229 comments to “A Waste of Time? You Decide.”

1. Chris:
   9 January 2006, on 12:37 pm

   Wow, nice job… you’ve confirmed many theories that I’d been considering. Although, I’m surprised to hear that “Moderate and Progressive/Liberal Xtians are just as worried about the separation of Church and State as we are.” I would have thought that it was their goal to connect church and state.

   I especially like #9 in the 10 most common athiest misconcptions… “Atheists are gay.” This is so over the top that I can barely think that they just weren’t messing with you. Could they possibly be so clouded? I guess if you believe: “God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it”… you’ll believe anything.

   Very well done… I admire your patience.

2. Lya:
   9 January 2006, on 12:43 pm

   Well-

   7. Atheists just don’t want to admit they sin & 9. Atheists are gay

   go hand-in-hand. In some cases they were just messing with me, but in others, they were completely serious. The assumption is that because being gay is a “sin”, gays would become atheist (which to most theists seems to mean “in denial of god”) to avoid having to face their “sin”.

3. Chris:
   9 January 2006, on 12:46 pm

   “However, we are never going to understand each other. We speak different languages.”

   I think that your conclusion is not only correct but the only way that I can deal with my family at all… We know what each other thinks but we don’t go there because it’s a battle that no one ever wins… it only disrupts the family so why bother.

   They are sad though because they say that they will miss me in heaven… I say that I believe that a god could exist but I’ve seen no sign of any as of yet …and if he would keep me out because I didn’t tell him how great he is and thank him every five minutes then I don’t want to go there anyway!

4. Ron:
   9 January 2006, on 1:08 pm

   Awesome post, Lya. I’m glad you did it. And I’m glad I didn’t.

5. Sean:
   9 January 2006, on 1:28 pm

   Great post, Lya. And I would respectfully request that from now on we spell it “xian” or “Xian.” If the “X” replaces the word “Christ” as in “Xmas”, there is no reason for that hanging “t.”

   xxoo,

   The Schoolmarm

6. Lya:
   9 January 2006, on 1:31 pm

   I saw this on another thread too. While it makes perfect sense and is correct, I’m afraid it’s too much of a habit now to add the “t”. I know it shouldn’t be there, but for some reason the word looks wrong without it.

   I’ll try, but I’m not promising nuthin’

7. vjack:
   9 January 2006, on 2:17 pm

   Very cool post. I admire your patience for what must have been a trying experience. I can’t say I’m surprised by your findings, but I think it is great that you allowed Christians the opportunity to shatter our views of them.

8. Lya:
   9 January 2006, on 2:36 pm

   Thanks! It was rather frustrating at times, and some of the forums were just downright frightening. Which is why I didn’t list them all - some of them I didn’t keep the links for. Those ones are just better left NEVER visited. Ever.

   (are they done whining about me on your board yet? is it safe to go back? )

9. catherine:
   9 January 2006, on 2:43 pm

   fight against an impending American Theocracy (okay, that’s a little dramatic)”

   No, actually, it’s not.

   Thanks for doing this. I’ll keep this post for later follow-through.

10. David Collett:
    9 January 2006, on 3:16 pm

    I think you’re right with the idea..

    ..the two camps speaking two different languages - atheists speak in terms of empirical evidence and logic; theists speak in terms of faith, emotion, and the unknown. An atheist expects proof before acceptance, a theists sees acceptance as proof.

    And I think this entails the following:
    Reason, as I see it, is to seek to explain and predict the world. Faith serves some other purpose than reason - for example, identity forming or escape from fear of death or weird evolutionary/social process.

    You can’t combat faith with reason alone. Because faith isn’t based on reason, rational argument has little effect on the believer. You need to look further into what people are getting from faith and work on that level.

    Anyways, great post.

11. Dena M. May:
    9 January 2006, on 3:25 pm

    Enjoyed your post, Lya. If at all possible I’d like to check out some of these forums you visited. Especially the one that ousted you for your admitted atheist status.

    If you have time in the near future, could you email me a few of the links? Thanks in advance.

12. Lya:
    9 January 2006, on 4:11 pm

    Dena - There are a few links in the post itself. I used Beliefnet.com quite a bit because it houses boards for as all the different brands of Xians. Basically, if you search ‘Christian debate forum’ you’ll come up with most of the links I used.

    I admit I didn’t keep great records of these forums - esp those that ousted me right after I said I was an atheist - for a few reasons. First, I had no intention of visiting them again. Second, I didn’t want other atheists to have the same thing happen if only to attempt at sparing us the “bad rep”. But - Holy Culture Radio banned me immediately (hence their honorable mention in the post). So did CARM (http://www.carm.org/boards.htm).

    I will go back through my notes and see if I can find the links to the other five.

    David - “You need to look further into what people are getting from faith and work on that level.”

    Agreed. However, I have an issue with this simply because what they claim to get from faith - meaning, purposeful, morals, comfort etc - I get from not having it. My life didn’t come into focus as it is now until I stopped my search for an imaginary deity. So, while I understand what they get from faith, I don’t understand how they get these things from it.

    As I’ve said a hundred times before, if we were talking about any other than god, atheists and theists would be on the same page. I’ve used the example of a human being able to fly before: were any of us told that a human has the ability to jump off the roof and fly away we would all expect proof to believe it - atheist and theist alike. Yet, insert “god” into this equation and suddenly no proof is neccessary.

    I do not and probably will not understand how meaning is derived from religion since it requires the suspension of all the things we consider virtures or positives in all other areas.

13. Sean:
    9 January 2006, on 4:57 pm

    Lya: I agree with you. Penn Jillette sums it up quite nicely in that NPR piece he did for “This I Believe.” It’s been posted here several times and is easily Googled. Being forced by the structure of the show to speak in the positive/affirmative, he talks about how disbelief in rewards and punishments based on an invisible deity/afterlife has made him a better person in this life. In other words, he has to be nice to people the first time around, rather than praying for forgiveness later. He has to seek joy and wonder in this, the best and only life he will ever have, etc.

    So how faith can give me those things, I have never understood. I tried it a little when I was a teenager. One day I just got up and said “this is bullshit” and went on with my life.

    As for being banned from the Xian boards: I’m not surprised. Go on FreeRepublic.com and say anything that disagrees with their whacko extreme right views and you will be banned and your post deleted. It’s the O’Reilly Factor: somebody says something you don’t agree with, you just scream “SHUT UP” at them.

14. strawman:
    9 January 2006, on 6:44 pm

    Lya
    I am extremely impressed. I have come to this forum for pretty much the same purpose….to try and understand the athiest point a little better, and to ask some direct questions, never attempting to convince anyone that there is a God, but try and lend a little understanding. Naturally, as soon as I declared that I was a Christian, I was declared looney by some. Though some were cool. I have been treated like an idiot with no scientific knowledge, even though I told people I had no problem with evolution, the belief there may be other life forms somewhere (for wich I have been labled strawman, seriously, I was not making any argument except clarifying my own position on this one), accept the age of the universe and the big bang, etc… etc..Any comments I made were never intended to show there definitely was a god (or goddess) yet I was treated as if my comments were supposed to be showing proof of something other than what I claimed. I have found that since I declared myself Xian, what ever I say is pretty much misunderstood, and I think it is because folk expect me to be making a point of proof for the existence of god, or that I appear to be sarcastic. Well, I am sarcastic, and I think it transaltes poorly in this forum.
    I admit, a couple of times I tried to clear up a couple misconceptions about the details of my faith, more to seperate myself from the fundies than to evangelize…that would be a waste of time…lol. I have never once tried to convince anyone there is a god, period. I have tried to understand what it is like to be outside of the majority, and I have tried to show why the majority is the way they are (remember the “silly” god center?).

    OK, this is sounding like a rant. Once again, not my intention. Just trying to agree with Lya in my wierd nonsensical way. I like this blog, honest, or I wouldn’t read all the stuff, a lot of it is good stuff, and I hate to say this, I agree with 90 percent of it. Not for the same reasons, but agree nevertheless.

    I consider myself to be a liberal Xtian (yes I do know it is Xian) and your right, we are not like the fundies in many many ways.

    OK, my wine is up, gotta find some cheese.

    “[I]t is very hard to say the exact truth, even about your own immediate feelings – much harder than to say something fine about them which is not the exact truth.”–George Eliot

15. Chris:
    9 January 2006, on 7:02 pm

    strawman - you’ve been treated pretty good here I think …probably because you’ve made sense most of the time. I treat people the way they treat me and the other atheists here. Changing your name to strawman says something to me …you are willing to admit falicy. Many theists will not bend as you have.

    Wanna see me bend: 1. There is a possibility that there is a god and the xians are correct. 2. There is a possibility that all you see in this world is all you get and that god is a pipe dream.

    No one on this earth knows for sure which it is but as Lya has attempted …we need to find a way to work together because we all live on this one world.

16. Ford:
    9 January 2006, on 10:51 pm

    Oh yeah, and when I called you a retard that time strawman (you are dan right?) I didn’t mean anything by it, all insults from me should be taken as little more than fillers for when I don’t know how to end a sentence, you fucker.

17. Bob:
    9 January 2006, on 11:17 pm

    Lya: I can’t say anything more than what others have said. Excellent job, and I applaud your patience. You rock.

    Strawman: For the record (and outside of humor), I rarely see any of us seriously calling someone loony or an idiot straight off from the simple and solitary fact that they’re xian (or religious). It might have happened (and I’m sure that many of us might think it), but it rather seems overwhelmingly the case that the context is usually an admission of belief in a (sometimes long) paragraph with all the bullshit mixed in. When we read THAT, well, that kinda pisses us off — and the fact that you’re a believer just gets mixed in with the criticism.

    I could be wrong. But that was my impression.

18. Dena M. May:
    10 January 2006, on 2:56 am

    Is this the same Chris that visits here regulary? If so, Chris said:

    Wanna see me bend: 1. There is a possibility that there is a god and the xians are correct. 2. There is a possibility that all you see in this world is all you get and that god is a pipe dream.

    This is the most vulnerable thing I have seen you share since I have visited this forum, and I couldn’t be happier. (Unless, of course, this isn’t the same Chris.)

    To Lya: I visited the links you provided in your post. Wasn’t impressed by them. Perhaps I didn’t search long enough throughout their subject contents. I was mostly looking for more of the fanatical types.

19. Francois Tremblay:
    10 January 2006, on 3:02 am

    That makes Christian forums less tolerent than atheist forums, and thus better. On their boards, atheists let them blather all they want, and ban anyone (like me) who dares to call them on their bullshit. At least Christians are proud of their stupid and disgusting little belief system.

20. Lya:
    10 January 2006, on 9:11 am

    Francois Tremblay -

    That scenario you mentioned reminds me of why I stopped going to the Raving Atheist forum. They let xian trolls run wild (or at least they did at that time).

21. Chris:
    10 January 2006, on 10:31 am

    YES this is the same Chris… the same as ever …I’m a scientist through and through …testing and theorizing since I was about 10. Being that I would never ever assume that just because you can’t see it, it doesn’t exist. A true scientist does not make assumptions like this. As good as this may make you feel (xians) here’s the score:

    After 35 years on this planet:

    Proof that what you see is all you get? 1000’s of personal accounts seen with my own eyes …logically tested and confirmed to over 99% in many cases.

    Proof that god exists? None, zero, ziltch, nada …even after being catholic for 15 years, xian for 5 years, and fence riding for 10 years. Praying with open heart to no avail. With no proof I have to assume gawd is just an ancient relic of our past culture… I could be wrong …he could prove me wrong any day he wants …infact I dare him!

22. The Evangelical Atheist » Blog Archive » Behind Enemy Lines:
    10 January 2006, on 10:56 am

    [...] Lya from God is for Suckers just posted about an informal experiment. She spent a couple of months visiting 35 Christian forums and compiled her observations of excuses, logical fallacies and misconceptions about atheists. She also offers some general commentary on the experience and the interactions she had. Anyone interested in the nuances of dialog between theists and atheists should go read her results. [...]

23. UberKuh:
    10 January 2006, on 1:43 pm

    Good work, and idea. Your lists are ordered instead of bulleted. I assume this means that #1 is always the most common of the list? For instance, is “god doesn’t need to prove himself to his creations” the most commonly used excuse “for having no evidence of the existence of god?”

    It’s informative, but depressing, that theists are so irrational and hateful most of the time.

    Thanks for the “Did Jesus Actually Exist?” link.

24. Anne Johnson:
    10 January 2006, on 2:14 pm

    I saw a van in a church parking lot with a bumper sticker on it that said “April 1: National Atheist Day.” I’m sure the driver of that vehicle would be incapable of rational discussion about anything more challenging than how to poach an egg.

    One of the purposes of my tongue-in-cheek web log is to poke fun at the absurdities of religious belief, even though I myself am a religious person (not Christian).

    This was a good list, and the sites you visited must have been much more thoughtful than Anonymous Driver of Offensive Van.

25. Lya:
    10 January 2006, on 2:31 pm

    On each list the first is the one I received the most, but the rest are in no special order. (I got lazy )

26. David Collett:
    10 January 2006, on 3:47 pm

    Lya wrote:

    “However, I have an issue with this simply because what they claim to get from faith - meaning, purposeful, morals, comfort etc - I get from not having it. ”

    —

    In terms of what I think Christian’s get out of Christianity, I don’t think most people are in Christianity to get morality and meaning out of it. Some are of course, but other people hold on to Christianiaty for other reasons, such as:

    In a indifferent world, they get the sense that someone cares and is looking after them. It can be hard to accept that no-one is and that life is random and mostly meaningless.

    There’s also neurological and psychological benefits. See
    http://www.futuresfoundation.org.au/Future-News/Features-(General)/Religion:-why-it’s-here-to-stay-and-what-to-do-about-it-20051123235/ for a breakdown of these

    And this interesting little nugget:
    http://www.sauer-thompson.com/archives/philosophy/002768.html

    —

    Because their attachment to Christianity is not logical or rational, rather it’s psychological or neurological - it can’t be shifted on a rational level - ie with rational arguments.

    That’s my take on it anyway.

27. Lya:
    10 January 2006, on 4:02 pm

    “Because their attachment to Christianity is not logical or rational, rather it’s psychological or neurological - it can’t be shifted on a rational level - ie with rational arguments.”

    Though, I don’t agree the life is random or mostly meaningless, I agree with this.

28. Eric Stuyvesant:
    10 January 2006, on 4:48 pm

    Lya, your article was recently posted over on Christdot, and as an admin and active participant over there, I just thought I’d extend an invitation to you and your readers to have a visit and take part in the discussions. We seem to regularly discuss issues that would be of interest to you.

    I myself come from a science/engineering background, but am an adult convert to Christianity, so perhaps I have a perspective that is different from most. I find an ongoing dialogue between Christians and nonChristians to be useful and important. Demonizing people who believe something different than you do is rarely productive.

    In Christ,
    Eric Stuyvesant

29. may:
    10 January 2006, on 4:59 pm

    Hey, good post, you must have so much patience to do that! The neurobiological, psychological thing is interesting. I can’t believe some of the things people think about atheists. Some of the people on those forums are a bit fanatical, do xian people in America actually act like they come across? I guess there must be people like that in England too I just haven’t met any.

30. Think Christian » Blog Archive » An Atheist’s Experience on Christian Websites:
    10 January 2006, on 5:38 pm

    [...] I started this because I’ve noticed that on atheist forums theists can get run off fairly quickly. This is mostly due to their own behavior, but they claim victim status. I have seen countless accusations from theists that atheists just hate god/religion/believers. Also, countless pleas for us to “consider the evidence” or to “take an honest look at faith.” An interesting portion of the story is this:The 11 most common misconceptions about atheists: 1. Atheists hate god/are jealous of theists 2. Atheists are arrogant and don’t want anything “superior” to them 3. Atheists have never experience religion 4. Atheists have never read/don’t understand the bible 5. Atheists just don’t want to receive the truth 6. Atheists are bitter/angry 7. Atheists just don’t want to admit they sin 8. All atheists support abortion/evolution/liberal politics/communism/fascism/etc 9. Atheists are gay 10. Atheists want to destroy/limit religion 11. Atheists think they know everything(READ THE WHOLE PIECE) [...]

31. SteveG:
    10 January 2006, on 5:59 pm

    As a Christian, I can see how this comes about. Christian doctrine suggests that everyone is born with an innate sense of God’s existence, if only a guilty and imperfect inkling of His existence. There would be far fewer atheists if it were possible for people given the grace of a contemplative mind to blissfully ignore the prospect that He is there. So many atheists I have spoken with spend hours pouring over the Bible, looking for flaws or contradictions; they know it better than many merely professing Christians. Why devote so much energy to a God who isn’t there?

    And (No True Scotsman fallacy) it’s admittedly hard for everyone to remain Christlike when their beliefs are challenged; tribalism is another of those instincts of our imperfect flesh we have to struggle with. We have the example of Jesus, and every day we fall short in trying to live up to that standard. We would have told you ourselves.

    There is no proof that God exists; and any God that could be proven in that sense isn’t a God that matters. Ultimately, it makes little difference for me whether there’s a Greatest Possible Being or an Uncaused First Cause. The god that matters is the God who died on the cross to allow us to gain eternal life. And the only honest answer to those who say “it seems unlikely” is, “indeed, it does.” It is for just this reason that this God requires faith of His followers, and “faith is the evidence of things unseen. . .”

32. Matt:
    10 January 2006, on 6:09 pm

    I think it’s sad that so many sites rejected you. I also find you’re attitude quite sad. The very fact you find it acceptable to call Christians “Xtians” displays this attitude quite clearly.

33. strawman:
    10 January 2006, on 6:36 pm

    David

    I would support this to be the case, it is what I have been saying all along. We are wired that way, through natural selection or whatever the evolutionary process was. I wish some one would clone some Neanderthal and give them a habitat, just so we could gather data on them. I know, it sounds wrong, but I want to split them up, tell one group about the sun god, and let the other group evolve naturally. Years later, we can do a study on their cultures. Since they are not actually humans, but near relatives, it would be interesting to me.

34. Jared:
    10 January 2006, on 8:08 pm

    As a Christian with Atheist friends, I still found myself unfamiliar with the beliefs of the average Atheist.

    I spent countless hours talking with Atheists on Atheist boards, and wading through the self-righteous arrogance, I came to the following conclusion: Atheists can be just as ignorant, stubborn, and zealous as any theist. We are all equally reluctant to admit our fallacies, and just as unlikely to admit that we don’t have all the answers.

    I’ve yet to talk with an Atheist who will admit that he might be wrong.

    I once read an article, the hypothesis of which was that any discussion between theists and Atheists is futile. Nothing constructive can come of it, because these discussions have no goal, and no common language.

    Eventually, I had to block my access to these forums with my firewall. It was too easy to be drawn into fruitless arguments, and I wasted far too much time trying to explain my position to people who couldn’t've cared less.

35. Steve:
    10 January 2006, on 9:07 pm

    Though I am of the opinion that the existence of a god of some type is possible, what I find particularly hard to swallow are the nuances of the Christian faith, or any other faith for that matter. My father is a Christian minister, so I have particular interest in the subject, but I cannot really discuss this sort of thing with him. So, I guess the point of my post is to ask Lya (or ayone else) if she is aware of any forums where I am likely to encounter individuals that could offer some sort of plausible explanation for their beliefs in Christianity. I am not looking to fight with them, just to understand what reasons, besides the ubiquitous “faith”, support the basic Christian beliefs. Thanks!

36. Reluctant Atheist:
    10 January 2006, on 9:30 pm

    Francois:
    “On their boards, atheists let them blather all they want, and ban anyone (like me) who dares to call them on their bullshit.”
    Hope you’re not positing an absolute here.
    The last time I called a theist on her crap at the Nogodblog, I called her a total ass.
    That was 2 weeks ago. No response.
    I’ve called multiple theists on their bullshit at the NGB. Nicely or bluntly.
    & I’m still a regular.
    As for trolls at the RA, there’s plenty from both sides over there.
    & we have 1 liberal Xtian who frequents there (NGB). Who has become a friend of mine, BTW. (& I, a thorough apostate, to boot!)
    & he’s well liked.
    So everything’s not so absolutely cut & dried, after all.
    strawman:
    “Since they are not actually humans, but near relatives, it would be interesting to me.”
    That sounds utterly wretched. Sorry. There is a 40% DNA differentation between Cro-Magnon & Neanderthal, which does qualify as speciation.
    Problem is, what if we found out they were actually sentient?
    Sounds terribly immoral.

37. Sean:
    10 January 2006, on 11:51 pm

    Has anybody followed any of the links to the Xian sites that are blogging about Lya’s “experiment”? One person makes fun of us because we say things like “thank-you” to each other, thereby expressing gratitude, which is something we can’t see, is immeasurable, and is therefore akin to faith. So if I say “I love you” to someone and they believe me, it is apparently no different than believing in an invisible sky daddy.

    Um. Huh?

38. bill:
    11 January 2006, on 12:21 am

    You didn’t try us.

39. Leo:
    11 January 2006, on 12:45 am

    Hi all,

    First of all, I apologize for each time a “self-labeled Christian” offended or hurt any of you. Many things are said about Xtians, and sadly many are true. Thanks Lya for this place of real thought and for the assurance that everyone’s opinions are accepted.

