Thursday, July 8, 2010

Damn it's hot down here, can I get some electrolytes?

I have a friend, he and his wife are Atheists. He once told me because of the fact that I believe in Heaven and Hell that that makes me judgmental and a hater.

Then I ran across Cipher's blog. I believe he frequents "Debunking Christianity". His "about me" thingy has this to say: "the doctrine of salvific exclusivism is the vilest belief ever concocted in the history of our civilization. Some of my earliest memories are of televangelists threatening me with eternal damnation for not believing something that I seem to be inherently incapable of believing. I reject absolutely the notion that someone can be willing to abandon for all of eternity billions of his or her fellow human beings, yet somehow still be considered a good person".

Before I ask my question I'd like to first make a few points. #1. I never understood why Christianity is considered "exclusive". Anyone can become a Christian. Young, old, black, white, Jew, Gentile, male, female, disabled, able body, handsome, pretty ugly, butt ugly, small sinner or great sinner. It just doesn't matter, all are welcomed. #2. Who says were "good"? #3. I can "reject" the idea that my mechanic billed me $500.00 to fix my brakes. Just cause I don't like the idea of highway robbery doesn't change the fact that I owe him $500.00. And #4. If Hell is real, and you know we Christians at least think it is, (that's why you call us delusional) shouldn't we warn you that it's a bad place? Wouldn't it be mean not to tell you?

Also like many other Believers I don't like the idea of Hell either. I don't bring it up often. Mainly because I believe God will do what is right. Wherever and or however we end up will be deserved.

But here's my main concern. I really don't want to be offensive toward anyone or have anyone think I hate them. But I can't understand why everything about Christianity is a joke except the idea of Hell. You don't believe in God or the Devil. Angels or Demons. If I ask "why don't you believe in God" you'll answer "same reason we don't believe in tooth fairies, unicorns, leprechauns or magic fairy dust. So if you don't believe in Heaven or Hell, why is this so offensive?

Thanks for reading, feeno

79 comments:

  1. Problems with #1: You left out gay people, and I think we can safely assume those who feel nothing for God are also excluded. And if you're a woman who has anything controversial to say, don't expect to be welcome long... and in times past, being white helped...

    Problems with #2: Christianity makes it very clear that the mere lack of belief in Jesus is enough for eternal damnation, which is also reserved for murderers and theives (and possibly rapists, depending on your interpretation of the Bible). Belief is equated with good in such ideas as the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule (which is preceded by "Love the Lord God above all else," before it gets around to telling people to be good to one another).

    About #3: Tell me about it, cost me $1200 to fix the A/C in my car, but well worth it in this heat.

    About #4: We know this is what you're trying to do. I find it rather egotistical of a group of people to act like they have it all figured out based on a shoddy English translation of documents ranging in age from 1800 to about 2500 years old (the Old Testament is actually about 2500 years old, when it was standardized by Ezra, aka "The Redacter."). Also, I think people are less bothered by the verbal "warnings" than they are by the moralistic and religious legislation that affects everyone.

    It's interesting to note that in multiple surveys I have seen, there are actually more people who believe in heaven than do believe in hell. Wishful thinking, I guess...

    As stated with my problem with #2, Christians equate certains acts that have no business being equated. Homosexuality is a key example. Homosexuality is an abomination, but selling female daughters to men as wives is standard practice? This doesn't seem like divine revelation, it seems like weak justification of vile human bigotry masquerading as God's Word. So they got stealing and murder right, that doesn't mean pork is unclean or that wearing cloth of mixed fibers is also wrong.

    Atheists are not offended by Hell, they are offended by the fact that people shove a religion in their face on a near constant basis which says they are bound for eternal suffering. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Christians figured since there is no Hell, they'd better make it Hell here on Earth. Otherwise, you'd put a little faith in your God to do His job, and you can just go back to not judging others, lest ye be judged.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Geenks,

    @#1. Gay people would fit into the sinner category. great or small, take your pick.

    @#2. Yes, the beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord.

    @#3. Wow, I've been with out air conditioning in my truck for the last 3 summers and they can fix mine for about 1/2 that.

    @#4. I wish I had it all figured out. And believe it or not, I don't like the idea of legislating morality either.

    Thanks as always Geenks for checking in. I appreciate it.

    feeno.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great post (again!), feeno. The only thing I would correct is the following statement:

    "Wherever and or however we end up will be deserved."

    Actually, that is only true for those that end up in hell, the place that all of us deserve to go.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh yeah, the attempt to transfer Christian self-loathing... that is also annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  5. feeno, please excuse this observation, but you tend to make good initial posts, laying out your thoughts for us to digest, but when one (Ginx) responds in a well thought out manner adding greatly to the discussion, your next response usually gives me the impression that you just skimmed what he said and didn't actually consider that he may have some thoughts that are worthy of much more than a passing glance.

    Personally, if I were you, which I am not, but if I were, I would read, and re-read what he said, then I would actually stop and think about it...but that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. bobaloo

    One of the reasons I started blogging was because I really enjoyed talking with folks on Atheist websites. I spent about 90% of my computer time on "Debunking Christianity". But as time went by it got increasingly frustrating expressing my thoughts. The main reason is exactly what you are talking about. So I agree with you and am impressed you picked up on it. I would try to respond to something over at DC only to get a bunch of responses back that would either be off topic, red herrings or just simple name calling. I wanted to continue with the topic of God/no God because it's really the only thing I know anything about besides tile.

    What I'm saying is I am being selfish. I want to be able to express myself because for some weird reason it makes me feel better and two I truly want people to think for themselves. If they read my post and think it's rubbish I'm just as excited if they read it and think it's cool. Bottom line is they read it.

    I can't "save" anybody. I don't believe the Bible teaches me that I can. We are taught to share or spread the Gospel message and that is all. The rest is up to those who hear the message and God.

    But for you my good man, I am interested in answering anything I can. I will never run from a question. I may not give you a good answer, or one you like or even the right one, but I will try.

    I did re-read Geenks comments and except for a couple comments about what he thinks of the validity of the Bible there's not much I can say. I could write an entire post on the historical accuracy of the Bible but sometimes that gets a little tired. If I see something on DC about it I will usually get involved. Say my peace and then run for cover. Because all that usually follows is people trying to convince each other with their idea of what the facts are. And quite frankly what good does that do, if all my facts are from "Christian" resources and all your their facts are from "Atheist" resources?

    Again if there is something specific you think I need to answer I will truly be glad to do it.

    Thanks for the compliment and the constructive criticism. I'm glad you found my blog and hope you continue to visit it. And I do and will take requests. So if you got an idea on a topic no matter what it is, we'll do it.

    Double Dueces, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob,

    Please excuse this observation, but your replies on these threads leave something to be desired. When someone (Feeno) responds in a well thought out manner to a reply by someone, you seemed to imply that the guy really didnt think or somehow missed what was an obvious point in your opinion.

    Personally, if I were you, which I am not, but if I were, I would frame my criticisms of the comments made by others in thus a manner...

    "Feeno, (for example) Ginx said X. Would you mind expanding upon your remarks that you made in response to this? For instance you stated Y but what do you think about Z ?"

    Or if someone didnt address a particular point at all, simply ask their opinion about that point.

    You might want to actually stop and think about that... but that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. JD,

    Pardon my French, but "Mange de la merde et meurs."

    ReplyDelete
  9. JD

    Thanks for having my back Brother. I'm not sure Geenks liked it tho. I just googled his french.

    Every time we get in these quibbles I remeber what "Nobody Cooler Schuler" said about this site. he liked it because we never got into fights. I'm sorry NCS if I let you down.

    Peace be with Geenks, bobaloo ,NCS and my boy JD.

    I'm going to bed. Good night.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ginx,

    Excusez-moi, apporte des preuves que je suis un raciste?

    Si ce n'est pas possible, vas te faire encule. Salaud.

    Tu es l'une de deux persones bannient sur mon site. Bravo. Felicitations!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dans l'intervalle...

    Feeno, Christians like to think that they tell people about Hell as a warning, but it's a threat. Whether or not there's really a God or the Christian really believes doesn't affect this; if the Christian is sincere, the threat is indirectly from God himself as He's the one who makes the decision to send people there. You don't warn people that you may do something horrible to them yourself, according to criteria of your own arbitrary choosing. You threaten it.

    This is what provokes the emotional response from non-Christians. It's pretty straightforward, because nobody likes to be threatened. It also provokes most of the attacks on God's character. And since atheists don't believe in God, the predictable anger due to anyone who attempts to control through threats and fear (which you admit is all-important) tends to be transferred to the Christians who deliver the threats.

    Does that make sense? Do you understand why atheists don't like to hear what Christians have to say about Hell, and why if you plan to actually convince them of it you'll need to do it some other way beforehand?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Christians like to think that they tell people about Hell as a warning, but it's a threat

    More accurately, certain people amongst the atheist set perceive it as a threat.

    You don't warn people that you may do something horrible to them yourself, according to criteria of your own arbitrary choosing. You threaten it

    Yes, you can put a finer distinction on it I suppose. I only take exception to the "you may do something horrible to them yourself".

