Scott J FrankAbout MeBlogMusicArtworkPhotosLinksResume

A Humorous And Relatively Antagonistic Conversation With A Religious Nut (Part 2)

- Wednesday, July 28, 2010

   The conversation continued. Again, a separate, personal discussion pertaining to a third party has been stripped from this text and the nut’s last name has been removed. (Would you believe he works with Pre-K children? Disturbing!) Otherwise, the text is whole and unmolested.

Dano June 29 at 7:30am
Its not my mind that is muddled. You said certain circumstances like rape. I said rape babies makes up a small portion of abortions. The multitude of abortions are about personal freedom. And if you are stopping the heartbeat of a living organism how is that not murder?

As I ‘ve said how can you begine to judge a culture you do not understand. Do you have the same contempt for most of the modern world? Check the history of most cultures around the world, such as the Chineese and Vietnemesse. And try following the thought completly through. If I fully endoresed this policy I would be starting an army to destroy all believes. God knew the destructive power of keeping the heathens in the land. Before you judge a culture, why not try to understand the true motivation. I know how much motivation means to you.

Then its a mater of different personalities. I have no problem giving my life for a freind, especially when it would do more good. If my incarcination or even death could seve a nobler cause, it would be an honor. The same kind of setiment the brave men who fought in the wars you listed felt. And who said anything about a free ride? My life is far from a free ride. My sins still come with punishment, my life is under strict guidelines, and has put me at odds with much of the world. So many people fail to realize that Christianity isn’t a feel good peace and love belief system. It is about having a relationship with our Savior and being completly devoted.

Yeah its isolated alright. So isolated that they fail to mention the verse before and after and sometimes leave off half the sentece they are quoting. How simple it would be to go through this message and cut out random pieces to make it sound like you are saying something you’re not. If you want to count those as examples for anything but poor research you are going to have give them a little more support.

With science being so strong now, you would think religion would disappear. So the man praying for his sick son, is he looking for power or a placebo? And why shouldn’t I judge your humanity but what you have wriitten here? You try to judge me on your own preconceived notions. Its your arogance that kills your humanity. Until you can see yourself in someone elses place or even that somoene with differing veiws may be equally intelligent and may even be right, you can hardly support a sentiment of humanity.

Scott Frank June 29 at 8:33pm
I disagree with your reasoning in that I feel exception should be given to the unborn, so long as the nervous system is still undeveloped to the point of not being able to process the event (ie. pain). First, you said rapes only result in pregnancies to a few people. I would like to see your source for this information, which I am guessing is a base assumption tailored to carry an empty point. now, however, you say it is a small portion of abortions. That is probably closer to being true, but I would like tyo see your statistical data. I also think it may be true that the majority of abortions are lifestyle choices and not due to medical concerns, but again I would not say so certainly as you foolishly have, without actual data. That said, it is not a very quality reason to abort, I agree. However, that is not the point here. The point is that the two things, abortion and the slaughter of living children, are not comparable. Abortion is a touchy and controversial topic for those reasons, but it is separate from the religious discussion.

You keep saying I do not understand religious culture, but you never asked if I’d studied any of it. I spent 5 years in a very in depth independent study on religion and mythology. I have a pretty good understanding of both elder religions and modern cults.

I do have the same contempt for any group, religious or not, that would commit such acts of atrocity. I detest many cultures on that principle. There was no god who knew no outcome of the existence of any heathens. The potential for one culture to influence another is no reason to slaughter the potentially influential culture, nor its children. That you defend this act still is a testament to your demented character.

In giving a life for a friend, I would take a bullet for Peter. Those are two different things. Sure, the one I would do is more extreme, but jail time is not life or death. I know if I died taking said bullet, he would do the same for me as I would for him in regards to my affairs and my child.

Please cite specific examples wherein Skeptic’s Annotated Bible misleads readers in their quotations, otherwise I cannot acknowledge that argument.

It would be nice for religion to simply disappear, but that would require both the vast amounts of political and financial power wrapped up in the world’s religions to be given up (I don’t think I need to convince you of the difficulty some men have with giving up great power) and the brainwashed adherents (such as yourself) to give up their faith security baby blankets and actually look at the evidence. The man praying for his sick son is shooting for a placebo, by the way.

I do not judge you on preconceived notions. You fully admitted you are religious and you have, multiple times, defended the slaughter of children. I judge you on that. I’ve commented on that. My supposed arrogance has never killed my humanity. I frequently put myself in the shoes of others. I do not lack empathy. I feel pity for many people. I simply have the ability to act on reason and makes decisions with full control over my part. These extraneous things you tack on, like my supposed lack of humanity, supposed ignorance of religion, and supposed lack of empathy, are your assumptions you’ve typecast in with other things I’ve said that do not exclusively carry those characteristics with them. That is truly narrow minded. I’ve worked charity and given of my resources and time to charity. For fuck sake, I work at a veterinary clinic. By your reasoning, I have to either think you are right (despite all evidence to the contrary) or consider you of equal intelligence to have humanity. I hate to break it to you, but that is far from a requirement for one’s humanity. I’ve had debates with people I consider my intellectual equal; you simply are not one of them.

Dano June 30 at 7:39am
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061114200923AAy5zMs
Looks like about 1% of abortions are due to rape. And though they might not fully feal it the heart is formed in the first month. And the nervous system is formed by the second month. http://www.webmd.com/baby/1to3-months
Inside or outside, its a living child. People just tell themselves its not a real baby so it sounds better when they murder it. As I stated before, at least the Bible came right out and said what they were doing.

If you were that well studdied I would assume you would present a little stronger arguments. Most of your points have huge gaps in it when it comes to religion.

1.Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12
Jesus was warning the Isrealites not to rest in their lineage, because it was what one does with their faith that saves them.
2.Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17
It was not about approving the cruelities of the Old Testament. He was saying that the law and prophecies were fulfilled through him. He cane to die for those the law punished. He came as the prophecies fortold he would.
3.Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30
Jesus was not advocating disfigurement. He was answering those who tried to say that they would not sin if it weren’t for a part of them. He is trying to make the point that it is better to cut out part of the whole then to have the whole being destroyed.
4.Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14
This is just a fact of life. Following Christ is a strict path.
5.Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19
As in verse 3:10 we have to live the life. We cannot call ourselves christians and lead a heathen life with the expectation of salvation.

What kind of person settles for a placebeo, when his son is extremely sick?

I don’t care if you think I’m mentally your equal or not. Its how you treat people you don’t really know that makes me question your humanity. And as far as where you work and what you do, it goes both ways. If I was this demented monster who endorses the killing of children how could I work in that field? If I was that bad, why would parents trust their children with me?

Scott Frank June 30 at 2:34pm
Finally, some actual data from you. 13,000 women each year have abortions and cite rape or incest as the reason. 13,000 may be a small percentage number but it is a large realistic number. That is 13,000 women, for perspective, ~83% the total population of Bennington, VT, per year. It is accurate to say it is a small proportion of abortions, but not at all accurate to call it "only a few" or "a small amount." Rape is also not the only good reason to have an abortion. There are medical concerns wherein a pregnancy can be determined to complicate later on and result in the death of either the mother or both the mother and child at childbirth.