    I know that God is an irrational concept that can only be understood by Love in someone greater than Self at a conscience level. All the rest is Theology, there is plenty of it and this isn’t the place for that. Just for the record, I believe in a Man Loving- Sin Hating God embodied in Jesus Christ.

    Have you ever thought: Why am I here?

    I have, and after studying some (I have a degree in engineering and an MBA) the further I study the things of God the further I realize that it is impossible that the Chaos of the Universe (Big Bang-Evolution, which I realized is scientifically impossible to proof) put you guys and I here in this time and place to “talk” while we don’t even see each other. There must be a greater “intelligence”. Thomas Edison “We do not know one-millionth of one percent about anything.”

    For the ones really convinced that there is no god, try this link (to the end) and see in you feel the same way afterwards.
    http://www.livingwaters.com/good/

    Love you.
    In Christ,
    Leo

40. Sean:
    11 January 2006, on 3:46 am

    Thanks to the Xians who have come in and offered olive branches. Nice to meet you.

    However, I personally would ask you to refrain from signing your postings “In Christ.” Please do not proselytize here. This is a phrase that carries no meaning for us. You are a guest in our house. If Lya was polite and acted as a respectful guest in your houses, which I believe her on her honor that she was, I think it would be polite for you to do the same.

    Looked at in another way, imagine if I came to your house of worship on a Sunday, stood up in front of the congregation and asked them to prove to me the existence of god based on scientific method. That would be a rather rude approach to the discussion, wouldn’t it?

    Again, rhetoric like “In Christ” carries no value and is somewhat insulting here. Please speak to us about your beliefs without evangelical language.

    Thank you.

41. Sean:
    11 January 2006, on 4:20 am

    Leo said:

    There must be a greater “intelligence”. Thomas Edison “We do not know one-millionth of one percent about anything.

    If we don’t know anything, why must there be a “greater intelligence”?

    We invented the idea of a greater intelligence, yet we don’t know anything, so why must it be?

    Do you follow?

42. Sean:
    11 January 2006, on 4:36 am

    From Anne Johnson’s blog:

    A riotous ramble through the Intelligently Designed universe with Anne, the hillbilly goat judge, and the many gods and goddesses who’ve been let go in revised head counts.

    And…

    Welcome to “The Gods Are Bored!” We think the Moral Majority isn’t, and the Religious Right really isn’t. Our doctrine consists of restoring ancient gods and goddesses to the positions they once held (including a living wage, benefits and vacation time).

    These gods and goddesses are the victims of hostile takeovers by a series of monotheistic religions that, no matter the original intention of the god in charge, have wreaked mayhem around the world.

    Not to mention leaving stubborn stains on furniture.

    I’m Anne, your hostess. My furniture is spotless.

    Being democratic and open-minded about pantheons gives me great optimism about my prospects on the Other Side. Never having had much opportunity to travel the world, I confidently expect to be welcome in many and various heavens, by such a wealth of bored gods that I’ll hardly know where to start!

    Hi, Anne. A polite welcome, a tip of the hat to dissing the Religious Right… and then I have to tell you that you sound completely nuts. Just because you don’t subscribe to any of the three monotheistic sky-god religions doesn’t mean that you have a rational head on your shoulders. I had to stop reading your blog after just a few sentences due to its sheer craziness. You see, I live in California, breeding ground of whackjob new belief systems. My shields are already well-constructed against utter nonsense.

    Sorry, but you’re just as flipped as the rest of them. Just try not to hurt anyone on the basis of your insane beliefs before you check out.

43. Matt:
    11 January 2006, on 6:30 am

    CHRISTians, NOT Xtians!!!

44. Sean:
    11 January 2006, on 6:44 am

    Matt… You are a guest in our house. Why should we respect your beliefs and accommodate your choice of terminology? Did you bring anything to eat at our little potluck? Otherwise, shut up and respect your host.

    It’s Xians. Period.

45. Morgan:
    11 January 2006, on 8:18 am

    Matt: what do you find objectionable about the term ‘Xian’? Are you aware of its derivation? The ‘X’ is simply a shorthand for
    ‘Christ’, deriving from the resemblance of the Greek chi (first letter of Christos) to an ‘X’. IIRC it was originally
    used by monks for no purpose more sinister than saving time writing a frequently-used word. It holds no derogatory meaning, except
    perhaps by association. So why do you dislike it so?

46. Morgan:
    11 January 2006, on 9:18 am

    Jared,
    I’m not surprised you would be ‘unfamiliar with the beliefs of the average atheist’, because there aren’t really beliefs with which
    to be familiar. Two people, both atheists, need have but one thing in common, a lack of belief in a god or gods. You may prefer to
    regard ‘true’ atheism as positive disbelief, but either way, it’s a single point. Atheism is not a system of beliefs or a
    whole philosophy. Many atheists would hold some such system, like humanism or objectivism, but no such system is atheism and
    atheism is not necessarily required for any of them. No two atheists will necessarily hold the same or similar positions on many
    other matters simply because they are atheists. Just what you think ‘the beliefs of the average atheist’ would cover I admit I don’t
    really get.

    You’re certainly correct in that an atheist, merely because he is an atheist, will not necessarily be any less ignorant, stubborn or
    zealous than anyone else. It is not however true that ‘we are all equally reluctant to admit our fallacies’ or ‘unlikely to admit
    that we don’t have all the answers’ - recognising and admitting fallacies in one’s own position is a hallmark of intellectual
    honesty and I think it’s perfectly reasonable and evident that people vary in their degree of intellectual honesty (likewise for not
    having all the answers). Bear in mind, however, that atheists will often at least profess (I’m hedging my bets here since you sound
    like you’ve had some pretty bad luck in your contact with atheists online) to value rationality in debate, and may give short shriftto fallacious argument, of which a great deal of theological argument (especially as posted on atheist blogs, it seems) consists; so
    when you see an argument with gaping flaws put forward by someone who clearly thinks they’ve just sunk your whole worldview, and
    it’s basically identical to fifty other arguments given you in the last week, you’re likely to seem ‘arrogant’ or ’stubborn’ in
    rejecting it. I would suggest http://atheism.about.com/, if you’re looking for information about what atheism does and does not
    entail and how that might influence a person’s other attitudes and beliefs. The author there has the advantage of only needing to
    answer one copy of each argument…

    Lastly,

    Ive yet to talk with an Atheist who will admit that he might be wrong.

    (If you consider this ‘met’…) I am an atheist. I do not believe that any god or gods exist; in fact I believe that none do (which
    is not the same thing). I will admit that I might be wrong. I do not think that at all likely, however; and depending on the god
    under discussion I may feel I am as likely to be wrong on this as I am on my conviction that, yes, 2 + 2 really does equal 4,
    because I think some ideas of god can be shown to be incoherent, meaningless or logically contradictory. However, I do not assert
    that nothing that anyone anywhere would care to term a god might exist. If I am presented with specific claims about a god or
    reasons to believe in one I will evaluate those on their merits and, going by experience, will most likely reject them. I would not
    call this self-righteousness, arrogance, stubborness, ignorance or zealotry. I hope you would not either.

47. Morgan:
    11 January 2006, on 9:20 am

    Sorry for the mangled postings, the editor I’m stuck with here is rather finicky. I’ll wait till I’m at home this evening before continuing.

48. Nathan:
    11 January 2006, on 9:41 am

    Matt, FYI, the “x” in Xians is an oooold short-hand for Christ. the greek letters Chi and Rho have been long used to symbolize Christ because they are the first two letters of christos, which is Greek for Christ, which is the septuagint translation of the Hebrew “messiah.” Here’s an image that should help. I’m sure you’ve seen this symbol in your church: http://www.djp.ch/pre/chi-rho.jpg

49. John:
    11 January 2006, on 9:56 am

    Yeah, you atheists are so mean, calling us “Xians”, when all we do is endorse your eternal damnation for your religious views!

    And Morgan: Nice comment. I agree. I could be wrong. Nothing is absolutely certain. I could be wrong about what street I live on, too. But I’m pretty sure I’m not.

50. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 10:44 am

    “The very fact you find it acceptable to call Christians “Xtians” displays this attitude quite clearly. “\
    “CHRISTians, NOT Xtians!!! ”

    As has already been explained on this site “Xians” is not an insult. Stop pouting and look it up.

    You’re in our house now. I will say whatever I like.

    I will be posting some clarifications soon. Obviously I haven’t made myself as clear as I originally hoped.

51. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 10:46 am

    “I’ve yet to talk with an Atheist who will admit that he might be wrong.”

    Then you have yet to talk with an atheist.

    “and I wasted far too much time trying to explain my position to people who couldn’t’ve cared less. ”

    and so you’ve come here because. . . .?

52. Entity:
    11 January 2006, on 10:47 am

    Maybe it is my own biases, but I don’t view saying “In Christ” as proselytizing, as there is no conversion intended just a mention of a name. Based on this response, I can understand why Christians would believe some of the “most common misconceptions about atheists”, including 1. Atheists hate god and 10. Atheists want to destroy/limit religion.

    “In Christ” is a statement I am Christian and believe in Christ. It is not significantly different than Lya saying she is an atheist and does not believe in Christ on Christian forums. It is not comparable to attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God or interrupting a church service. But it is YOUR house and I don’t want to step on your toes, so I’ll invite you to our house, Christdot.org. Our only “rule”, for atheist or theist, is that posts be kept PG-13, which judging from the content of this forum, should not be an issue. We have a few resident atheists and welcome your input, even if you do only come to proselytize and use atheist language while explaining your beliefs.

    Regards,
    Entity
    Christdot.org Admin Team

53. Gordon:
    11 January 2006, on 11:01 am

    In an attempt to understand:

    I was an Atheist at one point in my life and now I am a Theist. Why? Because I came to a point in my life where I had to trust in something I couldn’t see and knew didn’t exist. Once that step of faith was completed (from my heart that believed for me) I received what most Christians would call the peace of God that is beyond comprehension.

    Because it is a Knowing that we can’t truly explain, our language becomes faulty and Christians respond out of emotion to the questions from Atheists that are so very hard to understand or even respond to. We don’t want to Win you over as a victory but dearly want you to experience what we experience on a daily basis. That would be the filling of the God shaped hole in every human’s heart.

    Unfortunately there is no concrete evidence for the existence of God and a theist is left with an Experiential Knowing that can’t be accurately explained.

    I feel badly that I can’t relate this to you

    Question:
    If God does exist how many Atheist truly want to know?

54. Marcus:
    11 January 2006, on 11:13 am

    Leo,

    Your rhetorical bullshit test did not impress me.

    Entity,

    The statement is offensive as it is connotative of all of the ills that have been committed in the name of jizzus. So if you feel it’s fine to use it I guess you won’t mind mine-

    In the name of the virgin screwing and baby-blood bathing glory of the all powerful Satan, star of the most high and inferno of my heart,
    Marcus
    GIFS

55. Entity:
    11 January 2006, on 11:39 am

    Marcus,

    I’m not offended. I would rather have you state your beliefs than feel that they are stifled. I do find it amusing that you are helping to perpetuate “misconceptions” 1 and 6.

    Regards,

    Entity

56. Marcus:
    11 January 2006, on 11:50 am

    Entity,

    Heh- you’re funny; although, if you think I’m perpetuating those misconceptions, you must be dumber than I tell people.

57. Sean:
    11 January 2006, on 12:11 pm

    Entity: here we go with the fact that Lya has already pointed out. We speak different languages. Should I come to your blog and start posting with the signature:

    God is dead
    Jesus is a fraud
    Organized religion equals bigotry

    Love,

    Sean

58. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 12:12 pm

    “If God does exist how many Atheist truly want to know? ”

    Can someone please explain to me why wanting evidence before believing somehow means we wouldn’t listen to the evidence at all?

59. Sean:
    11 January 2006, on 12:19 pm

    PS: When you are a guest in someone’s house, and they ask you not to say something a certain way, the polite thing to say is “My apologies, I won’t do it again.” Anybody who has travelled to another country and encountered drastically different cultures can relate to this. So we asked you to stop saying “In Christ” in your signatures and you argued with us.

    Your posts remain, unlike the 7 out of 30 Xian blogs that banned Lya outright for saying she was an atheist.

    Why? Because we don’t believe in censorship. It goes against the First Amendment, which is far more important to us than Jeebus.

    But just to let you know, if you do keep saying “In Christ” like proselytizing fanatics, we have the right to simply delete that sentence from your post.

    Again: come to our house, be polite, follow our rules. Mmmm-kay?

60. Sean:
    11 January 2006, on 12:23 pm

    If God does exist how many Atheist truly want to know?

    Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Me! Me!

    I would love to have this argument settled for good and let it bring about world peace and harmony.

    So… What’s the evidence, again?

61. Gordon:
    11 January 2006, on 12:34 pm

    Lya,
    Do you really want to know? You didn’t answer the question.

62. Marcus:
    11 January 2006, on 12:39 pm

    You see, Gordo, we already know there is no such thing; therefore the question is moot.

63. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 12:51 pm

    “You didn’t answer the question. ”

    Yes, I did.

    But, I’ll bite. Please present your case.

64. Entity:
    11 January 2006, on 12:54 pm

    Sean,

    Apparently your requests for politeness are only aimed at theists. I wouldn’t want to call some of your members inhospitable, as that would be impolite, but it does appear that my sole experience with an atheist blog is almost as rude as 20% of Lya’s experiences with Christian blogs. If I read correctly, 80% of them welcomed her and did not attempt to stifle her views.

    I did not argue with you over whether this phrase would continue to be used and you should notice that I have not used it as a closer. I took issue to your comparison of “In Christ” as a closer to proselytizing. If this blog is not an area where such discussions and exchange of thoughts is welcome, I apologize. You are welcome to join us on Christdot.org, as Lya has, for a more open and less stifled discussion.

    And I don’t care what your signature is there. While I may argue with your conclusions, I would not ask you not to say them. I would let them stand as a representation of the atheist that you are and let others draw their own conclusions about you.

    Regards,

    Entity

65. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 12:58 pm

    Entity- atheist boards are frequently infested with trolling theists. So, those that aren’t will frequently get less-than-friendly treatment until they prove themselves. Call it a trial by fire. If you can prove you’re not a troll, the treatment gets better. But, understand we get burned more than not.

    Also, I never made a claim that atheists sites are superior in any way to theist ones.

66. Marcus:
    11 January 2006, on 1:01 pm

    I find it strange that many of the xians close their comments like they would a letter. It is as if they don’t think we are aware of who is speaking.

    And of course xian blogs welcome outsiders, it is a chance for proselyitization. I have an interesting anecdote to put up, maybe in the next two days, about xian duplicity.

67. Gordon:
    11 January 2006, on 1:16 pm

    Lya,
    I would rather not try to argue anyone into the Kingdom of God. For my own information wanted to know how many Atheists truly would want to know God if He exists.

    Marcus,
    Have a nice life.

68. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 1:28 pm

    “I would rather not try to argue anyone into the Kingdom of God. For my own information wanted to know how many Atheists truly would want to know God if He exists.”

    So, I ask again - please explain how our repeatedly saying that we require evidence before believing, means we somehow would NOT want to see this evidence?

    If you’ve got some, show us.

    And to expand:

    What it looks like you’re doing is playing with the misconceptions I’ve already noted (#2 & #5). Why would we not want to know? Do you think we’re just in denial? Do you think we’ve never looked for him? Do you think you can change anyone’s mind?

69. Bob:
    11 January 2006, on 1:29 pm

    Because it is a Knowing that we can’t truly explain, our language becomes faulty and Christians respond out of emotion to the questions from Atheists that are so very hard to understand or even respond to. We don’t want to Win you over as a victory but dearly want you to experience what we experience on a daily basis.

    So you’ve had an “experiential knowledge” (certainty?) that you can’t relate because such experiences are beyond thought, words, and comprehension? In your (strangely convenient) case, then, I guess, there’s no need for faith, since it’s all been made clear to you. (Why not others? Were you special? Aren’t others longing more than you?)

    And, I suppose, there’s no possibility of fallibly re-characterizing such an experience as something other than what you thought it initially was, i.e., do you think that if you were brought up in Iran or Paris you would’ve had the same experience? (Why are these experiences always demographically biased?)

    Concerning what you “experience on a daily basis,” it might be that we either experience very different things or have radically different attitudes toward those things. What do those who’ve had these “experiences” say (for example) to the problem of evil? When I see all that stuff I’m deeply troubled, and, when I think of god, I get pissed. What do you do? Stand there, “knowing” that it’s all justified, even thought you can’t say why? (I mean, it can’t seem to bother you all THAT much, since your experience was so authentic and confirming.)

    If so, when exactly does all that just start to get weird? As it stands, you haven’t really distinguished your “experiences” or “sureness of attitude” from any type found in various (xian) cults.

70. Marcus:
    11 January 2006, on 1:39 pm

    “Marcus,
    Have a nice life.”

    Aww… look at the cute little corndog lover!

71. Jim:
    11 January 2006, on 1:41 pm

    Lya,
    I don’t know if you’re interested in continuing your experiment, but I run a small discussion board myself. We do have a couple of members who are not Christians/atheists, and we do have some very good discussions. Things are very slow there right now, but we’re always looking for new members to generate good topics for discussion. If you’re interested, you can find us at http://www.open-dialogue.com.

72. Entity:
    11 January 2006, on 1:44 pm

    Lya,

    I understand the trollhunting. We do it occasionally on our site when someone comes in who essentially wants to spam us with their POV, whether it is atheist, Christian, or other. Those who desire to participate are welcomed.

    I don’t believe I’ve exhibited any troll behavior, so if I have please let me know. This does seem to be a very closed group, particularly to my kind. As you are the author of this thread, if you desire myself or others from Christdot to leave, and not return. It might, however, be interesting and fruitful to have the insights of the group (Christian forums) that you are talking about. You are always welcome on Christdot to share your insights.

    I didn’t believe that you made the claim of the superiority of atheist sites. However, I do wonder what your blog would have said if you had pretended to be a Christian and visited 35 atheist sites. What would your welcome have been like? Would you have been banned? Would everyone ask you the same questions? What would atheists misconceptions about Christians have been?

    Marcus,

    On my forum, I don’t sign my name. When I call home, I don’t identify myself to the person who answers. They know me.

    When I visit another forum, I often do identify myself in the closer. It seems like it is beneficial to other posters and was not meant to annoy you or call your intelligence into question.

    You can choose to have preconceptions of Christian blogs, or you can choose to visit ours. However, you’ll find we are much more interested in discussing the finer points of theology with each other than attempting to prove to you that God exists. To us, that is a settled question.

    Regards,

    Entity

73. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 1:45 pm

    “So you’ve had an “experiential knowledge” (certainty?) that you can’t relate because such experiences are beyond thought, words, and comprehension?”

    See Bob, I can jump off the roof right now and fly away, but I can’t show you. It can’t be proven through science. You’ll just have to have faith that I can fly. Or you’ll burn in hell forever.

74. King Retard:
    11 January 2006, on 2:05 pm

    Here’s the thing about being wrong about gawd. I might be. I’ll admit that. Gawd could come down and smite me right now or he could knock on my door, and say “hey dumbass, get your shit together, I EXIST!!!” Then I could believe in him. But, I still wouldn’t like him very much. This is my problem: there’s all sorts of shit in the world, the world which gawd supposedly created. The story goes that he created everything. Us, dogs, disease, famine, war, one-eyed cats that die after a day, etc. All the good stuff is to be credited to him. All of the bad stuff is because we disobeyed our big insecure sky daddy. But wait, there’s a second chance. Gawd made himself a baby boy just so he could grow up to be murdered. Somehow, this makes us redeemable.

    The moral, gawd is a bloodthirsty, ill-tempered, insecure one-eyed cat maker.

75. Gordon:
    11 January 2006, on 2:08 pm

    Lya,
    I have no evidence that you have not already heard and torn apart.

    The only evidence I can offer you is that feeling inside of you when someone says to you “Jesus Loves You”

    You ultimately have to decide.

    If I’m wrong I have lost nothing. I’ve had a good life and shared it with a lot of like minded people. If you are wrong you have lost an eternity of peace and love.

    Bob,
    I’m upset when bad things happen also. If we have been given free will how can God change the actions of one human and not the other. You want God to stop the terrorist before he flies into the World Trade Center, but not stop you when you are going to harm someone or yourself.

    Yes, I need faith and needed faith when I came to that point in my life were I trusted.

    As for the rest of your argument. Sorry, not interested.

76. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 2:10 pm

    “I don’t believe I’ve exhibited any troll behavior, so if I have please let me know.”

    Not that I’ve seen. You’re cool. However, like I said, we’ve been burned more often than not.

    “This does seem to be a very closed group, particularly to my kind. As you are the author of this thread, if you desire myself or others from Christdot to leave, and not return.”

    Personally, I don’t want theists like you to leave. I have no trouble losing the trolls. As I said, we’re never going to fully understand each other but that doesn’t mean we need to be nasty to each other.

    But, I make no statements for anyone else here; I speak only for myself. .