    We make our own destiny. If one chooses not to critically examine God existance/claims of scripture with an open mind and just reject it out of hand, then that person made their own bed and will have to sleep in it for all of eternity.

    This is what provokes the emotional response from non-Christians

    It might. But on the other hand, have you ever considered the claimed preponderence of aspergers syndrome among atheists? Especially the more militant ones?

    ReplyDelete
  13. feeno, thanks for your response. Helps me understand your motivation. I guess my criticism of your lack of a substantiative response to ginx was simply due to my misunderstanding of what you like to do on your blog. In the future, if I want to know, I'll ask you.

    As for JD, I avoid conversations with him. I think this is only the second time he has responded to something I have said and both times my honest observation is dealt with by him via mockery and insults.

    I generally try to avoid that type.

    ReplyDelete
  14. LX

    I agree with you about how nobody likes to be threatened. But I don't think I would be offended if you told me that I need to give my allegiance to Darth Vader and The dark side or DV will unleash the Death Star Super Laser upon me and I will be annihilated if I don't. Or at best I might just get light sabered to death.

    May the force be with you. feeno

    -------------------------------------------

    bobaloo

    Remember when you were in school and you and dude hate each other, then you end up fighting him and then become best friends? That's JD, he really likes everybody. He's just getting the fight out of the way early.

    Late, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  15. "It might. But on the other hand, have you ever considered the claimed preponderence of aspergers syndrome among atheists? Especially the more militant ones?"

    Considering that even Vox Day quotes that one of the symptoms of Asperger's is social awkwardness, this claim is pretty weak. Note that we're not talking awkwardness like, "Oh he's just shy" or "Oh he's a little irritable." We're talking about difficulties in being able to communicate effectively with others because of impairments in understanding the motivations and interests of others, and nonverbal behaviours such as eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures (source).

    When looking at militant atheists, regular atheists, New atheists, or any other kind of atheists, I don't tend to see this sort of impairment. Certainly some may be more awkward than others, but it's more in being too forceful or rude rather than not making proper eye contact or failing to understand people's gestures. The fact that Vox Day makes this claim shows at least one of two things to be evident:

    (1) He has no fucking clue what Asperger's syndrome is actually like, OR
    (2) He's just making stupid comments so he can sound smart, with no regard for actual facts.

    I'd suggest that it's both, but you can take your pick.

    ---------------

    feeno,

    "Remember when you were in school and you and dude hate each other, then you end up fighting him and then become best friends? That's JD, he really likes everybody. He's just getting the fight out of the way early."

    I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, bud. In the interests of being nice, however, I'll refrain from choosing a high school stereotype I see as more apt. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  16. As for JD, I avoid conversations with him. I think this is only the second time he has responded to something I have said and both times my honest observation is dealt with by him via mockery and insults

    And just what do you consider to be either "mockery" or an "insult" from my 7:19 entry Blobfish? It's pretty much exactly what you wrote to Feeno earlier except it's a bit more eloquent. Are you then admitting that your earlier post from 5:25 consisted of "mockery and insults"? If not, would you mind explaining why you are allowed to be condescending and when others do it, it's considered "mockery and insults"?

    You might want to actually stop and think about that... but that's just me.

    We're talking about difficulties in being able to communicate effectively with others because of impairments in understanding the motivations and interests of others, and nonverbal behaviours such as eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures

    And might there be a more mild form known as Asperger's Disorder?

    "Asperger’s Disorder is on the milder end of PDD. Individuals with Asperger’s generally have normal intelligence and normal early language acquisition. However, they show difficulties with social interactions and non-verbal communications" Link. I'm sure that you have some "fucking clue" concerning what you are talking about and you were just getting around to mentioning this, werent you Jeffy?

    When looking at militant atheists, regular atheists, New atheists, or any other kind of atheists, I don't tend to see this sort of impairment

    HA! HA! HA! HA! Good one Jeffy!
    No less than the Undisputed King of Social Autism himself, PZ (Super Putz) Myers was recently lamenting on his internet cesspool masquerading as a blog, wondering aloud why you guys don't get laid more often!

    Quote... "It's an odd way to put it, I know, but it gets your attention. I could have called this the Atheist and Skeptic Problem, which is more accurate, but leads people to start listing all of our problems, starting with how annoying we are, and just for once I'd rather not go down that road. So here's the Woman Problem, and it's not a problem with women: it's a problem with atheist and skeptic groups looking awfully testosteroney. And you all know it's true..." Link

    Can I now expect you to log onto Pharyngula and tell your boyfriend during a rare moment of intellectually honesty that he does not have a "fucking clue"? Once you have done so, please post the link here. i don't think feeno would mind.

    Attributing such failure to an overabundance of testosterone though is nothing short of Orwellian verve...

    ReplyDelete
  17. That's JD, he really likes everybody

    That's not quite true.

    Although I don't really hate anyone who posts here, certain people who shall remain nameless, such as Jeffy and Bob strike me as intellectually shallow, hand-wringing hermaphrodites who have yet to demonstrate that they have even the slightest idea concerning what he/she/it is talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  18. JD,

    I only take exception to the "you may do something horrible to them yourself".

    Who does it then? Even if you take the decision not to obey God's laws as being down to us, the initial imposition and the existence of Hell itself is God's work.

    ...have you ever considered the claimed preponderence of aspergers syndrome among atheists?

    The claim as far as I can find it is the reverse: that there's a preponderance of atheism among autists, including people with Asperger's.

    Feeno,

    But I don't think I would be offended if you told me that I need to give my allegiance to Darth Vader and The dark side or DV will unleash the Death Star Super Laser upon me and I will be annihilated if I don't.

    Perhaps not directly, but you wouldn't feel very kindly towards Darth Vader, or towards me if I were a loyal Imperialist who was happy with this state of affairs.

    I'd like to point out that it was the evangelical in this conversation who first likened God to Darth Vader, not the atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To clarify: "the claim as far as I can find it" outside of Vox Day. Preponderance, incidentally, means majority, so Day's version is one heck of a claim if that's what he means.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Who does it then?

    You do. You can either choose to either accept God or reject Him. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

    Most important, in the beginning anyway, would be examining the claims of God. Of course an atheist apologist will come to the conclusion that if God existed, then the explanation for x is nonsense. Often times these explanations exhibit how woefully ignorant certain atheists are in theology and history to even give somewhat an informed answer.

    the existence of Hell itself is God's work

    And why was Hell created in the first place? I'm just checking to see if you even know. Suprise me LX.

    ReplyDelete
  21. To clarify, that would be more toward militant atheists. Or as VD puts it...

    "the existence of neurotypical atheists should not be a surprise since many atheists do not exhibit the impaired social cognition that is the hallmark of the militant New Atheists. This is why it is always important to distinguish between the individual who merely happens to lack belief in gods from the anti-religious socially autistic crusaders who simply cannot understand that your religious beliefs, whatever they might be, are no legitimate concern of theirs"

    ReplyDelete
  22. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

    EVERY OTHER MAJOR RELIGION is holding a gun to all our heads, saying that we'll go to hell if we DON'T disobey this God. While belief isn't a choice, even paying lip service to Him isn't a good bet.

    And why was Hell created in the first place?

    For "the devil and his angels", says Matthew 25:41. That doesn't make much difference, since it was still God's prerogative to send humans there afterwards.

    To clarify, that would be more toward militant atheists.

    Like who? The study linked in Day's piece has nothing to do with religious orientation; Day seems to be claiming that "militant atheists" are autistic because their attitude towards the religious is reminiscent of autistic thinking in general. I wonder what a psychologist would have to say about that.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Feeno said: "#4. If Hell is real, and you know we Christians at least think it is, (that's why you call us delusional) shouldn't we warn you that it's a bad place? Wouldn't it be mean not to tell you?"

    Actually, if God is all loving... then there could be no such thing as hell.

    But like Bertrand Russell I too, “really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.”

    The Biblical Historian Robert M. Price elucidates:

    "...Sheol has somewhere along the line morphed into hell, by way of both the Greek Hades adn Tartarus, underground realms where the Giants and Titan were chained up. The New Testament actually just takes over the two hells with their Greek names Hades in Matthew 11:23, Luke 16:23, and so on, and Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4. Also, we read in the Gospels (and the Koran) of a fiery hell called Gehenna, or the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, originally simply a dump site.... We don't know exactly when Gehenna went from a geographical reference to a literal postmortem hell of flaming torment. Passages like Mark 9:43-48 could easily mean either one."

    Feeno, your question of whether or not the concept of Hell was offensive and, if real, shouldn't you warn nonbelievers? Well, I think there is adequate evidence to suggest it is not real. It's mythical.

    What's more, if it were real, it is Christians who should worry about such a hate filled, barbaric, pitiless, unforgiving, cruel, torturous, evil, corrupting, despicable, stain on God's "loving" character.

    Rather, I think it is like Robert G. Ingersoll, the Great Agnostic, once put it:

    "Is it necessary that Heaven should borrow its light from the glare of Hell? Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty, endless injustice, immortal meanness. To worship an eternal gaoler hardens, debases, and pollutes even the vilest soul. While there is one sad and breaking heart in the universe, no good being can be perfectly happy." (The Great Infidels 1881)

    This may explain why atheists get irate when Christians "warn" them of imaginary places. It's not only stupid... but a waste of our time. If I stopped by, knocking on your door, to warn you of the imaginary place you will go when you die, a place called "candy-land" if you don't believe what I believe... wouldn't that make me seem a little insane... if not annoying? So why do it to us?

