Friday, March 19, 2010

WHY DID GOD LIE TO US?

"Religion is The Great Lie that perpetually re-tells itself"
-Saint Brian the Godless

***

Why did God lie to us?

***

This is what we've figured out by ourselves, with our own eyes and brains, using logic and reason, which is to say science:

The Earth is at least 4.5 *billion* years old, if not more.

The Universe is at least 13 billion years old, if not more. Quite possibly much more.

Starlight coming from the very nearest of the stars, traveling at 186,232 miles per second, takes about *four and one half years* to get here from there. A very long way off

The farthest stars are thirteen billion light-years away. The light that we see coming from them is 13 billion years old. How did God make it, if the universe is young? In mid-space traveling to here so we'd think it were old? He thinks of everything, that deceptive, cagey God of ours. What a good liar! Of course He is, He's good at everything.

Dinosaurs died 65 million years ago. But many species became our birds. This is established science now. The birds are the remnants of the dinosaurs, which is easy to see that if you really look at them.

First "people" (Ramipithecus) 10 million years ago or less. They only stood three feet high.

First appearance of homo sapiens (That's us): about 130,000 years ago or more. Which is a lot longer than the bible tells us.

First human civilizations, villages, towns etc.: 130,000 years ago or more

Recorded History: About the last 5000 years or so. This is a very brief period of time when you look at how long we have been here. We've been here 26 times longer than we've written about it. What we know of history is only one twenty-sixth of the story of mankind. I find that amazing.

Christ: If He even lived at all, lived about 2000 years ago.

Christianity, about the same obviously.

One Hundred and Thirty Thousand Years of people being pretty much the same as we are today, sans our technology of course. We really know about only 5000 or so of those, except for archeological digs. Only two thousand years of it under Christianity. And even today, this minute, there are over 600 living religions on this world. Multiply that by two hundred thousand years. That’s an enormous number of religions and belief systems. All of them claimed or still claim to be the one, true religion, too. But we're the right ones. Yeah. We got it right, finally. Sure we did.

One can see how unlikely it is that the Bible is correct. By many, many different yardsticks it doesn't measure up to the easily observable facts. So, it's not literally true. This is a simple answer to a simple question. Logic dictates that it is not true in a literal way.

My original question was, "Why did God lie to us?" By this I mean, if He put things here that point clearly to the Bible truths not being true at all, isn't that a deception? However, if the Bible isn't true, and if He was responsible for the text of the bible, He lied there. So, either way, dishonesty from God.

The only other option possible is that science is right after all, and the Bible is allegorical, which doesn't reduce its beauty or value one whit. But many Christians will accept nothing less than complete victory in this argument. Their way or the highway. Afraid that if the Bible isn't true word-for-word, then their Faith means nothing. That, to me, is the real sin here.

Another point that I can make is that even in the Bible, God has been caught in a lie. It's in there. God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh, which can only mean that if God had not done that, the Pharoah would have been lenient with the Israelites. Hardening someone's heart against something is a deception, pure and simple.

So let's dispose once and for all with this Bible that everyone believes is so infallible in spite of it being rife with logical contradictions and outright hypocrisies, not to mention so much hatred and pride and self-righteousness and all the terrible examples that God the Father gives us as His Children to follow. We're long overdue. We've outgrown it, truly we have. It is only holding us back, keeping our thinking in the bronze age. It retards us, quite literally, and quite intentionally.

Christians = Children scared in a self-imposed darkness.
Science = The Light Switch

Got it now? Good.

Now go forth and multiply. Oh, and divide, subtract, and add as well. Get some education, come back, and then we can have an adult conversation. Tell me why God lied.

1,445 comments:

  1. If you're trying to reason with a Christian, its impossible. Their ego won't allow them to see more than it is willing to handle, it would send them into an identity crisis.
    They've no way to know/feel their truth since they've only been told lies and illusions from day one.

    What irks me is that "Christians" only want to conform to human opinions and existing scripture, because it is the ego's dream of salvation. They don't even acknowledge the EGO! What is ironic is that if they don't free themselves from the hypnotic spells of those that claim to lead them to salvation, they are spiritually dead anyways. They will only AWAKEN when they can know the truth within their hearts. "Discernment" needs to be used!

    Not for us to judge what others think/believe I guess...but its great to know that more people are questioning and sensing what resonates and not, instead of just accepting all this ancient nonsense. :-)

    Great thoughts, details, factoids, thanks O'St Brian!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why did God lie to us?

    Good question.
    Of course, there is no good answer.
    Why would a perfect being who is all powerful need to lie?

    Why would he need to make his book so contradictory?

    Why would he not make himself evident?

    Why doe he need total submission?

    Why is he jealous of other gods?

    I dunno. It seems, to me, as if he is more a petty human than a god.

    When Christians try to explain that God lied in the Bible because things were different then than now, it brings forth more questions for me.
    If he knows all, he would know that what is evil is evil, time is no factor. Murder is murder. Slavery is slavery. Racism is racism.
    If we accept that these things are evil, surely a being living outside of time should have seen it too. Those things were no less evil when committed in the Bible than they are today. The only difference is, they had "God's blessing".
    God didn't know that shit was evil?
    He really thought global genocide was a great idea?

    If I were to believe anything in the Bible, I would be forced to believe that Yahweh is evil. No way I see around that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian,

    Where did God lie to us? Specifically?

    I believe that Faith is a reasoned trust.

    There are 8,810 promises in the Bible.

    As a Christian, we should grow Intellectually, Spiritually, Socially, Physically and Emotionally every day.


    We must always go a step up. And eventually the steps lead us to another stage.

    Unfortunately, a very high percentage of Christians and their churches leave their brains at the doors and only go off of emotions.

    They will not grow unless they grow in all characteristics.

    You have to think things through in your faith and that includes doubting it.

    The Bible is true in so many different ways. A lot of the stories show examples to our own lives.

    Faith is a reasoned trust. It's intellectual. And it's a growing experience.

    I tend to think you focus too much on a fundamentalist interpretation. If that's the case, make sure in your posts that you are specifying what you are against.

    You're not against Christianity. You're against a fundamentalist, literal interpratation that you share with them. One believes and one thinks it's crazy.

    You have to move past this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, god lied to the Jews faces in Ezekiel 20, specifically verses 21 through 26, purposfully leading them to sacrifice their children.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Where did God lie to us? Specifically?

    In Genesis, Botts.
    No, not in the creation myth. I'll allow that to be allagorical, just for you.

    Where God lies is in the story of man's downfall, original sin.
    God tells Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge. God, Adam, or both, tell Eve not to eat from the tree. To eat of this fruit means they would surely die, "You shall die in that day"
    Poor Adam and Eve had no clue as to what was or was not good or evil. That was in the tree, remember?
    Along comes the serpent, telling Eve she will not die if she eats the fruit....she didn't "die in that day".
    Did god lie to her?

    If we believe that God's threats of death were to mean spiritual death, why is it that God was so ambiguous? Especially considering Adam and Eve had NO knowledge of good or evil - they would feel no threat from spiritual death, they had no understanding of such concepts. God said all that earlier, right?

    Still, we are faced with a god that would put completely innocent(naive) people face to face with evil incarnate.
    Why would God expect Eve NOT to believe the snake? She was not equipped to make such decisions UNTIL she ate of the fruit, no way she could have known the serpent was evil.

    All of which leads us to see original sin is a lie. If not, we are being eternally held accountable for God being angry that a snake that he placed in the garden bested him one agternoon???

    ReplyDelete
  6. Botts, we differ here. You and I disagree on what the Bible really is.

    You do not take it literally. Fine. But even if it's only figurative or allegorical, it still is a bunch of silly lies on the surface. Who in their right mind 'embeds' spiritual truths within a piece of literature that is, on the face of it, a pack of lies and illogical myths? So what if you or others can eke out some 'universal truths' from it all? Good for you, but the surface of it all is still a pack of blatant evil obvious lies, and more people believe in it literally at least to some extent than figuratively anyhow, so it doesn't really matter to my point here.

    I'm speaking to the ones that take it literally, obviously, as you noted, but also to those that are influenced by it's hypocrisy and skewed moral system, it's moral coercion. And that would be ALL OF US.

    Our culture is saturated with that, all of it from people that took it literally in some way and insisted that we all do, all through our history. For instance, many liberal christians and even many atheists do not see how evil the Church is, because it's the Church, which must be a good organization becaused it's the Church, etc.

    Pope Benedict belongs in jail, btw. Just saying. The reason that he is not? Skewed morality. His, and the police's and the investigators who would normally look into such a thing and take it seriously. If he wasn't the Pope, that is.

    We'd have a lot fewer evil people without all that INTENTIONAL cultural conditioning to not know what the hell real morality is. Christian pseudomorality permeates our society, and makes even nonchristians not know how to be moral. No clue. They never found out that morality requires genuine empathy, and not prayer and pennance and confession and fear of Hell. That is the great moral flaw of Christianity. That's what I'm talking about here. It affects all of us to different extents. Coercive morality isn't morality, it's just something that takes it's place in the mind of the believer. Something really harmful to us all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You're not against Christianity.
    --------------
    I'm getting there. The more I examine it, the more I can see the extent of the sheer, horrific evil. I see more every day. It's practically a bottomless pit of evil. All of its good is put there in the service of its evil, not the reverse.

    Even the 'good ones' like you are still conditioned to believe in nonsense, and that can't be a good thing. Even if you only do good acts in the world, you're still believing at least to some extent in a nonsensical two-thousand-year-old fairy tale, no offense. That's how strong a lie it is. And frankly, that disturbs me greatly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For instance Botts, you believe that Jesus Christ walked this earth as a man.

    Any unconditioned person would see that it is highly unlikely that such was ever so, if they cared to look.

    The more you investigate it, the more you see the carefully constructed tapestry of lies and apologies, which are also lies. When you keep seeing MORE and not LESS the more you look closely, it pretty much invalidates the whole thing.

    And yet you, a rational person, cannot see that simple thing that is so very visible if you care to look for it. If you put yourself into the minds of the people that were trying to make a political instrument of the Christ Cult at Nicea, examine their writings and motives, just that is 'proof' enough that Jesus is likely a myth, even a superimposition of several itinerant preachers that likely walked the earth back in the day.

    They needed the cheese for the mousetrap. Or maybe it's a sheeptrap. Whatever. So they made up Jesus. He's really, really nice too, except when He's not, which is of course, another clue.

    Tough to swallow, eh? Well, that's the conditioning, dude. Not your fault.

    Still love ya. Not trying to offend. Just need to tell you exactly how I feel about it, so you know.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Starlight coming from the very nearest of the stars, traveling at 186,232 miles per second, takes about *four and one half years* to get here from there."

    I'm going to be nerdy and picky here, but the fact is Brian, and starlight from the nearest star is only 8 minutes old.