    “I didn’t believe that you made the claim of the superiority of atheist sites.”

    Good. Just wanted to be sure we’re clear on that.

    “However, I do wonder what your blog would have said if you had pretended to be a Christian and visited 35 atheist sites.”

    I considered doing this as a follow-up, however I’m not sure I could convincingly play a theist. Perhaps that’s something for your end to try out *wink wink hint hint*

77. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 2:22 pm

    “The only evidence I can offer you is that feeling inside of you when someone says to you “Jesus Loves You”

    Which I am sure you already understand is not evidence at all.

    “You ultimately have to decide.”

    Already have done, thanks.

    “If I’m wrong I have lost nothing. I’ve had a good life and shared it with a lot of like minded people. If you are wrong you have lost an eternity of peace and love.”

    Pascal’s Wager is a logical fallacy, as has already been noted. If you have spent your life worshipping the wrong god of the thousands that have been worshipped thoroughout time, you will also lose “an eternity of peace and love.” I’ll see you in hell.

    For the sake of argument let’s assume he does exist. If that’s a given then:

    1. He created me as I am - a freethinking atheist
    2. He planned for me to be this way
    3. And because he’s omniscient he knew I would make the choices I have made

    Agreed? If so, then he created me specifically to go to hell. What a right bastard.

    Or on the other hand, if he exists and he is the loving, benevolent father ya’ll seem to like to portray him as, then wouldn’t he just forgive and forget?

    ~~

    “As for the rest of your argument. Sorry, not interested.”

    Translation: I don’t understand what you’re saying, but it might dent my faith so away I run.”

78. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 2:23 pm

    “I have no evidence that you have not already heard and torn apart.”

    Thank you for the honestly.

79. Gordon:
    11 January 2006, on 2:36 pm

    Away I run. Have a nice life. God Save you if he chooses to do so.

80. Faith K:
    11 January 2006, on 2:41 pm

    Hi Lya,

    I’m so happy you compiled all this data…. but it doesn’t make me change my opinion. Both of my grandparents were preachers of God’s word. I’m probably more convinced there is a God, then you are convinced that there isn’t a God, but I have faith.

    Faith is my name, Guess you can figure that out. Faith is the game. And I have a lot of faith to macth the fact that you lack any. I would be really happy if you would just leave this website. I don’t need your lack of understanding of the word of God. After all I won’t have to live with you through-out eternity. And you don’t have to worry about spending eternity with me.

    I surely pray that some day you will see our light. Jesus said he was the light of the world. And I believe his words. He came to this world to save both of us, but if you have no faith, I will only pray a few pray’s on your behalf. After all, your heart and mind has been totally blinded to the truth. You’re so sure that we are the one’s that are wrong, we’ll probably never change your mind.

    All atheist are not welcomed in the afterlife, and according to the Holy Bible. After you died, you’ll never see the light of day again. Only Fire! And believe it or not, christain really don’t want to hear your opinion, no more than we want to hear yours.

    This is a Christinan website, No evil thoughts are welcomed here. You go you’re way and we’ll go ours. I can see there are a lot of atheist for you to share your thoughts with. No evil intended. If atheist don’t like us the leave us along.

    Regards

    Faith

81. Bob:
    11 January 2006, on 2:52 pm

    I’m upset when bad things happen also.

    Well, that’s nice to know — even though I’d still claim you’re not as bothered as most atheists I know. I mean, it’s not really clear how you COULD feel that badly, if you KNOW that god exists and every crappy thing you see is justified in the end. (It sucks when my kid gets a shot, but I don’t feel THAT badly, since I know he’s not going to get polio.)

    If we have been given free will how can God change the actions of one human and not the other. You want God to stop the terrorist before he flies into the World Trade Center, but not stop you when you are going to harm someone or yourself.

    You really think the FWD answers this? And who said either/or? That’s like saying a parent should stop one child from doing something stupid but not the other. But intervention seems to be desired regardless, wouldn’t you say? I mean, we’re ordinarily obligated to intervene when we can, and when our own lives are not in danger — especially when it’s a situation where the suffering is unnecessary.

    But that’s the one type of thing that your god doesn’t seem to worry about all that much. (Nor you, I’d assume.)

    As for the rest of your argument. Sorry, not interested.

    I assume this is how you “tear apart” arguments?

    Yes, it might be best if you left. You end up running away when you’re here, anyway.

82. Crystal:
    11 January 2006, on 2:53 pm

    “I choose my actions. I am responsible for my actions. I take care of myself. I am not god. I do not need a god, for I have myself. I need no one to pacify my whimpers or push me to act. I need only find the one that performs these tasks: myself.”

    Divinus 1:34

    “If you can not handle yourself, do not turn to a greater power. It will not heal your wounds, for medicine does. It will not wipe away your tears, for friends/family do. It will not provide you with a job, for employers do. It will not save the world, for only heros do. It will not give you a husband and family, for only you can. Look deep inside and find the person that controls you, for it is only you.”

    Alrightus 5:67

    -Excerpts taken from The Divine Words of Goddess Crystal

    (Sorry, I couldn’t help myself! But this is actually what I “believe” in…maybe I should start my own religion…)

83. Reluctant Atheist:
    11 January 2006, on 3:02 pm

    Leo:
    “Thomas Edison “We do not know one-millionth of one percent about anything.” - you realize you’re quoting an atheist here, correct?
    Gordon:
    “The only evidence I can offer you is that feeling inside of you when someone says to you “Jesus Loves You””
    Which makes it a personal event.
    To which, Paine once observed: “It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.” - Age of Reason.

84. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 3:13 pm

    “Away I run.”

    So that’s it, huh. Nothing to say about what’s been put to you? You’re just going to stick your head back in the sand and not contemplate anything?

    See what I mean? This is largely a waste of time.

    “Have a nice life. God Save you if he chooses to do so. ”

    I will have a nice life, thank you. A nice peaceful mythology-free life.

85. Marcus:
    11 January 2006, on 3:28 pm

    “You can choose to have preconceptions of Christian blogs, or you can choose to visit ours. However, you’ll find we are much more interested in discussing the finer points of theology with each other than attempting to prove to you that God exists. To us, that is a settled question.”

    I did visit your blog and found that it was just as asinine as any other xian blog. How could it not be with such enlightened items as:

    http://christdot.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7503

    http://christdot.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7306

    Ah, corndog worshipers, you are all hilarious.

86. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 3:38 pm

    In the comments for the post on this article there is already a few “atheists have faith too” canards. It’s amusing to me that my post outlines all the mistakes they make and they go right on making them as if no one mentioned the gigantic elephant in the room.

    So far very friendly people over there, but it’s still the same-old, same-old.

87. J. J. Ramsey:
    11 January 2006, on 3:42 pm

    The 4 most commonly used bits of known hoaxes/forgeries:

    –snip–
    2. Josephus (see next link)
    3. Anything used to “prove” Jesus really existed (this Link is a fabulous resource for debunking “proof” of Jesus’s existence)
    –snip–

    A suggestion, Lya. Go read these:

    http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp1.html
    http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/The_Jesus_Mysteries
    http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Nonbiblical_references_to_Jesus
    http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Existence_Of_Jesus

    I wrote most of the last three links, so I am tooting my horn a bit (though I consider the last article link quite incomplete). I think you should especially read in the last link what Gerd Thiessen had to say about G.A. Wells attempts to explain away the references to “brother of the Lord.”

    I’m sorry, but it’s the Jesus-mythers who are doing pseudohistory.

88. Bob:
    11 January 2006, on 3:44 pm

    Marcus, this one killed me:

    I myself struggle with my sexuality even as a straight man; God forbid I give up and simply affirm my sinful lusts simply claiming that it is okay because “God made me this way”. God made it all good, but it was all corrupted at the fall of mankind; God sent His only begotten Son to die to redeem it from His just wrath.

    So, like, no happy hour?

89. Marcus:
    11 January 2006, on 3:54 pm

    Bob,

    Most certainly a future Charles Whitman.

90. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 4:02 pm

    “God made it all good, but it was all corrupted at the fall of mankind; God sent His only begotten Son to die to redeem it from His just wrath.”

    Where’s strawman when you need him/her? THIS is what scares me about theists. How can any otherwise sensible, sane and logical adult type something like this with a straight face?

    You have to admire the strength and self-reinforcing nature of the meme, though. Remarkable.

91. Gordon:
    11 January 2006, on 4:17 pm

    Lya,
    Talk about a waste of time. I asked a simple question and could not get one yes or no answer. You people don’t want to know God you want to win an argument. Fine, you win.

    All of you are full of the same blah blah blah that I once had. The facts are: God will or will not call you as he has me and you will or will not answer his call. It really has nothing to do with wether he exists or not. Just the nature of this discussion proves he exist you are just to stupid and self important to see it.

92. King Retard:
    11 January 2006, on 4:20 pm

    “All of you are full of the same blah blah blah that I once had. The facts are: God will or will not call you as he has me and you will or will not answer his call. It really has nothing to do with wether he exists or not. Just the nature of this discussion proves he exist you are just to stupid and self important to see it. ”

    I’d say it does have a bit to do with whether or not he exists. If he doesn’t exist, how can he call you? Who’s stupid the people who make thought-out arguments or the person who somehow cites this argument as proof that god exists. Try again, Gordon.

93. Gordon:
    11 January 2006, on 4:20 pm

    Lya,
    Also, you couldn’t even answer why you don’t believe in God on the other blog except for more Blah blah blah.

94. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 4:21 pm

    “I wrote most of the last three links, so I am tooting my horn a bit (though I consider the last article link quite incomplete).”

    Let me get this straight. You list several articles YOU wrote that I’m supposed to accept as truthful? Because, you don’t have an alterior motive at all, huh. *lol*

    The first link doesn’t work. The other three I will look over tomorrow as I’m leaving shortly.

    GifS’ers - anyone else want to look these over as well? I’m interested the input. I’m going to post them on the AN as well - there’s plenty of people who know more about this than I do there.

95. Lya:
    11 January 2006, on 4:34 pm

    “I asked a simple question and could not get one yes or no answer. ”

    I didn’t realize that you needed a “yes” or a “no” answer. I did answer your simple question TWICE. Apologies for evidently not making it simple enough.

    “Just the nature of this discussion proves he exist you are just to stupid and self important to see it. ”

    It proves nothing of the sort you lying asshat. (see, I can insult too!) It is neither stupid or self-important - and I notice you still haven’t addressed any of the points directed to you.

    And thank you for employing logical fallacies proving further that you’ve got jack shit to back up for clinging to childish delusions.

    And gordon -I did answer why I don’t believe in god. I’m sorry you lack even the most basic of reading comprehension skills.

    Since you’ve made it clear you’re nothing but a whining troll - go away. You’ve got nothing.

96. J. J. Ramsey:
    11 January 2006, on 5:03 pm

    “Let me get this straight. You list several articles YOU wrote that I’m supposed to accept as truthful?”

    That’s why they have references. You can read and judge for yourself. I mentioned that I wrote them for the sake of full disclosure.

    The first link doesn’t work right now because GeoCities is on the fritz. An older version of it is http://www.christianorigins.com/doherty-muller.html

    There’s also a book review of _Deconstructing Jesus_ here: http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=805&CodePage=805

    Some snippets to give you an idea of its contents:

    “To be sure, the time between Jesus and the New Testament could have produced (and did) a largely fictional story–as Price contends–but could it have produced multiple, independent fabrications from unrelated groups? Evidence from analogous cases from the first century–such as the fantastical stories surrounding Vespasian, or Apollonius of Tyana both of whom apparently really lived–would suggest not.
    –snip–
    “Price also gives too much credence to the idea that the gospels were written later than is generally supposed (e.g. his contention that Marcion included an earlier version of Luke into his New Testament rather than a redacted version of the canonical Luke). The evidence provided by the last couple of centuries seems too firm to allow this. This resort to late composition also implies sloppiness in the effort to validate the mythological Jesus, for if one posits the conflation of Simon/Peter and the other apostles as independent messiahs into the figure of Jesus based on late composition, one must also address obvious problems, such as how John the Baptist’s story survived relatively intact.
    –snip–
    “The record we have from non-Christian sources, while late, point toward an actual person named Jesus, whose life generally matches–at least in its most broad outline–what is said by the earliest Christian sources. To suppose that all of these sources are mistaken does a certain violence to the texts that is unmerited. While, perhaps, Jesus was created by the early Christian communities, Price does not yet convince.”

97. Crystal:
    11 January 2006, on 5:10 pm

    Is anyone else bothered by the fact that most of our country is comprised of religious folks, yet their grammatical skills are at the second-grade level?

98. J. J. Ramsey:
    11 January 2006, on 5:12 pm

    “The first link doesn’t work right now because GeoCities is on the fritz. An older version of it is http://www.christianorigins.com/doherty-muller.html”

    The original first link seems to be working now. Enjoy.

99. Matt:
    11 January 2006, on 5:32 pm

    Sean, Lya

    OK, so I didn’t know X was short for Christ. I apologise for seeing it as an insult and admit I should have done my research instead of assuming. Point taken.

    Although “you’re in our house now” - would that give me the right to make racist comments to someone in the privacy of my own home?

100. Marcus:
     11 January 2006, on 5:42 pm

     Crystal,

     It’s from a new xian school of thought demanding that their conception of grammar and punctuation be inserted into K-12 language curricula.

     Matt,

     Unfortunately, for corndog lovers like you, the “x” is an edit that indicates an omitted word.

101. King Retard:
     11 January 2006, on 5:59 pm

     “Although “you’re in our house now” - would that give me the right to make racist comments to someone in the privacy of my own home?”

     You’d certainly have that right, although I fail to see how the two are connected. All that is being said is don’t join in a conversation and then demand under which terms it will be conducted.

102. Leo:
     11 January 2006, on 6:15 pm

     It is impossible for a man/woman to prove the existence of God by himself.

     This would be the same case of Scientist carrying out experiment to prove that “Men can’t leave the toilet sit down” and then including himself in experiment as the test subject. He would be so Biased into proving his Hypothesis is true that he would ALWAYS “leave the toilet sit down”. The further he researches the closer he gets to concluding that “ALL men leave the toilet sit down”, this because he is Biased by his own believe system.

     The Simplest Form of Scientific Inquiry has the following process:

     A natural phenomenon, A Question, A Hypothesis, An Experimental Plan, Predicted Result, An Experiment, Comparison of Predicted and Actual Results, Conclusions: Hypothesis Incorrect or Hypothesis Correct.
     If Incorrect return to Hypothesis, If correct return to Add this Hypothesis as Scientific Law.

     On my opinion, if we don’t open ourselves to the existence of “X”, then we can find hundreds of “Predicted Result“ that proof that “X” doesn’t can’t be a possible result due to our Bias. Nevertheless, if we open ourselves to the possibility that “X” is an option, then we might be able to see a different answer to our Hypothesis. This has been my experience, and the more I Experience God the more proof I find.

     Let’s see if this made sense. (I am open to logical and scientific reasoning). Let’s all grow our minds.

     Again, I apologize for some “self-labeled Xtian” that don’t yet get what Xtianity is all about.

     Love you,

103. Reluctant Atheist:
     11 January 2006, on 6:28 pm

     J.J.:
     “but could it have produced multiple, independent fabrications from unrelated groups?”
     Independent fabrications? Define ‘independent’, especially in such an area. Word of mouth travels fast. Unrelated groups? How are they unrelated (outside of blood kinship)?
     It sounds like a re-spin of Miller’s folderol, about how parallelism has to have synchronous underlying motifs (or somesuch).
     Given the penchant for diversity under Roman rule, this sounds like semantic gymnastics to me.

     Matt:
     “Although “you’re in our house now” - would that give me the right to make racist comments to someone in the privacy of my own home?”
     Sure it would.
     The guest could always leave.
     It’s pretty much up to the host’s discretion.
     ‘Property is 9/10’s of the law’, & all that.

104. Reluctant Atheist:
     11 January 2006, on 6:35 pm

     Leo:
     Think you left 1 out:
     “On my opinion, if we don’t open ourselves to the existence of “X”, then we can find hundreds of “Predicted Result“ that proof that “X” doesn’t can’t be a possible result due to our Bias. Nevertheless, if we open ourselves to the possibility that “X” is an option, then we might be able to see a different answer to our Hypothesis.”

     Nice, but how about this: we simply attempt to find evidence of your elusive ‘X’, w/o pre-supposing for/against? It’s called objectivity.

     Better known as the empirical method.

     That’s the fallacy of bifurcation, BTW - either/or.

     Try walking down the middle of the fence, & looking at both sides.

     That’s how I made my choice.

105. strawman:
     11 January 2006, on 6:40 pm

     “if he exists and he is the loving, benevolent father ya’ll seem to like to portray him as, then wouldn’t he just forgive and forget?”

     Don’t worry, at the risk of sounding theological for the moment (sorry guys), as I have previously stated, you won’t burn in hell. Hell as it is taught is not a true Xian concept, but a pagan one brought into the church in the 5th century. That was St Augustine’s doing, and St. Jeromes Latin Vulgate was a reflection of that. For those that might care to see why I say this go here: http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellStudy/HellChart.html
     Incidentally, if my fellow Xians threaten you with Hellfire for not believing, send them there if ya like…I guess as far as Hell goes, athiests and I can agree somewhat.
     “as if no one mentioned the gigantic elephant in the room.”

     ever hear the story of the blind men and the elephant? First one goes in and feels the trunk and tells the rest that it is like a serpent. The next feels a leg and argues with the first stating with authority an elephant is like a tree. A third touches it’s tusk and swears they are crazy, it has felt the evidence, and an elephant is like a large lance held aloft. Yet another enters, touches the elephants side and decides not to even argue, because these guys can’t tell a wall when they come against one. Yet another blind man feels the ear and tells the rest in a loud and declarative voice that elephants are obviously like great big fans to keep you cool on the Nile. Lastly, yet another sightless man entered the room and touched the elephants tail. “You are all BLIND!!” he screamed and then the fighting started.
     Take from that story what you may:)

     Here is my take on the whole athiest/xian debate:
     Athiests tend to care for what happens during our lifetimes.
     Thiests tend to worry about what happens after this lifetime.
     Thus we speak totally different languages and frustrate the hell out of each other.

106. Reluctant Atheist:
     11 January 2006, on 6:42 pm

     Lya:
     My pardon for not saying this sooner - you’re one brave lady (person: oh hell, what’s the proper PC colloquialism these days?). Kudos.
     I am curious, though, as to what fallacies (albeit unintentionally) we atheists commit? I know I’ve committed the appeal to ridicule on far more than 1 occasion.
     & some fallacies are actually legitimate. Locke posited that the ad hominem attack is only valid if the person targeted is the sole proponent of said supposition (hope I said that right). & I read somewhere that used in context, reductio ad absurdum is a valid construct?
     If I got mixed up on any of this, apologies.I have problems keeping them straight (there’s so many of the damn things!).
     Again, wonderful work. Salud.

107. Reluctant Atheist:
     11 January 2006, on 6:49 pm

     strawman:
     You forgot the 8th blind man:
     “An elephant is warm & mooshy!”
     My pardon for the indelicacy.
     Actually, the Xtian hell (& by extension, purgatory), if memory serves, originates in the concept of ‘Sheol’, in the OT, where Sheol served as a sort of ‘prep school’ for sinners, where the sinner (contingent on the amount of sins perpetrated) spent upwards of 12 mos. before entry into the Elysium fields (oops! sorry! Heaven!)
     Of course, we can’t discount the Hellenistic influence on ancient ME.A whole lotta syncretism going on in that stew, methinks.

108. J. J. Ramsey:
     11 January 2006, on 7:22 pm

     Reluctant Atheist: “Independent fabrications? Define ‘independent’, especially in such an area. Word of mouth travels fast. Unrelated groups? How are they unrelated (outside of blood kinship)?”

     The first paragraph of the book review of _Deconstructing Jesus_, which is in a PDF from the page above to which I linked, answers that question. Go read the full review. It’s all of four pages.

     BTW, if my memory serves, “Sheol” in the OT was way more undeveloped that. Literally, it just meant “the pit,” and it was a vague, dark, miserable something, and hardly an afterlife at all.

109. John:
     11 January 2006, on 7:34 pm

     I read JJ’s SkepticalWiki bits. I find it hard to imagine anybody who was skeptical about a historical Jesus would (or should) be moved at all. “Mythical Jesus had sibs; therefore, Jeezus was historical”? Oh yeah, that convinced me.

110. Morgan:
     11 January 2006, on 7:57 pm

     Reluctant Atheist:
     “reductio ad absurdum is a valid construct?”

     I’ve never heard it described as a fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum is an often-used technique in mathematical proof, where to show that something is universally true, you explore the consequences of there being even one exception and show it leads to a contradiction (ie, absurdity). It is not the same as ridiculing your opponent’s argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

111. Thomas:
     11 January 2006, on 8:15 pm

     This works both ways. Everyone entertains gross misconceptions and stumbles into logical fallacy from time to time.

     14 Commonly used atheist fallacies:

     1. Argument from Fallacy - assumes that because an argument is fallacious then its conclusion must be false. ie: Theist are wrong and god doesn’t exist because theists’ beliefs in God are based on arguments containing logical fallacies.