    Moreover...

    "The God of Hell should be held in loathing, contempt and scorn. A God who threatens eternal pain should be hated, not loved--cursed, not worshipped. A heaven presided over by such a God must be below the lowest hell. I want no part in any heaven in which the saved, the ransomed and redeemed will drown with shouts of joy the cries and sobs of hell--in which happiness will forget misery, where the tears of the lost only increase laughter and double bliss."

    It's not so much hell we aren't comfortable with. As Ingersoll rightly points out--it's the God that would create such a contemptible place to begin with which we so adamantly detest.

    ReplyDelete
  24. feeno concerning JD- "bobaloo, Remember when you were in school and you and dude hate each other, then you end up fighting him and then become best friends? That's JD, he really likes everybody. He's just getting the fight out of the way early."

    feeno, Can I assume, now, that of your many spiritual gifts, the discerning of spirits is not one of them?

    Just kidding :)

    No, from my few observations, JD's blog personality is mean, arrogant, and condescending. We won't be friends any time soon.

    feeno - "#4. If Hell is real, and you know we Christians at least think it is, (that's why you call us delusional) shouldn't we warn you that it's a bad place? Wouldn't it be mean not to tell you?"

    I actually am receptive of Christians warning me of hell. I think it's a good conversation starter. I am not the slightest bit offended when I am approached in that way, though I detest the idea of the biblical hell.

    I live in the proverbial bible belt in southwest Virginia, USA.
    In our county, with a population of just under 100,000, there is about 300 churches.
    I have lived her for 19 years.
    I can count on one finger the number of times a Christian has approached me about my spiritual condition.
    The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door at least once a year. The Baptists have knocked one (1) time.
    I would invite any Christian in, but they don't come.

    So what's the logical conclusion(S)?
    1) They don't really care.
    2) They don't really believe.

    I think it is a little of both.

    Ingersoll sums it up pretty well, I think -
    "If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men.... What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena."

    ReplyDelete
  25. "And might there be a more mild form known as Asperger's Disorder?"

    Asperger's Syndrome and Asperger's Disorder are the exact same thing.

    "Asperger syndrome is also called Asperger's syndrome (AS), Asperger (or Asperger's) disorder (AD), or just Asperger's. There is little consensus among clinical researchers about whether the condition's name should end in 'syndrome' or 'disorder'. (source)

    There's nothing on that site you linked to that was any different than what I described. Have you ever met a person with Asperger's, or autism, or PDD? (I have.) Did you actually read up on anything about Asperger's? (I have.) Or did you just type "Asperger's" into Google and pick the first thing that might possible make me look wrong, without realizing that it was describing the same fucking thing?

    I generally try to stay away from insults, but you sir, are a dumbass. Don't mess with a Psychology major when talking about psychology.

    As for this:

    "No less than the Undisputed King of Social Autism himself, PZ (Super Putz) Myers was recently lamenting on his internet cesspool masquerading as a blog, wondering aloud why you guys don't get laid more often!"

    This is entirely not at all the point of the post whatsoever. Somehow you turned "How do we make atheism more accepting of females?" into "Duuuh, where is all the ladies to have sex with?" That's your inability to comprehend basic English (or your ridiculous strawman, take your pick), not Myers' social autism. The fact that the guy has a freakin' blog is pretty strong evidence against the idea that he has autism.

    Anyway, I get the feeling I'm talking to a wall of stupid here, so I'll stop. My apologies, feeno, for sidetracking the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'd just like to add that my anger is due to the obvious incompetence of people like Vox Day who know nothing about a very real psychological disorder but feel that they can accurately diagnose others with the label. This act is an insult to those who actually do have the disorder, because the general public already knows very little about these sorts of things and does not need any more incorrect assumptions. It's a little like if an atheist called all religious people schizophrenic (which I know has been said). It's a total lack of understanding of schizophrenia and an insult to all involved.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "...the High Church atheist's undeveloped social skills are often so dramatic as to be reasonably described as a form of social autism. The atheist tends to regard every statement with which he disagrees with in much the same manner that a bull views a matador's flag, viewing even the most cherished myths held by his friends and family as little more than imperative targets of opportunity. It is no wonder that the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey reported that atheists are one-third as likely to be married as the average American; these are the sort of men who believe that boring a woman with lengthy explanations of why her opinions are incorrect is the best way to her heart.

    There is little evidence to suggest that in some cases, High Church Atheism may be little more than a mental disorder taking the form of literal autism. On one of the more popular atheist Internet sires, the average self-reported result of an Asperger Quotient test was 27.9. The threshold for this syndrome as "autistic psychopathy" by it's discoverer, Dr. Hans Asperger, is 32, whereas the average normal, individual scores 16.5. In light of Wolf's observations, it is interesting to note that those diagnosed with Asperger's tend to be male, intelligent, impaired in social interaction, and prone to narrow, intense interests."

    Day, Vox; The Irrational Atheist, pgs. 16-17

    ReplyDelete
  28. So there you go Jeffy-Jeff-Jeff with the treble clef ref.

    As a psychology major, (And trust me, color me unimpressed as I was once accepted to a university as a Psych major) perhaps you can debunk this once and for all and truly show up a member of MENSA and show him in typical, annoying atheistic fashion, "why his opinions are incorrect".

    He admits that it was an unscientific poll so I assume you would have no fear whatsoever in proving it to be completely wrong. Unless of course you might be afraid of what the results might actually show that is.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Vox Day defined "High Church atheism" in the first place, I take it? That gives him the ability to liken it to autism as closely as he pleases with barely a reference to reality, because nobody's ever going to challenge him on a definition nobody else uses.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Feeno whats actually so extremely offensive is faithful folks are little better than the corner street gang who runs around like a law unto themselves, threatening people to try to inforce control, through use of fear.

    Gangs dont have the right to do this,there is no good reason why they should be allowed to make people fear them.

    Faithful folks have no good reason to do so either,their ideas are not yet proven to be anything to do with any God as is often wrongfully claimed even by yourself and JD and others.Its actually far more likely its been proven as being far more a human idea thats obviously connected to culture,just exactly like the nasty thoughtless threatening street corner gang is also.

    Your bible proves your idea of heaven and hell is no more connected to God,than the culture and threats of the local street corner threats of the locals gangs are.

    This is whats so utterly wrong with society that punishes gangs who threaten and abuse people,yet lets nasty faithful folks threaten and abuse people at will.

    The local corner street gang says do this or else! you will be punished ...They are a law unto themselves ...They have no authority of rights to make such nasty threats.

    The local churches say do this and that or you will go to hell,they have no proof that heaven or hell even exist . And without proof of such a place they are a law unto themselves ,and should deserve no more right! to be so nasty and threatening like they rudely are,than the local nasty thoughtless corner street gangs.

    But you will not see this.Any better than the local corner street gang member will ,who has also been indoctrinated with his own cultural nasty attitude.

    But thats alright.Because time is going to change these matters in the future.And faith bully groups, will soon be liked no better than local corner street gangs are.

    I do not "personally" dislike local gang "members",but by jingos im right their with everyone else in our neibourhood who let them know loud and clear we wont put up with their group bully tactics anymore.

    I dont "personally" dislike any local church "members" either,but by jingos i fully intend to be right there with everyone else in my neibourhood as we stomp on their nasty church groups whenever they try threatening people.

    I hope in future as nuroscience is advanced more, that we will soon have ways to test and prove! how threats of hell ammount to psycological and physical abuse!,and then hopefully faithful parents who abuse their children this way can simply be shoved into jail along with the local gang bullys.Where they all rightfully belong!,until they learn how to better behave.

    Its all only a matter of time.In the future! faith bullys will all get what they have long deserved.

    Governments "warn" people against the danger of smoking ,but smoking has been "proven" as being a real danger.

    Hell is not any "proven" danger, so its not any warning at all ,its only a sad arse nasty thoughtless use of a "threat"

    Your friend and his wife, are actually more correct than you realize.


    But its alright like i said times will change matters.There was once a time when gangs simply roamed freely, without any fear of ever being held to account also

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jeff said... "I'd just like to add that my anger is due to the obvious incompetence of people like Vox Day who know nothing about a very real psychological disorder but feel that they can accurately diagnose others with the label. This act is an insult to those who actually do have the disorder, because the general public already knows very little about these sorts of things and does not need any more incorrect assumptions. It's a little like if an atheist called all religious people schizophrenic (which I know has been said). It's a total lack of understanding of schizophrenia and an insult to all involved."

    Jeff dont let silly ole Poxy upset ya to much.Look if you need me to point you to plenty of links online,where he has already been proven as the utter stupid foolish educated git, that he is well known to be. Just let me know

    Poxy Voxy is actually a prime example! of how people can be very educated, yet still often stay plurry utterly thick as pig shit.Poxy is a prime example of good education, not always equaling a good use of intelligence.