The nervous system has begun forming in the second month, its main stations, so to speak, taking shape, but isn’t developed to a particular level wherein neurology recognizes perception (ie. of suffering) until a good stretch later. People don’t just tell themselves anything to feel better about something wherein medical science is concerned; and your justification for the slaughter of living children is that the bible said what it was doing? Abortion gestational points in the US vary by state. Not all states it to sufficiently gather data (I am, by the way, in favor of the federal government collecting this anonymous, statistical data) but from those that do, 88.2% were prior to 12 weeks, 10.4% at 13-20 weeks, and 1.4% after 21 weeks. The general consensus is an 18 week limit. Personally, I am inclined to lean more toward a 12 week limit. That, however, is irrelevant. Abortion is neither comparable nor an argument in justification of either the slaughter at Jericho or your defense of it. I’m beginning to come to a mind that authorities should be aware of your mindset in case anything happens to any children in your area in the future!

I am as well studied as I say. You are welcome to test my knowledge at any pitiful doubt you may harbour.

Your argument on the New Testament passages are less about context and more that they are metaphors. This is a pretty common argument from religious apologists. If you wish to see these acts of violence as metaphors for peaceful things, that is your interpretation (and maybe a touch that of King James’ commission, as well – after all, the modern version is a newer pick and take by a political influence, not the pure tome). They say what they say; all you’ve put after are interpretations of them, not literal corrections. Going to hell is by no means a fact of life. There is no hell, nor any proof of one. When you die, your consciousness ceases to be, due to your brain stopping operation, and your biological leftover begins to decompose.

What kind of person settles for a placebo when his son is extremely sick? A person of faith, of course. It is quite foolish indeed.

Question my humanity until your on your deathbed about to discover there’s nothing after that last breath. Those who’ve felt my benefit and I myself know my humanity.There are no medals to win nor merit badges to earn, so I could care less beyond what I’ve already said. As for you, I would never trust a child with you, knowing you not only condone by justify the slaughter of children just for being born in the wrong city. That’s straight up ethnic cleansing and sick is the least I can say of it. Do you justify the killing of homosexuals (Lev 20:13), people of other religions (Ex 22:18, 22:20), unruly kids who have hit their parents (Ex 21:15), unruly children in general (Ex 21:17), and adulterers (Lev 20:10, Deu 22:23-24)? Does the school know you support ethnic cleansing and the slaughter of children?

Dano June 30 at 10:01pm
like that. You say something is and it becomes unquestionable proof. Abortion isn’t comparable to the slaughter of children because you say so? Death is death. If its after 12 weeks or 8 years. By your logic the younger you kill them the better? Or as long as they are killed so they don’t feel pain. And where is your logic now? What is the scientific reason for killing a child before it is born?

First off if you really read all the Gospels and studied Jesus manner of speaking you would see that he is full of metaphors and parables. Would you say that Aesop really thought Rabbits and Turtles race? As I’ve said, to understand the Bible you have to understand the speakers. You can read the Bible, but if you don’t know the circumstances, its like reading Nuclear Physics with a fourth grade science education. As far as sinners going to hell, if hell doesn’t exist then you can’t call it a refrence of violence as much as an empty threat.

So a person of faith is a fool? A man that sends one prayer up for his son is a fool?

As far as those examples you may want to go back to what I said before. Those are laws to show the price of sin. The Old Testament was set in place to show us that we are destined for ruin because of sin. It all sets the picture to show us how much we need a savior. Then comes Jesus to die for our sins and redeem us. The Bible is not about violence but about Love. Think of it as a Shakespearn play were the first Act is setting the sceene, putting the players in place, develop the mood. Then in the final Acts it all comes together nicely.

And what do you say about the numerous parents who leave their children with me everyday? I’ve always been straight forward about who I am. Anyone that wants to know me only has to ask me.

Scott Frank June 30 at 10:43pm
Saying something does not make it unquestionable proof. I’ve never stated otherwise. Abortion isn’t comparable to the ethnic cleansing of a city’s children because it is not the same thing. My logic is that aborting an unborn fetus below a certain stage of development with good cause is not deplorable, but the ethnic cleansing of a city’s children is. The scientific reason for aborting varies from situation to situation, a few examples of which I have previously listed but you ignore to make your empty point. The point itself is empty, however, because you are using the practice of abortion, which you appear to be against, to justify the ethnic killing of the children of Jericho, which you defend. You’re against abortion but for the killing of already born children for the simple crime of being from a different culture.

It’s easy to pick and choose what you see as metaphor and what you take literally. What is, then, the descriptor to designate what is literal and what is figurative? If it is all metaphor, then there is no actual god, hell, heaven, nor second coming; those could just as simply be metaphors as well.

A person of faith praying for their sick child is a fool if they think praying will do anything to help their child. It is a placebo at best.

So, for the Old Testament, you’re saying the price of those sins should be death? The Old Testament was not set in place to show you the results of sin, it was included in the Christian forking from Judaism to ease the transition for the Orthodox Jews (as were several pagan traditions and holidays). It is, after all, their book.

I would say the parents who ensure their children to you each day are likely not aware of your stance on killing children. You may have told them you are a Christian, but did you tell them you think the ethnic cleansing of Jericho’s children was justified? I challenge you to do so.

Dano July 1 at 7:28am
There is your mistake right there I’m not "for" killing period. I am not justifing one with the other. I’m saying how can you condem a people who were following their God, but then be ok with killing for convience. As much as you try to say that it should be done under specific reasons or that its ok because its not a real baby yet, fact is its all or nothing. If there is abortion innocent children will die for convience. And I have ignored your examples. I just asking for you to explain how they are scientific reasons. What is the scientifc reason to abort a child after rape? As far as the scientifc reasons due to mother’s health, what about the risks that come with abortion? http://www.prochoice.com/abortion_safe.htmlThe risk to the mother is often in the birthing process, thus a C-section can be just as effective.

As I said, unless you know the source you can’t truly understand the Bible. First you have to know the times the author lived in. This can be done by researching the history of this region as well as the suorrounding areas. Secondly you need discernment.

Its easy to call a man a fool who prays for his child when you don’t know them or there situation.

And what makes you feel that the Old Testament was to ease the transition?

If people don’t realize what a Christian believes, isn’t it their fault for being so careless not to learn who they are trusting their children with? Or perhaps they do realize what the Bible says, they know I support the Bible, and they know that I am no threat to their children.

Try putting all the pieces together. I support the Old Testament as part of God’s Word. It is only part of what He says to us. Take the whole book and you will understand that it is just as I said. Setting the stage and then redeeming the lost.

Scott Frank July 1 at 2:37pm
You use abortion in your defense argument for the ethnic slaughter of Jericho. You’ve defended it all along, not only with the abortion argument. As for abortion, I am not okay with it when the reason is convenience. I think that is a terrible reason to abort. I’ve not said otherwise. I can easily have that viewpoint and still condemn a people for killing an entire city of people, men women and children, just for being of a different culture.

A rape baby is a forced pregnancy. Pending the rapist is not arrested, you have the potential for a slew of worst-case scenarios putting the mother’s life at risk. In addition to that, there are terrible psychological risks associated with the pregnancy. In Therapeutic Abortion, the risks are not isolated to the birthing process, solvable merely through Cesarean. There are severe birth defects that can be detected early on, plus conditions and complications the mother may have that would be cruel to pass on to a child, like cancer, heart disease, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, HIV, AIDS, and certain other sexually transmitted diseases. In some cases, the pregnancy itself can be harmful to the mother, like ectopic pregnancy.

It is rarely all or nothing. In the case of abortion, there are many, many shades of grey. In the case of ethnic cleansing, there is no good reason.