     2. Argument from ignorance - if evidence of something has not been scientifically proven to their satisfaction, then it cannot exist. ie: No evidence for God = No God.

     3. Argument from Personal Incredulity - where a person asserts that because they personally find a premise unlikely or unbelieveable, it can be safely assumed not to be true. ie: Premise of an all powerful creator deemed personally unbelieveable.

     4. Argument from false premise - Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. ie: God exists only if there is evidence of his existence (false premise). There is no evidence that God exists (premise). Therefore there is no God (conclusion).

     5. Circular Reasoning - Circular reasoning occurs when an argument assumes the premise has already been proved. ie: Man conceives all gods; therefore, gods do not exist outside of human fantasy.

     6. Hasty Generalization - A hasty generalization has occurred when a conclusion has been reached using too few examples. ie: Christians can’t argue their point because they all rely on blatant lies and fallacies.

     7. False Dilemma - An either . . . or fallacy establishing a circumstance that does not allow for any other possibility. ie: You are either a rational atheist or an irrational theist.

     8. Straw man - This fallacy occurs when an individual alters or presents the opposing position in a false light to make it easier to attack. ie: Christian mythology states that God came to earth as his own son to kill himself so that we may eat and drink his body, in order to save us from himself.

     9. Special Pleading - Fundamentalist Christians are irrational people because they hold irrational beliefs. In this case, the non-Fundamentalist Christian is giving himself special exemption. We all hold irrational beliefs of some sort.

     10. False Analogy - A false analogy is present any time similarities between objects or events (A) and (B) are assumed without proof, just because (A) and (B) are similar in some other way. ie: Christian mythology shares characteristics with Mithran mythology and Mithran mythology is false; consequently, Christian mythology is false.

     11. Ad Hominem - a personal attack on the opposing person in a debate rather than his or her argument. ei: You can’t think outside the box; thus you cannot realize the absurdity of your religion.

     12. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc - This is a fallacy that occurs when a cause and effect relationship is erroneously assumed when an event happens and then another event happens. ie: Statistically, the lower a person’s IQ and the less educated he or she is, the more likely that person is to be a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are unintelligent and are not adequately educated.

     13. Argument from Authority - Where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter’s credibility. ie: Albert Einstein said that he did not believe in a personal god and did not believe that humans continued to exist after death.

     14. Prosecutor’s Fallacy - Based on an improper notion of Probabilities. ie: There are thousands of religions in the world requiring faith and each claiming to be the truth over other false religions. Because it is so unlikely that faith would bring the Christian to the right religion, Christianity cannot be the right religion.

     Incidently, I’m an agnostic.

112. J. J. Ramsey:
     11 January 2006, on 8:27 pm

     John: “‘Mythical Jesus had sibs; therefore, Jeezus was historical’? Oh yeah, that convinced me.”

     Well, there is this matter that if these sibs were mythical, it would kinda hard for Paul to have met them, or for one of them to have been stoned. There’s also this matter that explaining these references away has led to complicated ad hoc speculation.

113. J. J. Ramsey:
     11 January 2006, on 9:05 pm

     Some questions for the Jesus-mythers:

     * Why have crucifixion as a central doctrine, when it invited so much mockery in the Greco-Roman world?

     * Why bother with creating superfluous details about Jesus, even when they weren’t too flattering? Why bother having him be a Galilean Jew from a no-account place? Why bother mentioning his father being a carpenter?

     * Why does the account of Jesus’ rejection from Nazareth look like a rationalization for a failure?

     * Why bother with putting him in Nazareth at all when it isn’t referenced in the OT? Why not place him in Bethlehem from the get-go, instead of creating convoluted contradictory stories to get him born in Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth?

     * If the case for a Pagan Christ is so strong, why did someone fabricate stuff about Mithras being resurrected? Why did Freke and Gandy misrepresent the understructure of a wooden idol of Dionysus as a being a cross on which he was crucified? Why would Kersey Graves have felt a need to fudge the evidence?

     * Why does it take speculation about heavenly crucifixion founded on a dubious translation of _kata sarka_ to get Paul to *not* have made a reference to the earthly Jesus?

114. Reluctant Atheist:
     11 January 2006, on 9:15 pm

     Morgan:
     “It is not the same as ridiculing your opponent’s argument.”
     No, it isn’t. That’s the appeal to ridicule. Note that I didn’t equate the 2. It’s a common misconception.

     http://www.answers.com/topic/reductio-ad-absurdum?gwp=19 - “Disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.”
     Further down:
     “Among some people, there is a misconception that reductio ad absurdum just means “a silly argument”.

     In general practice, a reductio ad absurdum is a tactic in which the logic of an argument is challenged by reducing the concept to its most absurd extreme. It is thus often similar in nature to the slippery slope logical fallacy.”

     Also, from http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic - “as I mention elsewhere, a useful tool for uncovering the fallacy of an argument is the use of substitution - which provides a pathway to a reductio ad absurdum. In substitution, we simply exchange one arguent with identical form, for another”

115. Reluctant Atheist:
     11 January 2006, on 11:27 pm

     J.J.
     “Why have crucifixion as a central doctrine, when it invited so much mockery in the Greco-Roman world?”
     Blood sacrifice. Convenience. Dramatic impact.
     “Why bother with creating superfluous details about Jesus, even when they weren’t too flattering? Why bother having him be a Galilean Jew from a no-account place? Why bother mentioning his father being a carpenter?”
     Back story. Humble origins. People love that sort of thing.
     “Why does the account of Jesus’ rejection from Nazareth look like a rationalization for a failure?”
     Not sure what you’re getting at here.
     “Why bother with putting him in Nazareth at all when it isn’t referenced in the OT? Why not place him in Bethlehem from the get-go, instead of creating convoluted contradictory stories to get him born in Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth?”
     Maybe because Nazareth didn’t exist till the 4th century?
     “If the case for a Pagan Christ is so strong, why did someone fabricate stuff about Mithras being resurrected?”
     Thanx to Theodosius’ edict, that is pure speculation on ANYONE’S part. For that matter, the edict subsequently helped wipe out ANY information that might prove either of our points.
     “Why does it take speculation about heavenly crucifixion founded on a dubious translation of _kata sarka_ to get Paul to *not* have made a reference to the earthly Jesus?”
     Oh, come on. Paul made maybe 2 references to JC’s life on earth. You gotta admit, the info was pretty sparse.

116. Dena M. May:
     12 January 2006, on 12:22 am

     Wow. All I can say is wow. This thread sure caused a stir.

     I would like to take some time to share my own thoughts regarding some of the feedback most of the Christian visitors spouted. In my opinion, I read nothing more than a pluthera of verbal diarrhea and empty threats.

     If the people that made these comments reflects any indication as to how they interact in social situations, I am most certainly not surprised.

     Model Christian #1 a.k.a “Gordon-Lightfoot”. Gordy suffers from a common illness referred to as: A-Wolf-In-Sheeps-Clothingitis. A cure has yet to be found.

     “Away I run. Have a nice life. God Save you if he chooses to do so.”

     I read a few of Gordon-Lightfoot’s comments. I felt that he was staying calm and open-minded. Then he turned on everyone like Old Yeller right before he was whacked in his snot-locker.

     Model Christian #2 Faith. Faith is a demon-possessed Spelling Bee participant and Cheerleader Reject from her highschool pep-squad. In the past 5 years, Faith has attempted V-I-C-T-O-R-Y in a total of seven spelling bee’s, all of which she was eliminated after the first round. Let’s have a brief re-cap of her eloquently written words of compassion and encouragement, shall we?

     “I don’t need your lack of understanding of the word of God. After all I won’t have to live with you through-out eternity. And you don’t have to worry about spending eternity with me. All atheist are not welcomed in the afterlife, and according to the Holy Bible. After you died, you’ll never see the light of day again. Only Fire! And believe it or not, christain really don’t want to hear your opinion, no more than we want to hear yours. No evil thoughts are welcomed here.”

     Ahhh, yes. Threats of FIRE! Accusations of EVIL! Thanks for spelling it out loud and clear for us Faith.

     Model Christian #3 Matt. Matt suffers from the infamous: “Red Headed Step-Child Syndrome.” His favorite movie is: “The Crying Game” and his favorite song to sob to is the award-winning #1 smash hit: Justin Timberlake’s “Cry Me A River.” Sadly, much of Matt’s outlook on life makes him sad.

     “I think it’s SAD that so many sites rejected you. I also find you’re attitude quite SAD.”

     BUCK-UP Matt! Why the long face? Sprint your weeping eyes to the nearest health clinic and have your doc prescribe you some Prozac or Zoloft.

     I raise my glass to all three of you for revealing such love and understanding, patience and support. Catchya on the flip-side.

     In Sanity,
     Dena M. May

117. Filip:
     12 January 2006, on 12:25 am

     Why do atheists even take the time to have a discussion about God? There are many atheist websites, blog and forum. But you don’t see any anti superman website, or none Batman believers. Why? Because we all agree that superman and batman don’t exist. So I of you are an atheist why do take the time to do such a things.
     For some is fear, mostly people that grownup in a religious home and after become atheist they have the fear of IF, if there is a God and am I going to hell. So it is very hard for this people to live this matter alone. They usually do a lot of search, read books and they love debate about the matter of God and religion.
     They are Atheist that have actually hate against God and his believer, and usually it is a personal issue, something that happens in that passed and now they have the blind hate, this kind of people go to theist site and blog and just release the hate.
     They are people that don’t believe in any kind of God or higher been and they don’t even call them atheist. Sam Harris said it clearly there is no word for some one that doesn’t believe in God. Atheist is an expression. There is no word for a none scientist, or some one who doesn’t believe in voodoo. Now I usually see my self in the first category. My mind and reason tells me there is no God, but deep inside I have been brain washed as a child, so I do have small fear or concern, “how about if I am wrong”, so I am in search, searching for the truth.
     Recently I have discovered that the first step to find the truth (in my case) is awareness. Been aware of who you are, where you are and what you are. I am not talking knowing what city you are in or what is your goal. I am talking about understanding your position as a living organism in the universe. How important is your existence on the earth. The author of this article I would consider same category as my self. Why some one would do such a time consuming thing. Trying to see what theist thinks and how they would respond to you as an atheist.

     See it that way years ago you couldn’t openly admit you are an atheist, farther more you couldn’t do anything without been Christian. But things have change, not because of the atheist and there afford to religious freedom, but because of time. Time is against religion, 2000 years later no Armageddon no second coming. There is more peace on earth than ever before. Humans have more right than ever before. People respect each other more than before. It may not feel this way but it is. And theist; especially Christian hate the idea of Peace, Love and Respect. This will not bring them closer to the Armageddon and heaven. So what they do? They glorify any negative behavior, in the media and every where else. United stated is saver than it was 70 years ago, life is better than ever, poverty is less than what is was 100 years ago. Of curse suffering and poverty still exist but not as bad as you have been told. We are going forward. I though too that this is the end, war in Iraq, problem with Iran, N. Korea and Palatines and Israeli. Poverty in Africa, hurricane and natural disaster. Viruses that kills people.

     But if you really look back we are doing fine. The world has seen more wars and disaster and viruses during 1500 ad that in the past 100 years.

     Back to the article, everyone believed that earth was flat, and even after discovering it was not no one want it to accept it. But now if you say earth is flat they think you are crazy. As an atheist I am not here to show you there is no GOD, all I want is for you to see that a live without God can be very happy full live. All I need to show this is bottle of aged red wine. Nice quit area, and your full attention. But first you have to be aware of who and what you are. And you have to understand that you are going around the sun and not vise versa. You can visit my site if you have any comments. This is first time I came across of this site. Good job I will link to you site.

118. Howlin' Hobbit:
     12 January 2006, on 12:39 am

     Crystal Says: “Is anyone else bothered by the fact that most of our country is comprised of religious folks, yet their grammatical skills are at the second-grade level?”

     Ah yes. Any of our problems not directly caused by the evil Bush must be caused by Christians. And certainly one never, ever finds an illiterate atheist, eh?

     In point of fact, the corporate schooling we get was put in place by the early coal and rail barons (and perfected by several generations following them) as a way of dumbing us down and training us away from family and religious faith. They wished to substitute obedience to the corporate masters and ennui and channel our need for guidance from church to state.

     I was pointed here from The Mighty Middle and read the most excellent article. I was relatively excited until I got to the comments and found the same religious zealotry as one would find in the most hardcore of the “religious right” enclaves. Not all of you certainly, but sufficient numbers.

     I will leave you to your regularly scheduled rites and observances.

     HH

119. Richard H:
     12 January 2006, on 2:01 am

     I don’t have any conceptions or mis-conceptions about atheists. I just feel sorry for you. To think that you are living a short time and will one day die and become (more-or-less) decaying matter. You will be forgotten by your children’s children and your dust will be blown away in the wind. Boring….Why bother living? I could tell you, but you wouldn’t accept the answer.

     You don’t have to abandon intellect and reason to believe in something greater than yourself. In fact you have to have it to believe. I was once a confirmed “athesist” until Christ spoke to me (in a way I could understand and without a doubt). You will never be able to convince or persuade me that He never existed or that He isn’t truth, because I know He lived and still lives. If you can’t accept that then so be it. All I can do is offer a drowning man a life preserver and a hand into the boat. If he refuses my help, then he will suffer a fate he chooses.

     “Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.” (Carl Sagan..I think)

     I’ve found that Atheism is “absolutism”, which itself is false. There are very few (if any) absolutes in this world. You say you believe on the imperical or scientific method. Most of science is based on the observed and faith is focused on the observer. The mystery of this life is not in the unknown, unseen or invisible but in the visible. Accept what you see as truth. It all didn’t just arise from some primordial ooze by chance (BTW, the odds of that happening are too astronmical to compute.)

     If you don’t believe in God that’s okay! He believes in you!

120. Sean:
     12 January 2006, on 3:40 am

     Crystal said:

     Is anyone else bothered by the fact that most of our country is comprised of religious folks, yet their grammatical skills are at the second-grade level?

     As someone who has edited copy for a living, I have to agree. They are atrociously illiterate. I have been cringing repeatedly as I peruse this thread.

     Dena, your post was great. I loved it. And I know you think we are nitpicking when we point out people’s language skills (not yours but these others), yet how can someone not be amazed at how childish much of these Xians’ writing is? It is ludicrous. Sometimes I think someone is having us on and just pretending to be Xian and woefully illiterate.

     Folks: do not express yourselves through a medium in which you have only rudimentary communications skills.

     I ask you, Xian Pseudo-Literate, how do you get by in life without being able to write a coherent sentence? Who (failed) to educate you? Do you have books and dictionaries in your home? What’s your excuse in an era of grammar and spell checking software programs?

     I guess it all explains your intellectual laziness… Which leads you to gawd, hellfire, damning those that don’t agree with you, fear, self-righteousness and bigotry.

     It’s downright scary.

     Shout out to Lya for posting what seems to be one of the most popular threads in GifS history. Good on ya.

121. Matt:
     12 January 2006, on 3:49 am

     “Unfortunately, for corndog lovers like you, the “x” is an edit that indicates an omitted word. ”

     Thought so, which is why I found it rude. But I’ll give the others the benefit of the doubt. And being a Brit I haven’t clue what a corndog is, so it’s lost on me.

     One question that has sprung to mind, and I aren’t trying to use this to make a point but it is a general inquiry; Why, if atheists believe there is no God, talk about it so much and have websites like this? If you believe there is no God than why go on about it instead of just wallowing in your knowledge of this.

122. Sean:
     12 January 2006, on 4:06 am

     King Retard said:

     The moral, gawd is a bloodthirsty, ill-tempered, insecure one-eyed cat maker.

     I concur completely. Did anybody bother to respond to this finer point? As you, Lya, Bob, Ron and many others have pointed out on GifS, if there actually is a gawd, he is one twisted, needy, sick-minded creature, and I want nothing to do with him.

123. Sean:
     12 January 2006, on 7:44 am

     Matt said:

     Why, if atheists believe there is no God, talk about it so much and have websites like this? If you believe there is no God than why go on about it instead of just wallowing in your knowledge of this.

     You’re an idiot. Thanks for paying no attention whatsoever.

     Note the mission statement in the upper right. One of the main reasons this site exists is because asshole/psycho believers have been trying to chip away at the separation of church and state since the creation of the Constitution. We watchdog “the widespread attempts to institutionalize the theocratic rule of the U.S.”

     Sites like this exist because your belief system has yielded 2,000 years of holy wars, inquisitions and witch trials.

     and I aren’t trying to use this to make a point but it is a general inquiry

     “I aren’t”?? What are you, a child? I thought you “Brits” (I put that in quotes because it seems you can’t possibly be real) are supposed to have decent educations. Fuck. Why am I even talking to somebody who would say “I aren’t”??

124. J. J. Ramsey:
     12 January 2006, on 8:24 am

     “‘Why have crucifixion as a central doctrine, when it invited so much mockery in the Greco-Roman world?’
     Blood sacrifice. Convenience. Dramatic impact.”

     Except that the crucifixion is inconvenient; as I said before, it invited mockery.

     “‘Why bother with creating superfluous details about Jesus, even when they weren’t too flattering? Why bother having him be a Galilean Jew from a no-account place? Why bother mentioning his father being a carpenter?’
     Back story. Humble origins. People love that sort of thing.”

     Except that the humble origins stuff is for the most part not emphasized, it’s just *there*, and the Gospels even hide it to some extent, for example, when the Gospels call the village of Capernaum a “city”, or when the author of the Gospel of Matthew has the magi visit Bethlehem, which de-humbles Jesus’ birth to some extent. More to the point, if Jesus were mythical, then a lot of effort was expended in making him look historical, and far more than necessary. Mithras got along fine with a much shadowier back story. There was hardly a reason to go to the trouble of inventing a back story from whole cloth. There are other problems with this backstory, which I’ll discuss below.

     “‘Why does the account of Jesus’ rejection from Nazareth look like a rationalization for a failure?’
     Not sure what you’re getting at here.”

     In Mark 6:1-6 is a story where it doesn’t take too much reading between the lines to see it as a failure of the placebo effect. The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both apparently saw problems in the story. “Matthew” softened it a bit in his version of the story, and Luke mutated it to the point that no one reading his Gospel would see a hint of fault in Jesus. If Jesus were mythical, why would he fail in such a human way, and if he was supposed to fail, why attempt to obscure the failure?

     “‘Why bother with putting him in Nazareth at all when it isn’t referenced in the OT? Why not place him in Bethlehem from the get-go, instead of creating convoluted contradictory stories to get him born in Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth?’
     Maybe because Nazareth didn’t exist till the 4th century?”

     Except that the site of Nazareth shows that it was occupied pretty much continuously since the Middle Bronze Age, and the evidence includes not just tombs, but silos, olive and wine presses, and cisterns. Also, if Nazareth were invented by the Christians, it’s rather funny that they portray it in a light that is at best neutral. The worst positive exaggeration they do for Nazareth is to miscall it a “city.”

     “‘If the case for a Pagan Christ is so strong, why did someone fabricate stuff about Mithras being resurrected?’
     Thanx to Theodosius’ edict, that is pure speculation on ANYONE’S part.”

     That edict certainly led to a lot of Mithraic idols and mosaics getting smashed. Yet there is enough evidence to conclude that Mithras birth-myth was that he was born out of a rock, and evidence of the basic flow of the myth, such as the killing of the bull. Also, if there had been a myth that Mithras himself was resurrected, and the evidence was lost, then the stuff about Mithras being resurrected that circulates in atheist circles is still, well, fabricated. One can’t legitimately make up evidence to compensate for the evidence that was lost.

     “‘Why does it take speculation about heavenly crucifixion founded on a dubious translation of _kata sarka_ to get Paul to *not* have made a reference to the earthly Jesus?’
     Oh, come on. Paul made maybe 2 references to JC’s life on earth. You gotta admit, the info was pretty sparse.”

     Paul made far more than two references to Jesus having been crucified, and unless you want to go through contortions, that implies a very earthly event. There isn’t a lot of detail about Jesus in Paul’s letters, but there is enough to conclude that in spite of the exalted claims made about Jesus by Paul, it is clear that Paul understood him to have existed as a human, and the references to Jesus’ brothers implies that this human existence was in the recent past for Paul.

125. Teresa:
     12 January 2006, on 8:26 am

     Very interesting conversation going on here.
     I would like to state some misconceptions some people have of Christians

     1. Christians are usually white males… therefore…. racist and sexists.

     -My counter arguement— I am a hispanic female…. I am not a racist or sexist and none of my Christian friends are neither.

     2. Christians must not be that smart to believe.

     -My decision to follow Christ has been an intellectual process, just as much as a spiritual. For C.S, Lewis it was also an intellectual process.

     3. Christians want to turn America to a theocracy.

     -No Christian that I know wants to turn America into a theocracy….
     and frankly I’m getting tired of the jokes that suggests so.

     4. Christians are nuts.

     -There are nutcases in every race, religion and gender.

     5. Christians are way too old fashion….. we want to live in the Midevil times—- (i’ve actually been told this one)

     - Well I can only speak for myself…. I am 23 so I’m not old..I really don’t care what society tells me is modern beliefs…. I just try to be myself.