    But then ... "The researchers saw a deactivation in the frontal cortex among the Christian participants that predicted their individual responses to their perception of the speaker’s charisma and their perceived closeness to God during the prayers. The specific areas of the brain that showed deactivation were related to executive and social cognitive processes, in other words, the areas of your brain you use to think about what people are saying to you."

    http://www.nycskeptics.org/blog/the-power-of-prayer-to-numb-your-mind/

    Poxys brain gets all "closed down" sometimes, from exposure to all the "charisma" of his faith,Jeff

    Same with our good ole friend JD quite possibly.

    Go a little easy on them Jeff.Treat with care!, you know,lots like the coaxing of children.

    ReplyDelete
  32. What Poxy Voxys charisma closed off brain probably aint allowing for, is males are less likely to succumb to fear and threats than females are.

    Females under the "spell" of fear of suggestions of hell,will naturally be a little wary of males, who show much less fear of these type of threats.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Many females trapped within abusive relationships including relationships with gang members,are less likely to try to escape and leave also.

    Strange enough females caught up in these relationships often seem to get stuck there,instead of running off to make relationships with christians ,also.

    JD ,ask your brain dead mate Pox Flopily ,if this suggests gang members make better lovers than christians

    ReplyDelete
  34. G

    I'm not trying to start an inter-national skirmish but it sounds as if New Zealand has some sissy ass gangs. Better keep them boys over there cause here in the 513 they wouldn't make it 2 blocks. Especially if all they could muster up is idle threats to an "imaginary" place. Real gangs follow through with their threats.

    I'm also looking forward to the day when that change comes. First it has already been prophesied about and 2nd that wont have any bearing on Christians: "Our faith does not rest on human wisdom but on God's power". 1st Cor. 2:5

    Ta G

    -----------------------------------------

    bobaloo

    "discernment, not one of my spritual gifts". That's funny.

    Christians are in a tough spot. If we knock on your door we are being pests. If we don't knock on your door we are being uncaring. What are we suppose to do?

    If you get a chance please read what I wrote on March 6, 2010 titled "You steal the paper, your already going to hell. Sorry I can't link. But it is very short and addresses this very thing.

    Ta (that's how how Gandyman and other Kiwi's say thank you. feeno

    ---------------------------------------------

    T Vick

    I guess you think I should be more concerned with a cruel and vengeful God as opposed to being offensive, but did you forget? It's not Christians who are offended by the concept of an imaginary place.

    So are saying this is a doctrine that does not offend you? I know the Christian God is offensive to you, but that's different.

    Thanks for your input and thoughtful comments.

    Later, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  35. Here's how they are defined LX...

    "High Church Atheist: An individual lacking god belief who is college-educated, self-identifies as an atheist and subscribes entirely to a materialist model of the universe, rejecting all supernatural concepts. Usually subscribes to "Enlightenment values" as well as secular humanism, considers himself rational and is often evangelical or militant about his lack of god belief.

    Low Church Atheist: An individual lacking god belief who does not self-identify as an atheist, usually has not completed college and does not possess a conscious model of the universe, although assumes an essentially materialist one. May or may not reject the supernatural and is not terribly interested in abstract concepts. Doesn't know what "Enlightenment values" are, doesn't care, but generally subscribes to a belief in evolution in science. Not the least bit evangelical or militant about his lack of god belief."

    ReplyDelete
  36. Well, JD, it's good that you at least mention research on the matter (although as VD himself admits, it's not representative). So let's take a look at it:

    First off, the test used is not intended to be diagnostic. At best, it can be used to discover potential problems. Since the researchers themselves say that, I am assuming this means that there is a high degree of variability in test results. It's all well and good to say that the average person scores 16.5, but without the standard deviation, that number is, for the most part, useless.

    If the test does indeed have a high variability, it's only really useful for people on the extremes. A person scoring very low could be fairly safe in saying they don't have Asperger's, whereas a person very high should be asking a psychologist/psychiatrist for an official diagnosis. For people in between, I'd expect a great degree of variability, and thus being closer or further away from an arbitrary cut point doesn't mean too much.

    Let's also not forget the footnote that VD has in the section you quoted: Apparently he tested the people on his own blog, and got an average of 19. Yes, the average for atheists is still higher, but both are higher than the "average normal" value of 16.5. Again, I'd like to see the variability on these means, but I don't have that information. He doesn't seem to have done any analysis to determine whether the two values (comparing theists and atheists) are statistically significant, so if the variability is large enough, the difference is likely due to random chance rather than an actual difference between theists and atheists.

    So in summary, this is why the data he gives is completely meaningless:
    1) It's based on a non-diagnostic test that he's using to diagnose.
    2) It's a non-representative sample (well, two actually).
    3) There is no information on the variability.
    4) There is no statistical analysis to determine the level of significance of the results.

    Thus, his research is not only meaningless, but more than meaningless, as he is using it to draw conclusions that say there is "support" for a link between social autism and atheists, when the research clearly cannot "support" anything without more detailed analysis than just a comparison of means. Then, of course, it is also more than meaningless because people like you parrot it off without any regard for the quality of the data.

    It's sad that a member of Mensa fails to adhere to the principles that are taught in a basic college-level stats class. Heck, I'd do the significance test myself if I only had data about the variability. But unfortunately, without that, it's less than convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 唯有學習不已的老師,才能認真的教,唯有燃燒自己,才能點亮他人的燈............................................................

    ReplyDelete
  38. Feeno said:

    "I guess you think I should be more concerned with a cruel and vengeful God as opposed to being offensive, but did you forget? It's not Christians who are offended by the concept of an imaginary place."

    I do think you trivialize any and all aspects of the OT God's nature. You seem to me, to be worshiping the fuzzy smiling Fatherly God of the NT (as Pastor Rick Warren defines it) and trivializing or ignoring the implications of anything which would disprove that warm fuzzy nature.

    I used to do the same thing too, until I came to realize that it was intellectually dishonest--as it amounts to little more than cherry-picking the characteristics you like best about God while ignoring the rest. I can no longer compartmentalize God... if he exists he must exist in whole. If he is the Christian God... then he has to be EVERYTHING the Bible claims... not just some of the things.


    Feeno said:

    "So are saying this is a doctrine that does not offend you? I know the Christian God is offensive to you, but that's different."

    Well, since there is more than enough proof that the concept of Hell is indeed fictional, then I cannot say it offends me personally. What offends me is when such a fear tactic is used on young children at Bible camps to get them to give themselves over to Christ and become born again. Every Bible camp I worked at when I was a Christian used this fear tactic as one of the main tools for witnessing and conversion.

    What's worse, we were instructed to ask the children if they would feel bad knowing they could never see their family again because they would be trapped forever in hell.

    Fire wasn't so much scary to the children as telling them they couldn't be with their mommy, daddy, or brothers and sisters ever again. That was psychologically damaging.

    So yes, the concept of Hell IS OFFENSIVE.

    I just don't put any stock into it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. T Vick

    I have a 22 yr old daughter and every time she goes out with her friends I give her (and her friends) the Natalee Holloway story. I tell her how creepy people are. They can act all sweet at first, but 2 hours later you find yourself kidnapped, raped, tortured and cut up into little pieces for the sharks to eat. Not pretty, but I tell her.

    I also have another daughter who has her temps and is learning how to drive. I let her drive me around to run errands etc. as I am trying to teach her how to drive safely. I tell her all the things that can go wrong in a car if your not driving slow enough or your not paying attention. I tell her how fast she could end up in a wreck and be paralyzed for her entire life or even worse she might get killed, all because she had to send a text message to someone. Again, not pretty.

    When they were little I taught them many things like not to run with sharp objects. Not to run in the street without looking. Not to play with matches. And always gave them scary scenarios to try to scare them away from either poking their eye out, getting ran over by a car or getting 3rd degree burns all over themselves.

    Hell sounds like it could be a scary place. Should we be telling people Hell is like a giant picnic reserved for only them and their friends?

    Why is it always about the "kids"? Do you think if you interviewed Charles Manson he'd tell you that he was a normal happy kid, but then he went off to church camp and... well, the rest is history?

    Btw, I think you turned out quite well. Whether you believe in God or not, part of the reason you turned out so well was because of your upbringing. And part of that upbringing was Church Camp. Or do you wake up in the middle of the night with cold sweats, bloody pajamas and dead prostitutes laying in alleys next to your house?

    Later Vickster, feeno

    -----------------------------------------

    Jeff

    Are you a new guy? You sound the same, but look different? Welcome to our blog. Cool pic. about time too.

    Peace, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  40. bobaloo - "Christians are in a tough spot. If we knock on your door we are being pests. If we don't knock on your door we are being uncaring. What are we suppose to do?"

    Feeno, did you read what I wrote? I said I did not mind being approached by Christians expressing concern for my "spiritual condition". Matter of fact, when the Mormons come by (a couple times a year) I let them know that I admire their dedication.
    Matter of fact, when I was a believer I routinely knocked on doors witnessing. Many times I approached strangers to tell them about Jesus - and I am rather introverted.