I do know the sources of the bible. You can easily trace the Judaic myths back through a few middle eastern cultures right down to Sumerian texts, and the newer Christian myths have both common-theme ancestries and Classical roots. As I said before, I did a 5 year intensive independent study on religion and mythology. I may have left out that my focus was on the Ancient Near East (even having the opportunity to speak with a couple of well regarded Sumeriologists). Ur-Tab Ludima.

It is very easy, and quite accurate, to call a person a fool who thinks a prayer is a useful tool in the physical health of his or her child. Knowing their situation is irrelevant.

Christianity was a reformation from Judaism. The core original following came from Judaism. It is the same as how various heathen traditions and holidays were adapted in to the Christian tradition when Christianity was violently leaving a trail of blood and conversion across Europe.

While I agree it is the parent’s fault for not looking in to such a thing, there is also the dominantly portrayed image of a Christian as not being one who would defend such horrific acts. This is an unfortunate generalization. However, I never said anything to the contrary. The parents being at some fault does not mean they should not become informed.

When one puts all of the pieces together, you get just another religion as false as the rest. The burden of proof is still on the existence of something, not the nonexistence.

Dano July 1 at 9:42pm
I didn’t use the abortion as a defense. I used it to show that some forms of murder are still accpeted today. And this is an atrocity that you endorse. You may say its only in the right circumstance, but who are you to decide when murder is right, and when its wrong? And as I’ve said, its more than its a different culture. It is about the risk that they pose to the Isrealites. It is to show that a life without God is destined for destruction. Finish the book and you would see that in the end there is redemption and the offering for all nations to come and embrace their Creator.

I agree that there are sometimes risks to a mother’s health, but due to moder medicine that number is greatly reduced from where it was back when abortion started gaining momentum. But if you look at the big picture, you could see that this is a slippery slope? What constitues health? What if it only efects her quality of living? What if it effects her mental health? You talk about defects, but do we start deciding which children are ok to be birthed? Is it really that much different than the Nazis? And as far as the mental stress of a rape, fact is by that point its too late, the effect is done. What about the mental trauma of abortion?

So you may know some of the culture surounding the Ancient Civilizations, although if you did you would understand that the killing of civilizations is common practice. And really what was the focus of your studies? If you are focus on the Bible as a myth, you are already starting biased. And that still leaves the fact about discernment. You can know without understanding.

Must have missed the part of the Bible that took part in Europe. Only the Bible has God’s approval. As I’ve said, before not all men who used God’s name are Christians.

That’s part of the problem with the world today, everyone wants everyone else to keep them informed. Fact is we are all responsible to take care of us and ours. Would you say that a thief should tell someone before they give the thief the keys to their house? Its the owners job to screen people.

It wasn’t a matter of proving or disproving God, it was about the connecting the Old Testament to the New Testament to show the whole picture. You are good at picking small pieces of a story and making a whole drama out of it.

Scott Frank July 2 at 7:08am
Abortion, when used is the proper circumstances, is far from the atrocity of ethnic cleansing and it is deplorable of you to use the two in any manner of comparison. I am not the one who decided which circumstances are right and wrong for abortion. Medical professionals with nearly a decade of education and likely far more than that of experience in the field made those decisions in conjunction with elected (by popular vote, making them representative of the people) officials in various states made these decisions in various states to establish each state’s abortion laws. I can only say when I think it is right and wrong by my own viewpoint, in which the right is reasoned by the medical literature and the wrong is formed through a personal opinion about responsibility.

Oh such a risk a different culture may bring in its influence, that they must be destroyed! A life without god is destined for destruction? Sure, when a different culture decides to come in and slaughter you wholesale. Be with god or be destroyed… you’re beginning to inch toward the extremism spouted by Islamic terrorists. I have read the entire book. At the end, the proper believers are brought to heaven and everyone else (of a different culture) is annihilated. So warm and cozy…

Actually, it is due to modern medicine that we have Therapeutic Abortion. That number is greatly reduced in part thanks to Therapeutic Abortion. What constitutes health are medical risks which may cause physical harm to the mother. The fact that you even asked that is ludicrous. If it only affects her quality of life, it would depend on how it affects it to determine is it is a great enough risk. There is no slippery slope in that. The facts become cut and dry in each individual case.

Some birth defects are very extreme and are likely to cause death for the child not too long after birth. I am not referring to situations like mental retardation where the person can live a relatively full life. I am talking about severe cases here. It is nothing like the Nazis and if you are to make an accusation such as that, you should explain how. Funny you mention it though… the Nazis rounded up a culture of people different to theirs and slaughtered them with their reasoning being the threat their culture posed to them… so did Joshua!

As for the mental stress of rape, the rape is done but a resulting pregnancy is not done yet. Any mental trauma of abortion, which is not always present, would likely be overshadowed by the mental trauma of rape, which is always present. It does not need to be mandatory, but should be a legal option for the victim of the the rape.

The fact that ethnic cleansing was more common in ancient times does not justify it. It is horrendous no matter who did it and for whatever reason.

The bible’s fantasy parts are complete myth, because that’s what the bible is – a mythology. It is biased by evidence and fact. Again, burden of proof is on existence, not nonexistence, and the fantasy parts of the bible have yet to be proven. It is not a matter of discernment but of actual reality!

Your European comment is funny… the bibles commonly found today were not collected and approved of by any god, but rather political figures in Europe!

You do not think it is important for a parent to know their kids are being watched by someone who supports ethnic cleansing? Or maybe you have placed yourself in the seat of thief in that metaphor! Interesting, from a psychological standpoint. What are you stealing, you sick little monkey?

There you go, disregard the big picture (ironic!). The entire discussion is about the fact that you cannot prove there is a god and your religion, like all others, is a fantasy, not reality.

Dano July 2 at 2:22pm
Must have missed the section where you said "Let’s talk about the proof of God." From my recolection the conversation started with your need to comment on anyone that posts on Pete’s page and the question of you being controlling. Since then it has turned to the value of religion, abortion, and ethnic cleasing. Thing is I wouldn’t get into a conversation soley about proving God exists with an individual that is close minded and biased. The thing about life is that no matter what it is you are looking for you can usually find it. Doesn’t make it real, just obtainable. If you were paraniod it wouldn’t take much to think people are out to get you. If you think there is a huge government conspiracy, you can probable find the "evidence" of it. You are not looking to find God, so no matter what I said you would deny it. How many years did it take before people believed the world was round and not the center of the universe? People believe what they want until they are ready to believe what is real. Its one more point of your perfect logic running through an imperfect world. People are not logical beings.

Dano July 2 at 2:22pm
So if the governement decided that Christianity should be our national religion you would be ok with that because they are represenatives of the people? You didn’t strike me as the type that would go along with the rest of the population, or maybe you are not you are just using it this time because it agrees with you.

In the old days it was extreme and there are still extremist in all walks. And in the end it doesn’t matter what culture you are from, its all whether you have acknowlegded Jesus as your Savior. There will be people from every nation represented.

You may call my comments ludicrous, but I’m not blinded to the reality of the situation. The standards you spout sound nice and clear cut, buut when applied to the real world they quickly become diluted. Just looking at the history of abortion will show you that. What starts as a procedure for well being has become a way to eliminate reponsibility. If abortion could be limited to only extreme cases you may have an argument, but the fact is it won’t. The only way to reign it in is to do away with it.