126. Andy Pull:
     12 January 2006, on 8:43 am

     Nice post, but it saddens me. I’m not going to try and convert anyone, because truthfully, human wisdom is only helpful when a decision has already almost been made. I respect this crowd enough to know that they’re not here because they’ve never thought about this topic.

     I did want to clarify one thought: (Chris) “if he would keep me out because I didn’t tell him how great he is and thank him every five minutes then I don’t want to go there anyway!”

     hell is not the reaction of an angry God. it’s the just consequence for sin, avoided by Christians only because we’ve accepted the atonement of Christ (ie, his life was worth infintely more than ours, so his death can take the place of ours). the Bible clearly states that God does not want any to perish, but because of who He is (completely holy and just), He must condemn those who are with sin.

     I say this not to argue, or to convince, but to reveal a error in the reasoning of so many atheists, which unfortunately is propagated by so many Christians who foolishly think that they are holy enough by their actions to make it into heaven. it’s all Grace. either you take it or you don’t.

127. J. J. Ramsey:
     12 January 2006, on 9:26 am

     At Freethinkers United! Conference 1997, Gerald LaRue made a speech which contained, among many things, this complaint:

     “One criticism I have with freethought publications in the field of religion is that so often they are wrong; they are inaccurate. Let me give you two examples: Tim Leedon has produced an important book entitled The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read. So far so good, but he included in that an item that was first published in 1875 titled “The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors.” This is nonsense. It’s completely wrong. It’s not only more than a hundred years out of date, it has nothing to do with the facts. Unfortunate. It should never have gone in. The second example is related to the oldest freethought magazine in America, The Truthseeker, which has recently been publishing articles on astro-theology that are so out of touch with scholarship that my students, when they picked this up and started to read it, threw it aside and said: “this magazine has nothing to say to us.” The best critical research in the field of religion is being done by scholars who are trained in the languages, the history, the archaeology, and the comparative dimensions associated with this field.”

     From http://www.atheistalliance.org/orlando/larue.html

     The point is that you shouldn’t assume that literature aimed at atheist laypersons is accurate. If anything, I have found that atheists are all too capable of mirroring the fundy Xians and putting out steaming piles of propaganda of their own. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com is no better than http://www.answersingenesis.org. Heck, they both even quote out of context. Kenneth Humphreys quotes A. N. Wilson as saying:

     “The Jesus of the Gospels is an artificial creation, a collective work of art who evolved through the combined consciousness of two generations of Christian worship.” (Paul, p144)

     Yet it’s clear from Googling that Wilson understood Jesus to have existed, but to have been misportrayed by the Gospels.

128. Lya:
     12 January 2006, on 9:32 am

     “ie: Theist are wrong and god doesn’t exist because theists’ beliefs in God are based on arguments containing logical fallacies.”

     I can’t agree here. No one says god doesn’t exist because the argument for it are based on logical fallacies. His existence can’t be logically argued, that’s true. But no one says that means he absolutely doesn’t exist.

     ” No evidence for God = No God. ”

     Incorrect. I’ve never seen any atheist say this. We do say however, that no evidence=no reason to believe god exists.

     ” Premise of an all powerful creator deemed personally unbelieveable. ”

     This I have certainly seen.

     ” God exists only if there is evidence of his existence (false premise). There is no evidence that God exists (premise). Therefore there is no God (conclusion). ”

     Again, this is a false explanation. No one has said he exists only if there’s proof. They have said there’s no evidence, so it can’t be proven.

     “Man conceives all gods; therefore, gods do not exist outside of human fantasy.”

     Seen this too.

     “Christians can’t argue their point because they all rely on blatant lies and fallacies.”

     This one is just true - logical fallacy or not.

     “You are either a rational atheist or an irrational theist.”

     This is just slander. It has been repeated ad nauseum here that it is not having faith that makes someone lesser in any way.

     “This fallacy occurs when an individual alters or presents the opposing position in a false light to make it easier to attack. ie: Christian mythology states that God came to earth as his own son to kill himself so that we may eat and drink his body, in order to save us from himself. ”

     How is that a strawman?

     “We all hold irrational beliefs of some sort.”

     This fallacy has already been addressed.

     “Christian mythology shares characteristics with Mithran mythology and Mithran mythology is false; consequently, Christian mythology is false.”

     Hmm. This is possible. I’ve seen claims to both outcomes.

     “Ad Hominem”

     Is not a logical fallacy

     12. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

     Totally true.

     “Argument from Authority - Where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter’s credibility. ie: Albert Einstein said that he did not believe in a personal god and did not believe that humans continued to exist after death.”

     This would only be valid if the argument closed with “therefore god doesn’t exist.” As this reads, all this is doing is stating Einstein’s beliefs.

     “Prosecutor’s Fallacy - Based on an improper notion of Probabilities. ie: There are thousands of religions in the world requiring faith and each claiming to be the truth over other false religions. Because it is so unlikely that faith would bring the Christian to the right religion, Christianity cannot be the right religion.”

     This is just flat out silly. You just trying to pretend that we have it out for xianity - which is another fallacy already addressed.

129. Lya:
     12 January 2006, on 9:42 am

     Filip - your entire post was already addressed with my original. You’ve got nothing there that hasn’t been addressed and refuted here ten million times already.

     Richard H -
     “I just feel sorry for you.”
     I feel sorry for you too.

     “Boring….Why bother living?”
     Ugh here we go again. So if we’re not the special pretty pets of a deity then life’s not worth living?

     “I could tell you, but you wouldn’t accept the answer.”
     Let me guess JEBUS IS THE ANSWER! (what do I win?)

     “You don’t have to abandon intellect and reason to believe in something greater than yourself.”
     Fallacy that has already been addressed.

     “I was once a confirmed “athesist” until Christ spoke to me”
     You’re a confirmed liar.

     “I’ve found that Atheism is “absolutism”, which itself is false.”
     You’re right, that is false.

     “If you don’t believe in God that’s okay! He believes in you! ”
     *ugh* Darwin wept.

     DENA - you rock.

     Sean - I’m blushing over here.

130. Marcus:
     12 January 2006, on 10:41 am

     English Matt,

     “I haven’t clue what a corndog is, so it’s lost on me.”

     I’m not using the word “corndog” in the traditional sense. Here is what I’m connoting:

     Crucified jizzus = Corndog = Meat on a stick

     Get it now?

131. Gifts:
     12 January 2006, on 12:13 pm

     Can anyone tell me where in the constitution the “Seperation of Church and State” is located?

132. Reluctant Atheist:
     12 January 2006, on 12:24 pm

     J.J:
     Most of your points are interesting.
     Some issues:
     “Except that the site of Nazareth shows that it was occupied pretty much continuously since the Middle Bronze Age, and the evidence includes not just tombs, but silos, olive and wine presses, and cisterns. Also, if Nazareth were invented by the Christians, it’s rather funny that they portray it in a light that is at best neutral. The worst positive exaggeration they do for Nazareth is to miscall it a “city.”
     1stly, Jews of that time kept necropolises. They dwelt as a rule some distance AWAY from them.
     2ndly, Josephus’ compendium of cities doesn’t include Nazareth (it IS termed a city in the gospels):note - Josephus spent a great deal of time in Japha, which was 1 mile away from ‘Nazareth’.
     3rdly, the presence of a few artifacts (my understanding was they were bits and pieces of pottery) means little or nothing, since it was common coin to rebuild over old sites.
     4thly, the common origin story is that the Empress Dowager Helena, a convert, went to Nazareth, found zilch. Had her entourage start digging until they found something.
     5thly, I’d not heard about any tombs w/inscriptions ‘So-and-so of Nazareth is buried here’, etc.

     “Also, if there had been a myth that Mithras himself was resurrected, and the evidence was lost, then the stuff about Mithras being resurrected that circulates in atheist circles is still, well, fabricated. One can’t legitimately make up evidence to compensate for the evidence that was lost.”
     Well, I’m actually w/you on that 1. My point is, that 1 can’t prove it 1 way or another. I’m usually the 1st person to point that out to my fellow atheists when they bring it up. No evidence, either way. & I agree w/you on Graves. He made a WHOLE lotta shit up.

     “If anything, I have found that atheists are all too capable of mirroring the fundy Xians and putting out steaming piles of propaganda of their own.”
     Hey, that’s just the way people are. Steaming piles? LOL.

     Most of my issues are the standard chestnuts: lack of records, lack of evidence.

     Hey, he MIGHT have been a myth. 40 Roman historians, 1 Hellenistic Jew (Philo), not a peep. Not positing an absolute here. Get tired of the old ‘independent accounts’ spin, since there don’t seem to be ANY independent accounts. Paul knew the apostles. Some of the alleged authors KNEW each other. Not shooting for complete synchronicity (that’s plain silly). But variations in accounts are telling, in my eyes, at least.

133. J. J. Ramsey:
     12 January 2006, on 12:34 pm

     About the link that you call a fabulous resource for debunking “proof” of Jesus’s existence:

     http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm

     There are a few errors in it:

     “the author of Matthew was clearly not Jewish, as evidenced by his mistranslation of Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah’s virgin birth”

     The problematic translation was in the Septuagint itself. Matthew wasn’t the one doing the mistranslating.

     “Barker further mentions the Christian believer’s penchant for invoking an undated fragment from a personal letter written by a Syrian named Mara Serapion to his imprisoned son, in which the father mentions that the Jews had killed their ‘wise king.’ This purported evidence, nonetheless, contradicts the New Testament version of Jesus’ death, in which, of course, the Romans are blamed for his crucifixion.”

     Whatever other problems the Mara bar Serapion reference has, the idea that it contradicts the New Testament on the grounds that the NT blames the Romans and not the Jews for the crucifixion is laughable. The New Testament blames both the Romans and the Jews for the crucifixion, and the phrasing that bar Serapion uses does not preclude the Jews using the Romans to kill their “wise king” by proxy. (Translation of bar Serapion letter: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/mara.html)

     “‘Q,’ a lost sayings collection extracted from Matthew and Luke, made no reference to a death and resurrection”

     Q is a hypothetical document whose contents are at best incompletely known, and its existence is questioned even by atheist bible scholars, such as Michael Goulder. One can make educated guesses to its content by looking at what is shared by Matthew and Luke but not Mark; however, since the document (if it existed) is lost, there is no way of knowing whether it had a death and resurrection or not.

     This statement about the Testimonium Flavianum is misleading:

     “This paragraph about Jesus did not appear until the advent of the fourth century.”

     You would think from the above that we had found manuscripts of Josephus’ _Antiquities_ from before the fourth century without the Testimonium. Yet we have no such thing. The fact that the first known mention of the Testimonium was quoted in the fourth century only means that the Testimonium could only have be added or adulterated before then. It is insufficient for inferring that the Testimonium didn’t exist before the fourth century.

     Much of the rest is commenting on the unreliability of the Gospels, yet we’d expect unreliable Gospels if Jesus of Nazareth were a mortal man whose story had been embellished.

     *This* is your “fabulous resource”?

134. Lya:
     12 January 2006, on 12:37 pm

     “*This* is your “fabulous resource”? ”

     *lol* I looked at your links. I feel the same way about them.

135. Lya:
     12 January 2006, on 12:47 pm

     I just saw this gem. Is this that Xian love we hear so much about?

     “I’m so happy you compiled all this data…. but it doesn’t make me change my opinion.”

     As you are a theist, the article wasn’t meant for you at all.

     “I’m probably more convinced there is a God, then you are convinced that there isn’t a God, but I have faith.”
     “And I have a lot of faith to macth the fact that you lack any.”

     Which means you have absolutely nothing. You know nothing about me, so these sentences is a waste.

     “I would be really happy if you would just leave this website.”

     Um, genius - you came here. Though I know this is just a drive-by theist posting, you’re still an idiot.

     “I don’t need your lack of understanding of the word of God.”

     Seven years of study on my end. Isn’t there a commandment against lying?

     “And you don’t have to worry about spending eternity with me.”

     PRAISE JESUS!!

     “After all, your heart and mind has been totally blinded to the truth. You’re so sure that we are the one’s that are wrong, we’ll probably never change your mind.”

     Blah blah blah. Since it’s clear you have nothing to say, why are you wasting everyone’s time?

     “And believe it or not, christain really don’t want to hear your opinion, no more than we want to hear yours.”

     Oh so THAT’S why you came to GOD IS FOR SUCKERS. Dipshit.

     “This is a Christinan website, No evil thoughts are welcomed here. You go you’re way and we’ll go ours. I can see there are a lot of atheist for you to share your thoughts with. No evil intended. If atheist don’t like us the leave us along.”

     Wow. GOD IS FOR SUCKERS is an Xian website? Not very swift on the uptake, are you?

     In all seriousness I know this asshat posted this on one of the xian websites that trackbacked this article. But, this post got deleted from the xian website so she had to post it here. Moron couldn’t be bothered to edit however.

136. J. J. Ramsey:
     12 January 2006, on 1:17 pm

     “1stly, Jews of that time kept necropolises. They dwelt as a rule some distance AWAY from them.”

     Which would not explain the silos or the wine presses, or why a family of priests would want to emigrate there after Hadrian’s war.

     “2ndly, Josephus’ compendium of cities doesn’t include Nazareth (it IS termed a city in the gospels):note - Josephus spent a great deal of time in Japha, which was 1 mile away from ‘Nazareth’.”

     Which is unsurprising since it would be overshadowed by Sepphoris, an actual city, and Jaffa, a larger, fortified village.

     “3rdly, the presence of a few artifacts (my understanding was they were bits and pieces of pottery) means little or nothing, since it was common coin to rebuild over old sites.”

     As I pointed out, there was more than just pottery. Also, think about what you just wrote. If the pottery is evidence that an old site was built over, and what we are looking for is an old site, that the pottery is there is meaningful.

     “4thly, the common origin story is that the Empress Dowager Helena, a convert, went to Nazareth, found zilch. Had her entourage start digging until they found something.”

     The only place I’ve seen that is Kenneth Humphreys’ site, http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/, and I have no idea what Humphreys’ sources are or whether his portrayal of them is accurate. As I pointed out above, he is not above distorting things, and what I read of his discussion of Nazareth was a lot of sarcasm and ad hoc hypotheses to try to sidestep the obvious interpretations of the evidence.

     “5thly, I’d not heard about any tombs w/inscriptions ‘So-and-so of Nazareth is buried here’, etc.”

     I’ve never heard of that either, but why would you expect the place-name on the tomb inscription? If anything, it would be suspiciously convenient.

     “Hey, he MIGHT have been a myth. 40 Roman historians, 1 Hellenistic Jew (Philo), not a peep.”

     John the Baptist’s story wasn’t too widely reported, either. Most of the possible first-century claimants for “king of the Jews” in the literal sense were reported by Josephus, and except for the ones involved in the Jewish War of 66-70 C.E., most of them got about a paragraph’s worth. It wouldn’t have been hard for Jesus of Nazareth to get lost in the shuffle.

     Also, the trouble is that assuming he’s a myth leads to all sorts of ad hockery, as I pointed out above.

137. J. J. Ramsey:
     12 January 2006, on 1:24 pm

     “Lya: *lol* I looked at your links. I feel the same way about them.”

     Wow, even the one where the authors of _The Jesus Mysteries_ misquote a source about Arnobius which in turn misquotes its source? Darn it, and I was proud of that one. :p

138. Lya:
     12 January 2006, on 1:41 pm

     In all seriousness, the links you provided did raise some interesting points with me, inspiring further study.

     However, one question. IF he did in fact exist, does that make him god? Does that validate religion? In your eyes, natch.

139. John:
     12 January 2006, on 1:49 pm

     “Much of the rest is commenting on the unreliability of the Gospels, yet we’d expect unreliable Gospels if Jesus of Nazareth were a mortal man whose story had been embellished”

     I see now. Real Jesus of Nazareth, but not named Jesus, not born of a Mother named Mary, not converter of fish into more fish, not risen from the dead, and not the causal source much of the story of Jesus. OK, then. Some guy was born that year in Nazareth who was a kind of preacher. But then the “story of Jesus” isn’t really so much ABOUT him, is it?

140. J. J. Ramsey:
     12 January 2006, on 2:56 pm

     Lya: “However, one question. IF he did in fact exist, does that make him god? Does that validate religion? In your eyes, natch.”

     Considering that I pointed out errors in Scripture, I find the “In your eyes, natch,” rather odd for you to say.

     John: “I see now. Real Jesus of Nazareth, but not named Jesus, not born of a Mother named Mary, not converter of fish into more fish, not risen from the dead, and not the causal source much of the story of Jesus. OK, then. Some guy was born that year in Nazareth who was a kind of preacher. But then the “story of Jesus” isn’t really so much ABOUT him, is it?”

     No, more like real Jesus of Nazareth, named Jesus, born in normal fashion of a non-virgin Mary, whose ministry was probably a spin-off from John the Baptist’s, who did what he and some others *thought* were miracles, and who got crucified by Pilate.

141. Thomas:
     12 January 2006, on 3:02 pm

     ie: Theist are wrong and god doesn’t exist because theists’ beliefs in God are based on arguments containing logical fallacies.”

     I can’t agree here. No one says god doesn’t exist because the argument for it are based on logical fallacies. His existence can’t be logically argued, that’s true. But no one says that means he absolutely doesn’t exist. *(I know. I was just illustrating the pointlessness of highlighting Christian logical fallacies, as it does little to prove the atheist’s argument that God doesn’t exist. However, it does highlight that God can’t be rationally justified.)

     ” No evidence for God = No God. ”

     Incorrect. I’ve never seen any atheist say this. We do say however, that no evidence=no reason to believe god exists. *(Doesn’t that tread on the agnostic’s turf)

     ”God exists only if there is evidence of his existence (false premise). There is no evidence that God exists (premise). Therefore there is no God (conclusion).”

     Again, this is a false explanation. No one has said he exists only if there’s proof. They have said there’s no evidence, so it can’t be proven. *(I concede that.)

     “This fallacy occurs when an individual alters or presents the opposing position in a false light to make it easier to attack. ie: Christian mythology states that God came to earth as his own son to kill himself so that we may eat and drink his body, in order to save us from himself.”

     How is that a strawman?
     *(Presenting an argument in a weakened form in order to refute it as if the original form had been refuted see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman)

     “Ad Hominem”

     Is not a logical fallacy *(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

     “Argument from Authority - Where an unsupported assertion depends on the asserter’s credibility. ie: Albert Einstein said that he did not believe in a personal god and did not believe that humans continued to exist after death.”

     This would only be valid if the argument closed with “therefore god doesn’t exist.” As this reads, all this is doing is stating Einstein’s beliefs. *(Indeed, I apologize for the omission.)

     “Prosecutor’s Fallacy - Based on an improper notion of Probabilities. ie: There are thousands of religions in the world requiring faith and each claiming to be the truth over other false religions. Because it is so unlikely that faith would bring the Christian to the right religion, Christianity cannot be the right religion.”

     This is just flat out silly. You just trying to pretend that we have it out for xianity - which is another fallacy already addressed. *(I agree, it is silly. But I have heard it. There are a good many ignorant atheists out there.)

     ***(I’d like to thank you for your thoughtful response to my original post and express my admiration for the always illuminating commentary of your blog.)

142. AfterFaith.com » Blog Archive » God is for Suckers! » A Waste of Time? You Decide.:
     12 January 2006, on 3:52 pm

     [...] God is for Suckers! » A Waste of Time? You Decide. For the past few months (ending at the end of December) I’ve been conducting a little experiment. I went to multiple xtian boards trying to see if discussion between the two camps produces anything of value. In this case, by ‘value’ I mean an understanding can be reached, ideas exchanged and preconceived notions validated or annihilated. [...]

143. Tommy Ramage:
     12 January 2006, on 4:02 pm

     Hello there atheist,
     Just quickly, I have always tried to believe in GOD. I have my troubles with it BUT, belief in GOD is earthly related to having insurance…better to have it and never need it than to not have it and need it in the end. If you are right, and there is no GOD, then in the end, you’ll just rot away and become worm food. That’s an easy out for you. BUT, if you are wrong…………gonna be HOT, baby!
     I think I’ll keep paying my insurance premiums….just in case.

144. Dena M. May:
     12 January 2006, on 4:26 pm

     Where is Rockstar when you need em’?

     I’m pretty sure that when Rockstar stumbles back onto GIFS and catches up on this thread, he’s probably going to have a stroke.

     Somebody better make sure that he has a friend or close relative within arms length just incase he starts convulsing atop his keyboard, strokes out and electrocutes himself.

     Seizure Later,

     Dena M. May

145. Lya:
     12 January 2006, on 4:28 pm

     “We do say however, that no evidence=no reason to believe god exists. *(Doesn’t that tread on the agnostic’s turf)”

     Even if it did, what difference does that make? Your original assertion is untrue.

     “(Presenting an argument in a weakened form in order to refute it as if the original form had been refuted see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) “

     I understand what a strawman is, I just don’t understand how the example used is a strawman. Perhaps it’s just my own assumptions getting in the way, but how is that a false assertion?