    Since we were discussing hell, I was simply confused at the lack of intensity, desire, or dedication that Christians seem to display towards their neighbors in their efforts to warn them of their impending doom.
    So, that is why I had to wonder - do they really believe in the doctrine of hell, or do they just not really care if the "lost" are going there? Are those not legitimate questions?

    feeno, you didn't address my concern, you just threw up your hands crying 'we can't win'.

    Did you even read the Ingersoll quote?

    I am a slow learner, but over the years of dialogging with believers, I get the impression that the part of the brain that faith resides in, is mostly impenetrable by even the simplest pleas of reason.

    ReplyDelete
  41. feeno - "I have a 22 yr old daughter and every time she goes out with her friends I give her (and her friends) the Natalee Holloway story."

    "Hell sounds like it could be a scary place. Should we be telling people Hell is like a giant picnic reserved for only them and their friends?"

    feen, I would say it is wise to warn our kids that there are bad people out there who do bad things to people. Why is it wise to warn them, because we have loads evidence in the form of actual incidents.

    I would say it is wise to warn our kids that driving carelessly can result in a car accident that can injure or kill. Why is it wise to warn them, because we have loads evidence in the form of actual incidents.

    I would say it is not wise to warn people of hell. Why, because we have absolutely zero evidence that anyone has ever gone there, and zero evidence that the place even exists.

    It would be wiser to warn people to watch out for falling meteorites today, because we actually have evidence that they do hit the earth, but how often have you said that to your kids?

    ReplyDelete
  42. bobaloo

    I did read what you wrote and very carefully I might add. I know you don't get upset when your approached by Christians about the concept of hell. I got that. But you go on to say that basically we either really don't believe in it or we really don't care. So I'm still saying we just can't please everyone all the time.

    I do believe "door knocking" in the evangelical community is not as popular as it once was. I don't have a problem with those that do it, but I don't like to do it. Never have and unless something changes, never will. If I'm invited to go to someones house then that's a different story.

    But a couple of weekends ago I was helping some people move and a couple Baptists were out knocking on doors in the complex we were at. But it had been a long time since the last time I saw that. But a few people often ask me if I will go and visit a friend or relative of theirs. And I usually do.

    As far as your Ingersoll quote goes, maybe I can answer this and your questions about "do we really believe in hell, or just not care if people go there" at the same time.

    Let me start out by saying, I like God and His ways.I also believe God will do what is just. I believe people will get exactly what they deserve. (except Christians, thanks MC) I also can't force, manipulate, trick or sell anybody on the concept of becoming a Christian. All we can do is spread His message. That Christ came, Christ died and that Christ rose again. And if you believe that and call upon the name of the Lord, you shall be saved. For me personally, If I didn't care I'd be up stairs brushing my teethe right now and get to work.

    I don't know how horrible Hell is gonna be? But
    people like Ingersoll think they have their bases covered. Like God will say to him, ya know what Ingy? I thought about what you said and I think I'm wrong about this, and your right so... my bad, come on in.

    If Hell doesn't exist, Ingersoll still wouldn't have become a Christian. So he's just blowing smoke.

    I really am late for work. When I get home I'll continue.

    Thanks, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  43. Feen said.."I'm not trying to start an inter-national skirmish but it sounds as if New Zealand has some sissy ass gangs. Better keep them boys over there cause here in the 513 they wouldn't make it 2 blocks. Especially if all they could muster up is idle threats to an "imaginary" place. Real gangs follow through with their threats. "

    L.o.L ...Well we might be a small country but that dont mean we is completely silly.Over here Feen, buying guns isnt lots like kids buying lolly pops.We dont have a country overrun by lawless faith jockys.

    Sheeze man our gangs still manage to cause enough harm already, without them also being able to get their hands on guns like its a lolly scramble in a kindegarten.We would really need to hope some God actually existed, if we went and ran our gun laws the way you American folks do.It would be like saying hey gang members how about you lot killing us,we will do our part! and make real sure the guns are easily available!.

    Like i said we are a small country yes,but that dont mean we are totally stupid....Ask your army bosses in Afghanistan if the kiwi S.A.S force is totally stupid ...Im not sure what their answer will be,but i do know this much, even though our group has come under fire ...none have yet been sent home cold in any boxes..And yet one of our guys that went over there has already received a Victoria Cross for New Zealand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Apiata

    Feen said.. "I'm also looking forward to the day when that change comes. First it has already been prophesied about and 2nd that wont have any bearing on Christians: "Our faith does not rest on human wisdom but on God's power". 1st Cor. 2:5"

    Well yeah and it was also prophesied too that one day man would most likely walk on the moon .But there was no need for any supernatural insight with that prophesy either ,it was much about logic and common sense.

    Its logic and common sense that nasty folks who make threats of unproven places like hell,who often treated some people badly ....Will not always be enjoyed by humans.

    It is not so enjoyed by humans now, anymore than it was likely enjoyed by many humans in days of old either.

    So why was it any real supernatural prophesy?.Because you bible says so?....Sheeze Feen ...Benny Hinn suggests his prophesys and miracles are real too ....So if he writes them all down in some little black book and calls it HOLY, does that simply prove it really so?.

    Faiths feed off your type of scepticism Feen ,and had you been born in India, i might just as easy be sitting here feeling very afraid for the welfare of Goats,Sheep,Pigs and all other types of animals your little black books might have stated needed to be shedding some blood in sacrifices.

    You might be saying look its written in my faith book, that its very likely! one day! many folks! will happen to be against sacrifice of animals ...As if that might prove your God is real.

    Just pointing out just because things can be prophesied and even written down in little black books, doesnt suggest its actually anything honestly supernaturally devine.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thus, his research is not only meaningless, but more than meaningless, as he is using it to draw conclusions that say there is "support" for a link between social autism and atheists, when the research clearly cannot "support" anything without more detailed analysis than just a comparison of means

    Jeff! Babydoll! What's going on here? This is getting out of hand! I did state that this was an unscientific poll and perhaps you could find grant money to prove such a hypothesis correct/incorrect? I smell thesis paper here Jeffy-poo as this subject matter is right up you alley.

    As if on cue, I came across this today...

    ReplyDelete
  45. Opps, the Link didnt go through. It's "Author: Atherists less likely to be sentimental" Link : http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2010/07/author-atheists-less-likely-to-be.html#comments

    ReplyDelete
  46. I can't resist...
    ...ever notice how certain blog-believers attempt to, what, minimize your conclusions by making funny little extensions to your name? Examples: "Jeffy-poo", "Jeffy-Jeff-Jeff with the treble clef ref" and that's just in this thread.

    feeno does it but it is obviously meant in an endearing manner.

    I visit other blogs and it seems there is usually one "JD" who stoops to this brand of adolescent antics.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Bob-

    I agree with you about the name-calling being different from naming.

    The difference is whether it is meant to build you up and compliment you, like when Feeno does it, or when it is just someone trying to get a rise out of you, which can be less than tactful.

    Another thing I don't like is when Bloggers hide behind false identities for no apparent reason.

    I can understand some peoples need for anonymity--I think you know the kind--those gay Jews living in the middle of a Taliban infested Pakistan that just have the blogging itch (and what not).

    I made pen pals with a sweet Muslim girl once who had to hide her identity because she was part of a tribal society of Muslims which frowned on their women talking to any man that wasn't related to the family before her betrothal. And by frowning upon I mean talking to a foreign man on the worldwide web (a married one none-the-less) could have spelled disaster for her. She could have gotten caned or worse--but because she was a college student, getting an education, she was liberal enough in her own right to know she had a right to communicate at the very least. She was just stuck being born into such a society--but she found ways to work around the system.

    So I understand the need for anonymity, but when there is no need for it, it reeks of cowardice.

    But for a regular everyday, free citizen of the free world to be fearful of people knowing their identity... then my opinion is don't frackin' blog.

    What I like about Feeno is that he's honest, open, and has dignity. So many people online seem to lose their senses and go hate crazy. Their other personality takes over and they turn into major A-holes. This is just a general observation, I'm not singling anyone out here. But it just seems to me people tend to puff themselves up on a stoked up ego trip and get all kinds of ornery online.

    Again, just a general complaint.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Feeno-

    I didn't know your daughter was 22 years old! Man alive, you make me feel like a pimply faced teenager all over again!

    So thank you for that big guy! (All in good fun of course).

    ------------------------------------------------
    To answer your question about why does it always come down to the children, I have to reply, because that's where it all begins!

    If parents didn't hand their beliefs down to their children, then the children would be raised with a whole set of different beliefs. This includes religion.

    When I was back in America my brother worked for a Mormon family who owned a cleaning business. The mother had adopted kids from China, Africa, the Ukraine and so on. No surprise that they were all taught Mormonism. Because they were raised that way they all believe themselves to be Mormon. This alone proves we are susceptible as children. Because that's where it starts.

    ------------------------------------------------
    Coming back to the Hell issue...

    This is why the notion of Hell is so damaging. The whole idea is "R" rated... so why subject young innocent children to that sort of mental abuse? It's unnecessary not to mention cruel.

    My point was--however--that it's not so easy to separate the matter for Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians who take such things seriously. God loves us, sure. Jesus died to redeem us, of course. But the entire concept of Hell throws a wrench into the logic engine of the the theology... and this is where my intellect says--wait a minute! This just does not compute. Most Christians hard reboot and ignore the error. I try and fix it... by deleting the malfunctioning program--namely faith.