    You know this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not sure how little it would take for Botts to defend the 'truths' of the Quran.

    Either way it would be 'telling', don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Y'Ever watch a Christian getting arrested for attempted pederasty on MSNBC?

    Here's how you can tell that what the religion provides for thses people is not moral guidance but an *excuse* to be what they are.

    When they find out that they're in trouble the first thing out of their mouths is 'I'm a Christian' in some form. They really think it solves everything. 'I'm a Christian, so obviously even though I'm here to meet that thirteen year old boy and you have all of my perverted chat logs, there's no way that I was meaning anny of it, and I'm only here to 'counsel' the poor boy.

    That's how it goes. Check it out sometime.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not sure if Botts would be willing to defend the 'truths' in the Quran, but either way it would be 'telling' don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm going to be nerdy and picky here, but the fact is Brian, and starlight from the nearest star is only 8 minutes old.
    --------------------
    Ahhh, that was a sin of pride there, pboy.

    I stand corrected. If you count the sun, indeed it is between eight and ten minutes or so, as far as I can recall.

    Let's not count the sun though. After that, Proxima Centauri is nearest, and that is a tad over four light years away, as the spacesuited crow flies.

    Thank you so much for that correction of my misapprehension. I am indebted to you forever.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think that Christians, the one's who think about it anyways, are 'saying' that their GOD is beyond the understanding of us mere mortals, but what they REALLY mean is that their faith is beyond reason.

    The Catholic church and theistic philosophy spends a LOT of time trying to convince us that their faith IS 'reasoned' and not much time rooting pedophiles out of it's organization, and I think that that it 'telling' for a reasonable person. Not so much for the faithful.

    ReplyDelete
  15. but what they REALLY mean is that their faith is beyond reason.
    -------------
    Absolutely. That is the same as admitting that their faith does not stand up to reason, to logic, to science. So believe it anyhow, all bets are off here, we're talking about GOD... blah blah blahbitty blah. Oh yeah, and mystery. Heavy on the mystery.

    What a foolish con. It amazes me that it works so well.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Not sure if Botts would be willing to defend the 'truths' in the Quran, but either way it would be 'telling' don't you think?
    --------------
    There's nothing that Botts can say about the Bible that he couldn't say about the Koran, if he knew it as well. They're both verbal rohrshack tests. You see what you want to. That's another way you can tell that they're both evil books. Any book that purports to tell humanity how to live their lives and what rules to follow (or else!!!) and is not absolutely crystal clear about all of that is by definition an evil thing, given the nature of humankind.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Waking up said,

    If you're trying to reason with a Christian, its impossible. Their ego won't allow them to see more than it is willing to handle, it would send them into an identity crisis.
    They've no way to know/feel their truth since they've only been told lies and illusions from day one.

    What irks me is that "Christians" only want to conform to human opinions and existing scripture, because it is the ego's dream of salvation. They don't even acknowledge the EGO! What is ironic is that if they don't free themselves from the hypnotic spells of those that claim to lead them to salvation, they are spiritually dead anyways. They will only AWAKEN when they can know the truth within their hearts. "Discernment" needs to be used!

    Not for us to judge what others think/believe I guess...but its great to know that more people are questioning and sensing what resonates and not, instead of just accepting all this ancient nonsense. :-)

    Great thoughts, details, factoids, thanks O'St Brian!
    March 19, 2010 7:32 PM
    ----------------------------------------

    And you base your assumptions upon what ? Your unbelief in Christianity ? Or would it be YOUR ego?
    Someone tells you they love you ! How do you know this to be true? You cant see love, you cannot rationalize love, nor is love logical. Love is a word used to describe how you feel about a person or an object. I have often heard that love is blind ,is that true? So in reality almost ever person living base their entire life and relationships on a felling that is neither rational or logical. How many lies and illusions have you bought into by believing what somebody told you. Those same words you received and embraced by FAITH. Yes?

    What irks me is people such as” yourself “ have no real knowledge or true understanding of what it is to have a real personal relationship with a God who you say does not exist based on your understanding you received at the hand of some other unbeliever. So in truth all you are doing is parroting someone else’s unbelief that was forced feed to you …
    Salvation is not a mere dream …It is an absolute fact of spiritual reality to those who have sought Jesus with all their heart mind and soul. The sad part for you is, you will never be able to obtain this truth as long as you abide in unbelief…
    You are right about one thing though, it is nonsense to the unbeliever, why ? Because it is so simple. but to those who believe to the salvation of the soul it is the power of Gods mercy through grace.

    That’s the problem with so many people today , you thought it could be had by accepting it as a possibility.
    That type of faith will NOT work… You don’t even have the slightest Idea what you are talking about. You’re on the outside looking in ,but you can not see because you are blind.
    If these words sound harsh to you ,then know that is not my intent… there is just no way to but it mildly.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mike said: "Salvation is not a mere dream… It is an absolute fact of spiritual reality to those who have sought Jesus with all their heart mind and soul."

    Yeah, not for me, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mike, maybe we all buy into illusions in one way or another, but we atheists and agnostics have at least seen the really HUGE illusions, and have avoided them. You know, the ones that are easy to spot using simple logic. Like religion. The really HUGE lies, we manage to steer around. Too bad you cannot know what that feels like. It's very liberating.

    She is right about you, my friend. Sorry to so inform. And the fact that you do not see it, means nothing whatsover. In fact, that is the primary symptom of a delusion.

    Not that you're not a nice guy, probably. Just very deluded from birth.

    I know it makes you angry to hear such things. Ego-based delusions always react with anger when they are threatened. It's how the ego works, which is why she mentioned it the way she did.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What irks me is people such as” yourself “ have no real knowledge or true understanding of what it is to have a real personal relationship with a God who you say does not exist based on your understanding you received at the hand of some other unbeliever.
    -----------
    Nope, all you need is a pair of eyes and no conditioning. Then it's easy to see that religion is delusion. We can see it. We can also 'see' our 'belief system' because it's based on things that are actually visible and observable in the universe, not vague stories that are believed 'on faith.'

    Faith = Believing in something with no proof whatsoever.
    So it's just another word for induced gullibility. Induced by your religion so as to neuter your ability to descriminate truth from falsehood. If you have enough 'faith' and really wish for it, you can have a 'personal experience' of the Tooth Fairy. No seriously. If you really believed in the tooth fairy and constantly thought about possibly being 'born again' as a Tooth Fairy believer, guess what can and will happen eventually? You will have an experience that nobody else can see, that seems to you to be the Tooth Fairy communicating with you soul-to-soul, or whatever type of experience you were expecting it to be. That's just basic human psychology, Mike.

    You can't even 'see' your religion as we can 'see' our science or logic or reason; you cannot ever point to any one tiny jot of hard evidence for it. Instead you have to 'have faith' that it's real without seeing any of it, just believing that it's real with no good reason to other than your conditioning. And as to your personal relationship with God being proof of anything here, ask the three Napoleans in the nearest mental institution about how real their delusions seem to them. Then apply it to yourself. Think about the nature of a delusion. Think about the fact that the person who is deluded cannot see it, period. KNowing that, knowing how it works, how can even you 'faithful christian' dismiss the very real possibility that we are right about it, and you are indeed deluded? If you are sane, you must consider it. And you cannot dismiss it just because you don't feel deluded, remember. Because that's how a delusion works. You'd need to really do your own research and learn to think for yourself and not automotically 'apologize' everything that you see that goes against your religion. You'd have to really think and look into all of it, ask uncomfortable questions both of your religion and of yourself. You'd have to actually consider the possibility that you are indeed wrong here, in order to see that you are indeed wrong here.
    And since you are conditioned, as we can plainly see, I fear that this is an impossibility for you now. It's too late. You've become set in concrete by now. No hope for anything to break through the wall. It's over.

    This makes me rather sad, so I keep trying to reach you. Forgive me my efforts, since I'm sure they make you uncomfortable, but that cannot be avoided if I want to tell you the truth about yourself. You deserve the truth. I'm sure that you hear it rarely, considering how it's apparent that most of your peer group are also deluded along with you in the same manner.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jesus must have been devine.

    How else could he have made it so the more one examines him, the more one finds him to be non-sense?

    That's a trick worthy of a god !

    ReplyDelete
  22. I like that comparison of faith to love.

    Think about it for a second how many people have told each other that they love, well, each other.

    But on average, after five years and likely some kids, who they no doubt 'love with all their hearts' too, they get divorced, because that love disappeared.

    Now, I know you can turn tables on that entire idea by saying something stupid like, 'well, it wasn't REAL love, which 'abides' forever', but that is ridiculous, the same as your 'faith but not REAL faith' thing.

    The truth is that love IS all in your mind the same as faith is all in your mind and in the minds of anyone who has ever written about it.

    The entire Bible about what some people thought and God was as real to them as God is real to you, which is to say entirely imaginary.

    Since all believers believe common things like the sky is blue along with non-believers, it is YOU who is in a bubble of faith not believing guys in other faith bubbles(Catholics, Mormons, Muslims and such) as well as not believing in non-belief.(which is ridiculous to compare and pretend that atheism is 'religion-like')

    Only difference between you and other magical thinkers is the specific magic that you believe. Atheists don't believe in magic at all.

    That's not too hard to grasp, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Romantic love is the only delusion into which I entered into consciously, with my eyes open to the *fact* that it is indeed a delusion. The benefits of this particular delusion outweigh the risks, IMHO, in a good situation of course. For instance my wife and I have known each other for four years, married for three, a beautiful new baby and a cool dog, and sure it's all in our minds, but it is the best thing in my life and I couldn't imagine being without her anymore, nor could she imagine being without me. I can even know that; we are that close. There is nothing I cannot tell her and vice-versa. And usually words aren't even necessary; it's like we read each other's minds. We also laugh an awful lot. All the time. It's a real, selfless love, almost bordering on agape instead of eros. A combination of agape and eros. There. That's it.

    I propose to you (all of you) that even knowing that it's all in the mind, sharing this admitted delusion with another person produces (or can produce, and did in my case) a self-feeding cycle, or 'vicious circle' situation, only a positive, mutually beneficial one. If BOTH partners care for the other partner as much as they care about themselves, for real, and do things to make the other happy as much as they can just because they feel like it, because their happiness hinges upon the happiness of the other (due to that delusion there) the delusion deepens, becomes not more delusional but more powerful in the sense that the two people can become very close and literally instead of it 'fading' with time it deepens, becomes broader and more of a sense of enhanced general unsinkable almost euphoric happiness, plus a very powerful source of strength in adverse times. It's a voluntary symbiosis at that level, and like any true symbiosis, it benefits both partners. I can attest to this, as stated, through personal experience. My wife and I love each other more every single day, and it's apparent. We couldn't hide it if we tried.

    And additionally, in this scenario both people grow as persons. Much faster than one person can 'evolve' on their own. It's just how it is. In this situation both partners benefit, even as to their personal evolution, their intellectual evolution, even presumably their 'spiritual' evolution if they believe in such a thing.