Joshua fought a city, a very strong and mighty city in its day, and brought it to ruins. The Nazis were not so vailient. And the point is the same as the last section. If you start down that slope it will be taken to extremes. Man is a creature of extremes.

Where is your documentation saying that there isn’t always trauma from abortion or that the rape trauma would over shadow it?

It wasn’t a matter of saying that because it was done it isn’t horrendous, it is a matter of saying that because it was the common protocol it is unfair to single one nation out for it. As I mentioned before the Egyptians and Romans were both guilty of killing off children. Do you old all nations in contempt?

And what parts of the Bible are you saying is mythology? And last time I checked the burden of proof doesn’t always have the exact details. If the cops find a man holding a gun, from which a bullet was dug out of another man, and the first man has GSR and matches the description of a man fleeing the scene the cops don’t need to see the man actually commit the deed to arrest him. Again your line of thought is sound, but not completly practical.

I agree with you about the fact that most modern Bibles have gone through channels in Europe, that is why I often refer to the original Greek and Hebrew.

I think it is you now that is delusional. I was in no part of the metaphor, it was a representation on where responsibility lies. It was to show the point that what kind of parent would leave their children with someone unless they knew them or trusted the organiztion they worked for. And no where did I say I support ethnic cleasing. I say that Joshua did what God told him. I trust God and know that He has a purpose for all things. If you want to point fingers about cleansing, it was you that said we are already over populated so what’s wrong with killing a few.

Must have missed the section where you said "Let’s talk about the proof of God." From my recolection the conversation started with your need to comment on anyone that posts on Pete’s page and the question of you being controlling. Since then it has turned to the value of religion, abortion, and ethnic cleasing. Thing is I wouldn’t get into a conversation soley about proving God exists with an individual that is close minded and biased. The thing about life is that no matter what it is you are looking for you can usually find it. Doesn’t make it real, just obtainable. If you were paraniod it wouldn’t take much to think people are out to get you. If you think there is a huge government conspiracy, you can probable find the "evidence" of it. You are not looking to find God, so no matter what I said you would deny it. How many years did it take before people believed the world was round and not the center of the universe? People believe what they want until they are ready to believe what is real. Its one more point of your perfect logic running through an imperfect world. People are not logical beings.

Scott Frank July 2 at 6:07pm
I am an American Constitutionalist. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…" the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment would prohibit this. As a Constitutionalist, I am against there being a national religion. I am not necessarily for all the decisions made by the representatives, but I am for democracy within the bounds of our Bill of Rights and sometimes what goes with that are lesser pieces of legislation I do not wholly agree with.

In the end, it doesn’t matter what culture you are from, you all die. There is no holy savior and there is no afterlife. Prove otherwise.

The standards of evidence and proof hold up quite well in the real world. Our judicial system requires proof to convict criminals, as they are innocent until proven guilty beyond the reasonable doubt of a jury. I am not blinded to reality one bit. I have said all along that some people do use abortion in an irresponsible manner. That should only require perhaps some tighter restriction on it, which if one felt so impassioned they could lobby for. Your totalitarian solution is more sign of your extremist tendencies and the way religious moderates open the door for extremist nuts.

Joshua slew the women and children, not just the warriors. That is the line that was crossed that sets it apart from other unjust wars. You just called the killing of children valiant.

Search for testimonial on abortion and rape. It is not too difficult to find.

I am not singling the one nation for the actions, I am saying it was wrong and an example of how religion can cause war. You said before other cultures did it to and do I hold all nations in contempt. You idiot, I answered that already. I hold all who do such things in contempt! That others have does not justify Joshua. You want to talk about slippery slopes, that sort of justification is the slickest.

Anything in the bible involving a mythical deity or not correlated to a historical event is mythology. The example you cited includes loads of convictable evidence! You religion has no verifiable evidence.

You used a metaphor against informing people of that specific part of your religion. Do you even know what a metaphor is, or was that some random pointless statement you made? People leave their kids with who they think they can trust but are proven wrong all too often. Read a fucking newspaper. You support ethnic cleansing. You support Joshua’s decision to slaughter every living thing in Jericho, at the whim of a mythical god, no less. You cannot accurately accuse me of supporting ethnic cleansing. I support no such thing. If you think abortion is ethnic cleansing, you may want to sit your half-illiterate ass down in front of a dictionary for a minute and look that up.

The conversation started on Peter but split into three topics: god, abortion, ethnic cleansing in the bible, and Peter. These are the key points:

· God does not exist. Prove it an I’ll change my mind, because real critical thinkers are not so gullible. Actual, verifiable evidence is what a true critical thinker requires to acknowledge something as true. The paranoia argument was funny… paranoia is a delusion and the deluded looks for "evidence" and finds it. The paranoid one looks for evidence of something that’s not really there and finds what they are convinced is it, despite it not being real. That’s religious belief in a nutshell. Good job.

· Abortion has legitimate uses. That it is not always used legitimately does not negate when it is.

· Ethnic cleansing is wrong, no matter what hallucination tells you to do it. Defending it is sick.

· I in no way control Peter, who is my closest friend and his own man, much stronger than you think.

Dano July 3 at 8:56am
If there is no savior and we all die, why do you get so worked up about? Why do you target those who believe in God?

You see a totalitarian extemrist nut. I see someone that is devoted and passionate to their beliefs. Things are not so black and white. And how much dealings have you had with the legal system? Ask Pete how many times he has been harrassed because of the way he looks or his rap sheet. In my example, the man would be found guilty because there is enough evidence that it could be him, but the fact is no one really saw him do it. Its all how the evidence is interpeted.

I called the war vallient, not the after effects. Read the whole section. I said that Jericho had a fighting advantage where as the Jews against the Nazis did not. And since you like refrence Jericho so much, how do you explain how a group of untrained men who were recently released from slavery, had limited weaponry, and no home base destroyed a mighty city with walls so thick that they could race on them?

So who does that leave that you don’t hold in contempt? You mention Sweeden eariler, but you don’t look like a Sweede so what about your herritage? What about our own country? Fact is there are atrocities in all our histories, do we hold ourselves in contempt for our forebears mistakes?

Religion is not verifiable. Apart from God coming down in all His glory, any other attempt to show Himself you would try to explain away. Like I said, you cannot accept the evidence until you are ready. The fact that you would compare a christian to a paranoid individual shows that you are too biased to accept the proof.

I am doing the same thing you have done. Take one statement and make wild accusations out of them. Do you deny that you said we are over populated so a few deaths are ok? As far as the definition of a metaphor I do know what it is, and if you don’t think that was a metaphor then why did you call it that in the first place? And I’m not denying that people whom should be trusted sometimes can’t be. The point is that either you do your research on every person or you keep your children home with you. If I was so dangerous then why would I be so well liked where I work, and have such a good record there? Your claims are foolish. As you would say where is the real proof? Do you support what are country has done to get where its at?

-As far as God, as I said up above you are not willing to really accept it.
-On Abortion it wasn’t as much about it being legitimate as the fact that you support the killing of children when you deem it a worthy cause.
-On Ethnic Cleansing. You have taken several remarks to string them together for your own purposes. Yes I support the Bible, Yes I believe in God and know that he has a purpose in all things, Yes I know that elimination was a common practice in that time and is thus understandable to why he did it. The fact that someone can understand another does not mean they are a supporter in that action all the time.
-As far as Pete. I have not once doubted his strength. The only refrence to that would be me saying that you were stronger than he in that area. As far as any control you may or may not have over him, you have yet to truly proved that. But I adressed that above as well.