    At any rate, have a good one! I have to go pop a zit. (Only kidding)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Really Bob? Let's analyze your entries shall we?

    In order, on this thread

    1st entry: Criticized Feeno and basically told him he was commenting on his own blog in an incorrect manner.

    2nd entry: You again reiterate that Feeno did not make a "substantiative" response to the comments of another. You then criticize my remarks, which incidentally utilized the same terminology that you used and described it as "mockery and insults". When asked why it is considered "mockery and insults" when others communicate in the same manner as you do and yet somehow you get the Veruka Salt-Golden Ticket and it is not any of these things when you do it, you never answered the question.

    3rd entry: You state that either Christians do not care or do not believe or both. The only evidence you provide is the scientificaly reliable method of the number of times your door was ever knocked on and then you follow up with a hate filled screed from a lunatic.

    4th entry: Yet another criticism of a response by feeno. You then act like the hand-wringing hermaphrodite in that you begin crying about the fact that feeno had the good grace to ignore the rantings of a socially autistic baffoon that you posted in bold faced type that are insulting to his belief system.

    5th entry: You then move on to criticizing Feeno about the way that he raises his kids. Brilliant. You then make the common atheist mistake of assuming that there is no evidence for something without clarifying whether it is "scientific" evidence you are referring to or other types of evidence which do actually exist.

    6th entry: You criticize the way I interact with others and nothing more.

    Why dont you show us how it's done Bob? I checked your profile and unless your blog is hidden, then you dont actually have one.

    Rather than letting the vast majority of your entries pertain to criticisms of others styles and then whining about it, posit something unique that would probably stand a good chance of being commented on.

    Personally, if I were you, which I am not, but if I were, I would read, and re-read what you wrote to see if I'm wrong, then I would actually stop and think about it...but that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Jeff! Babydoll! What's going on here? This is getting out of hand! I did state that this was an unscientific poll and perhaps you could find grant money to prove such a hypothesis correct/incorrect? I smell thesis paper here Jeffy-poo as this subject matter is right up you alley."

    Oh I understand that. I didn't mean to imply you were taking it as gospel truth. I just wanted to make sure that it was drilled into your head that this survey is essentially worthless, other than perhaps giving an interesting idea for someone who can do proper research.

    As far as my own thesis, I already have a topic unfortunately, and my own interests lie more with social psychology rather than clinical anyway. But I agree it's an interesting question to ask. I certainly would like to see research on potential neurological or psychological differences between atheists and theists.

    However, my beef is that, despite VD saying this study is unscientific, he still uses it as evidence of "support" for his notion. He's essentially saying, "This study can't really support anything, but I'm going to use it for support anyway." That's terrible scholarship, especially when one is using it to essentially diagnose a large number of people with a psychological disorder. Real scientists (the good ones anyway) would only make such a large generalization if they had lots of solid evidence to back it up. But of course, VD is not really interested in doing good research, is he? He's interested in making a rhetorical point. And that is, of course, a danger when people who are not versed in proper scientific methodology then come along and use his little pseudo-survey to say, "Ha ha, atheists are autistic!"

    But anyway...as far as the name-calling goes, whatever. I could care less. JD Curty-wurtis and I will continue to disagree with each other. In other news, the sky is blue, the world is round...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Given the access that you have to literature and studies in Psychology, do the people that are diagnosed with Asperger's skew disproportionately male?

    ReplyDelete
  52. I'm going to give this a try, but I am confident I am wasting my time.

    JD - "1st entry: Criticized Feeno and basically told him he was commenting on his own blog in an incorrect manner."

    I am guessing you would have no problem criticizing another blogger...?, so your point is moot. And my point was not that he was commenting incorrectly, but that I wanted to know more of what he thought about ginx's response. Heaven forbid that I would desire more of feen's thoughts...

    JD - 2nd entry: "You again reiterate that Feeno did not make a "substantiative" response to the comments of another."

    Actually, you are being dishonest. Here is my response to feeno: "feeno, thanks for your response. Helps me understand your motivation. I guess my criticism of your lack of a substantiative response to ginx was simply due to my misunderstanding of what you like to do on your blog. In the future, if I want to know, I'll ask you."

    JD - "You then criticize my remarks, which incidentally utilized the same terminology that you used and described it as "mockery and insults".

    Yep. That is how I viewed your response. So?

    JD - "When asked why it is considered "mockery and insults" when others communicate in the same manner as you do and yet somehow you get the Veruka Salt-Golden Ticket and it is not any of these things when you do it, you never answered the question.

    I was confident then, as I am confident now, that responding to you is a waste of time. So I didn't respond then...and why in hell am I responding now...?

    JD - "3rd entry: You state that either Christians do not care or do not believe or both.

    And what other conclusions do you have to offer?
    Honestly, I am open to hear them.

    JD - "The only evidence you provide is the scientificaly reliable method of the number of times your door was ever knocked on..."

    Actually, I was relaying my own personal experience. You understand that we humans actually form opinions based on experience, don't you?

    JD - "...and then you follow up with a hate filled screed from a lunatic.

    Now you have gone and done it. You have hurt my feelings by calling my hero a lunatic (me thinks that evangelism is not one of your strong points).

    JD - "4th entry: Yet another criticism of a response by feeno. You then act like the hand-wringing hermaphrodite in that you begin crying about the fact that feeno had the good grace to ignore the rantings of a socially autistic baffoon that you posted in bold faced type that are insulting to his belief system.

    No, it's just not worth going any further.
    Note to self: he's is incapable of normal social interaction - do not feed him.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Tristan - "Another thing I don't like is when Bloggers hide behind false identities for no apparent reason."

    bob is not my name. On my blog I do not use my real identity either. In my line of work (and in my part of the country) I come in contact with many Christians. I would say most of my income (I am self employed) comes from Christians. Very few people know that I am an atheist. I would say that none of my clients know.

    I know for a fact that I lost a $500+ job when the Christian (a long time friend) who had scheduled me for the job, found out through a conversation we were having, that I was an atheist.

    It would be financial suicide for me, living in the United States, to be open and honest about my identity. I just can't risk it. I would love to be able to, but from my experience :) it is best that I reside in the shadows.

    ReplyDelete
  54. HEY All! WAS'SUP?

    So I'm hangin' in distant quadrant of this bizzare Twilight Zone we call the blogosphere when I hear this murmur rustling down through the Grapevine. Finally it becomes clearly audible to my tired old ears and I distinctly hear someone say, "Hey Man, you gotta check out Feeno's Place! JDiddly's over there spankin' Atheist Hermaphrodites on their bare bottoms with one hand whilst he's frantically wringing his free hand, you know, the one that's not doin' the spankin'."

    So, being the Curious George that I am, I hurry right on over here to check it out. This I gots to see! And what do I find? Nothin' but words, words, and more words. Where's the pictures? Where's the proof?

    Has the Sub-Cool One been fooled again?

    I was hoping I might find the answer to that ancient Zen koan, "What is the sound of one hand wringing?"

    Not today, I guess....

    ReplyDelete
  55. ...I'm still trying to figure out how he knew I was a hermaphrodite...was it something I said...?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hey Bob, not just any old hermaphrodite, but a "hand-wringing hermaphrodite". Possibly one of the most loathsome and dispicable forms of hermaphrodite, as I understand it.

    Get it right, Dude, get it right.

    How did the JD-ster know? Just one of his manifold "spirtual gifts", I reckon.

    Dude is Awesome. Totally Awesome.

    The Reverend Sub-Cee
    No spiritual gifts to speak of.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Hey JD!

    Speaking of "Spiritual Gifts", where's that "Bud" you told me I won for being the first non-believer to bring up Jehovah mandated genocide in the "favorite Bible verses" topic here at Feeno's Place last week?

    I been checkin' my Post Office box, but it ain't showed up, yet.

    Me and my Homies be ready to put on a Rasta Vibration, tunin' into Ja solid, if you know what I'm sayin....

    SteveO

    ReplyDelete
  58. I am guessing you would have no problem criticizing another blogger...?

    Certainly not Bob. No problem at all. However if such criticism makes up 5 out of my first 6 entries on any thread of any blog, please let me know and I'll then go out and promptly jump off of the Verrazano Bridge and end it all quickly rather than sully any other forums with annoying behavior and try to pass it off as faux intellectualism.

    Actually, you are being dishonest. Here is my response to feeno: "feeno, thanks for your response. Helps me understand your motivation. I guess my criticism of your lack of a substantiative response to ginx was simply due to my misunderstanding of what you like to do on your blog. In the future, if I want to know, I'll ask you."

    Your above quote indicates that you believe that feeno's response was not "substantiative".

    EXAMPLE: "I guess my criticism of your lack of a substantiative response to ginx was simply due to my misunderstanding of what you like to do on your blog."

    You still feel that feeno's response was not substantiative and you clearly describe it as such, any other statements not withstanding. How is what I stated "dishonest"?

    That is how I viewed your response. So?

    Let's see, you said..