    So yes, I agree that love, at least the romantic variety, is indeed a delusion, but perhaps its the only beneficial delusion that there is for us poor creatures in this harsh and random reality.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Comparing Faith to Love, if it's the love as I've described it, is comparing an empty cup to a full one.

    Both may be a delusion in the long run, but the latter does not require that the person believe themselves right and all others who do not share their faith wrong. Such a delusion does not separate people and divide them; it makes both partners better people toward all other people because they're feeling fulfilled here and now in this world rather than in the empty promise of the next one. Such a delusion creates empathy and selflessness rather than their opposites. Such a delusion opens people up rather than closing them off. Such a delusion, I can live with. And I do. Plus, unlike my Christian counterparts, I even get to know it's a delusion, and still not care one iota.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I will add that most 'love' is indeed a delusion, and not a good one in the end. I'd call it a 'glamour.' That's a great word for it.

    Hence the divorce rate, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Would you call the love you have for your son a delusion?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jerry, I almost consider all of you posting here a delusion. Recall my BB scenario.

    Romantic love is admittedly a delusion ONLY in the sense that, if both parties or even one of them do not believe in it, it evaporates.

    So it's not 'real' like math or a volkswagen is real, but it is arguably the most rewarding experience that we mere humans can have, if it's done right, if it's unselfish mutual love.

    As to my son, I manifested him, and I love him more than I do me, even though oddly enough in the most solipsistic interpretation of the BB, only I exist, and he is a part of me, as are you for that matter. I like the feelings, so I consciously choose to feel them, even though the hard realist in me might assert that it's all not real just because it is in a sense a delusion. That hard realist cannot ever know love, and I don't wish to go that route. So I allow myself to be deluded, as it were, but all the while knowing that the fact that it's a delusion, in this case, doesn't matter. Love is worth it. God however, is not. Because unfortunately, God is decidedly NOT love. Just read His book.

    And if the BB is real, let's say, then love might just be the ONLY REAL THING THERE IS, and everything else the delusion.

    I have to consider that.

    Heck, who knows? All I do know is, it's not the same kind of negative delusion, pathological delusion, harmful delusion, as is religion. It's life-affirming, not life-negating. Huge difference. It empowers both of the participants and allows them to see everything, to see reality, MORE clearly if anything, not through a glass darkly as does religion. It makes them both better people.

    It's not a lie, even though it may technically be a delusion. Religion is both a lie, and a delusion. The delusion part was created to hide the lie.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A slime mold solves a complex maze not by thinking about it and deducing the shortest path but by experimentally trying out all paths and then once it happens upon the most direct path, discarding all others. This is how I approach the maze that is reality. So I consider and even experimentally 'believe in' diverse things to see where that takes me, and quickly try to discard all paths that make no sense to my faculty of discernment. So perhaps my comments about love are nonsensical in light of my previous statements about beliefs. I can only apologize for what must seem an inconsistancy. Nobody's perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I wouldn't go so far as to say love is a delusion.

    It's a feeling. But feelings can change and be changed. Our bodies are feed-back loops and pain can make us feel bad therefore feeling bad causes us pain.

    I think that love is like this but I don't think that faith is like this at all.

    Just because they are both hard to describe doesn't mean that they're 'the same'.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Maybe some people confuse having a sense that 'all is right with the world' or being at peace with the world' is their 'faith'.

    But, it's not.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Love is being in love with a real person who you can interact with, touch, talk with, etc...

    Faith is like being in love with Scarlette Johannsen. Sure, you can talk about her with other people (church), look at her on the internet (the bible), etc... but otherwise, it REALLY is ALL in your head. She has no idea who you are, but you think you know her.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Unfortunately, this present thread, comparing and contrasting "love" with "faith" will, it seems to me, always fail for three reasons:
    1) Like it or not and even though there are many similarities, these two terms describe different things, albeit they are both emotions that cannot be measured or quantified.
    2) Man has spent thousands of years (or at least roughly 2000) trying to agree to what these two words actually mean. Moreover, even if we think we agree, limitations of human language simply make it impossible for any one person to accurately convey to another exactly what they are "feeling". One only needs to read a little of the world's literature on the subject to see that this difference and inability to agree to exact meaning continues to confound even the most poetic among us to express it.
    3) Although it is true that "faith" (at least the religious variety) and "love" (the between two people variety) answer a biological "need" and can be demonstrated to have species survival value, neither of them is essential to individual survival, as has been demonstrated over the millennia by myriad people who have lacked one or both of them and still been able to live "successful" (whatever definition thereof you choose) lives, who were able to achieve some level of personal satisfaction and even to have impacted other people in positive (again, your definition) ways during their lives. Clearly, the real difference between "love" and "faith" lies in the fact that the former applies to interactions between real, living individuals and the latter only has meaning in regard to a hoped for afterlife.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Brian, The question about the love you have for your son was not factious. I was very serious in wanting to know how you saw it. I am well aware that you are coming from a concrete, sciencetific view point, and I wondered how you saw the parental love. I am not much into science, although I am extremely glad that many are, as the benefits we have from those who look at life from that view point would be hard to be over stated. On the other hand I am a philosopher, and so obviously you see my remarks as being delusional from your view point. No problem with that, but I do think you are short changing your self by not giving more credit to the reality than is not covered by the concrete viewpoint you endorse.
    I am curious if it is because of your thinking my viewpoints are delusional that you reject what I have called your attention to concerning the difference between the ideas of God that is promoted by organized religion, and the possibility of there being a God regardless of the obviously misleading scripture they endorse. It seems strange in this last topic you wrote that God is a lier, as though there is a God. Most of the time you say there is no God at all, so how could a nonexistent being be a lier? I relize you are speaking of the God of the bible, (which I think we agree is a man created God) but the whole idea you have put forth here is very loose talk, especally for you.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ryan said,

    Love is being in love with a real person who you can interact with, touch, talk with, etc...

    Faith is like being in love with Scarlette Johannsen. Sure, you can talk about her with other people (church), look at her on the internet (the bible), etc... but otherwise, it REALLY is ALL in your head. She has no idea who you are, but you think you know her.
    March 21, 2010 6:49 AM
    -----------------------
    I think you are all missing the point!

    You “Atheist, Agnostic, or whatever” On one hand condemn religious people for their faith in God using logic and reason as a justifiable means to do so, and then on the other hand you use logic and reason to validate a love that someone says they have for you, Yet you cannot possibly know for certain…
    After you receive their words of affection by” faith” you trust that the person is being honest in their “feelings” toward you.

    Love is a word that has meaning as is the word God.
    We cannot see love ,or God, but both are received by faith.

    Ryan ,I cannot interact with, touch, talk, or see my mother because she is dead. Yet I still love her!
    My Mother has no knowledge of me now that she is dead, yet I can assure you my love for her is not just in my head…

    ReplyDelete
  35. Clearly, the real difference between "love" and "faith" lies in the fact that the former applies to interactions between real, living individuals and the latter only has meaning in regard to a hoped for afterlife

    faith 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing 2. belief that is not based on proof
    Is it not faith that you have as a surgeon that your patient will probably benefit from your surgery?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Mike; Even though your mother is dead, you love her because the memories of her are in your brain, which is still alive.

    Just like me and my Dad.

    I think you'll have to conced it's not a two way relationship. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ryan, Are you saying that love has to be a two way thing? Although one may be able to see the evidence of love in outside action, is not love residing within the person doing the loving?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Is it not faith that you have as a surgeon that your patient will probably benefit from your surgery?
    ----------
    Only if he or she never has operated before. If they have experience to draw upon, or are assisted on their first time by a more experienced surgeon than it's not faith so much as self-confidence.

    ReplyDelete
  39. You “Atheist, Agnostic, or whatever” On one hand condemn religious people for their faith in God using logic and reason as a justifiable means to do so, and then on the other hand you use logic and reason to validate a love that someone says they have for you, Yet you cannot possibly know for certain…
    ----------------
    Apples and orangutans, Mike and you shold know it.

    The other person EXISTS. In your scenario, not only can you not be sure that God loves you but you can't even be sure that He exists.

    And incidentally, I was specifically referring to mutual selfless love in my posts being 'worth it' as an illusion, and you return with one person infatuated with another one that may or may not return it. Isn't that called a 'straw man?'

    Plus, if one uses logic and reason to determine that they love someone, it's not love. I've stated that love isn't logical side, it's emotional side, of course. And if a person used logic and reason to come to believe that another person loved them and they turned out to be WRONG, then their logic and reason were fallacious.

    One loves not because logic and reason indicate that the other person is the correct one to love, but because the emotions are there for the other person, the feelings, but then one also hopefully 'vets' the situation with logic and reason. It's called discernment I believe. If done correctly better results tend to occur. Trust me, as someone that in the past often ignored that intellectual vetting process because the sex was great or whatever. That is technically called 'thinking with the wrong head.'

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jerry said "Ryan, Are you saying that love has to be a two way thing?"

    At first it does. I love the memory of my dad, and I love what he was, but I don't love "him" anymore, because "he" no longer exists.

    But that's just symantics. I think real love has to start as a two way thing, but it can continue after one of the parties goes away. Like you said, it resides in the one doing the loving.

    ReplyDelete
  41. As an aside, want to know what I think the number one error men commit when they fall for a woman?

    They fail to realize the importance of the personality. They find other things, looks, smarts, horniness, whatever, but if she's not just one of the nicest people that you ever want to meet, then you've made a mistake, period. That's what really counts in the long run. Oh, and as a part of that, does she believe in true love or not? Is she cynical about love? Or are you? Because that's just the absolute kiss of death. Like other 'delusions' if you don't buy into it, if you just can't believe it, then it can't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I take it the way you are using the word delusion that many ideas, such as how old the earth is or how many light years to many places in the universe etc is delusions. Is that correct?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I wonder how much of love is encoded in us. As newborns we bond to our parents, and do so often regardless of whether or not they return the sentiment. I've seen enough people that are still seeking approval from parents that honestly just don't give a shit about them. So that type of love can indeed be one-way, no? Or the mother that still finds it in her heart to love her son even after he's spurned her in some horrible manner and left the home for good, even after he no longer seems to love her at all. Unrequited love can be just as real in the mind as the requited variety.
    So that would be a variety of the ilusion of love that I wouldn't find 'worth it' and so would try to avoid.

    Is it really true love if only one of the two parties involved are feeling it? I wouldn't say so. But perhaps it's still some variety of love. Then again, you could as easily define it as an obsession, so perhaps not.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Faith is like being in love with Scarlette Johannsen. Sure, you can talk about her with other people (church), look at her on the internet (the bible), etc... but otherwise, it REALLY is ALL in your head. She has no idea who you are, but you think you know her.
    -------------
    Hey, even that's not anough of a distinction here. At the least, I can easily prove to myself and to anyone that cares to listen that Scarlet Johannsen EXISTS.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Brian: " I can easily prove to myself and to anyone that cares to listen that Scarlet Johannsen EXISTS."