Scott Frank July 9 at 10:06pm
For the sake of context, I am going to begin including quotes of portions I am replying to.

"If there is no savior and we all die, why do you get so worked up about? Why do you target those who believe in God?"
I do not simply target those who have a faith. I target stupidity as a whole, and not even in every case of it. It is a moment by moment, event by event thing. As I said before, and likely proved quite well on Saturday, there are people of faith I coexist very well with. It is not the only factor. When something strikes me to respond, I do so. In the end, it is not faith itself that I get worked up about, it is the decisions people make and have made based on delusional factors. I feel that decisions should be made on realistic, logical foundations of reason.

"You see a totalitarian extemrist nut. I see someone that is devoted and passionate to their beliefs."
Assuming this is in reference to Jericho…? You admire the devotion Joshua had to his god that he slaughtered children? What grey area is there in the slaughter of living, breathing children in an act of war?

"Ask Pete how many times he has been harrassed because of the way he looks or his rap sheet."
Harrassment is not conviction. Also, most, if not all, of the officers that harrassed Peter and myself in the past were deeply religious and, at times, even made that well known.

"In my example, the man would be found guilty because there is enough evidence that it could be him, but the fact is no one really saw him do it. Its all how the evidence is interpeted."
Evidence is evidence and convictions should, ideally, come from evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The pieces of evidence you cited as an example leave no room for doubt.

"I called the war vallient, not the after effects."
The only valiant thing in that whole war was the Allied sacrifices to free the Jews.

"I said that Jericho had a fighting advantage where as the Jews against the Nazis did not."
Those slaughtered women and children had an advantage, eh? Joshua and his army were sick, sick people and defending that war is morally sick and wrong.

"And since you like refrence Jericho so much, how do you explain how a group of untrained men who were recently released from slavery, had limited weaponry, and no home base destroyed a mighty city with walls so thick that they could race on them?"
I actually only cited it once, which then became a conversation about it itself. As for how they did it, assuming it actually happened relatively as described in the book, I would say the same way a rag tag colony of relatively untrained Americans defeated the greatest military superpower in the world at the time with far greater numbers in the Revolutionary War. The odds can be against an army yet end contrary to the surface probability, due to the unfactored determination of people in particular situations and other variables. The surface factors before a battle begins are nowhere near the necessary variables to calculate who is more likely to win when the battle actually takes place.

"So who does that leave that you don’t hold in contempt? You mention Sweeden eariler, but you don’t look like a Sweede so what about your herritage? What about our own country? Fact is there are atrocities in all our histories, do we hold ourselves in contempt for our forebears mistakes?"
You’re looking at it all wrong. I’m part German, but I don’t hold myself in contempt for the Nazi Party and all that went on with the two big wars. I’m part Italian, but I don’t hold myself in contempt for the the slew of unjust activities of the Roman Empire. What I condemn are both the actions of the time by the perpetrators who committed them and the people who justify and defend those actions and perpetrators.

"Religion is not verifiable."
You took the words right out of my mouth. It is something you cannot prove because it does not exist.

"Apart from God coming down in all His glory, any other attempt to show Himself you would try to explain away."
Nay. Any verifiable evidence of a deity would be evidence. The scientific method and the nature of skepticism is to doubt that which has no proof. If there is proof, I would not simply explain away with fallible excuses, I would examine the proof and reassess accordingly.

"Like I said, you cannot accept the evidence until you are ready. The fact that you would compare a christian to a paranoid individual shows that you are too biased to accept the proof."
Real evidence does not need one to be ‘ready’ to accept it. That is not proof. My only bias is to evidence and proof. My bias is to reality. Prove otherwise and my so-called bias leans to it.

"I am doing the same thing you have done. Take one statement and make wild accusations out of them."
I am willing to accept that you took a bad turn defending Joshua at Jericho because you didn’t want to lose any ground on the subject of the book’s morality and you let it go too far. Maybe you don’t condone the slaughter of children. Any reasoned, moral person wouldn’t. Admit that’s the case and I’ll gladly let the issue go. Otherwise… well, defending those actions is pretty fucked up, to put it efficiently.

"Do you deny that you said we are over populated so a few deaths are ok?"
I certainly do deny that. There is a difference in listing overpopulation as a minor, contributing reason why people not popping 20 fucking kids out (obvious exaggeration, but walk into any VT Economic Sevices office and you get the drift) is a good thing, and saying babies dying is justified by it. The core difference is the reason for it.

"And I’m not denying that people whom should be trusted sometimes can’t be. The point is that either you do your research on every person or you keep your children home with you."
It is important to research the people whom you would leave your children with. No argument there.

"If I was so dangerous then why would I be so well liked where I work, and have such a good record there? Your claims are foolish. As you would say where is the real proof? Do you support what are country has done to get where its at?"
I would first assume they are not aware you would defend the slaughter of children in a war ordered by a deity (pending option B above). The proof is, well, your defense of Joshua at Jericho in this very thread. You said it yourself.

"-As far as God, as I said up above you are not willing to really accept it."
If you have to have faith to prove something real, you aren’t proving it real. Prove it or case closed.

"-On Abortion it wasn’t as much about it being legitimate as the fact that you support the killing of children when you deem it a worthy cause."
I get it — you were trying to make a hypocrisy in the philosophy of killing children. The differences have already been written over and over again. Ethnic cleansing does not equal abortion, not even the irresponsible ones. Nice try.

"-On Ethnic Cleansing. You have taken several remarks to string them together for your own purposes."
Killing a people of a different culture because that culture might ‘corrupt’ your culture is ethnic cleansing. There is no need to take anything out of context nor string together anything to make it look that way. It is textbook ethnic cleansing without question.

"Yes I support the Bible, Yes I believe in God and know that he has a purpose in all things,"
You forgot the difference between ‘know’ and ‘believe’. It’s crucial.

"Yes I know that elimination was a common practice in that time and is thus understandable to why he did it."
There… you support ethnic cleansing. Simply because ethnic cleansing was commonplace back then, it is justified? So then, assuming you believe Yahweh ordered it done, he is subject to the zeitgeist? Or is ethnic cleansing his doing all around for the time?

"The fact that someone can understand another does not mean they are a supporter in that action all the time."
So, to revise here, you support ethnic cleansing when it is alleged to have been ordered by Yahweh? Thank quark you aren’t involved in the conflicts between Israel and the Arab world!

"-As far as Pete. I have not once doubted his strength. The only refrence to that would be me saying that you were stronger than he in that area."
He is stronger than the controlling, manipulative influence of others… you doubt this; so yes, you did doubt his strength.

"As far as any control you may or may not have over him, you have yet to truly proved that. But I adressed that above as well."
The burden of proof is on existence, not nonexistence. Prove I have control over him or shut up about it.

Dano July 12 at 2:24pm
But what do you care if people make foolish decisions. People make dumb choices every day for things a lot less valuable then a belief in God?

The totalitarian extremist was what you refereed to me as being. The gray areas are all of life. In that specific context it was the legal department. And are you saying it was because an officer was religious that they harassed you? The point was that people who have power over us are not always focused on the facts. To go through life expecting that all legal decisions will be made solely on facts is naive.

I think part of the problem is that you are lumping all Christians together and we are not all the same. True Christianity is not about religious laws or rites. It is about having a personal relationship with our Savior Jesus. I may not know exactly where Pete stands right now with God, but I know that there was a time when he had a more real relationship with God then most life long Christians.