    "feeno, please excuse this observation, but you tend to make good initial posts, laying out your thoughts for us to digest, but when one (Ginx) responds in a well thought out manner adding greatly to the discussion, your next response usually gives me the impression that you just skimmed what he said and didn't actually consider that he may have some thoughts that are worthy of much more than a passing glance.

    Personally, if I were you, which I am not, but if I were, I would read, and re-read what he said, then I would actually stop and think about it...but that's just me."

    All of which indicates that feeno neither actually "read" the post by Ginx nor did he "actually stop and think about it".

    I stated...

    "Please excuse this observation, but your replies on these threads leave something to be desired. When someone (Feeno) responds in a well thought out manner to a reply by someone, you seemed to imply that the guy really didnt think or somehow missed what was an obvious point in your opinion.

    Personally, if I were you, which I am not, but if I were, I would frame my criticisms of the comments made by others in thus a manner...

    "Feeno, (for example) Ginx said X. Would you mind expanding upon your remarks that you made in response to this? For instance you stated Y but what do you think about Z ?"

    Or if someone didnt address a particular point at all, simply ask their opinion about that point.

    You might want to actually stop and think about that... but that's just me."

    Using these two examples of verbatim quotes from both of us, please show me the clear line of demarcation is, whereas one entry is considered "mockery and insults" and yet the other is as right as rain.

    Now you have gone and done it. You have hurt my feelings by calling my hero a lunatic (me thinks that evangelism is not one of your strong points)

    Let's see here..

    "Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena"

    Hyperbole aside, this constitutes something that resembles "normal" conversation to you?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Speaking of "Spiritual Gifts", where's that "Bud" you told me I won for being the first non-believer to bring up Jehovah mandated genocide in the "favorite Bible verses" topic here at Feeno's Place last week?

    Steve, following in Bob's footsteps of hand-wringing because you didnt directly respond to something I posted, I'm shutting you out man.

    Until you acknowledge that "Jeffy-Jeff-Jeff with the treble clef ref" is 10X more innovative than mere "Jeffy the Jefe", I'm through with you pal.

    Jeff, while surfing the net today I came across this concerning atheism and asperger's. http://asterling.typepad.com/incipit_vita_nova/2009/02/aspergers-and-atheism.html

    It was kinda interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @JD

    So, no Bud from my Bro? Oh well, Life goes on.

    My little brother is named Jeff and sometimes I have called him Jeffy-Jeff-Jeff, no doubt very cool, maybe even better than Jeffy the Jefe, but what's up with the tag "with the treble clef ref"? Probably clear as a bell to everybody else, but I seem to be missing something.

    SteveO

    ReplyDelete
  61. JD - "...faux intellectualism."

    Insult.

    JD - "Your above quote indicates that you believe that feeno's response was not "substantiative"."

    I didn't believe it was substantive...did you? I was just telling him, in a frank but polite manner, what I thought.


    JD - "You still feel that feeno's response was not substantiative and you clearly describe it as such, any other statements not withstanding."

    True, but as you can see by the rest of the quote - "I guess my criticism of your lack of a substantiative response to ginx was simply due to my misunderstanding of what you like to do on your blog." Do I need to explain that further? OK, I will. I felt his response to ginx lacked substance. it gave me the impression that he just skimmed it, minimized it, or just didn't feel it was worth the time - all of which are perfectly fine, but I still would have liked more from him. He explained to me why he didn't offer more, I accepted his short, un-substantiative response, and told him in the future, rather than criticize his response, I would ask for more.

    Then, you stuck your big fat runny nose in and dripped snot all over the place.
    Yes, I am insulting you.
    You are a jack ass of the highest order.
    You wouldn't recognize a decent, calm dialog if it sat on your face and wiggled.
    You are a short,chubby, internet bully who hides behind his 13" monochrome CRT desperately trying to offend, but your attempts have no more affect than sand chaffing my crack after a day at the beach.
    I hate you I hate you I hate you I hope you die.

    There, I got that out of my system.

    JD - "Using these two examples of verbatim quotes from both of us, please show me the clear line of demarcation is, whereas one entry is considered "mockery and insults" and yet the other is as right as rain."

    I was simply expressing my opinion as to feenos response to ginx. Here is the clear line - You were obviously using my words, not to offer a sincere rebuttal, but to mock and insult.
    Come on JD, surely you know your own self. Do you actually expect me to believe, based on your behavior in just about every response you post, that you were not being mocking and/or insulting? I mean, after all, I am hand-wringing hermaphrodite who enjoys the words of a hate filled lunatic and the rantings of a socially autistic buffoon.

    JD - "Hyperbole aside, this constitutes something that resembles "normal" conversation to you?"

    No. It is a clear commentary from Ingersoll on his views of hell and those who believe it exists. Definitely not normal table-talk.

    Can you offer how Ingersoll's comments are any worse than when Christians actually tell non believers that they will end up in said hell (for which they have absolutely no evidence the place even exists) if they don't adopt the same beliefs as the Christians?

    JD, I challenge you - offer a response to my last question, and do it without any insults.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "...faux intellectualism." Insult

    It is my opinion that when your (or anyone's) entries on any given thread constitute criticism of other people's remarks 5/6th of the time, that it smacks of faux intellectualism. You can take that as a statement of opinion or insult. I neither mind nor care.

    I didn't believe it was substantive...did you? I was just telling him, in a frank but polite manner, what I thought

    This basically boils down to "B-b-b-ut I said it in a NICE way... My thoughts on his commentary not withstanding.

    In the world you live in, does informing someone that their comment was not substantive (not having substance) somehow not constitute criticism? However mild or not? If this does not involve criticism, may I ask what definition of the word "criticism" you are using?

    He explained to me why he didn't offer more, I accepted his short, un-substantiative response, and told him in the future, rather than criticize his response, I would ask for more

    Which is fine, but it does not change the fact that your earlier comment is indeed considered "criticism". No matter what mental/word definition gymnastics you attempt to pull off.

    Then, you stuck your big fat runny nose in and dripped snot all over the place.
    Yes, I am insulting you.
    You are a jack ass of the highest order.
    You wouldn't recognize a decent, calm dialog if it sat on your face and wiggled.
    You are a short,chubby, internet bully who hides behind his 13" monochrome CRT desperately trying to offend, but your attempts have no more affect than sand chaffing my crack after a day at the beach.
    I hate you I hate you I hate you I hope you die


    This is one of the best hate-filled screeds I've ever read that was written about me. Better than any ex-girlfriend. I congratulate you. And this in spite of the fact that I stated that I don't hate you or anyone else in this forum. There might be disagreement. I'm not taking mild-dislike off the table. But I believe that "hate" is a powerful word and can destroy the person who wields it too quickly or in a sloppy manner.

    Personally, if I were you, which I am not, but if I were, I would read, and re-read what you wrote, then I would actually stop and think about it in terms of speaking to a professional about the rage which causes you to type "I hate you, I hate you, I hate you" ...but that's just me.

    Here is the clear line - You were obviously using my words, not to offer a sincere rebuttal, but to mock and insult.
    Come on JD, surely you know your own self


    Actually I offered a suggestion to make your criticisms more palatable without implying that the person..
    A. Didnt actually read the comment, or
    B. That they didnt actually "think" at all.

    If you found your own words to be insulting when you read them directed towards you, then that says much more about your poor choice of words. Not me.

    ReplyDelete
  63. It is a clear commentary from Ingersoll on his views of hell and those who believe it exists. Definitely not normal table-talk

    This almost begins to approach intellectual honesty Bob. Youre darn-tootin' that it's not "normal table talk". If I ever offered up a screed like his over dinner, I'd be wearing the paella home with me. Unless I was in the exclusive company of militant atheists of course.


    Can you offer how Ingersoll's comments are any worse than when Christians actually tell non believers that they will end up in said hell (for which they have absolutely no evidence the place even exists) if they don't adopt the same beliefs as the Christians?

    Yes, I see a number of things wrong here and this deserves it's own seperate entry......

    First, Ingersoll's screed...

    ReplyDelete
  64. "If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant

    He makes a couple of fundamental errors right off the bat in his opening sentence.

    1) He absolves personal responsibilty. He seems to think that we are not resposible for our own actions because after all, Big Bad God is going to "damn his children". It ignores the fact that a righteous judge (nevermind God) cannot ignore transgressions of the law.

    2) Makes no mention that God so loved the world gave his own son to take your/my/our rightful place.


    I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine

    Simple disagreement with the Bible does not make it's claims untrue. No matter how many ill thought out emotional pleas one makes.


    It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men

    This is the hyperbole that I referred to. I am not aware of any preachers of any mainstream denomination ever mentioning that people can go to Hell without offering up the Good News as well.

    This also fails to take into account the tremendous amount of positive good Christianity has done in the world. I could name a laundry list of accomplishments but right off the top of my head, I would mention changing societal attitudes towards infanticide and the fact that nearly every single hospital in the poorest, most destitute areas of the world have the name "Saint" in front of them.



    What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear?

    They were commanded to preach the Good News by Jesus Himself. Not to do so would be counter to the foundational documents of their religion. It also goes back to Feeno's original question, " If Hell is real, and you know we Christians at least think it is, (that's why you call us delusional) shouldn't we warn you that it's a bad place? Wouldn't it be mean not to tell you?"