    Right, it's not a perfect metaphor. I guess my point was that the version of Scarlet Johannsen that any fanboy knows doesn't actually exist.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I take it the way you are using the word delusion that many ideas, such as how old the earth is or how many light years to many places in the universe etc is delusions. Is that correct?
    -----------
    I can point to evidence for those.

    What can one point to as evidence that one's love for their wife for instance, really exists?

    If I do not believe in how distant the stars are, it doesn't change any of the science that tells how distant they are. If I do not believe in how old the rocks and fossils are, all of the evidence still exists that they are that old, regardless. However if I do not believe that I love my wife, I do not love my wife. Love is contingent on BELIEF. And since I generally loathe and despise all beliefs, it's a major concession for me to admit that there is one that I choose to like.

    If it disappears without a trace when I don't believe in it, it's in some sense similar to a delusion in that it's solely in my mind and not in the physical world. Those things you mentioned there don't qualify.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Jerry:

    In my pst I was trying to use "faith" in the religious sense, just as Observant did in his post that prompted my reply. In fact, you are pointing out precisely what I was trying to show: That we do not even agree upon what these words "love" and "faith' actually refer to when we discuss them. Clearly, "faith", in the religious sense, does not refer to human interactions. Rather, it only has meaning in regard to a person's relationship/interactions with his/her conception of God. "Love", on the other hand, regardless of the construct, refers to an emotional response to some other living thing, our tendency to go over the top when saying that we "love" some food or other inanaimate object notwithstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I can point to evidence for those.

    What can one point to as evidence that one's love for their wife for instance, really exists?

    There is MUCH more evidence that love for another exist in some instances than the evidence of the distance to some far off planet is a fact. You are buying such evidence on pure faith. For instance would you bet the life of your son, or your wife or yourself on the accuracy of the distance to some planet or the age of the earth? Do you trust the evidence that far? I realize this is a corn ball question, but if under circumstances that required it, would you?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Harvey, I thought that was how you were using it, but I find that many/most atheist only use faith in a religious sense but fail to qualify it, and the word has a much broader meaning. I do not see how a person could function very well without faith of different types in his/her life.

    ReplyDelete
  50. but if under circumstances that required it, would you?
    -------------
    A lot more than I would on a random feeling of love for some new person. But I'd say that I'm approaching a very deep level of certainty as regards my wife. So I'm as certain of her love as I am of the age of the earth, within a certain percentage allowing for random factors and human error of course.

    And if you're asking would I bet my son's life that this planet is waaaaay over ten thousand years old, way over a million, even way over a billion, I would (If I had to) bet just about anything on that. My own life, for instance. Or anybody's life, my son included. Again, only if necessary, but that's just because I don't feel comfortable betting on anything regardless of the odds. I'm not a gambler by nature. And on something that important I'd rather not have to bet on it no matter of how certain I am that I'd win. Just my natural caution though, not uncertainty.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Religious faith is faith in fellow humans far in the past who set up the religion. That's an easy thing to see is stupid.

    Faith in one's self is much more certain.

    Faith in things that have always worked that way before is not faith, it's your best guess based on concrete evidence.

    I have faith in things that my discretionary ability tells me are a good bet. But it's not absolute faith, either. It is more of a thought, not a belief. Based on evidence, not heresay and the word of people with extreme vested intersts in it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Okay, I'm on vacation and actually have the time to skim through posts.

    It is my opinion that everyone here has touched on a facet of truth of the bigger picture. And that is good.

    I actually like to read of everyone's take on life, reality, truth, faith, etc.


    My take is that first, romantic love does exist. I believe it's the first phase in a loving relationship. You know-, the initial attractions to someone which include the pheromones, physical, visual, emotional and "spiritual" (like when you feel/think/know and actually realize the two of you are soul mates)links/attractions/attachments to another.

    I believe that romantic love gives way to higher levels of love that Brian talks about.

    Brian, I'm trying to wrap my brain around your bb theory.
    And, at the same time I think that reality is played down in your view point, especially when you speak of some of the realities of life as delusions. Though, I'm totally with you on looking for more than just the physical qualities in a mate. The romance, the love -it's real -as it's expressed (manifests?) between the two people involved.

    Don't you think that it's possible that reality gives way to higher levels of love with your life partner?

    She is real. You can touch her, speak to her and desire to be around her. You know?

    Well, that's how I see it.

    Romantic love starts the spark and the higher levels and realities of love act as the "glue" keeping a couple together (not that romance can no longer be experienced... but granted, over time there are other aspects of a mate/lover which fulfills us in very different ways, sparking a deeper love for that person. Yes?

    Interesting conversation.

    I don't want to get into God being a liar. I think that the theories of Science are to be respected to that end. Science has not proven to provide complete truths on such lofty matters. I think that, in its own way, Science also demands a sort of "faith" from it's follower.
    On the other hand, I do not profess to have mastered either Science nor the Bible.

    So, I try to keep my beliefs, thoughts, convictions, etc in somewhat of a balance on the subject.
    (and, in that vein, I think there are some holes in your take on the matter but, what the heck, that's a journey we're all on and need to reconcile within our ownselves moreso than to argue over).

    BTW: in your last post, I was not trying to piss you off about that deal with the neo-nazi discussion.
    In actuality, I'm trying to wrap myself around this country's history: past, present and future.

    After seeing the History special on Hitler and the nazi/socialist parties in America it just got me to wondering who we really are what we're actually trying to accomplish in this country.
    Mr. Hall's comments disturbed me greatly - as it did you.

    Right now, my reality is nestled in the Shenandoah mountains and from our condo, at the highest part of the peak of one mountain - can see the entire resort below. Quite inspiring and peaceful.
    As I sit out on the porch and meditate I promise to think of each one of you here with good, kind and loving thoughts.

    Peace.

    PS. Obsy and all -- I find it very interesting that last night I was thinking about my deceased relatives and then I come on here today and see your discussions about the same topic!
    I would like to think that my deceased relatives, though bodies dead, their souls or spirits or whatever anyone here wishes to call it, (their life essence, etc) is living on.

    Maybe, Brian, we can agree on this point in the sense of your bb theory? Perhaps?

    G'nite all!

    Peace!

    MI

    ReplyDelete
  53. I'm not a gambler by nature. And on something that important I'd rather not have to bet on it no matter of how certain I am that I'd win. Just my natural caution though, not uncertainty.

    I appreciate your answer to that corn ball question. I see the certainty that you have being the same certainty that Observant has. Whatever you want to call it, to me it is faith. The only difference is I think you do not go to the absolute with it. Close maybe, but not the absolute. I am speaking of the certainty, not the subject matter.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Harvey said,

    on the other hand, regardless of the construct, refers to an emotional response to some other living thing, our tendency to go over the top when saying that we "love" some food or other inanaimate object notwithstanding.
    ---------------------------------

    I agree with you here, I just sold my 2005 Corvette … I thought I loved that car, but as it turned out it was all in my head…lol oh well!

    ReplyDelete
  55. I believe in tennis....

    Love means nothing!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Go watch CNN.
    Health care just passed.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yay!

    My condolences republicans. I feel your pain at not being able to deliver a win to your corporate masters. I'm sure also that is very traumatic for you that nowhere as many Americans will be dying in the future due to your sheer egotism and greed. Oh well.

    Did I mention YAY!!!???

    ReplyDelete
  58. Mac said,

    I believe in tennis....

    Love means nothing!
    March 21, 2010 11:33 PM
    --------------------------------

    Could you imagine what it would be like to live in a world without love, or where love has no meaning?
    There would be total Anarchy… It is love that constrains anarchy…Love and a few laws…

    ReplyDelete
  59. I think I agree with that, mike, but....

    But if all love proceeds from God, why is it that nonchristian countries still have a society and not anarchy?


    Conf. Word: Bibly. How appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I see the certainty that you have being the same certainty that Observant has.
    ---------------
    Certain is certain, Jerry. Why are you linking my certainty based on data to Observants based on feelings and wishful thinking? I've done the vetting process; he has not, he can not, as he is forbidden to even try. He bases it all on one single belief based on thin air. I base all of mine on hard science. The only 'faith' that is necessary with science is the assumption that the physical world is real and consistant, which to all intents and purposes, it surely is. You can observe that fact.

    Why are you bent on saying that it's the same when it's radically different? I do not understand.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Maybe, Brian, we can agree on this point in the sense of your bb theory? Perhaps?
    ------------------
    In the BB it is more likely that you are creating them rather than they are actually the ghosts of your relatives. However your creations of them, your 'delusion,' might be able to acces data that you cannot, so it would be a very realistic creation, if such were so.

    However it is also possible in the BB that there is an 'afterlife' as if this is all a dream, then death is also a dream. So it's hard to say. But the BB does allow for it where science does not.

    I hope you realize here that while I love to play around with the BB thing, at the same time I hold in my mind the opinion that it is likely all wrong and science is right. I just can't say either way. Or it might be something else that none of us have thought of yet of course. The one thing that is VERY unlikely in the BB or in science, is any God or gods being real. In the BB, the Gods are just like the ghosts of your dead relatives. They exist as a 'thought form' created by your memories and thoughts of them, but if you believe that they're real strongly enough, they can actually achieve a sort of independance from you and really act like a ghost (or a God) and not just a mere illusion. Even to the point where others might see or 'sense' them, if they are impressionable and inclined to believe in such things.

    In the BB, even a total fantasy, if believed in strongly enough, takes on a reality of it's own to the believer and even possibly to others. It just cannot conflict with the main story line of this reality in any large way, so not enough people will believe you enough to change the current disbelief in ghosts.

    In the BB, if everyone believed in Ghosts, we'd all be seeing them on a regular basis. It's all about belief. The problem here is, we are all mostly (with some religious exceptions) set in our beliefs that in order for something to be real, it must 'make sense' and 'fit in' with all the rest of reality that we already 'know' about, and that's not really possible now for ghosts, or for any God either.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Mike "It is love that constrains anarchy…"

    There's no anarchy in North Korea.

    I've never met a couple who's love I would describe as being the same as another couples. To me that implies that "love" is not an external, universal force of nature, but a product of human evolution and societal pressures.

    Kinda like with God. If god was real, and people truly expereienced god, then I would expect more consistent results.

    Love cannot be quanitified, becuase we cannot quantify and obsver the source of our emotions, our mind (not yet anyway).

    ReplyDelete
  63. And another thing about the BB...

    You might ask, based on my last points, whether if all the people believed in the exact same Christian God if that God would become real.

    No, and here's why:

    Science has created a vast pyramid of observed facts, and recorded them and built upon them. So the thoughts of science have been set into a stone-like matrix of recorded thought. Nothing can come along now and just violate that, because it's level of logical organization and consistancy is so much higher than mere religious faith.