Again you are talking about what should happen and I’m talking about reality. In the example of the man charged with murder could he not own the gun legally. Shot it at a range legally. Then someone else obtained it and shot the other man? Again the point is that not all decisions are made with direct evidence, but with following a line to a logical conclusion.

Perhaps you should double check some more when you respond. The war I said was valiant was with Joshua. The Americans won because of hit and run tactics and home terrain advantage. Also they were fighting for their freedom where the British were just soldiers following orders. Passion is a strong motivator. The advantage that the people of Jericho had was a fortress one that would take siege weaponry a long time to destroy and yet Joshua overcame with lesser forces. The Revolutionary War and Jericho War have too many different elements to try and compare. It would appear that you cannot explain the outcome of the war thus you try to dilute the facts with another story.

Pardon me if I am not as narrow minded as you are. I disagree with what the Nazis did, but I can understand why they did it. If a perfect race could be obtained it would be ideal, but not at the sacrifice of innocence. Do I think all unbelievers should be slaughtered? No. Do I believe that Joshua was doing as God told him and practicing a common strategic plan of the time? Yes. The fact is every war has innocent casualties. Should we do away with all war? Its a nice thought, but reality says it is impossible.

And what would you classify as verifiable evidence? God made the sun stand still. He has made limbs that were too short grow. He has made cancer disappear from terminal cases. And creationism is the only theory out there that explains how all matter came into being. No other theory can explain how matter appeared. And to say that it always was raises the issue that if it always was it will always be. If it will always be. What purpose is there for matter to always be if we as a race will not always be around?

It is funny how you clean to your so called reality when you want to be logical, but refuse to accept that reality is rarely logical. Humans are more often then not swayed by illogical decisions Present evidence to a loving wife that her husband is cheating on her and she will deny it. You may wish to believe that you are above such pettiness and that the evidence will always sway you, but your actions speak otherwise.

I have repeatedly stated my stance on Joshua. I understand why he did what he did. It would not be my practice, but to judge any one when you are not in their circumstance is ignorant.

Why abort babies as a preventive measure for over population? (I know exactly what you mean about the mothers who pop out more kids then they can handle.) Why not have their tubes tied? Why not use contraceptives? Again your ideals are nice, but reality is that the majority is about personal convenience.

The defense of an individual is hardly proof that someone is dangerous. How many people defended Manson? Most of them were not dangerous, just misled. I know you will make another wonderful comparison of the two, but step beyond your search to berate Christianity for a moment and read what I am saying. You live by undeniable proof and yet you have no such proof when you make accusation. I can say that President Obama is a good orator and politician, it doesn’t mean I support him as president.

A relationship with God is not about proving He does or does not exist, its about accepting that He does. There is no proof that there is life beyond our planet or that there is any planet that could sustain life, but still many accept it.

I’m not trying to make a hypocrisy out of anything. I’m just trying to understand why its OK to kill children in some cases and not others.

Then all history is full of ethnic cleansing I would like to see proof of one culture that is innocent of such cleansing In which case we all should wipe ourselves out for if history is any marker we are bound by such a cleansing and it will only be a matter of time before we become the monsters you want to believe some of us are.

I know full well the difference between knowledge and belief and it is a mixture of both that support my relationship with God.

Read the Bible as one book, pray that God opens your eyes to the Truth and then you will understand what Joshua did.

It is laughable how you make an argument on a segment without relating it to previous statements often in the same response. You want proof about control, but when I dig into it you beat around the issue as you did with the question about differing beliefs between the two of you, or you trying to make it an insult as you did in the whole statement prior to this one.

Scott Frank July 12 at 11:07pm
The repercussions of such decisions (and I should know better than to assume you grasp the obvious – that this is aimed at decisions that directly affect me, my homeland, or the world) are why I care. The whole Jericho discussion is borne of this point. An army of men made a decision based on religious experience, in this case a hallucination, to attack a city of people who did not provoke. People do make dumb choices every day for many reasons. however, there is not much less valuable than faith in a myth.

Now you say the gray areas are all of life, yet a few messages ago you were saying all or nothing. Which is it? Are grays in all areas of life or are there all or nothings? In the event of my past legal interactions, the officers in question made it pretty clear where they were coming from. I never said all legal decisions are made the correct way, just that this is how the system is designed.

I’m not just lumping all Christians together, I am lumping nearly all religious together. The funny thing about Christianity is that each of its many splintered denominations claim to be the true Christianity; this is much like all religions who claim they are the true faith. Yours is apparently about forming a personal relationship with a fictional character. I wish I had my DSM IV handy, rather than packed away!

In the case of the hypothetical man on trial, forensic evidence can account for the possible scenario you speak of. Forensic science is a wonderful discipline! The GSR is key here. Trace GSR doesn’t simply cling to the skin. Through its patterns, environmental contaminants, and volume on the suspect’s hand, it can be determined if that person fired the weapon in a range of time comparable with the time of death and roughly where in comparison with contaminants at the scene. There are a slew of factors to determine whether or not the man is guilty. The line to the logical conclusion is paved by evidence.

So what is valiant about slaughtering the women and children? The two wars are not meant to be directly analogous to one another, but rather the Revolutionary War a simple example of how a so-called underdog can come out on top. You asked how it was possible; I provided example. There is no dilution of facts, you just appear to be too dense to grasp a simple example.

"Pardon me if I am not as narrow minded as you are. I disagree with what the Nazis did, but I can understand why they did it."
Wow… so you’re a Nazi sympathizer as well!

"The fact is every war has innocent casualties."
Not every war has innocent casualties ON PURPOSE. According to the myth, they weren’t accidental, unintentional casualties of war. They went in with the intent of slaughtering every living man, woman, child, and animal. There’s a world of difference there. It astounds me that you continue to try and justify it!

"And what would you classify as verifiable evidence?"
Verifiable evidence is exactly as the two words are defined. Verifiable evidence is a result or thing that is testable with repeatable results and subject to peer review, thus verifiable by anyone willing to question it. That is science. If you say when water reaches a certain temperature, it may freeze, and I doubt your assertion, I can get some water and bring it to that temperature in which you claimed it would freeze and see for myself if it does or not.

"God made the sun stand still."
This one is really, really funny. The fact that you even believe this betrays your lack of intelligence to a degree I did not expect.

"He has made limbs that were too short grow. He has made cancer disappear from terminal cases."
And where is the verifiable documentation of this? Was there footage of this somewhere? Anyone can claim anything at any time and anyone with a reasonable amount of cleverness can create a hoax and let word of mouth propagate it. Where is the proof that these things happened?

"And creationism is the only theory out there that explains how all matter came into being. No other theory can explain how matter appeared. And to say that it always was raises the issue that if it always was it will always be. If it will always be. What purpose is there for matter to always be if we as a race will not always be around?"
Your first sentence is freaking hilarious. The current model of Expansion explains the universe and, unlike Creationism, it actually has evidence. As far as we know, yes, it always was. It always will be, but all matter and energy is always changing, so it will not be exactly as it is… but it will be. There is no purpose for matter now any more than before we existed and after we are gone. Matter isn’t there for us, we are here because of it. It’s always struck me as amusing how the religious tend to fill in what has not yet been discovered with god. Yet, we discover more and more and more, and those holes become smaller and fewer. It’s a fun thing to watch. It’s like the morning Sun rising on small craters. When they are in shadow, one’s imagination takes over and one begins to concoct silly fantasies about what lies in the shadow… but slowly the Sun rises and its light reaches each crater, illuminating what is really there.