    I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment

    Again, this clown could not possibly hope to know what people really believe all the while attacking a strawman of their arguments. If he did actually know, then I'd like to ask him his thoughts about opposing quarterbacks on Super Bowl Sunday right before I place a call to certain oddsmakers offshore in the Caribbean.


    Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena

    Again, an emotional appeal not grounded in reality at all.

    I would also point out the fundamental error in your question Bob. Specifically, "they (Christians) have absolutely no evidence the place (Hell) even exists".

    Assuming of course that you are utilizing the definition for the word 'evidence' that is found in any common dictionary in the world.

    "evidence
    –noun
    1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
    2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign.
    3. Data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

    Evidence is any information so given, whether furnished by witnesses or derived from documents or from any other source."



    If not, may I ask where you obtained your particular definition of the word "evidence" from?

    ReplyDelete
  65. JD-

    Bob-

    I know it's not my discussion, but "criticism" is one of my fields.

    Personally I think some criticism is necessary. It's what exercises the critical thinking nodes.

    I think what it all boils down to though is if you're using that criticism in a positive, constructive way, i.e. constructive criticism, or if you're just doing it to push an agenda, and tear down the other person, i.e. negative criticism.

    Myself, I hope people are critical of what I say because that helps me to stop and pause to think about what I'm saying. What I don't like is nagging... or complainers... or whiners... or people that just want to offer every opinion they have as if they are God's gift to this greenish-blue Earth.

    As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. And as such, they don't mean a thing when it comes to staking a truth claim.

    Much of the religious debate is predicated on truth claims. And although there must be a proper etiquette for the discourse between people with strongly diametrically opposed views, political religious or otherwise, I still haven't found the happy middle where we can talk without ever being critical.

    We can always agree to disagree, but in the meantime my own ethic is to simply treat others as I would want to be treated. Golden axioms aside, I don't mind it when somebody calls me on my BS. It forces me to get with it, so to speak.

    Although this is off topic, I couldn't help but notice that this thread is really really long. I think Feeno is trying to set a world record or something.

    ReplyDelete
  66. JD, obviously you did not grasp that my "I hate you"s was meant in jest. It was a joke.

    Sorry, I just can't waste any more time on this.

    BYW, I completely agree with the evidence definition you provided. And the bible does not fit into it at all. That's why it is not "evidence" for what it claims happened.

    ReplyDelete
  67. JD said:

    "I would also point out the fundamental error in your question Bob. Specifically, "they (Christians) have absolutely no evidence the place (Hell) even exists".

    "Assuming of course that you are utilizing the definition for the word 'evidence' that is found in any common dictionary in the world."

    --------------------------------------------------

    Actually, I have some questions I would raise with regards to hell:

    1) What evidence do Christians posit for the authenticity of hell? The Bible? God? (Isn't this circular reasoning here?)

    2) How doe the Christian get past the cognitive dissonance I pointed out earlier? That God is all loving--that he loves the world and everything in it--but he will punish nonbelievers for eternity for something that's not even technically a crime--since he gave us free will to begin with.

    I would also point out for more savvy Bible readers, who may be familiar, God prefers nonbelievers to lukewarm believers. Revelation 3:15-16 "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth." (RSV)

    3) How can it be that Jesus, the divine head of the trinity in Revelation, prefers the cold? Is it perhaps possible that he yields the rejector of Christianity a certain measure of grudging respect? That he may recognize the nonbeliever as a seeker of truth?

    4) Christians believe in a final or last Judgment. Again, a questionable event only referred to by a very faulty text, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, I am curious... will Joseph Smith and his magic underwear be present?

    5) What about all the evidence, textual and historical, which we have that shows Hell is a fabrication, an anachronistic coupling of various Greek notions of afterlife with the Jewish locations of animal sacrifice. It seems if you grant the fact that the Greek which the Bible was written in uses three separate concepts and combines them into one ultimate Hell--you can be pretty sure this is a sign if literary embellishment--least of all a fictitious conceptualization. Do you go on believing even as there is evidence to suggest the idea of Hell only resides in the imagination of the Christian?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Also, since it is related, some may find this article on "Anselm, Aquinas, and Calvin on Punishment and Satisfaction" helpful:

    http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/07/anselm-aquinas-and-calvin-on-punishment.html

    ReplyDelete
  69. Sorry, I just can't waste any more time on this

    TRANSLATION: I cannot raise a good counterargument and will thus fade to black being that it's starting to dawn on me that I'm not nearly as clever as I thought I was. If I were, I would have provided a defense of Ingersoll's statements but it's quite obvious that I cannot.

    Otherwise known as the Silence That Gun method of argumentation.

    I completely agree with the evidence definition you provided. And the bible does not fit into it at all. That's why it is not "evidence" for what it claims happened

    And why is that? Because some putz who doesnt have the cahones to blog under his own name says so? Please clock down to my speed Bobby boy and explain this to to me because I am of the uninformed that does not understand why this is so.

    What evidence do Christians posit for the authenticity of hell? The Bible?

    I would posit the same question to you that I just asked Bob. But let's see if he can answer it first. Please feel free to prepare an answer as I would be willing to bet he could not answer it if his life depended on it although I'm hoping that he does.

    Isn't this circular reasoning here?

    How so? One might reasonably ask if there are other outside sources that support that which is related in the Bible and there is no shortage of it out there should you ever wish to look into it.

    God is all loving--that he loves the world and everything in it--but he will punish nonbelievers for eternity for something that's not even technically a crime--since he gave us free will to begin with

    Several problems.

    1) You are hung up on the word "nonbeliever". James 2:19 tells us, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder."
    This would imply that mere "belief" is not enough.

    2) I do not think that a perfect, holy God would send someone to Hell because of their ignorance.

    Please note that I do not discount that the person could wind up in Hell due to a whole host of other reasons, but not exclusively because or their being ignorant.

    3) You mention free will as if it's a bad thing. You would have to first argue that being created much like a robot, preprogrammed to only do a strict, limited number of things and nothing else would somehow be preferable and you have not yet done so.

    I would also take into consideration what kind of God would preprogram people to love and believe in Him while with freewill, they are free to examine evidence and decide for themselves.

    Personally, if I were you, which I am not, but if I were, I would read, and re-read what you said, then I would actually stop and think about it...but that's just me.


    In reference to your question about Revelation 3rd chapter, might I suggest that you look up a couple of good commentaries online? If you would like to compare a couple, please list them here. Perhaps it's not as inconsistent as you think.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Christians believe in a final or last Judgment. Again, a questionable event only referred to by a very faulty text

    "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

    “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

    “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life" Matthew 25th chapter.


    Is this somehow ambiguous? If so, then how?

    will Joseph Smith and his magic underwear be present?


    Yes.

    "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment' Hebrews 9:27

    ReplyDelete
  71. Bob said ..."I hate you I hate you I hate you I hope you die."

    Oh really ? .Bob you never mentioned before that you were West Bro Baptist

    ReplyDelete
  72. JD said.."TRANSLATION: I cannot raise a good counterargument and will thus fade to black being that it's starting to dawn on me that I'm not nearly as clever as I thought I was. If I were, I would have provided a defense of Ingersoll's statements but it's quite obvious that I cannot.

    Otherwise known as the Silence That Gun method of argumentation"

    Or that one simply realizes, continuing to even "bother" to argue with a block wall is madness

    ReplyDelete
  73. But asking someone to clarify why something does not fit the definition of the word "evidence" or them becoming so thin-skinned as to not defend their own argument that they themself put forward would not constitute "madness" in my book GD. Something more akin to "intellectual cowardice" would be more accurate in describing their lack of action.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Something more akin to "intellectual cowardice" would be more accurate in describing their lack of action."

    ...or, when one realizes that they have found themselves in a spitting match with a skunk...

    ...or, when one realizes that they feel as if they have been wrestling with a drunk in a dumpster and now desperately need to take a shower...

    ...or, when one sees the complete insignificance of the person they have just wasted a couple hours on...

    That pretty much sums it up - I can't win against JD because:
    ...he is much better at slinging stink.
    ...he is comfortable in the garbage.
    ...he just doesn't matter to me.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Well Bob, I don't know if you are old enough to remember the TV show from the 60's called "Branded" starring Chuck Connors. In some ways given the charges of cowardice that have been levelled against you by JD the RWCN (Right Wing Christian Ninja) it seems like your current predicament is not unlike that of the character that Chuck portrayed in that classic show, know what I'm talkin' 'bout?

    If not, check out this URL. Make sure to have your speakers on.

    http://northfork.tripod.com/branded.html

    Enjoy!

    SteveO

    ReplyDelete
  76. Ohhh, Stevey boy! Do you mean that refusal to answer direct questions when put to him is a bit of, shall we say, a pattern for ol' Balless Bob?

    Do tell....

    ReplyDelete
  77. Thanks for the link SteveO, and yes, at 52 now, I remember Branded.

    As for JD, he has been found out.
    It is morally reprehensible that an atheist would pretend to be a Christian for the sole purpose of making Christians look very, very bad.

    But, at least now I know that he really doesn't mean all those nasty things he has said to and about me. It's all a part of his cover.

    ReplyDelete