    ReplyDelete
  64. There's no anarchy in North Korea.
    ----------
    Yeah, forgot about that. So I recant. I cannot agree with Mike on that anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  65. And also on reflection, even if we all believed in ghosts we wouldn't be seeing them, because that would again violate science and it's vast thought matrix of recorded data and observations. Since science has proven itself with concrete results, we have an awful amount of 'faith' in it now. Set and recorded and agreed-upon beliefs based on observed facts are hardest to change in the BB.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I’m not talking about a Christians love, I’m talking about the common love that almost all civilized human beings share towards one and another. I have seen many strangers come to the aid of those who were in despair as in the recent earthquakes and hurricanes the world has experienced.
    Love is what motivates people to be good and kind to strangers…

    You mentioned North Korea for example. The anarchy is within the government, they have no compassion or love for their fellow countrymen. The people of North Korea are a very humble sort . It is the anarchy that is within the government that is driving the people to lawlessness.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Mike; you are playing loose with definitions of almost every important word you use.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I’m not talking about a Christians love, I’m talking about the common love that almost all civilized human beings share towards one and another.
    ----------------------
    Yeah, that is definitely very different from Christian love.

    It's not self-focused and ego-based. It's actually based in real empathy.

    Most Christian love isn't love. It's supercilious and paranoid and judgemental in the extreme. They play-act at loving others because they believe it's necessary in order to get into heaven, or avoid hell etc.

    That of course can be traced back to the fact that their entire moral system is heavily flawed, being based in coercion and threats. Most of them wouldn't know genuine empathy if it bit them on the leg. In fact, most of them, when confronted with it, make fun of it instinctively, thinking it effeminate. They've been programmed to think that way so as to not ever develop genuine empathy themselves. It's a safeguard, like the other parts of the programming that makes fun of 'being smart.' Can't be having actual caring empathetic loving intelligent people as followers, or they would be able to see how uncaring, unintelligent, and unloving the religion really is and would leave it immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Case in point, the abortion debate.

    The Christian side purports to care SOOOOOOO much for the unborn babies, and yet they do not ever speak about the health and wellbeing of the mother or the baby itself AFTER it's born. In fact they have been easily manipulated into actually being unknowingly a part of the very reason that the mother and the already-born baby will likely have those problems. For instance, they are against universal health care. So they try to make damned well sure that that baby gets born... into a poor family in a drug and gang violence area perhaps, with no recourse when they get sick but to die. Or commit crimes of course.

    Tunnel-vision morals are not real morals. They're an act. That's all. I'm sure these people believe that they're really loving people, too. That lie, that belief, is also a part of the programming! After all, it's very important that the believers believe that they're the VERY BEST OF PEOPLE. No matter what assholes they are in reality.

    Mike, this is not necessarily you, but I've seen some evidence of it in you, so I dunno whether it applies or not. I'd bet that it does, though.

    I'm sure if you really knew what you really were, you'd change in a heartbeat.... So please don't feel bad. It's not your fault, as I've stated before. You were lied to by the very best, my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Certain is certain, Jerry. Why are you linking my certainty based on data to Observant's based on feelings and wishful thinking? I've done the vetting process; he has not, he can not, as he is forbidden to even try. He bases it all on one single belief based on thin air. I base all of mine on hard science. The only 'faith' that is necessary with science is the assumption that the physical world is real and consistant, which to all intents and purposes, it surely is. You can observe that fact.

    Why are you bent on saying that it's the same when it's radically different? I do not understand.

    "I just meant the feeling that you both have about how certain that you are on the right trip. I agree with you about the two different trips you, and him are on, but just the inner feeling is what I was referring to, not the truth of content. I think most people think they are believing what is right, and if they quite thinking their ideas were right would change them, and think differently. It is just you, and Observant are both unusually strong with your ideas that you think is right.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I think most people think they are believing what is right, and if they quite thinking their ideas were right would change them, and think differently.
    -----------------
    I do not really believe that science is definitely right, Jerry. You know that. Nor do I really believe that the BB is right, though I'd like it to be, or something similar, since it makes so much sense to me. But I think in percentages. Just ask my wife; she's quite amused by it.

    So here it is, laid out for you for your convenient reference:

    My probabilities listed below:

    -That the Christian God is real: 0.000000000000000000001 percent, or something similar. It's a finite number, so rejoice all ye faithful, there's a chance...

    -That science is absolutely right as it is now: 60 to 75%

    -My BB speculations: 25 to 40%

    -The probability that there is SOME God out there somewhere, any deity at all: About one percent, to be generous.

    My chances of getting laid tonight: 75%.

    I've honestly developed this mode of thought. I use it constantly. So I am absolutely never in any case certain of anything. However when my percentage of certainty is close to 100 I can feel about as certain as I am of anything.

    This is how I can entertain different lines of thought and pursue all of them simultaneously, as I do both science and my BB scenario. I am like that slime mold; I try all paths at once and then eliminate those that do not lead anywhere productive, leaving only the optimal path or paths for me to continue following up on.

    ReplyDelete
  72. In fact they have been easily manipulated into actually being unknowingly a part of the very reason that the mother and the already-born baby will likely have those problems. For instance, they are against universal health care. So they try to make damned well sure that that baby gets born... into a poor family in a drug and gang violence area perhaps, with no recourse when they get sick but to die. Or commit crimes of course.

    Tunnel-vision morals are not real morals. They're an act. That's all. I'm sure these people believe that they're really loving people, too. That lie, that belief, is also a part of the programming! After all, it's very important that the believers believe that they're the VERY BEST OF PEOPLE. No matter what assholes they are in reality.

    Mike, this is not necessarily you, but I've seen some evidence of it in you, so I dunno whether it applies or not. I'd bet that it does, though.

    I'm sure if you really knew what you really were, you'd change in a heartbeat.... So please don't feel bad. It's not your fault, as I've stated before. You were lied to by the very best, my friend.
    March 22, 2010 6:19 PM
    ---------------------------
    NO, NO, NO,.
    Christians are NOT against universal health care. Christians are against the financial burden they will be required to supply for the health care bill.
    The tax burden is overwhelming as it is.

    Brian you know there is no possible way on earth that Christians have any control whatsoever where any and all babies are born. You are manipulating the truth to justify your perception.
    I’m not familiar with the term tunnel vision morals so I’ll skip that one.
    Actually most Christian people I know admit often their life is far from perfect ,and not even close to the very best
    Funny how you can see the assholeness in Christians above all others…
    What I am is a sinner, saved by the grace of God. Nothing more or nothing less.
    I’m not the one that was lied to my friend, unfortunately it will take death for you to know what I already know… sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Ryan said,
    Mike; you are playing loose with definitions of almost every important word you use.
    March 22, 2010 4:46 PM
    ---------------
    Sorry you did not like… I thought it was dead on…

    ReplyDelete
  74. I suppose you may be right, Mike.

    A World Without Love might suck. However, I don't think it would necessarily lead to Anarchy. It may well lead to Tyranny?

    Love does mean something, I was just funnin' on the tennis bit.

    Love having meaning does not deter from the fact it (love) is misused far too often.
    I can point to religion as my example. Historically, christians' Love of God and Jesus have been used to control them.
    Think not?
    "You better be good, or you won't make it to Heaven and be with God".

    Yes, the theistically inclined Love their diety so much, they are blinded by it.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Mike; "Christians are against the financial burden they will be required to supply for the health care bill.
    The tax burden is overwhelming as it is. "

    Render unto Caeser baby.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Christians are against the financial burden they will be required to supply for the health care bill.
    ---------------
    So you are admitting your immorality? Very good sir. I commend you on your honesty.

    Money over people. And you can't see it. And you're supposed to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Pretty good evidence for conditioning, I'd say. You're acting a lot more like Judas, caring about those pieces of silver.

    You don't seem to be bothered by all the money for the wars though. Or the Bush tax cuts, which are still crippling us. Just spending some on saving lives, that for some reason you just can't accept.


    Plus Mike, it's paid for anyhow. You're just swallowing the lies that the republicans have spread. Because after all, they're good christians, right?
    The money is largely coming from the rich, those who earn over 200k a year, or 250k if it's a family. What in the hell are you thinking here? You're picking people who are wealthy being tapped a small percentage for the lives of those who cannot afford to live. Amazing. The wealthy will still be the wealthy, but the poor get to stay ALIVE.

    Wake the heck up, dude. You're following satan if it's anyone here.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Hey Mike, can you guess in which countries the abortion rate is the lowest in the western world?

    The ones that have universal health care. And their versions even pay for abortion.

    Now why is that, do you suppose? Can you answer that one in your black and white world?

    ReplyDelete
  78. And another thing regarding the abortion issue.

    Can you guys please realize that birth control is a heck of a lot better than abortion?

    You're not helping here. You're standing in the way of less death.

    Why? Can you guys not accept anything except absolute victory, your way or the highway, even if a lot more fetuses get aborted in the process? If you do not accept that sperm and egg count as life yet, what the hell do you have against preventing them from meeting before they BECOME life?

    From the outside, it sure looks stupid. And ammoral.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I'm starting to wonder if the Christians are against health care because they figure that most of the people that will die will 'only' be the poor or the lower middle class, and they're not really that important in the grand scheme of things.
    Plus a lot of them are minorities, so it's worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  80. These new health care rules are unconscionable! When people start actually getting what they are paying for from the health insurance, next thing you know they'll want what they pay for from other insurance policies and it could spread.

    Where is it going to end? People will want to get what they pay for from EVERY business!

    THIS road leads to in-insanity!

    Unconscionable! It really isn't the 'American way', which states, "There's a sucker born every minute and two to take him."

    The term, "You get what you pay for.", is supposed to be sarcasm, everyone knows this.

    ReplyDelete
  81. This is really getting ugly.

    I'm worried that people might get hurt. They're whipping up the hatred so much now. Can it be that they don't know what they're doing?

    It's depressing and horrible.

    ReplyDelete
  82. (BTW: with 73% of Americans against the bill -- I think that you're speaking to more than Republicans)


    1. please understand that all of our taxes go up now -- and all of the money each citizen's putting into a system that won't begin until 4 yrs from now

    2. please promise me that if the stuff hits the fan over the next 10 years that you will realize who exactly fought for, spent frivously in an historically extremely high $$ bribes and some bullying in the gym showers... and finally claiming to take abortion out of the bill to get the Dem votes needed while all the while it's causing the TAXPAYERS to foot the bill for abortion. Although, in the end, I think you'll see that abortion will be the One Promise that comes to fruition, thanks to Nancy Pelosi " we must decrease the population and have abortion at the ready because without it, it would become an extreme burden on The State."

    Also, your own Democrat, Al Sharpton came out with transparent honesty yester day :

    "Every person who voted for Obama voted for Socialism". Rev. Al Sharpton.