"It is funny how you clean to your so called reality when you want to be logical, but refuse to accept that reality is rarely logical. Humans are more often then not swayed by illogical decisions Present evidence to a loving wife that her husband is cheating on her and she will deny it. You may wish to believe that you are above such pettiness and that the evidence will always sway you, but your actions speak otherwise."
Reality is very logical. You are simply ignoring a portion of the variables. The woman who denies evidence of a cheating husband (much like you denying evidence of your fantasy) is having a psychological reaction, one formed through evolution in the fight or flight response, to avoid what is too much for her to face, emotionally. On the outside, it seems illogical, but when you analyze all of it from the right scientific perspective, the psychological field, you illuminate the variables you need to see why in this specific case that was the logical reaction. The evidence does always sway me and you’re free to try and prove what actions of mine speak otherwise.

“I would hardly believe that a matter of taste would change your opinion of Pete. Read the statement in its entirety. What areas do you and Pete differ on that would make you change your opinion of him? If Pete told you he believes God is real would you respect him any less? Is there any such area?”
I am not aware of any areas in which Peter and I differ that would cause me to think less of him. If he told me he believes in god, I would think he has lost his ability to perceive reality and use reason. You may see that as a lessening in a man, so yes it would likely lessen some. This is a hypothetical situation, however.

"Why abort babies as a preventive measure for over population? (I know exactly what you mean about the mothers who pop out more kids then they can handle.) Why not have their tubes tied? Why not use contraceptives? Again your ideals are nice, but reality is that the majority is about personal convenience."
There is no argument on what methods are preferable. Prevention is always the best route. However, the circumstances are different between abortion and prevention. One is before; the other is after. That said, show me where the majority is for personal convenience.

"The defense of an individual is hardly proof that someone is dangerous. How many people defended Manson? Most of them were not dangerous, just misled. I know you will make another wonderful comparison of the two, but step beyond your search to berate Christianity for a moment and read what I am saying. You live by undeniable proof and yet you have no such proof when you make accusation."
The defense of atrocious actions is cause for concern. I have ample proof of your defense of those actions in this very thread. Go ahead and reread it.

"A relationship with God is not about proving He does or does not exist, its about accepting that He does. There is no proof that there is life beyond our planet or that there is any planet that could sustain life, but still many accept it."
A well minded person would not necessarily want to have a relationship with something that does not exist. There is no proof of a life sustaining planet beyond our own. Many accept the possibility and probability of it and search for evidence on that premise. This is not the same as simply accepting it.

"Then all history is full of ethnic cleansing I would like to see proof of one culture that is innocent of such cleansing In which case we all should wipe ourselves out for if history is any marker we are bound by such a cleansing and it will only be a matter of time before we become the monsters you want to believe some of us are."
Most cultures have practiced this, it is true. Most cultures do not now practice it. Reread what I wrote, you jackass: ‘You’re looking at it all wrong. I’m part German, but I don’t hold myself in contempt for the Nazi Party and all that went on with the two big wars. I’m part Italian, but I don’t hold myself in contempt for the the slew of unjust activities of the Roman Empire. What I condemn are both the actions of the time by the perpetrators who committed them and the people who justify and defend those actions and perpetrators.’ Hopefully it won’t take you more than a couple readings to get this time.

"I know full well the difference between knowledge and belief and it is a mixture of both that support my relationship with God."
Belief without proof is in stark opposition to knowledge.

"Again and I’ll type it slow so you get it. To say that one person is stronger than another in one area does not say anything against the second person. There is always someone stronger then each of us. This does not negate our strengths. And I do believe that Pete is strong enough in his own mind, that he can admit that there may be individuals stronger than him in some areas."
You claimed him less strong than he is. Peter is stronger than whatever melodramatic story of control you concocted in your mind about he and I. Is that put simply enough for you?

"It is laughable how you make an argument on a segment without relating it to previous statements often in the same response. You want proof about control, but when I dig into it you beat around the issue as you did with the question about differing beliefs between the two of you, or you trying to make it an insult as you did in the whole statement prior to this one."
There is no beating around the issue at all. Prove it. You made a claim, now back it up. What’s laughable is your utter inability to back it up and prove in some way that I am controlling my closest friend. The same as the discussion on the existence of a god: prove it or shut up about it. If you can’t prove it, you’re just another melodramatic shit-talker and I really cannot be bothered with such a thing.

Dano July 14 at 7:42am
You will have to be a little more specific as to where I said things were all or nothing. As far as the legal system it is a good plan, but in practice it is flawed. The whole point was that you cling to logical fact based reasoning, but in reality logic and reason often fall away from actuality.

Go ahead and dig out your DSM. Funny thing is if you actually go through it you realize that you can place everybody in some category. Makes me wonder what you would be diagnosed with.

The point of the hypothetical trial is to show that fact that evidence has to be interpreted and thus is susceptible to human error.

You provided an example of an underdog winning a war. I asked how a untrained unit, destroyed a city that was protected by an impenetrable wall.

That’s right keep twisting the words to fit your delusions. To understand someone does not make you a sympathizer. I can understand many groups and people, but it would be impossible to be in favor of them all. Like I said I understand, that doesn’t mean I agree with them. Just like I can understand how a person of science and facts would be scared of accepting a truth that can not be directly observed. Faith can be scary.

Its not justifying to say every war has innocent victims, it is refusing to be blinded to that fact. I assume you support this country that you live in and enjoy. But our own history is filled with atrocities. Should we discard our country because of this? Should we condemn the ones that paved the way to the freedom that we enjoy today? And talking about paving. We would not be were we are with out men of faith. It was followers of God that first left England to settle here. It was devoted Christians that wrote the Bill of Rights and signed our Constitution.

OK, so where is your verifiable evidence to the Big Bang Theory of the Universe? We can hardly repeate this scenario. We can’t even find another galaxy that this happened for us to document.

Your rebuttals to God’s miracles shows that you are not willing to accept God. If God is who He says He is why is stopping time so hard to believe? If you want to see God’s miracles look up the revivals in Brownsville and Toronto. The fact that you haven’t shows that you really don’t give any weight to the things of God and thus will not accept the Truth until your heart is ready.

Where has science disproved the existence of God? Where in all of science have we created life from inanimate matter?

I did not say that there wasn’t a logical explanation, I was saying that people often don’t act logical. Our world is controlled by humans and thus does not abide by the rules of logic. More often than not, decisions are made by emotions or improper motives. Logic does not usually throw the deciding vote.

What concern to is it who I defend? It is of no consequence to you. You look for arguments that have nothing to do with you.

So why not accept the possibility of God? You have no evidence to oppose it, yet you make a verdict.

I get that you are of a heritage that has atrocities in its past. I understand that you are repulsed by them. But do you understand why they did what they did? Do you understand the mentality behind it?

I claimed he was not as strong in will as you are. That is that you are of stronger will than he. In no way is that a derogatory comment.

Scott Frank July 14 at 3:22pm
"You will have to be a little more specific as to where I said things were all or nothing."
I could scroll back and find the quote, but to be honest, I sard to do so. You’re welcome to search yourself, but I’m content to just leave it that we agree life is full of grey areas.