     “*(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)”

     And as has been pointed out in this thread there are occasions where is it not a logical fallacy. However, if it is to stand you must concede that theists do this as well. Just look at some of the lovely posts we’ve seen in this thread alone.

     “(I agree, it is silly. But I have heard it. There are a good many ignorant atheists out there.)”

     Too true, too true. Bad apples in every bunch.

     “(I’d like to thank you for your thoughtful response to my original post and express my admiration for the always illuminating commentary of your blog.)”

     In case this isn’t sarcastic (because it’s impossible to tell sometimes online) - thanks.

146. John:
     12 January 2006, on 5:20 pm

     Whoa, Tommy, let me get this strait: It’s like, playing the odds, or some kind of bet or wager then, as you see it? You cover your ass by “believing” just in case there is such a god, so as to save yourself from burning in hell? Like, a bet against the blaze of hellfire. Man. You should like patent that. Like, maybe, the “Blaze wager”, or something.

     Hey, wasn’t there some philosophy guy who had a name like “Blaze”? Oh, I know, “Blaise Pascal”. Yeah. That’s the guy. Funny how that reminded me of him.

147. King Retard:
     12 January 2006, on 5:38 pm

     “Hello there atheist,
     Just quickly, I have always tried to believe in GOD. I have my troubles with it BUT, belief in GOD is earthly related to having insurance…better to have it and never need it than to not have it and need it in the end. If you are right, and there is no GOD, then in the end, you’ll just rot away and become worm food. That’s an easy out for you. BUT, if you are wrong…………gonna be HOT, baby!
     I think I’ll keep paying my insurance premiums….just in case. ”

     So, to me this sounds a lot less like faith and a whole lot more like, “well, better cover my ass.” Let me ask you something, don’t you find this the least bit cynical? You’re basically saying “well, I guess I believe in you because I’m scared shitless you might be real.” To me, that’s a lot more hypocritical than saying “I don’t believe in God.”

148. Reluctant Atheist:
     12 January 2006, on 5:49 pm

     J.J:
     “Which would not explain the silos or the wine presses, or why a family of priests would want to emigrate there after Hadrian’s war.”
     My poor memory recalls the silos &/or wine presses as proof of the house in Capernaum, which was under dispute at some point.
     “Which is unsurprising since it would be overshadowed by Sepphoris, an actual city, and Jaffa, a larger, fortified village.”
     Let’s see, the math don’t cut it. Japha’s a mile away from Nazereth. Sepphoris is 4 miles away. Tantamount to saying that Josephus only looked in certain directions?
     “As I pointed out, there was more than just pottery. Also, think about what you just wrote. If the pottery is evidence that an old site was built over, and what we are looking for is an old site, that the pottery is there is meaningful.”
     My point is, that simply because a site was built over an older site, doesn’t necessarily mean it retained the name.
     “The only place I’ve seen that is Kenneth Humphreys’ site,”
     Which is where it came from. Okay, will do more research.
     “If anything, it would be suspiciously convenient.”
     Yeah, wouldn’t it be, though? Kinda like the ‘Nazareth Decree’ is. I’m not up on tomb inscriptions of the time-frame, but 1 would assume there’d be some sort of inscription to verify that it was actually named as it was.
     “John the Baptist’s story wasn’t too widely reported, either”
     Which prompts me to ask: has anyone ever contested that? Fella’s pivotal (even as a minor cameo role). Just a thought.
     “Also, the trouble is that assuming he’s a myth leads to all sorts of ad hockery, as I pointed out above.”
     & as I have pointed out, it’s possible either way. I have read of how JC was a composite of 3 false messiahs (Benjamin the Egyptian, etc.). Also about the Talmudic variants (Yehuda vs. Jeshua? Names escape me for the nonce), etc.
     1 should question everything.
     You did mention this:
     “At Freethinkers United! Conference 1997, Gerald LaRue made a speech which contained, among many things, this complaint:”
     To wit, I assume you’re a freethinker/humanist? Or theist? Which is why some here may assume you’re the latter.
     It is uncommon for 2 atheists to dispute biblical content. Not impossible (no absolutism here!). Just highly unlikely.

149. J. J. Ramsey:
     12 January 2006, on 6:28 pm

     Reluctant Atheist: “My poor memory recalls the silos &/or wine presses as proof of the house in Capernaum, which was under dispute at some point.”

     Well, I got it from _Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee_ by Richard A. Horsely, and it wasn’t about Capernaum.

     “Let’s see, the math don’t cut it. Japha’s a mile away from Nazereth. Sepphoris is 4 miles away. Tantamount to saying that Josephus only looked in certain directions?”

     My point was there were a couple places nearby that would have grabbed Josephus’ attention by virtue of being *much* larger. Nazareth wasn’t worth mentioning compared to them, and could easily have been ignored.

     “Which prompts me to ask: has anyone ever contested that? Fella’s pivotal (even as a minor cameo role). Just a thought.”

     I think a rare few, but I don’t know who. He’s in Josephus’ Antiquities, though, and nothing about what was written there looks Christian, nothing about him being a forerunner of the Messiah, etc. (http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/josephus/fj02.html)

     “as I have pointed out, it’s possible either way.”

     My point is that one way is *way* more likely than the other.

     “To wit, I assume you’re a freethinker/humanist? Or theist?”

     Still working that out, though these days I’m leaning toward the former, it seems. I stumbled upon the Gerald LaRue speech when I was Googling for reviews of _The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read_.

150. Gordon:
     12 January 2006, on 6:45 pm

     At ThinkChristian Lya Says:
     Thanks for coming to the site to share your thoughts in your own words. Even if se don’t agree I respect the fact that your showed up and spoke up, instead of the traditional “I’ve never spoken to them, but I KNOW this about them…” debate technique.”

     I appreciate the kind words. I personally feel that we don’t have to agree – but that’s no excuse for being only antagonistic to each other, and not trying to understand each other. Neither side is bad – we’re simply reaching for the same thing from opposite sides.

151. Gifts:
     12 January 2006, on 6:56 pm

     Can anyone tell me where in the constitution the “Seperation of Church and State” is located?

152. Reluctant Atheist:
     12 January 2006, on 7:24 pm

     Gifts:
     You may have the wrong blog. Or the wrong post. Whatever.
     It’s very rude (in my eyes at least) to blurt some totally unrelated topic into a conversation entirely about something else. At least in cyberspace.
     The implied seperation is in the 1st amendment, BTW.
     Now go back to your Xtian cocktail party, & brag about how you ‘tole those heathens somethin’, oh yeah!”
     You’re such a child.

153. Faith K:
     12 January 2006, on 8:01 pm

     If you believe in God, FIRE and EVIL are example of “Warnings”! If you don’t believe, than it’s crap-o-la. I understand where you are coming from, “I was an unbeliever once.” Take it or leave it, but don’t let it make you throw-up. Yes, I only have a high-school education. Sorry if my spelling is bad. If you don’t believe in God, why in the world would you believe in demons. Some times I think you’re right about all those demons trying to possess me. God only know how to help me with that. I try to be kind to everyone, but sometimes I slip and fall. Only God know how to help me with that. I would ask you to pray for me, but you said you were atheist.
     Did you think Jesus was a pacifist. You don’t know he turned over all the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. I never tried to be a cheer leader, you got that wrong. Yes, I’m through.
     Good night. Dena

     Model Christian #2

     Faith

     Quote of Dena
     Model Christian #2 Faith. Faith is a demon-possessed Spelling Bee participant and Cheerleader Reject from her highschool pep-squad. In the past 5 years, Faith has attempted V-I-C-T-O-R-Y in a total of seven spelling bee’s, all of which she was eliminated after the first round. Let’s have a brief re-cap of her eloquently written words of compassion and encouragement, shall we?

     “I don’t need your lack of understanding of the word of God. After all I won’t have to live with you through-out eternity. And you don’t have to worry about spending eternity with me. All atheist are not welcomed in the afterlife, and according to the Holy Bible. After you died, you’ll never see the light of day again. Only Fire! And believe it or not, christain really don’t want to hear your opinion, no more than we want to hear yours. No evil thoughts are welcomed here.”

     Quote of Dena:
     “Ahhh, yes. Threats of FIRE! Accusations of EVIL! Thanks for spelling it out loud and clear for us Faith.”

154. Reluctant Atheist:
     12 January 2006, on 8:03 pm

     J.J:
     “Nazareth wasn’t worth mentioning compared to them, and could easily have been ignored.”
     I’ve heard the old saw that ole Joe wasn’t writing a travelogue, but my understanding, is that he stayed in Japha for more than a fortnight.
     Plus, ole Joe was born after the pivotal event. He wrote in (66? 67 CE?), so he had to have heard the rumors. That’s a guess.
     Still working it out? That’s fine.
     I tend to lean towards the Missouri adage of “Show me,” myself.

     It’s just…well, bizarre, that here we have this allegedly watershed moment in history, & it’s not well-documented. Not at all.
     I’ve add numerous discussion w/theists, & I’ve heard all the arguments: literacy, spotty records, Greek mistranslations, moral relativism, cultural referents, all those things.

     I mean, if I were the supreme being of creation, I did something that was supposed to be widespread, a blanket salvation schema, being omniscient, I’d sure as shootin’ make the effort to make it indisputable. Or at the very least, provide documentation. & the bible is certainly anything but good documentation. Purely elitist crap, w/a huge dose of national identity, mixed in w/barbaric practices.

     It just looks like shoddy workmanship, ya know?

155. narcolepsy99:
     12 January 2006, on 8:27 pm

     Interesting discussion . . . at times. I think the conversation only put me to sleep 10 or 12 times. I see there are actually intelligent people on both sides, though it’s not always clear. I’m wondering what everyone’s motivation is. What do the Christians get out of arguing with atheists? What do atheists get from the argument?

     Since this isn’t my first visit to such a site, and I’ve had opportunity to read discourse from both views, I’m wondering about the flaming. Why do you belittle each other? For a couple groups who both claim to be seeking peace, some of you sure do hand out a lot of verbal abuse. Here’s my take: it’s a draw. You both won (or lost if you’re a pessimist). Now go home and do something useful. Prove you all want to save the world. I’ll wait. Let me know when you’re done.

156. Thomas:
     12 January 2006, on 8:29 pm

     “We do say however, that no evidence=no reason to believe god exists. *(Doesn’t that tread on the agnostic’s turf)”

     “Even if it did, what difference does that make? Your original assertion is untrue.” - Perhaps I am just misunderstanding the underlying basis for the atheist assertion that God does not exist; a conclusion I can’t quite reach as an agnostic.

     “*(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)”

     “However, if it is to stand you must concede that theists do this as well.” - I do, and I must concede that I’ve been guilty of it from time to time.

     “In case this isn’t sarcastic (because it’s impossible to tell sometimes online) - thanks.” - No sarcasm, it’s been a pleasure.

157. Morgan:
     12 January 2006, on 9:41 pm

     Thomas,

     limiting myself to the ‘fallacies in argument’ point, a few issues seem to be mixed together here. At root, I think the issue for you is one of burden of proof - is it up to the atheist to defend the claim that god doesn’t exist, or up to the theist to defend the claim that he does? Certainly, pointing out that a theist’s argument for god is fallacious doesn’t disprove god - but it removes a reason to think he exists. If you are left with no reason to believe god exists, then I would say it is only reasonalbe to believe that he does not. You may feel agnosticism is more appropriate, but would you maintain a similar position if asked whether there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter? Why (preempting your response) not? What’s the difference?

     In any case, your original description, roughly: “You argue god exists; your argument is fallacious; therefore god does not exist” should more properly be “You argue god exists; your argument is fallacious; you therefore have not given me a reason to believe that god exists, and so, I do not”.

158. vie:
     12 January 2006, on 10:13 pm

     Hi Everyone,

     Interesting experiment Lya. I’m a Xian. There were one or two comments that I agree with here. Especially one which speak of us speaking different languages. You are almost on target but I guess in your language (no pun intended, sincerely), this would be a way to state it.

     One thing I would like to say to those of you in regard to this experiment. There are many out there that claims or thinks they belong to Christ. “By their fruit, you will know that they are my disciples.” –Jesus

     I would welcome any of you to e-mail me and have an intelligent discussion at ksoulseeker@yahoo.com.

     Regards,
     vie

159. J. J. Ramsey:
     12 January 2006, on 10:22 pm

     “I’ve heard the old saw that ole Joe wasn’t writing a travelogue, but my understanding, is that he stayed in Japha for more than a fortnight.”

     Which is still no reason for him to pay much mind to a nearby small village in the hills.

     “Plus, ole Joe was born after the pivotal event. He wrote in (66? 67 CE?), so he had to have heard the rumors. That’s a guess.”

     _Antiquities_ was written circa 94 C.E. Other than that, you are about right.

     “It’s just … well, bizarre, that here we have this allegedly watershed moment in history, & it’s not well-documented. Not at all.”

     Not really. At the time, it was just the Romans killing yet another troublemaker, and not a particularly difficult one. The most dangerous thing about Jesus was probably that he was stirring things up when Jerusalem was packed because of the coming Passover, so there was a potential for riots. There’s no sign, though, that Jesus himself was violent any more than John the Baptist was. The point is that there were others who would have grabbed the attention because they were more obvious threats.

     “I mean, if I were the supreme being of creation, I did something that was supposed to be widespread, a blanket salvation schema, being omniscient, I’d sure as shootin’ make the effort to make it indisputable. Or at the very least, provide documentation.”

     Well that’s a decent argument against Christianity being true, but not a decent argument against the existence of a Galilean Jew whose short ministry and execution sparked, possibly quite by accident, a new religion.

160. strawman:
     12 January 2006, on 10:31 pm

     Morgan,

     Concerning the tea pot. If 50 semi-illiterate people watched that teapot go around Jupiter, and none of them had the proper achademic scholarship to observe orbital phenomenon, and when the proper authorities arrived, that teapot was no longer there, would anyone believe them in the science community? Yes, my premise is silly, but so is the whole “if I told you I could fly..” argument. OK, call me Strawman. I’m not trying to prove anything here, just questioning a common argument.

161. Dena M. May:
     13 January 2006, on 12:31 am

     Narco,

     I’m down with you brother man.

     If I came off as a belittler, I apologize. I’m a believer, but we don’t need to discuss that here.

     When I first started to visit this site, I got angry. Pissed the FUCK off. I wanted to defend.

     Then. I realized. I recognized.

     We are what we are.

     This site is many of things.

     Take from it what you will. Get angry. Lost. Confused. OR none of the above.

     I have learned, in the few months I have visited this site, that these mother fuckers (pardon my spanish) are as real, AND as FAKE as any self-righteous Christian.

     Know what though? Who gives a shit?

162. Thomas:
     13 January 2006, on 1:11 am

     [Perhaps I am just misunderstanding the underlying basis for the atheist assertion that God does not exist; a conclusion I can’t quite reach as an agnostic.]

     “Thomas,

     limiting myself to the ‘fallacies in argument’ point, a few issues seem to be mixed together here. At root, I think the issue for you is one of burden of proof - is it up to the atheist to defend the claim that god doesn’t exist, or up to the theist to defend the claim that he does? Certainly, pointing out that a theist’s argument for god is fallacious doesn’t disprove god - but it removes a reason to think he exists. If you are left with no reason to believe god exists, then I would say it is only reasonalbe to believe that he does not. You may feel agnosticism is more appropriate, but would you maintain a similar position if asked whether there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter? Why (preempting your response) not? What’s the difference?”

     “In any case, your original description, roughly: ‘You argue god exists; your argument is fallacious; therefore god does not exist’ should more properly be ‘You argue god exists; your argument is fallacious; you therefore have not given me a reason to believe that god exists, and so, I do not’.”

     I guess from a logical point of view I see no problem with saying I don’t know. That being said, your argument makes a lot of sense. You’ve given me something to think about.

163. Sean:
     13 January 2006, on 3:11 am

     Damn, Lya. Way to break a record big-time.

     I can hardly keep up.

     Peace to the believers and non-believers alike. Happy fucking 2006.

164. Sean:
     13 January 2006, on 3:19 am

     narcolepsy99 Says:

     Interesting discussion . . . at times. I think the conversation only put me to sleep 10 or 12 times. I see there are actually intelligent people on both sides, though it’s not always clear. I’m wondering what everyone’s motivation is. What do the Christians get out of arguing with atheists? What do atheists get from the argument?

     Since this isn’t my first visit to such a site, and I’ve had opportunity to read discourse from both views, I’m wondering about the flaming. Why do you belittle each other? For a couple groups who both claim to be seeking peace, some of you sure do hand out a lot of verbal abuse. Here’s my take: it’s a draw. You both won (or lost if you’re a pessimist). Now go home and do something useful. Prove you all want to save the world. I’ll wait. Let me know when you’re done.

     Bullshit. There is no draw. Over 300 people died today throwing stones at big pillars. Nobody died today believing they were just big fucking rocks. Stop putting us on the same rational plane. We clearly aren’t. I refuse to carry humanity’s hateful religious burdens. I have nothing to do with them. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

165. Lya:
     13 January 2006, on 7:59 am

     “Stop putting us on the same rational plane. We clearly aren’t. I refuse to carry humanity’s hateful religious burdens. I have nothing to do with them. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. ”

     Prezactly, Sean!

166. Lya:
     13 January 2006, on 8:02 am

     “Why do you belittle each other?”

     When your site is constantly visited by knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers like Faith K - sometimes frustration gets the better of you. I would imagine the same goes for them.

     “Now go home and do something useful. Prove you all want to save the world. I’ll wait. Let me know when you’re done.”

     *LOL* You expect us to do it for you? Perhaps you should be chipping in a bit, instead of preaching at us.

167. Jan:
     13 January 2006, on 9:03 am

     Hey guys, I’m new and knowing my “hamster on a spinning wheel self”, may not be back for a while. I saw Lya’s post from a few days ago. This is just my note.

     I’ve been a Christian since I was 9yrs old. I have a science background and it only confirmed God’s existence for me. I’ve always been good with the faith. My knowledge is finally catching up. Of course, I believe in the bible (literally), but I figure if it’s not, it does’t effect my faith. When I became a parent, I saw God with very different eyes (loving and frustrated)…definetely more sympathetic with the human race.

     I know for the unbelievers of the world, it does sound far out there. I also know the average Christians I know are pretty clueless and pretty judgemental - it’s called human.

     All I can tell you….the “putting God 1st in your life thing” doesn’t make sense in words. It only makes since when you do it. Trust me from experience. It is pretty backwards.

     I may be a GodSucker, who knows…I only know when I started living for Him, my life was complete…and it was just fine before that. If I’m right….cool for me. If atheists are right, I wouldn’t be wasting my time trying to convince stupid, happy people of my view. From parenting - ignorance, trully is bliss.

     All I ask, is give it a week, ask Him to show you Himself every single day. Your part, look for it, be open. He does what He says. He’s never let me down yet. Thanks for letting me ramble. I’ll try to be good and check in by early next week. My struggle….slowing down….I wish all of you the best! Take care & God bless!

168. Gifts:
     13 January 2006, on 10:41 am

     Reluctant “A”theist,
     You have the corner on rude, but that is a differnt issue.

     The reason I asked is becuase it was mentioned as the mission of this Blog to protect the constitutional seperation of church and state.

     You appearently are as ignorant as the rest. The term “Seperation of Church and State” came from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson trying to protect the church from the Government. It is not found in the consitution anywhere and idiot atheist like you and the ACLU have twisted it to your own use.

     So, as you see, this is a relevant issue between “A”Theists and Theists

169. Lya:
     13 January 2006, on 11:44 am

     “idiot atheist like you and the ACLU have twisted it to your own use.”

     Ah, a shining example of Xian love, as usual. What is this OBSESSION with the ACLU? Do you have any idea how much good they do? I’m willing to bet you’ve never once looked into it - that would ruin the uninformed bitch fest xians love to hash out AGAIN and AGAIN.

     Twit.

170. Lya:
     13 January 2006, on 11:51 am

     “I have a science background and it only confirmed God’s existence for me.”

     Interesting. The exact opposite happens to me the more I study sciences. What is your background in?

     “I only know when I started living for Him, my life was complete”

     Also interesting. I found completeness once I stopped trying to look for god.

     “If I’m right….cool for me. If atheists are right, I wouldn’t be wasting my time trying to convince stupid, happy people of my view.”

     Did you just call us stupid? This smells like Pascal’s Wager to me.

     “All I ask, is give it a week, ask Him to show you Himself every single day. Your part, look for it, be open.”

     I did. Every day for nearly seven years. Nothing happened. He’s not there.

171. Lya:
     13 January 2006, on 12:02 pm

     Happy weekend all your evil and hedonistic atheist freaks!

     Love and fuzzy bunnies,

     Lya

     (haha)

172. Gifts:
     13 January 2006, on 12:02 pm

     Lya,
     You are the twit. You speak out of both sides of your face. You go to the Think Christian and act all innocent and loving then act like a classic Bitch on this post.

     You are so all knowing and all seeing. You have it all figured out, but yet all you can do is belittle, harass and embarrass. You dodge the main issues with your tongue. You have no argument except argument and misdirection.

     Whether the aclu does good or not is not the issue. Clouding the issue again.