    3. Are you at all aware that 1/3 of physicians will leave .
    The gov't will decrease their reimbursement by 21% ---- it was just said on tv yesterday.

    4. please contemplate the fact that if THE only agenda were to care for the poor people without health care - why didn't they just spend those trillions and give them to each urgent care centers and hospitals where the needy really need the help?



    Does not anyone see a red light to the fact that the problem's not being addressed properly.

    Just fix what's broken and leave everyone else alone. And, in the black (financially) .
    Rather than bankrupt us and spend so much more than is needed.
    THAT's the red flag that points to this being more about politics and a bigger gov't than just healthcare.



    Did you know that right now, ADULTS with pre-existing condn's are excluded from this bill?

    Please know that all of those Planned-Parenthood centers will be flourishing in America's inner city ghettos.
    The highest abortions happen to blacks and Latino's.


    So, lets see: more demand: more people with medical complaints will be streaming into clinics, urgent health clinics and hospitals(bet me-- the first ones out will be the specialists: surgeons, er docs heart surgeons, orth docs/surgeons,,,)

    5- a question to all:
    Do you believe that the ends justify the means?
    Do you think that bribery, bullying and illegal steps taken to get a bill passed in an abhorrent, historical-record-setting way(corruption like never before seen in the history of America's politics) on such a height of obvious wheeling and dealing (not to mention all of the lies) is okay?

    Just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Also,

    yes, people will be afraid and depressed as this all plays out and affects them personally.

    that's exactly why I posted sometime ago on DD's blog that we as citizens need to stick together and help one another out the best we can.

    Floyd, by that time, the gov't will already be the only payer/insurer and options will be forever gone.

    What this country needs is a huge dose of love and charity for one another.

    This all has been so long in coming.

    Now, it's time to stay positive and strong -- for those around us.

    It's coming soon, too - you see the govt is preparing to take back people's guns, etc in an order to pacify the nation.

    Once in such a control, it's not too far off to know the gov't will be using "its" guns to pacify any future revolters.
    It's a no-win situation.

    The authentic Tea Partiers know this and realize that all must be done within the law with a clear head, a civil discourse on
    FACTS.

    People will want and they will be nicely told to go back home; all resources used up. The money that could have been used to pay for those needs/wants has already been spent on everything but the poor.

    May we all stand tall, committed to those around us in good faith efforts and authentic charity.

    G'nite all.
    Peace,

    ReplyDelete
  84. Wow MI...

    .. did you cover all the right-wing talking points?

    You'd vote to allow insurance companies to disallow pre-existing conditions for ALL again then?

    Then after four years pre-existing condition thing will be gone, but it's not the politicians fault that there's such a thing in the FIRST PLACE!

    The bill saves billions of dollars, you're telling lies with that 'Dems tax and spend'.

    I don't care what Sharpton said, it's hardly socialist, there'd be no insurance companies AT ALL if it was a socialist bill.

    Well, maybe for travel 'abroad' to places such as the USA IS NOW!

    Your bullshit lies are showing, you just hate Obama and hate that people are free to CHOOSE, like you say you love.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anyone seen and heard the clips on Obama (from 2007) where he discusses that transformation (you know, "we are going to fundamentally transform this nation..."

    is a long and costly venture....?
    (paraphrased)

    Or what about when he said in one of his books that "...I have purposefully placed those with Marxist agenda around me for a reason..."

    in his speech to the congress in 2007 he said that his agenda was to get this healthcare bill passed within his first year in office.

    The buzz word was transformation.

    He explained that change must happen on a little level; ie to get the foot in the door and take those long, laborious, expensive expenditures to keep going a little at a time so that the people would eventually, little by little -go for it.

    This man wants to make History.

    And, he just has.

    Where's our country going?

    Only TIME will tell....

    Peace

    ReplyDelete
  86. Wow, Pboy.

    Please do not put your projections onto me!
    You'll be wrong every time!

    I love Obama and I pray for him and his family.

    I do not hate. I am disappointed with our US. Politicians.

    Obama's actually a nice guy.

    He's been bought by the elite political machine.

    And, now, he's doing their bidding.

    The minute he was voted in (mainly by whites) I knew that it was meant for a black man to do the bidding and to take the fall.
    I bumped into a black family in the arcade rooms today and we had a very nice talk. The man agrees with my take on things.

    You know, in the end, no matter who's pres. it's always bought out to serve the elite machine.
    Step out a little bit over the line - well.....

    History repeats itself.

    God help us all!
    Peace and good night!

    ReplyDelete
  87. I've been a registered democrat all of my life.

    Eight years ago, I filled out the paper work and had it processed.

    Four years later, my polling place had me as a Democrat.I filed again and made some phone calls to back it up.

    This last vote -- sure enough:
    this chick's a registered democrat, like it or not.

    Whatever.

    I'm not sure that I want to be affiliated with either of the parties....

    Fed up. With all of the corruption, and as of late; all of the lies.

    Forget about God -- a more realistic question for this blog is Why did Obnama lie to us (over and over and over...)????

    ReplyDelete
  88. I just think it's funny that people who mocked or ignored the lefts concerns about constitutional transgressions like the patriot act are now scared to death about the health care reform bill. "OH NO!!! Our country's dying..." Blah blah blah

    ReplyDelete
  89. The Flake Equation. Explains religious experiences too.

    http://xkcd.com/718/

    ReplyDelete
  90. What this country needs is a huge dose of love and charity for one another.
    -MI
    ----------------
    All I see is the opposite of this sentence in the rest of your post. Love and charity from you? Your kind of love kills people. You're too stupid to even know how evil you are.

    All this HATRED in this country being put on display now by atavistic primitive apes like you, is making me sick. So I'm not about to tolerate your pseudomoral hypochristian bullshit-spreading right now. You picked a bad day to be an idiot, I guess.

    I'm done with your crap. Keep it up and I'll ban you. This site is not for people like you to come here and use it as a platform for braying your stupidity out to the world. That's what church is for.

    ReplyDelete
  91. MI, There are different ways to look as the same object. You can continue to look at the health bill as a disaster, and your life will suffer from your wanting to embrace the negative (no love in this). You can look at the positive things it will do for so many peope and your life will suffer the gladness of it all (lots of love in this). Your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Or what about when he said in one of his books that "...I have purposefully placed those with Marxist agenda around me for a reason..."
    -------------
    Supply link please. I cannot find anything like this on the web. It doesn't list any Obama quote anything like this. All that comes up are other conservative mouthbreathers saying things like it.

    ReplyDelete
  93. (BTW: with 73% of Americans against the bill -- I think that you're speaking to more than Republicans)
    ---------------
    Yeah, and here's the TRUTH that you can't handle about that figure.

    The republicans spent a year making sure that the people would be afraid of healthcare reform, so that's a big part.

    Then there's the people that don't like it because it doesn't go FAR ENOUGH! Because it didn't have the public option. That's an even bigger part.

    And now, now that the bill is actually passed, guess what my little neocon? They did a new gallup poll yesterday, and that 73% or whatever, gee, where did it go????

    In favor: 49%
    Opposed: 40%

    Read it and weep. And the only reason there's 40% opposed is the LYING PROPAGANDA that people like you have spread, just like you were trying to do when you posted all that tripe above.

    ReplyDelete
  94. The article basically says that the republicans were going on that old poll, but not realizing or caring that about half of the people that were against the bill were against it because it didn't go far enough. So of course when the bill passed, those people weren't about to reject the only thing on the table that at least went in the right direction. So now, they're mostly falling in behind the bill. Plus the for some reason (stupidity) they didn't realize that just PASSING ANYTHING at this point would be a huge win for the democrats since people had come to believe that they wouldn't be able to pull it off.

    So basically, the republicans are now screwed. Self-screwed, to boot. Hoisted on their own egos.

    Fantastic. I hope they go the way of the Whigs. As in, buh-bye.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Another benefit,

    NYT: Health Care reform will force most restaurant chains to post calorie data.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Sesame Street is Satanic???

    Here's something I already knew had to be out there on the web, looked for it, and found it right away. Sesame Street apparently promotes satanism and the gay.

    More proof of how skewed the Christian moral system is.

    Listen to this little gem from the article:

    "One of the best and most clearly satanic thought processes Sesame Street teaches is individuality. It is one of the most important virtues for a Satanist. They promote being and accepting who you are, creativeness, imagination, accepting others of different races or backgrounds, and how its prideful to be different. This is very dangerous thinking to the faithful. The faithful have a mindset that things and people who are okay and right have set values. There is only so far you can stray from the flock and still be acceptable. In a way, you’re not really your own person. You’re not free to explore the world and find out who you really are."

    I totally agree. You're not free, when you're a Christian. You are mentally a slave. Nice of the author to admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Freedom implies responsibility. (response-ability) Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, so they have traded their freedom for not being held responsible. This robs them of having non-preconceived ability to respond to on going reality.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "3. Are you at all aware that 1/3 of physicians will leave ."

    Oh yeah?
    Where will they go?

    Do the ones you pretended to be count as losses?
    I suppose your hubs will leave, too. Ask him, for me, if he'll take you with him.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Sad made up joke.

    If libertarians get in power, of course there'll be no health care for anyone who cannot afford it.

    Of course they won't SAY that, they'll set up a bathtub full of horse urine and tell the poor folks, "Hey, if your kids get sick enough, take 'em to the horse piddle."

    ReplyDelete
  100. I am very disappointed in you, Brian on SO many levels! No need to block me.
    I'm gone.
    Peace!

    ReplyDelete
  101. This MI is such a liar, pretending to be a Democrat and spouting Right-wing double-talk ever since she's been commenting.

    Pretending to take both sides of an issue is the 'game'.

    They say part of what they're thinking. For example, "We are concerned that people living on social assistance aren't getting enough!" But they don't 'end' the thought, ".. therefore we wish to abolish any type of social assistance ALL TOGETHER!"

    It's like they're talking senile old people into voting themselves on to the street with the 'remember the good old days?' theme, where the senile old people think that they're voting to be young again, as if that were possible.

    ReplyDelete
  102. mac,

    The answer to your question (posed with love and charity!)

    is: look it up in the most recent journal --- The New England Journal of Medicine.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Brian,

    All I can say is that these video clips have been playing on Fox for the past several months.
    Perhaps you could find it at www.glennbeck.com

    or you could go to www.foxnews.com and check it out.

    Or - if you have the time and the resources, you could just read Obama's books OR books on audio-tapes.

    I seriously cannot believe that you two are not so aware of things.

    A bit myopic and a bit more of denial.
    It all depends on if you're ready for the truth of the reality that's living out as we speak....

    Oh, how do you like those new American $1 coins with Geo. Washington ---- without "in God we trust"?

    Another celebration is it then, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, so they have traded their freedom for not being held responsible. This robs them of having non-preconceived ability to respond to on going reality.
    ---------------------------
    Yes you are right, We do believe Jesus died on a Roman cross for the sins of ALL mankind. Not just ours!!!