"As far as the legal system it is a good plan, but in practice it is flawed. The whole point was that you cling to logical fact based reasoning, but in reality logic and reason often fall away from actuality."
The legal system itself is pretty well structured, but the requisites for officiating persons should be revised and maybe tightened some to mute some of that corruption. That’s something I think is worth lobbying for. Still, you’ve yet to show how logic and reason part from reality. The only examples you’ve been able to provide were simply situations wherein the logic is obscured by a lack of necessary variables.

"Go ahead and dig out your DSM. Funny thing is if you actually go through it you realize that you can place everybody in some category. Makes me wonder what you would be diagnosed with."
You’ve stated the beauty of psychology! I’m sure there are a few categories for me, though I’ve never been diagnosed with anything. Most people fall into relatively minor so-called disorders. Others may find rather larger, more significant issues. Someone having a personal relationship with a fictional character may be prime for Doppelganger Syndrome testing. By the by, if you happen upon a copy, ignore the recommended pharmacological treatments. It is the only real controversy with the book. I look forward to the (hopefully improved) DSM V next year.

"The point of the hypothetical trial is to show that fact that evidence has to be interpreted and thus is susceptible to human error."
This is why a jury is instructed that the collective evidence has to be beyond a reasonable doubt to give a guilty verdict.

"You provided an example of an underdog winning a war. I asked how a untrained unit, destroyed a city that was protected by an impenetrable wall."
I would say an untrained unit against a city protected by a supposedly impenetrable wall is an underdog. Supposedly impenetrable walls being outsmarted is common in mythology. Heck, look at the most popular siege story: The Trojan War! The point is, it is not unheard of.

"That’s right keep twisting the words to fit your delusions. To understand someone does not make you a sympathizer. I can understand many groups and people, but it would be impossible to be in favor of them all. Like I said I understand, that doesn’t mean I agree with them. Just like I can understand how a person of science and facts would be scared of accepting a truth that can not be directly observed. Faith can be scary."
You said you understand why they did what they did. There is no twisting in there. If you meant something else, state what you meant.

It’s really funny that you think men of reason are such because faith scares them. Just the opposite is true. A world without an afterlife, without a purpose, and without a loving deity is far more frightening than otherwise. One of the core reasons people gravitate, and have for many millennia, to religion, is for the comfort of believing there is something else and something after. Dying wouldn’t be terrible. There would be comfort in thinking there is a plan for all. But that is not so. It’s an imaginary security blanket. Were it a verifiable truth, I would gladly accept it.

"Its not justifying to say every war has innocent victims, it is refusing to be blinded to that fact. I assume you support this country that you live in and enjoy. But our own history is filled with atrocities. Should we discard our country because of this? Should we condemn the ones that paved the way to the freedom that we enjoy today? And talking about paving. We would not be were we are with out men of faith. It was followers of God that first left England to settle here. It was devoted Christians that wrote the Bill of Rights and signed our Constitution."
Again, you fucking idiot, I am not saying we should all be to blame for the actions of our ancestors. I’ve said it twice now, but you just can’t get that through your dense skull. I condemn all atrocious actions and the people who committed them. That does not necessitate the condemnation of those innocent of those actions simply for accident of birth.

The people who wrote and ratified the Constitution of the United States were a mixed bag. Some were deists; others were christians. Some involved in the process were even Atheists. This is neither here nor there to it being a reality. I’m just glad they had the foresight and good sense to write what they did. If you want to use people of history to justify a faith, (a truly meaningless point of argument, by the way) it should be noted that Hitler was a Christian as well.

"OK, so where is your verifiable evidence to the Big Bang Theory of the Universe? We can hardly repeate this scenario. We can’t even find another galaxy that this happened for us to document."
I’ve already told you the evidence behind the Big Bang Theory; but again, your mind is like a civ. The movements of galaxies and the Cosmic Microwave Background are our evidence for BBT. You are obviously confused, if you’re looking for another galaxy with another expansion event in it. We regularly observe many, many galaxies on a nightly basis. Scientists world wide are able to reanalyze the CMB and continually observe space and repeatedly see the evidence and analyze it to their hearts’ content.

"Your rebuttals to God’s miracles shows that you are not willing to accept God. If God is who He says He is why is stopping time so hard to believe? If you want to see God’s miracles look up the revivals in Brownsville and Toronto. The fact that you haven’t shows that you really don’t give any weight to the things of God and thus will not accept the Truth until your heart is ready."
Essentially, if you can’t prove it, I must be unable to accept it. Yeah, that’s about right. If you can’t prove any of your claims, bugger off with them. As far as the silly revivals go… yeah, great, some people became passionate at the sermons of their ministers. Nifty… but hardly evidence of anything. Maybe you mean the healings? Hey, provide medical evidence of the illnesses before and after and their lack of medical treatment (because it was god, not medical science, right?) and I’ll take it into consideration. You cite supposed miracles with no actual evidence!

"Where has science disproved the existence of God?"
Science has mostly disproved the existence of God insomuch as anything can be disproved. Do some reading on your own. If there is a god, it is hiding and leaving no trace of itself. Heck, here’s another book recommendation: God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger http://amzn.com/1591024811

Where in all of science have we created life from inanimate matter?"
I was hoping you’d ask this. Researchers have, for several years, been working on creating custom DNA sequences and culturing man-made living tissue from scratch. This year, there was a major breakthrough in this endeavor. Additionally, a pair of chemists in the 50s experimented with early Earth atmospherics and inorganic elements under varied conditions and electrocuted it to simulate lightning strikes to propose the creation of biological material from inorganics. The hypothesis on early Earth atmospherics evolved with new data and more recently, researchers have been able to simulate it more accurately. In both cases, amino acids were created, thus life from inorganic material.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja801058h
http://www.physorg.com/news171263002.html

"I did not say that there wasn’t a logical explanation, I was saying that people often don’t act logical. Our world is controlled by humans and thus does not abide by the rules of logic. More often than not, decisions are made by emotions or improper motives. Logic does not usually throw the deciding vote."
What you said is still inaccurate. People don’t appear to act logically when outside observers do not have all of the variables accounted for. That’s simply a perspective or perception issue, not an absence of logic. Our world is mostly dominated by humans, but not wholly controlled by it. It is evident every day that the world and natural events within it can have a domineering effect on humankind and its actions. When a decision is made using emotion, the logic is subjective. To the decider and the factors the decider is accounting for, the decision is logical. This is the difference between relative and universal.

"What concern to is it who I defend? It is of no consequence to you. You look for arguments that have nothing to do with you."
You’re going to have to rewrite that sentence in a more cohesive, coherent manner. It is not just your spelling, but also your grammer which brings fault to your written communication skills. I’ll go out on a limb here and presume you mean my condemnation of your defense of a child killing madman named Joshua. I used Joshua as an example of violence in the bible. You defended Joshua. I remarked how sick that is. It rolled back and forth from there. In the bigger picture, it means nothing to me either way what you believe. However, if you use it in conversation, I’ll respond in kind.

"So why not accept the possibility of God? You have no evidence to oppose it, yet you make a verdict."
Possibility means nothing. Anything is possible. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible. Why do you not accept the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Neither of us have any evidence to oppose the Flying Spaghetti Monster, yet we both make the same verdict with it. For the umpteenth time, the burden of proof is on existence, not nonexistence.

"I get that you are of a heritage that has atrocities in its past. I understand that you are repulsed by them. But do you understand why they did what they did? Do you understand the mentality behind it?"
The big ones were viking raids and Roman land expansions. Their motivations were well documented as being greedy in nature.

Leave a Comment