a domineering father (God) who threatens severe punishment (hell) if the child ever steps out of line (sins). Have the father set up the rules and expectations such that the child can *never* get them all right (for all have sinned ... etc). Every once in a while, this father will show love to the child and even give him little gifts (answered prayers), but not on a consistent basis. He may punish the child for the littlest thing, or for no reason at all (trials and tribulations). The child may have other brothers and sisters (fellow believers) who tell him that the father is wonderful and loves them, but are just as fearful of the father as he is. The father constantly tells them that he loves the children, and is always pushing them to be better than anyone else's children.

What kind of person do you think this child is going to be? In many cases the child will deny the father ever did anything wrong, that the child 'deserved' what happened to him (original sin?), insist that the father was a kind and loving person, and be perfectly willing to do anything at all to please the father, even up to and including the most horrific of acts. In other cases, the child may reject the father and, still believing all of the above, go out and commit the most horrific of acts just because the child believes that the child is a horrible person.

Take such an adult and place him (or her) in a society where psychology is still in its infancy, where EVERYONE believes that this father is a great guy and is fearful of him, give the child the thought that the father doesn't like some group of people, and ... well, history tells the rest. Add in, of course, the political motivations available, and the quest to 'prove' that one's particular Belief System (B.S.) is better than the other guys' (in many cases at least). - Davyd

An idea worths spreading

Which would you choose, the right hemisphere or the left of your brain?