    But you are wrong about trading our freedom, We are just as free as any and accountable as well.
    Our opinions on subjects of reality vary.
    If you think I am going to chuck the Bible in the trash can because some dead from the neck up scientist has a theory concerning a big bang you are wrong man.
    I am quite capable of weighing political matters in the balances ... So far obama has had much success in increasing the national debt to it’s astronomical figure of today, and I’m sure he hasn’t stopped yet…
    The Socialist Idea is to bankrupt America so they can usher in the new world order.
    I believe the George’s , Clinton and obama are all on the same page.

    This new health care bill will be the straw that broke the camels back.
    To impute such a burden on an a stagnant economy is political suicide.
    But fear not “CHANGE” is coming. I can already hear the republican winds blowing…
    I will agree all the way ,something ,needs to be done about health care. Insurance companies should have been regulated years ago as well as what doctors , hospitals and pharmaceutical companies can charge for services and supplies. But the right change will not and can not take place as long as you have greedy politicians standing in line to fill their pockets. Honest men are unheard of today…

    ReplyDelete
  104. Hi, Mike!

    We're getting ready to check out Luray Caverns...can't wait!

    Have you ever gone caving?

    It's my first time =D

    ReplyDelete
  105. Maybe, they'll go to Costa Rica with your buddy Rush?

    MI, please. There's always fools claimingthey'll leave the country if "this guy" is elected, or if "that bill" passes. Few actually do.

    Is that the way physicians show their patriotism?
    If one thinks this is a bad idea, doesn't it stand to reason that they are needed more now than ever?

    I say good riddance to them, if their loyalties are that fickle.

    I wonder, would you be that apt to leave your religion?
    What if Jesus told you "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"? Wouldn't he be advocating this health care initiative?



    Word verification: blesse!
    Blesse your hating heart, MI.
    If you're really interested in spelunking, you should visit the cavern that is where your compassion should be.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Observant,
    A slave looks to his/her master for direction. What to think , and how to be. A total slave embraces the masters every view point having none of his own. So it is with you , and the bible. Ask you a question, and all you come with is a view point from the bible, as though you had no ideas of your own as the bible is your master, and freedom is far from you. You have been asked many questions that you have ignored because you do not understand the answer that the bible gives so you are left without being able to answer even a simple question. Again no real thought process of you own, just parrot what you think the bible says. Where it really shows up is when you are asked a question, and not being able to understand the answer your master, the bible says, you just ignore the question. I think it takes a fool to buy into a book as being all true when one does not totally understand every part of the book regardless how unimportant the parts may seem. Yet you continue to buy totally into a book that you do not totally understand which shows that if some small part was wrong you have bought a lie. You can try with all your might to deny the fact that you are a slave to the bible, and have given up your freedom willingly, but over the past months it is clear you are a total slave to a book.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I will herein violate my often repeated warnings about acknowledging Hydra/MI and her ilk.

    I am a physician and otolaryngologist for over 40 years. I am still in practice. I have lived through the "good old days" when there was no medicare, medicaid, third party payers and through the "golden era" in medicine when physicians could choose to set their own fees.Although I am painfully aware that when the current healthcare bill goes fully into effect it will cost me more for my own insurance, slightly reduce my coverage under medicare, and significantly impact my income as a practicing physician. Although the bill as it now stands is far from ideal, I applaud the yeoman efforts that have been necessary to get ANYTHING passed by Congress over the tooth and nail opposition of right wing "believers" for all of their myriad single issue (i.e. abortion, government takeover, etc,) reasons.

    It is unconscionable that a country as well off as this one, allegedly founded on JudeoChristian principles of charity, caring for one's fellow man, and WWJD would object to any attempt to spread the benefits of good health care to as many of its citizens as possible. As a physician, I took an oath (even though I am one of those amoral unbelievers) to care for the sick regardless of their ability to pay. This oath is still required of every person who graduates from medical school. If one of my three children were interested in a career in medicine today, even though they could not expect as high of a financial return as may have been true during my career, I owuld urge them to continue. No new physician in this country will ever starve or fail to amke a well above average income, even under the most negative projections for future income under the current plans. Moreover, any young physician who has entered our profession primarily because of its income potential is unlikely to be either productive or of particular benefit to his/her patients. The alledged warning that 1/3 of American physicians will "leave" because of reduced income is ridiculous. Very few, if any, (and most likely only those whose deication to patient well-being is highly suspect) w8ill either choose to or be able to do so.
    As usual, MI/Hydra is simply spouting Limbaugh/Beck/Rightwing propaganda/doom and gloom. Please make good on yor promise to leave and not come back.

    ReplyDelete
  108. mac, "Harvey"

    Leave/retire from the practice of medicine - NOT leave the country.
    My goodness - where *are* your minds and *your* hearts?!

    Look, it is you (all) who spout off with your haughty pride and hatred.

    Harvey, my hubby isn't leaving his profession.
    He's in it for the duration because he loves his job.

    As for your remarks on this country's Judeo-Christian founding and on the medical fields -- I suggest you live in their shoes and walk their walks before pontificating your "civil discourses" of deception and ignorance.

    You do not know what you have not lived. Only an atheist would pretend to know everything about everything--only to his own peril -- for having fooled only himself and his fellow dis-illusioned comrades in hate and in all things hating God.

    I would love to continue this conversation in about 5-10 years from now. But, by then, well, hopefully we as citizens of one nation under God would be unified.

    Miracles can happen....


    If you're not up for the Truth, then that's that. Period.

    That's your choice(s).

    As I've recently come upon a truth, a fact: there are those on this blog who fear a balanced conversation where both sides can be thrown around and discussed.

    No more time for your (collective) circuity.

    Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  109. MI: I wanted to go back to something idiotic you said earlier (that narrows it down!)

    "you see the govt is preparing to take back people's guns"

    Stop watching Glennn Beck and please substantiate this assertion.

    Why do you think a government that can barely pass limited health care reform measure would have the wherewithal to prosecute an undertaking of that scale?

    I'm sure you are unaware, as you appear to be oblivious of most things, that in many states, firearms do not need to be registered and in some there is no legal requirement to create a paper trail in the case of a private party sale.

    Again, how will the government "take back people's guns" when they there is no possible way for them to know where most of the guns are.

    In short, you are stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  110. So they either take both sides of an argument or try to force their staw-man version of you to take both sides.

    For example MI must know perfectly well that atheists don't subscribe to the notion of gods, yet she says that we 'hate GOD'.

    I'm sure that somewhere there must be some people who think that there are gods or the one god and think that they've been 'dealt a shitty hand' by HIM(God) and hate HIM for that. They might believe that there is a universal struggle between 'good' and 'evil' and they choose 'evil'.

    But anyone who thinks like that is not an atheist, they are, in fact, just as much theist as MI and Observant.

    Obviously MI is under the delusion that there is no difference between believing that there is a God and hating HIM and not believing that there are such things as 'gods'(or at least the one).

    ReplyDelete
  111. Pboy:
    You have once again cogently tried to remind all of us of the real difference between believers and non-. None of us who do not believe in the existance of any Deity (let alone the Abrahamic one) "hate" something that we are satisfied does not exist. Believers, on the other hand, either cannot "believe" that we really don't worship something and/or have a dogma that we adhere to (as all recognized religions do), or choose to ignore this fact. Since the only way they know to deal with such issues is based upon their "beliefs" and. in most cases, the organized religion they have either grown up with or have chosen to adopt, they are forced to assume that even atheists must actually do so too. Therefore, to them, when anyone suggests that their belief in the God of their choice is either misplaced or flies in the face of scientific knowledge, they see it as an attack upon themselves, even though they express it as a "hetred" of the God we know does not exist. This is actually more the result of religion than of simple belief. If you are not locked into some sort of dogma, it is much easier to see that other's opinions to the contrary have no direct bearing or effect upon you.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Yes Jerry, I’ll take the bible and it’s instruction over your modern day misguided opinions.
    Oh ,and Jerry, you are a slave as well only your master goes by a different name.
    But, we are free to choose aren’t we.
    I answer questions that are of intrest to me.
    Peace

    ReplyDelete
  113. MI. How did the USA ever become so secular if it has always been such a Christian nation?

    I think that you want us all to be under a delusion here.

    How could a 'life-long'(or whatever) Democrat spout right-wing propaganda and not see through Fox News and especially Glen Beck for the silly, libertarian propaganda machines that they are?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Believers, on the other hand, either cannot "believe" that we really don't worship something and/or have a dogma that we adhere to (as all recognized religions do), or choose to ignore this fact.
    --------------------------
    Or it is a specific part of their programming that they cannot accept this thing, that we seriously do not believe in any gods? This is, I think, the answer here.

    After all, the religion would have good reason for this type of programming, and they would have developed it long ago, hundreds of years ago in fact, as soon as they needed to deal with atheists in the world casting doubt onto their flock of believers. They needed a way to demonize them so they say that atheism is satanic etc., but they also needed them to believe that we are evil haters of their god and we only pretend that we don't believe in him to hide that fact. So they've been conditioned to believe that we are just lying about all of it. It's easier for them to believe we are all evil liars, rather than that it's even POSSIBLE that anyone could ACTUALLY not believe in any God at all.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Observant, I am not surprised that you will not even consider that there is the slimmest possibility you could be wrong. I just wish you would quite putting your mistaken belief system on others, not like this blog but in a teacher capacity. I know you have convinced yourself the bible is the word of God. Other than short changing your life on this planet I doubt if it will do serious damage to your eternal career as I think the parable on the tares has it covered.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Jerry,
    Really, Judge me if you like I don’t care…
    But why is it you and I cannot seem to debate a subject without your constant judgments and insults at me?
    So what if I don’t answer all your questions… Nine times out of ten you are waiting to use my response for another character attack anyway.
    You don’t listen to what I say, nor do you consider why I believe the way I do. All you can say is I follow some antiquated book.

    I get Jerry and I hear you loud and clear.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Really, Judge me if you like I don't care…
    But why is it you and I cannot seem to debate a subject without your constant judgments and insults at me?
    So what if I don’t answer all your questions… Nine times out of ten you are waiting to use my response for another character attack anyway.
    You don’t listen to what I say, nor do you consider why I believe the way I do. All you can say is I follow some antiquated book.