     You have a great knack of twisting every issue to your own advantage. Good debater, poor human. Rude and thoughtless to others feelings.

     This has absolutely nothing to do with Christian Love or judging or any other Athiest blather you would like to put out.

173. Marcus:
     13 January 2006, on 12:10 pm

     Gifts,

     Would she be a common variety upperclass twit or would she be upperclass twit of the year?

174. Life in student ministry » Freedom to ask hard questions:
     13 January 2006, on 12:51 pm

     [...] (This is a great blog post by an atheist researching the misconceptions Christians have about them. I find it interesting that he seems to infer as much about the mistreatment or disrespect he feels from believers as he does about scientific evidence. When will Christians ever learn to love unconditionally?) Permalink Trackback Print This Article E-Mail This Article [...]

175. narcolepsy99:
     13 January 2006, on 1:02 pm

     Sean - Who asked you to carry anyone else’s burden? I don’t think any of the Muslims on the pilgrimage are blaming you for the stampede that killed so many, now the number is something like 345. Are you feeling guilty about something? And your implication that you are somehow more intelligent than the believers has no empirical evidence attached. Prove it! Let’s see that scientific method in use. btw-I smoke cigs, not a pipe.

     Lya - Thank you for giving me yet another blaring example of your animosity toward “believers.” I’m not sure it did anything but belie the idea that this is a civilized conversation by calling them “knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.” But I noticed you used no such language on the Think Christian site. In fact, you acted very kindly to them in their forum. Are you now showing your true colors?

     Jan - Calling atheists “stupid, happy” probably doesn’t make inroads or endear yourself to them, either.

     Gifts - Unfortunately, I can attest to the fact that I have seen similar activity from others who visited your forum. Wolves in sheep’s clothing who did nothing but belittle you and call you names once they had returned to their own forum. It’s sad.

     Finally, I didn’t get an answer from either side on WHY you are arguing your points. What do any of you expect to gain, and I’m not talking about “winning the argument.” One lady on the TC site explained it as being both sides trying to prove they are right because of ego. Is she wrong? I don’t recall any solid rebuttal to her theory on the TC site.

176. Reluctant Atheist:
     13 January 2006, on 2:10 pm

     Gifts:
     “You have the corner on rude, but that is a differnt issue.”
     As evidenced by your next scathing commentary, I’d have to say ‘Tu Quoque?’ BTW, I can be FAR ruder than that. That was mild.

     The reason I asked is becuase it was mentioned as the mission of this Blog to protect the constitutional seperation of church and state.

     You appearently are as ignorant as the rest. ”
     Actually, the letter in question is from Thomas Jefferson, dated 1801, to the Danbury Baptists in Virginia.

     While the term was coined in the famous letter, the FF were familiar w/the concept. Or as Madison said, “Religion and Government will be purer, the less they are mixed together” (paraphrased).

     Y’see, I HAVE done my homework. I’m not retrofitting anything to suit any particular ‘agenda’

     Y’see, love, in this country, we have AMENDMENTS. Amendments can be CHANGED. That’s the nature of the Constitution.

     Or perhaps you’ve forgotten (apparently so) that Prohibition was an amendment, & was repealed? Or the Establishment Clause to the 1st amendment via the Lemon test?

     By your logic, Prohibition should NEVER have been repealed.

     That’s why such items were left open to some degree of interpretation.

     There is no way that this country was founded on biblical premises. John Locke had a huge impact on 19th century rationalism.

     “It is not found in the consitution anywhere and idiot atheist like you and the ACLU have twisted it to your own use.”

     So now it needs to be spelled out for you? It has to say it specifically? What utter dreck.

     “It is not found in the consitution anywhere and idiot atheist like you and the ACLU have twisted it to your own use.”

     I’d advise that you take 2 steps back, take 2 breaths, & try practicing a few of the rules from your own book, such as ‘judge not…etc.”
     & go look up the word agape.

     You’re setting a terrible example. You’re not ‘representing’, as the colloquialism goes, very well.

     Allow me to leave you with these little chestnuts to mull over:

     “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever persuasion, religious or political.
     Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801″

     “The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.
     – Thomas Jefferson, note in Destutt de Tracy, “Political Economy,” 1816. ME 14:465″

177. narcolepsy99:
     13 January 2006, on 2:40 pm

     Reluctant - very valid points, but didn’t Jefferson also say that he had based the Constitution on Biblical law? I’m thinking that was the reason Madison and Hamilton rejected the drafts so many times (Jefferson was the primary author with Madison and Hamilton editing). I know when he was asked to write the state Constitution of either Virgina or Maryland he included such things as debtors’ prison and monetary restitution to crime victims, which were rejected by the state legislators. Debtors’ prison was still a fixture in England, and both ideas are based on Old Testament law.

178. Reluctant Atheist:
     13 January 2006, on 2:46 pm

     Gifts:
     Further commentary on rudeness.
     “You are the twit. You speak out of both sides of your face. You go to the Think Christian and act all innocent and loving then act like a classic Bitch on this post.”
     Pardon me for speaking up, Lya, if I’m out of turn here.
     Gifts:
     It appears to me that as Lya was a guest in someone else’s home, she behaved accordingly. As per her own admittance, she announced herself properly.
     I think you’re biggest issue here (& I’m guessing, so apologies if I’m off), is that you objected to finding out you were being observed & studied.
     It’s a public forum? Tough stuff. No violation that I can see.
     However, you step foot into someone else’s home, & start w/vitriol & venom, flailing about, & YOU have the audacity to call ME rude?

     I am a guest here. If asked to leave, I shall.

     I might remind you, that you are a guest as well.

     I think I’m making the effort to be civil. My suggestion is that you do the same.

179. Gifts:
     13 January 2006, on 3:02 pm

     Reluctant “A”theist,
     I am play by the rules of the house since in intelligent conversation went out the door and sarcasm and hate replaced, per the administrator and other posters. So, please don’t preach to me about behavior and agape love. I still love all of you and wish that all of you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus the Christ of God.

     You still didn’t tell me exactly where I can find the Separation of Church and State. Why???? Cuz it aint ther cuz.

180. Reluctant Atheist:
     13 January 2006, on 3:06 pm

     narcolepsy99:
     Like the nick, BTW.
     “but didn’t Jefferson also say that he had based the Constitution on Biblical law?”

     You’ll have to cite that for me please. As TJ had a real problem w/Xtianity, I rather doubt it.

     I think debtors prisons extend beyond ME/OT principles. I could be off on that.

     But adopting a custom isn’t the same as being an advocate of its underpinnings.

     I also recall that Rush wrote a letter to TJ, objecting to the religious clause (which TJ diplomatically defused).
     It was John Locke who came up w/the concept of equality.
     http://www.answers.com/John%20Locke - “The political implications of his theories included the notions that all people are born equal and that education can free people from the subjugation of tyranny. Locke also believed that government had a moral obligation to guarantee that individuals always retained sovereignty over their own rights, including ownership of property that resulted from their own labor.”

     It’s a constant misperception that this country was based on biblical premises - I once held that view, until I read the 3 pivotal documents. It was an eye-opener, to be sure. & yes, wasn’t an atheist at the time.

     & I’ve heard most of the pro arguments: they quoted the bible, many of them were religious (albeit not evangelical, nor fundamentalist: primarily Unitarian, if memory serves; a real grab-bag), use of religious mottos, etc.

     Paine, Franklin, & Jefferson were Deists, so they did believe, but in that day & age, it was anathema to be an atheist. Not to mention blasphemy laws (Paine was prosecuted in England under them, for the Age of Reason, if memory serves).

     But there was a valid disgust w/the ‘Divine Right’ concept, & the RC’s promotion of it.

     Oh, & as an aside: I won’t accept Barton. Or anyone who uses his propaganda. That’s a tainted source, IMHO. I won’t go into specifics here (my posts are too verbose, as is), but I’ve researched very extensively, hence I came up w/that opinion.

     I hope that covers it. Let me know.

181. Reluctant Atheist:
     13 January 2006, on 3:24 pm

     Gifts:
     “So, please don’t preach to me about behavior and agape love.”
     Hey, I ain’t preachin’, sister. They’re your rules. Walk the talk.

     The total defense of your behavior consists of ‘well, they started it!’?
     How old are you?
     “I still love all of you”
     Well, last I checked, calling people idiots is not really the proper method of showering people w/affection. Or being obnoxious, w/this “A”theist crap. I’m not calling you a “Christ”ian, am I?
     Allow me to define ‘Christian’ for you, since your grasp of the term is so woefully inadequate: ‘Christ-like’. Oh, wait, what happened to ‘turn the other cheek’? Guess that went out the door as well. Or only applies to other Xtians?
     “You still didn’t tell me exactly where I can find the Separation of Church and State.”
     Yeesh, is this the summary of your talking points? It’s implied.
     Look up the word ‘amendment’. Here, I’ll do it for you, this 1 time:
     http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment?gwp=19 -
     “1. The act of changing for the better; improvement: “Society may sometimes show signs of repentance and amendment” (George G. Coulton).
     2. A correction or alteration, as in a manuscript.
     A. The process of formally altering or adding to a document or record.
     B. A statement of such an alteration or addition: The 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote.”

     Let me ask you this: do you want the government run the same way a church is? Be honest.
     Did you miss the quotes, or are you deliberately ignoring them?
     Hey, you wanna believe, that’s your right. As it is mine. Via the 1st amendment.
     But if your opinion becomes my law? Oh no. That’s unAmerican.

     So please, keep YOUR church out of OUR government.

     We got enough problems as it is.

182. Gifts:
     13 January 2006, on 4:42 pm

     Reluctant “A”thiest,
     You’re right.

183. Reluctant Atheist:
     13 January 2006, on 4:45 pm

     Gifts:
     About….? (waiting for the other shoe to fall)

184. King Retard:
     13 January 2006, on 4:52 pm

     I’d like to think our many Xian visitors for reminding me once again that Xians tend to be a rather judgmental and mean-spirited lot who hide behind platitudes like “I still love all of you.” Time and again I’ve found Xians to be as petty and hypocritical as the gawd described in their bibble. Many of you come here and throw out insults and attacks and then hide behind gawd’s love. If this is the peace your faith offers than I’m better off without it.

185. Strawman:
     13 January 2006, on 8:01 pm

     “Jan - Calling atheists ’stupid, happy’ probably doesn’t make inroads or endear yourself to them, either.”

     To be honest, I think everyone misunderstood Jan’s statement here. If you go back and reread it, she was calling believers stupid happy people.

     ” If atheists are right, I wouldn’t be wasting my time trying to convince stupid, happy people of my view.”

     I do believe she is meaning here that if she were an athiest and she was right, then she personally would not be trying to convince “stupid happy people” of that fact.

     The fact that she appealed to us to take a week and search for ourselves is what I base this on.

     I was wondering…..am I a visitor here? I better clean up muh act then!

     Hey King Retard, I’m a Xian, Dena is Thiest. I don’t think you can say that we are always throwing out insults. Well, ok maybe sometimes.

     And what Thiest in their right mind would want a theocracy anyway? Which of the 1500 Xian denominations would it be??? (assuming of course that it was Xian) No thanks, let freedom rule. I don’t mind the cities of America putting out holiday displays though. Just make sure that if ya do, represent all the faiths in the hood on their days too. That will make a fine mess. Don’t forget this one:

     http://www.venganza.org/

     I’m switching faiths tomorrow methinks.

186. King Retard:
     13 January 2006, on 10:23 pm

     Strawman, you and Dena are obvious exceptions, as is Sable Chicken. My comments were mainly directed at this new influx of xian posters. No offense meant to any friendly theists out there.

187. Morgan:
     13 January 2006, on 11:40 pm

     I think that perhaps the best policy, given the frequency of ‘why do you hate god aren’t you afraid of hell’ debut posts from new visitors here, would be to have an FAQ clearly answering all those obvious questions to which people could be referred, no vitriol, no annoyance. If they clearly didn’t bother to read it by their next post, then they’ve set themselves up as stress relief

     Am I wrong in thinking most people here would not have such a negative reaction to those kinds of comments if they didn’t have to repeat themselves addressing the same old canards for the fiftieth time?

188. Dena M. May:
     14 January 2006, on 12:54 am

     Disclaimer: My apologies ahead of time for the rant. Been soaking in all the responses; have marinated in them for a little while just to make sure all the ingredients blend in harmony. Basically all of what I state is merely opinion and emotion; A.K.A Truth to me, Nonsense to many.
     *******************************************************************
     I am interested to see who among these new Chrisian visitors will stick around and become a regular.

     I find it comical that since I have visited GIFS, I have been referred to as a Christian, an atheist, and a theist. All of which I have never claimed.

     Does anybody remember when I first started visiting this site? How taken aback I was about atheism, in how I thought that it was something “bad” or “hate-like”? I remember wanting to defend my belief system to you all as to try and prove something to you. I see that happening quite a bit with the new visitors that have suddenly appeared like a swarm of mosquitoes as of recently.

     Now I know that most of these new visitors mean well. They share their brief testimonies with us and try to defend their God. However, what I notice as a norm with these guys is that they really throw out the Hell and Damnation talk–the extremeties to not believing in their God. I’m pretty sure I believe in the same God as they do, but I’m unclear because the God I believe in doesn’t threaten or give ultimatums. There is no such thing as Hell. If anything, Hell is used as a metaphor to the life we live here on this earth. It is self-inflicted as far as I’m concerned. No God of mine is going to send me and my cronies down to the deepest depths of the earth or wherever this so-called Hell exists. Hell is a state of mind man, a state of mind.

     I’m pretty sure the problems lie with many believers taking the Bible with literal meaning. With of course, a little seasoned brain-washing.

     Tis’ not black and white brothers and sisters. Think about it believers: You ask and sometimes almost demand and threaten people to see things your way. You desire these so-called hating atheists to open their hearts and their eyes to the Truth. Tell me, are you opening your heart and your eyes to the Truth?

     The God I see you worshipping, is a God of revenge; a bully. That’s not who He is. The God I know accepts us wherever we are at. If I recall, I don’t remember Jesus struttin’ around asking people if they were saved. I’m pretty sure that we’re all going to the same place boys and girls.

     My advice to those that have deemed themselves believers, Be Still And Know.

     It’s not necessary to wave your beliefs in somebodys face. Think. Before you Speak. Are you speaking out of anger or out of love? I hear much anger. Why? Why are you angry? Is it possible that you are angry because you yourself do not even understand what it is you believe in?

     I can hear you whispering to yourself: “I know what I believe in. I’m not angry. I just don’t understand how a person cannot believe in God. I want them to know Him like I know Him.”

     Quit the act. Stop the know-it-all complex. Believe what you may, feel the chills up your spine, see what only you see. Remember though, you aren’t me. I’m not you.

     We may not seek the same way; but we seek the same things….

189. Reluctant Atheist:
     14 January 2006, on 1:13 am

     strawman:
     Love the nick, BTW: very self-effacing. Even humble.
     “And what Thiest in their right mind would want a theocracy anyway?”
     Have you perchance looked up the phrase, “Dominion theonomist?”
     They’re a minority, true, but they make me VERY nervous.
     History has shown us that indeed, it’s always the smaller group ruling the crowd.
     & they’ve been at it since the 70’s.
     Recent events in the ME have brought me to the conclusion that someone’s trying to jump-start armageddon. I just hope I’m wrong.
     But Iraq used to be Babylon, if I’m not mistaken.
     I’ve no real problem w/theists as a rule: some of my friends are Xtian (1 Fundie BAX, 1 liberal theologian).
     I had my druthers, I wish these folk would sit on their hands, & await the 2nd coming: THEN they can say, “we told you so.”
     Me? I’d rather blink out of existence, than watch just one soul suffer.

190. john:
     14 January 2006, on 3:04 am

     EXCELLENT! exciting indeed. most christian friends of mine don’t believe me when i say that the christian community as a whole has done nothing to embrace anybody but its own - which i believe to be fundamentally wrong with the modern church.

     now i have some proof to shove in their faces :-p

     one thing you might want to consider is also the type of people who are most likely to be involved with message boards online. i would suppose that they would mostly fall into a group of people that my friend and i like to identify as “romantic theologians” - where they’re all about the feelings, and they don’t care to go much further than that. on the other hand, the people who are what my friend and i would call “surgical theologians” - they want to know more and more, and dissect their own beliefs and honestly have a desire for truth - probably wouldn’t be found near there.

     i know from my own personal experience that i am not willing to get caught up in restating the same things or talking about emotions and such and such. :-p surgical theologians tend to be the ones who are out actually doing something because the obvious logical conclusions from the teachings of christ are that we should act on it, not focus on our own feelings about it (which is what “romantic thelogians” do.)

     bravo on doing something like this, i appreciate it.

     by the way, did you happen to make a stop by theologyweb.com? they’re pretty open to atheists, so far as i’ve seen, but then again i don’t post to web forums very much, like i said.

     jhn

191. Bob:
     14 January 2006, on 8:05 am

     Finally, I didn’t get an answer from either side on WHY you are arguing your points. What do any of you expect to gain, and I’m not talking about “winning the argument.” One lady on the TC site explained it as being both sides trying to prove they are right because of ego. Is she wrong? I don’t recall any solid rebuttal to her theory on the TC site.

     People have asked us this before, and I guess I can only speak for myself on this one. (Anyone else can jump in whenever.) Maybe it’s partly “ego,” I don’t know (maybe in the same way that having a kid is “partly ego”).

     But I think the real reason relates to why I got into education in the first place. I mean, why try to educate anyone about anything at all? There are a few variables that are clearly in play here, and ones you care deeply about, i.e., (1) the truth of the matter, (2) the people you’re trying to teach, bettering their lives, etc.

     I guess it’s the same type of motivation that explains why anyone would try to educate anyone about volcanoes, atoms, fallacies in reasoning, computers, medicine, the environment, and so on. Beyond those reasons, I have no other explanation as why I think it’s important to discuss and argue these points. I guess it’s just like any other point concerning claims about the world.

     Hope this helps…

192. Sean:
     14 January 2006, on 10:37 am

     Dena May: you know you are our favorite seeker. A question for you: does it sometimes bother you that the pronoun most often used for god is “he”? I know the English language doesn’t allow for neutral gender, but doesn’t it sometimes get under your skin to keep hearing He-this and He-that? You know, the whole patriarchal history of the identity of god? (S)He should be sexless, yes?

     [Lya: going for the 200 comments mark, baby!]

193. Sean:
     14 January 2006, on 10:45 am

     Bob said:

     But I think the real reason relates to why I got into education in the first place. I mean, why try to educate anyone about anything at all? There are a few variables that are clearly in play here, and ones you care deeply about, i.e., (1) the truth of the matter, (2) the people you’re trying to teach, bettering their lives, etc.

     Absolutely. I think it was Frank who once asked, albeit sarcastically, if any of us worked in the media. Well, I do. But I apply strict journalistic ethics to everything I create. And unlike Fox News, I can illustrate — quite literally — that I attempt to show both sides (or sometimes many sides) of any argument. But the point is that we as a society will not grow and prosper if we stop up our ears and make no effort to discuss what we agree and disagree on in an honest, forthright manner.

     Let’s nudge humanity forward. It has nothing to do with belief, but everything to do with tolerance, knowledge, kindness, and yes, love. Just a little, every day, one inch at a time.

194. Faith K:
     14 January 2006, on 3:17 pm

     Dena, I see you have never read Revelation. That’s the last book of the King James Version of the Holy Bible. You must read it before it is to late for you. Time is growing shorter. If you remain an atheist until your end. God will not help you then. He is not all charm and love. He has a side of revenge, see for yourself.

     And by the way I’m sorry I upset you and Lya. But the truth still remains the truth. And you and Lya are spreading lies. Ask God to forgive you before it is to late to do so, Come Lord Jesus, Come.

195. andrewb:
     14 January 2006, on 3:46 pm

     ^^^^^^^ delusional

196. King Retard:
     14 January 2006, on 4:43 pm

     Faith K, it’ll be all right. I know you’re scared of the boogeyman, but there are no monsters under your bed. You shouldn’t read such scary fairy tales right before bedtime. Try “Goodnight Moon” instead.

197. Bob:
     14 January 2006, on 6:50 pm

     He is not all charm and love. He has a side of revenge, see for yourself. [...] Ask God to forgive you before it is to late to do so, Come Lord Jesus, Come.

     Well, it looks like Faith really drank the punch, eh? Eat a little less chocolate, dude, and you might think more clearly. I mean, either xians got to you REAL young, or you’re really one dumbass.

     Sorry, but you were witnessing. I was just doing the same. (Get a brain, will ya? Jeez…)

198. Sean:
     14 January 2006, on 8:48 pm

     Faith: As many of us have said on this site, should I even entertain the notion that your vengeful, pissed-off, cruel god is real, I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with him. How can eternal damnation be any worse than spending eternity staring into the brain of an omnipotent psycho-killer? Sounds like six of one and half-dozen of the other to me.

199. strawman:
     14 January 2006, on 10:50 pm

     Faith, Faith, Faith.
     OK, All Athiests please look away for the moment as I am about to speak about my the Bible to correct a

     fellow Xian. I’m not expecting yall to buy into this, as it is biblical truth, not worldly truth.

     Why do people talk about things they don’t understand? It’s embarrassing!
     The “book of Revelations” is not the name of the book. It is the “Revelation of Jesus Christ”! It is NOT

     a book about the end of the world! It is not a book about Earthly things at all! It is about you, it is about

     me, it is about every human that ever lived or ever will. It is about the spiritual battle inside of us. It is

     about the many ways that Christ comes to us and how we resist Him! All the earthquakes and rumblings

     and lightnings and battles are the battles within each and every one of us. The mountains and nations and

     stars that are thrown down are representitive of our inner world, and how Christ conquers us from

     within. This is NOT the book of Daniel! The antichrist defeated is you! Not some world figure, it is your

     attitudes and beliefs. The profound truth which all of popular religion has missed, is the fact of the

     Christ actually coming into this flesh, my flesh, your flesh, and becoming an eternal and inseparable part

     of us! Millions confess Him whoWAS, but very few in this dark age confess Him who is! “And every

     spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ IS (NOW) COME in the flesh is not of God: and this is that

     spirit of antichrist…ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them (the antichrists): because

     GREATER IS HE THAT I-S IN YOU (your flesh), THAN HE THAT I-S IN THE WORLD” (I Jn. 4:3

     -4) Quit looking for God to punish the wicked here!! The only punishment is us fighting Him and holding

     onto false ideas! There is no rapture, that is obvious considering this is a book about your inner life!

     By personal application, if my spirit does not confess that Christ is come in my flesh, I am antichrist.

     The confession of one’s spirit bespeaks an expression arising from an inner state of being, not merely a

     belief of the mind. If my spirit is confessing that Christ is come in my flesh, it is confessing it by a

     living manifestation! Ah, I might say with my mouth that Christ is come in my flesh, that I am a son of

     God, ready to walk on water and glow in the dark, but my spirit speak just the opposite, as the fountain

     of my life sends forth polluted waters. Multitudes have a mouth confession of the presence of Christ

     within whose “spirit confesseth not that Christ is come” in their flesh!

     Grow up and stop threatening people with books you yourself do not understand!!!

     Your hope does not rest wholly in the Christ within, but in your own ability and works, your own

     faithfulness or endurance. You are cluttered about with laws, regulations, creeds, ordinances,

     observances, rituals, ceremonies, programs, traditions, and religious exercises of this order and that, all

     of which are designed to assure your right standing with God. You are thus denying the Father and the

     Son, for the living Christ alone is not your life! Anything that adds something to the Christ life within, to

     fill some place or function in our lives that is not filled by THE LIFE OF CHRIST ALONE, — is

     antichrist!

     The Lake of Fire is not Hell, but it is the purifying of your false inner world and beliefs about God! The

     book is about the reconcilliation of all things!!! It is a book about God becoming All in All!

     Grow up and stop threatening people with books you yourself do not understand!!! It is about You

     BECOMING Christ!! The same way a piece of wood is slowly turned to stone….from within, a little at a

     time, replacing the old wood with something stronger.

200. Sean:
     14 January 2006, on 11:16 pm

     Wow, Dan the Strawman, was that a poem?

     I’m sorry, but I just had to be post number 200 on this thread. Congratulations, Lya!

     And, Faith, Strawman is right: the idea of The Rapture was created in the mid-1800s by a guy named John Nelson Darby. There have been countless re-interpretations of Revelations over the centuries. It all baffles the minds of the rational and molds the minds of the ignorant.

     I suggest you educate yourself on the history of the topic.

201. King Retard:
     15 January 2006, on 12:59 am

     Lya, congrats on reaching the 200+ mark. This has truly been interesting and has made me even more glad than usual that I found this site. BTW, Dan the Strawman, that’s a pretty interesting reading of Revelations. I’ve never minded the Bible read metaphorically. I’m glad to see a Xian arguing for a less literal minded interpretation of the Bible in favor of a metaphorical reading.

202. strawman:
     15 January 2006, on 5:46 am

     Sorry that last comment looks so choppy…I don’t know why it came out so spaved out. I typed it in word pad then I pasted it and didn’t look at it b4 I sent it.

     King R

     It has to be read that way, it says so itself when it says “hear what the spirit sayeth”. To hear the message, one must have a spiritual ear, not a fleshly carnal one. It is not intended for the world to understand, neither will it be understood by carnal Christians. Seven times in chapters two and three we read that it is the Spirit who is speaking to the churches. It isn’t about the devil, or demons, or hobgoblins. It isn’t about the antichrist. Now, you can find antichrist there, if you really want, and you can find the devil described in many shapes, forms, colors, and sizes. But the book isn’t about him! Nor is it about Nero, the Jews, Charlemagne, the Roman Catholic Church, the Moslems, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, Mussolini, Communism, the New World Order, the European Community, the Arabs, Saddam Hussein, or laser tattoos.

203. J. J. Ramsey:
     15 January 2006, on 11:07 am

     “He is not all charm and love. He has a side of revenge, see for yourself.”

     Translation: Worship Hank, er, excuse me, Jesus, or he’ll kick the snot out of you. Ok, it’s technically a lake of fire or a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, but aside from the particulars of the injuries, that’s hardly different than having the snot kicked out of you.

204. Ron:
     15 January 2006, on 1:14 pm

     Hey, pretty good: Not only breaking the 200-commnent mark, but the version of this post on Lya’s own site (at http://memeescape.blogspot.com/2006/01/waste-of-time-you-decide.html) just got linked and commented by P.Z. Myers at the awesome Pharyngula — check it out here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/journey_to_the_other_side.php

     Yet more kudos to Lya.

205. Dena M. May:
     15 January 2006, on 3:18 pm

     I realize this may be getting a little on the petty-side, but:

     Faith,

     Out of curiousity, who told you I was an atheist?

     By the way, in response to your apology to Lya and myself, you didn’t anger or upset me in the least.

     I was simply attempting to point out in your mind it seems, the God you worship is a vengeful and bullying God. A God that punishes if you do not believe. How in God’s name can you believe in an entity that would do such a thing?

     I cannot stress to you enough that you should really focus on where all of your anger is coming from. My suggestion to you, and I say this in a very soft and compassionate voice: Perhaps you should keep your thoughts amongst the kids your own age for right now.

     Although I appreciate your fire and passion in sharing your thoughts; I am pretty sure you are a little over your head at GIFS.

     This will be my final thought directed at you Faith. Should you care to discuss this further you can email me on a later date. Here is not the place.

206. Faith K:
     15 January 2006, on 3:21 pm

     Hey Lya,

     Others didn’t see you playing a game to get the most blogs. They took this so serious that they turned on every person with whom they disagreed. I’ll say this though, you reached your gold of 200 blogs. Way to go girl!

     Faith

207. Faith K:
     15 January 2006, on 4:17 pm

     Jesus came to the world to turn father against son, and vice-verse, etc. I know everyone knows this scripture.

     In Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
     10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another…..

     14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

208. Sean:
     16 January 2006, on 6:38 am

     Faith, if you are for real, you’re f*ing nuts. Over and out.

209. Faith K:
     16 January 2006, on 10:16 am

     Just to clear up the question about my life. I am for real. I believe in God, I believe in his son, Jesus. I also believe in the Holy Ghost (Spirit).

     Faith

210. Morgan:
     16 January 2006, on 10:52 am

     Faith,

     This is a Christinan website

     Why did you say that?

211. John:
     16 January 2006, on 11:39 am

     Ignore Faith. S/he is clearly a sock puppet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet).

212. Tommy:
     17 January 2006, on 4:00 pm

     Hello again atheists!
     After my first post (#143), I got hit with the flu or something.
     I didn’t really try to express myself too much…I don’t debate religion or politics for 2 reasons. #1-You will not change anyone’s opinion on either subject no more than they will change yours. #2-If you attempt to try and change someone’s mind, and it’s someone you know, you’ll probably end the friendship.
     I didn’t mean to sound as if I only believe in and worship GOD just in case He’s real….I was just kinda putting that thought into at least one atheists mind and maybe, just MAYBE get him/her to think about it.
     And no, I can’t prove GOD exists. Just like nobody can prove He doesn’t exist. It’s just that, if you are a non-believer, and you are wrong, the penalty is much more severe than if the BELIEVERS are wrong.
     True story….A man who lived about a half-a-mile from me became ill.
     He went to the doctor (several doctors) and the ran all kinds of tests, MRIs etc. and didn’t find anything out of the ordinary. Three weeks later, he was dead. Lung cancer. Just because science couldn’t find evidence of this cancer’s existance didn’t mean it wasn’t there.
     I’m through with boring you folks…I don’t even know how I got to this website in the first place. (I didn’t think I was gonna find it today to see if anyone bashed me.) I may check back in a day or two, to see how many of you folks got a laugh out of THIS post.
     Good Luck to you all. I sincerely hope that you are either RIGHT, or see THE LIGHT before it’s too late!

213. Marcus:
     17 January 2006, on 5:49 pm

     Tommy,

     You ignorant slut.

     Given:

     “#1-You will not change anyone’s opinion on either subject no more than they will change yours.”

     You then proceed to:

     1. Argue by self authority
     2. Argue by assertion
     3. Argue by anecdote

     Your arguments fail because:

     1. You make several logical fallacies.
     2. You misappropriately use appeal to logos, ethos, and pathos.

     Good luck to you! I sincerely you trip and DIE, or get stabbed in the EYE, before it’s too late! Don’t get HIGH, or fall from the SKY! Because when you HIE, a friend who likes RYE, then you might get BY on a though onions make you CRY!

     See! I’m a shitty poet too!

214. dan the strawman:
     17 January 2006, on 5:58 pm

     Dena

     You make more sense than anyone else on this blog.

215. writerdd:
     17 January 2006, on 6:28 pm

     I used to be a xian and now am an atheist, so I can speak both languages. It is a skill that can be learned, and I think it may behoove us to become bilingual.

216. Lya:
     18 January 2006, on 8:54 am

     Dealing with the dipshits first:

     “And by the way I’m sorry I upset you and Lya.”

     Flat out psychopaths like you don’t upset me, they invoke pity. I feel sorry for you, but as I don’t know you, you don’t have the power to upset me.

     I don’t know what game you’re referring to in that other post, but since you think god talks to you I wouldn’t expect a coherent answer.

     “But the truth still remains the truth. And you and Lya are spreading lies. Ask God to forgive you before it is to late to do so, Come Lord Jesus, Come.”

     1-800-THERAPIST can help you with these delusions.

     Poor thing. She is batshit crazy.

     “True story….A man who lived about a half-a-mile from me became ill.
     He went to the doctor (several doctors) and the ran all kinds of tests, MRIs etc. and didn’t find anything out of the ordinary. Three weeks later, he was dead. Lung cancer. Just because science couldn’t find evidence of this cancer’s existance didn’t mean it wasn’t there.”

     Oh good. A completely unverifable antedote. Well, I’m convinced. PRAIZE JEBUS!! Twit.

     ~~~~~

     Now for the not-crazies:

     “I used to be a xian and now am an atheist, so I can speak both languages. It is a skill that can be learned, and I think it may behoove us to become bilingual. ”

     Judging from some of the theists who have posted on this thread, I have to disagree with that. However, my original experiment agrees with you.

     Look at this I go on a little vacation and come back to 215 posts!

     Strawman - your name is now written in my cool book in ink

     And WHOOOHOO Pharyngula linked to me. Though of course he linked to my own blog which had the misspelled version. D’oh.

217. Tommy:
     18 January 2006, on 2:09 pm

     My final post and I know you’ll all be glad….
     The bottom line is STILL this…..If believers are wrong, there is no penalty. If non-believers are wrong, well…..
     If you live like there is no Hell, then, you’d BETTER BE RIGHT!

218. Lya:
     18 January 2006, on 2:32 pm

     And that is the logical fallacy known as Pacal’s Wager - easily refuted. Your premise only works if Jesus is the god you met upon death. If you met Allah, or Zeus, or whoever we’ll see you in hell. So, you’d better be right too.

     Have a nice deluded life.

219. Dena M. May:
     18 January 2006, on 3:36 pm

     Thanks for the compliment Dan The Strawman.

220. Athiest Person:
     26 January 2006, on 4:10 pm

     hello im athiest teehee, anyway if there was a god something would have had to create it right? and why is god a HE and not a SHE? That’s just sexist

221. whitney:
     29 January 2006, on 7:53 pm

     Has it ever occurred to you that God doesn’t need to prove Himself to anyone. I am a seventeen year old girl. Free to choose to follow or not follow God. If God didn’t create the universe who did? Our universe is full of cause and effect so ultimately someone had to start things off. Therefore there has to be an uncaused cause. Which would be God. It’s called faith. Try it.

222. Marcus:
     29 January 2006, on 9:40 pm

     Fucking-A,

     Lya’s little article is still drawing comments.

     Whitney,

     So you’re seventeen and know the truth about everything, huh? If you plan on attending college and greet professors with that attitude, you’re going to get a damn good helping of reality. See us in about ten to fifteen years for a discussion on these isssues. You’re still too young to know shit about shit. I might trust you to advise me on makeup and that would be about it. I realize that being young gives you a sense that no one will “hurt” your feelings because of your ignorance, but given your proselytizing tone:

     Fuck you, ya corndog worshiping xian whore.

223. Lya Kahlo:
     30 January 2006, on 12:37 pm

     “Has it ever occurred to you that God doesn’t need to prove Himself to anyone.”

     This fallacy has already been addressed.

     “I am a seventeen year old girl.”

     and I should care why?

     “If God didn’t create the universe who did?”

     I don’t know and neither do you.

     “Our universe is full of cause and effect so ultimately someone had to start things off. Therefore there has to be an uncaused cause. Which would be God.”

     First cause fallacy.

     “It’s called faith. Try it. ”

     Exactly how many times do I need to explain that I did try. Twit. It’s called reading the posts - try it.

224. Lord:
     20 October 2006, on 7:51 pm

     If god exists why even bible cant prove that. If anybody read the bible you can see how many things are just stupid like: U have to forgive: but why do we have to forgive some fucked up people and why we have to believe in something that never try to help to people who he created? People who believe in god just people who do not know what to do with the life and dont know how to live it to the fullest. And faith is stupid thing if you wanna do something just do it, dont wait for a miricle. And also who said that hell is worse than heven? Maybe in hell more intertainment than in heven. The bible was writen by man and this man could have been very creative and made this fucked up stories for fun.

225. Antony:
     28 November 2006, on 6:27 pm

     To Settle the Xtian Christian debate … English is an evolving language, and while I respect both any athiest or Christians belief as his own, you have to consider that words and terminology can hold different meanings for different people.

     The same as most atheists probably would not like to be referred to as “pagans” as we once were in the dark ages (since paganism is currently a religion of its own), Christians find it offensive (in a modern context) to be referred to as “Xtians” … the same as many have an issue with Christmas being referred to as xmas.

     A word (like in South Africa) like “Kaffir” technically means “non-believer” … but it is still considered highly offensive, in fact a criminal offence, to refer to black people such as myself as being such. This is because the word has changed its meaning in the context of a modern society.

     In the same way, Christians view the term “Xtian” as offensive since, in a modern context, they view it the same as crossing the “Christ” out of their belief.

     Without getting into any philosophical debate, and in the interest of maintaining openness and respect amongst ourselves and them, and as a matter of personal opinion, it might be more considerate towards them (I don’t like being called a “satanist” / “pagan” / “cultist” on Christian forums I have been to, as I have (agree with you Lya … lot of closed minded people out there … glad I found your posting)) and not support the same closed-minded approach some of them (note, Christians here … not ALL of them) purport & refer to them in a manner that is equally as non-offensive to them. Besides, Christian is only another 4 letters to type.

226. Antony:
     28 November 2006, on 6:54 pm

     Atheist person,

     In response to your posting, and as a University student studying theology, the Christian God is referred to in the original Lord’s Prayer as (prior to interpretation & re-interpretation” “our Heavenly Birther” … the context of interpreting this into a “He” only came about due to social circumstances & the general role “God” is meant to play in society … in a Christian context, he is meant to be both a provider, protector and a discaplinarian.

     This coupled to the fact that the original bible makes reference to Jesus referring to the Christian God as “Abba” … the aromaic equivalent to “Daddy”, which was meant to be symbolic of his closeness to the Christian God as opposed to being gender-specific.

     Since the bible was written, interpreted through the ages and re-written during some pretty sexist periods (Emporer Augustine of Rome (see his later works “The Tale of 2 Cities”, etc..), the word “He” was used to describe the “then” fatherly role in society. Thus, the “He” was added as a reflection of society’s interpretation of what the Christian God should be.

     If you were to discuss this with all but the most hardened fundamentalist Christians, you would find that the majoritarian view is that the Christian God is asexual … a whafting cloud of spirit as opposed to a specific gender.

     Since society is still generally pretty sexist in its structure, and lets not lie … America hasn’t had a lady president yet, the majority of MAJOR political figures are still men, the majority of most-quoted experts in whatever field are still men … society IS still pretty sexist in its structure, and there are still a large percentage of fundamentalist Christians out there, the wording has still persisted as a connotation of the role the Christian God is meant to fulfill in their belief structure in accordance with what a “father” is meant to be in modern society (not always the case, but we are talking stereotypes).

     Hence, in conclusion, the “He” is representative of a role “He” is meant to fulfill, not the fact that “God” is a man.

227. MikeHelps:
     16 March 2007, on 7:02 am

     I’m a troller, theist, Cn, and self-avowed sucker.

     Yes, you are a sucker because you are addressing a person who is no longer here…Lya has moved on and away from blogging. The only reason you are getting a response is because I am a moderator and found this in the junk queue…I almost deleted it and noticed it at the last minute. Don’t look for much of a response because everyone has moved on to current posts.

     Just found this discussion while researching over at the Evangelical Atheist - appreciated EA’s great analysis of the Bible, especially the stories of David and Saul in the “God is a Dick” series. It’s a healthy thing to attack preconceptions.

     Yes, I AM’s “God is a Dick” posts are well thought-out, and thorough, and since you think it is great to attack preconceptions, why don’t you do some attacking of your own sky daddy fantasies?

     Lya, thanks for your research.

     Lya wouldn’t care what you thank her for.

     It’s true - G-d’s (you can spell this out GOD—I understand the fear you are brainwashed with, but honestly, nothing will happen to you it you add the “o”– ) worst advertising comes from those who think they know him best. As you know, it’s not supposed to be that way. I’m glad you found a few good places to visit.
     Some here have wondered what is the point of trying to have discussions like this. I see it as a necessary corrective to what I call ‘institutionalized Cy.’ Keep chipping away at the false religious exteriors (logical AND emotional) until you find the irreducible real deal.
     
     Yeah…NO GODS EXIST. That is the “real deal”…anything else you are making what you want to believe…you are “chipping away” and sculpting your imaginary friend to be any way you want him/her to be. Humans are creative that way.

     Seven years is a long time to search, but don’t stop. The desire to seek God is not just a trick of the brain left over from some bizarre evolutionary process. The proof we get is not what we expect.
     
     Your “proof” is only in your own imagination, just like all the other god botherers…there are many, many, many gods…and those god botherers believe they have found “truth” because they WANT it to be true…it suits them and their selfish needs.

     I was raised as a Cn, and I can tell you that it’s taken me even longer than seven years to break out of the pre-digested religious palaver that modern Cy serves up. Preconceived notions, inherited lies, whatever you want to call it - it’s not truth.

     What is truth? If you have that so figured out, please let the most prestigious thinkers of the world know this so they can give you a Nobel Prize.

     I reached the point of realizing that Jesus was not a Christian.
     
     No duh…Jesus was a JEW.How long did it take you to figure that out, Einstein?

     I learned to read ancient Greek, went back to the eyewitness accounts in what we call the gospels,

     You mean stories told in oral tradition by ancient superstitious people passed down like the game of Chinese telephone, and then written by more flawed, superstitious humans and compiled by those in power who wish to control the masses. (The gospels contain many conflicting passages.)

     , and just let what he said speak to me. Loving God, loving my neighbor, and helping others do the same, is life-enriching.
     
     There you go with that selfishness again. You believe in a god for your own self-ish reasons…your imaginary friend, like a child’s security blanket, brings you comfort and joy…well…some of us have grown past that and do not need it. We are secure in ourselves and our life is enriched by how we live it and HUMANS who we love and care for. Without humans we would just be left in silence…listening to the voices in our heads.

228. MikeHelps:
     16 March 2007, on 9:38 am

     So I guess that leaves:
     “The desire to seek God is not just a trick of the brain left over from some bizarre evolutionary process.”
     
     It’s a psychological need when one does not trust oneself to be captain of his/her own life…so not a “trick”…there have always been atheists. We are born atheists, and are taught to be superstitious via our parents and society we are born into. Some places aren’t very superstitious/religious at all.

     Come to a main page to discuss with all of us, no more here will be responded to. I don’t have time to keep going back in here for a one-on-one.

229. MikeHelps:
     16 March 2007, on 9:57 am

     Thanks for a chance to be ‘on the record.’

     Like I said, you are welcome to come discuss in the current posts as long as you don’t proseltyze and follow comment rules.