    I get Jerry and I hear you loud and clear

    If this is what you think, you are not reading me loud, and clear. If you did not care then you would not feel insulted, but you do. So much for that idea, and if you really think you do not care then the problem is more severe that I thought. That would call for total denial of your own feelings. All normal human beings want to be approved of, and you seem very normal to me. Bottom line on feeling insulted is, if you feel that, you will have to own your own feelings. You created them, not I. The best I would be able to do is invite you to feel insulted, and then it would be up to you to accept the invitation or not. The feeling of being insulted is a direct result of your thinking certain thoughts that cause that feeling. Stop thinking those thoughts, and the feeling changes to correspond with your thoughts. In the book "The Art of Happiness" by the Dalai Lama" he tells a story of a master having one of his students pay to be insulted. He goes on with the story...........with the result saying that it is rare to have someone do that for you so you can grow. Sound strange? I bet it does to you, because it seems to me you live in a very small world because of your belief system. No evolution, no etc, no etc, no etc.
    Surly you are joking about debating any ideas. How can you even think you are open to debate when you will not deal with the subject, that is evident when you refuse to answer questions. You stated a little earlier that you answered the questions; (I answer questions that are of interest to me). It seems that when the hard questions start you find no interest. I think is has everything to do with you knowing you cannot back you ideas. About the bible. It is a great book if it is taken as a history of what religion was, thousands of years ago. When people such as your self, try to pass it off as the word of the living God it does become evil. It blasphemes God, and leads men down dead end trails. It is so repulsive when seen as the word of God that people such as several on this blog turn their minds away from even the possibility of a God existing. Christianity is not cutting it in this society. It is severely flawed, and it has become a burden that evolution is going to put in the rear view mirror.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Well said, Jerry.

    Observant, since in spite of what you probably believe about me I only wish the best for you (in spite of yourself) I truly wish you'd listen to what Jerry just said.

    ReplyDelete
  119. So what if I don’t answer all your questions… Nine times out of ten you are waiting to use my response for another character attack anyway.
    --------------
    Your comments invite the 'character attack' because they show an inconsistant character.

    I mean, when anyone's getting 'attacked' there's always two possibilities: Either you're just being attacked, or you've just said something really, really dumb that any sane response to, will indeed sound like an attack, to you.

    The second situation is the true one here, Mike. Why, just answering your belief nonsense with a rational, measured response, must indeed sound like an attack to you.

    You've been conditioned to see it that way, as I've previously stated. Your religion wants you to be paranoid and senseless. If you weren't, you'd see it for what it is. A farce and a lie and evil to the core.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Oh ,and Jerry, you are a slave as well only your master goes by a different name.
    -----------
    So you're freely admitting that YOU are indeed, a mental slave. Thank you.

    We could see that you are one. And we can also see that Jerry is not one.

    But it was nice of you to admit it. Now build on that. Admit it to yourself. Then set yourself free. Only you can do it.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Mike, imagine sitting back in your chair, a while after a meal and thinking about your stuff, your relatives, your business, your land, your car.

    Imagine how it might only take a fire to destroy your home and perhaps kill your entire family, if, say, they were all over at your place visiting.

    Imagine how your car, might be turned to scrap in an instant, if someone hit it with their car.

    Imagine if you got 'framed' or because of some other error or 'eminent domain' that all your property was taken from you.

    It's all gone, but not really, just that you realise it could be 'all gone', and as you sit there and I sit here imagining 'it' all gone, we are the same.

    Just for that instant, we are exactly the SAME.

    Of course you'd 'move on' and use your unique perspective of life, your unique set of skills to 'reinvent' yourself as, I'd have to with mine too.

    But I don't think that you think that we're 'the same' at all.

    You might totally agree with me here at this moment that we are the same, sure, but I think that you take the opposite point of view, at the same time, and could easily say, in all sincerity that we are NOT the same at all.

    This is called 'taking both sides of an argument', where you might nod and agree with someone while 'somewhere in your mind' completely disagreeing with the same 'argument'(not meaning a disagreement or row).

    ReplyDelete
  122. So, it's a mathmatical certainty that our sun will run out of fuel in the next 4 billion years or so.

    How do biblical literalists (like you mike) square that fact with the story of the second coming and Christ's kingdom on earth? I mean even New Jerusalem will eventually be swolled by the nuclear fires of our dying sun.

    Just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Observant, may I email you a funny joke?

    Also,I have interesting info about how Darwin and his "theory" of evolution was debunked in the early 80's in Chicago by none other than the Elitist Evolution Experts and how what sprung up from it was kinda like building a house on 2 layers of faulty stilts, if you will. ("Punctuated Equillibrium")-- which was heralded in via the mass media sheeples, again, if you will.
    And the deceit (fraud, really) of it all is still being taught in schools today although the elite scientists realize it's not provable - and these scientists are willing to pay million$ to fight the Creationists vis-a-vis states' judicial systems.

    And, Ben Stein's movie takes that Political Correctness to the next level. ('Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed")

    I would like to correspond with you along this vein as a fellow Christian.


    If you like, you can answer me @

    thomasmch663@aol.com

    I listened to a cd on the way home today and was floored. This scientist goes through it step by step and also has written books about it.

    This information, if was put in the hands of the American people, it wouldn't take but a few months to squelch the evolution theory.

    I hope to hear from you!

    Peace! MI

    ReplyDelete
  124. Ryan,

    You know, you're half my age and, honestly should be a little more courteous to me in the sense that *if* you want for me to provide information to you....

    You know?

    Sure, you look very cute n allthat, but honestly, you stop short on meeting me halfway.

    I don't really give a crap if you wish to call me names and try to defame me and/or try to bully me by calling me stupid ---

    But, if you're going to do that, please, PLEASE -don't expect for me to answer you under those circumstances.

    I am your elder and I expect you to speak as a gentleman to me.

    Okay?

    ReplyDelete
  125. MI: your comment about guns was stupid. Respect is earned.

    and now, you apparently don't understand what punctuated equilibrium is.

    ReplyDelete
  126. MI discovers punk eek. Twenty years late. Pretty funny. Oh, and Ben Stein. We're having a whole parade of ignorance today. I see you're choosing smart-sound stupidity today. I guess that's an improvement, but come to think of it, not really.

    MI, you wouldn't deserve any respect if you lived to be a thousand.

    BTW, you're still here. What, can't stop playing with the eeeevul ones?

    What a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Christians should stay out of science's trash bin, looking for smart-sounding things that were proven totally wrong that seem to support ID or creationism, that their followers will think sound real and 'sciencey.' Of course, they and their followers are so incredibly unimaginably ignorant that it actually sort-of does work for them.

    These people are more stupid than even a very smart person can imagine.

    A conditioned Christian trying to understand even basic science is like a baby trying to design a rocket ship with poop on a wall instead of a dwawing board.

    MI, you should stop insisting on being the dumbest person in the room. Stop even trying to understand anything whatsoever about science. That would take years of hard work on your part, and you never chose to do that, so you only come off as a total moron. Like a monkey jabbering, trying to pretend it can talk. Ook ook.

    ReplyDelete
  128. and/or try to bully me by calling me stupid ---
    --------------
    Silly girl, we don't call you stupid to bully you. We call you stupid because it's amazing! To not call you stupid would be like not saying 'ooooh' at the sight of a beautiful sunset.

    ReplyDelete
  129. There's a difference between calling someone stupid to hurt them, and calling them stupid because you're just fu@%ing stunned at how stupid they are.

    ReplyDelete
  130. MI, what do you know about allele frequency?

    Here, I'll even give you the wiki page: Link

    This is basic genetics, basic evolutionary science.

    You, MI, are by far too ignorant to understand even this wiki page, which is incredibly simplified.

    Now, just the FACT that you are not educated enough to understand allele frequency is not a crime, and while it does indicate ignorance, that is not the same as stupid.

    But when YOU, the science-ignorant one, think you can actually use old, disproven science to disprove other science, without ANY understanding of science, for your religious beliefs, well, now THAT'S STUPID.

    You see, if you were as ignorant of basic arithmetic as you are of science in general, you'd think one plus one equals flower.

    That's how you sound to the ear of someone that understands the basics of science. One plus one equals flower, and two plus two equals doggy. Daddy, see, I know math!!!

    ReplyDelete
  131. Ryan,
    I can't say that I respect you, other than you being a child of God, *but* I will withhold my opinions in order to have civil discourse with you. I can tell you're concerned about the gun thing since you asked for a source. How many guns do you have? I have zero.
    It would seem to me that you live in a myopic world filled of only things that interest you. If that's so, look it up. You'll find your answers. You've not gained my respect - so, I suppose you'll have to gain it elsewhere.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Brian,
    I've known about punk eek, as you put, it for awhile. I'm merely just getting out the word to a fellow believer. (I daresay you'd like a copy of the cd? No, you silly boy, and I can give you 2 reasons why you wouldn't

    #1 YOU WOULD NOT BE DEFINITIVELY BE ABLE TO REFUTE IT

    and
    #2 YOU WOULD ONLY CENSOR IT ------

    (and you have in the past - shh, our little secret about your censoring the article refuting the scandal in Rome because it referred to atheists as being uneducated to the facts and exposes the atheists' anti-God agenda)

    BECAUSE OF REASON #1 -lol-)

    +++Putting it nicely++++++

    punk eek, according to it's own elite and ardent scietists+++

    + lacks CONCRETE SCIENTIFIC DATA AND EVIDENCE to back up its claims, and will die off just like Darwin's theory of natural selection and of survival of the fittest.
    It's scientists ONLY hold fast to it simply because, although they engage the possibility of intelligent design, they're too humiliated to admit it and, thusly they adhere to a hoax and thusly deceiving and forcefully indoctrinating people like you and everyone else who goes to public school or public college.
    THAT'S extremism (and OBVIOUSLY illogical and extremist HATRED toward God) at its very "best", to say the least!

    And, funny, I was addressing Observant. Interesting how you step in with hate expecially since you cannot refute anything in my recently previous posts. You can't; so you distract instead.


    It's obvious that all of you atheistic unemployed, check-collecting and food-stamp collecting, medicaid entitled un-American "citizens" are simply chomping at the bit to see the entire country brought down to your lazy level (Elite politicians exempt!)

    After all, MISERY does love company.

    I mean you(all, but mostly to Ryan) must be celebrating the fact that Catepillar will have to lay off thousands of workers in order to pay their increased taxes that go to pay for the poor and uninsured people's healthcare at the expense of thousands of hard-working tax-paying citizens who up until then were contributing good to our society thanks to the newly passed healthcare bill .
    That's forced redistribution. Marxism lives on! (Where's YOUR COMPASSION for WORKING citizens???)

    (You DO remember that Obama promised Catepillar that they would soon be hiring workers if his stimulus package passed.
    Another lie. Another "change you can believe in."
    What, you say, is the resource for this info?? Are YOU *that* stupid?! )

    ReplyDelete
  132. Brian, you who have no degrees in science and thusly live off of whatever you google

    (as opposed to *actually* taking courses, doing experiments, writing theses, discourses with teachers and going to legit scientific conferences )-

    whereas, between my husband an I-

    have 5 degrees in the field of Science (because we love Science so much!)
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    So, Brian you believe (or have faith in, should I say) that a single-celled bacteria-like organism evolved/mutated/MORPHED !
    into a multi-celled, multi-organed human being by complete random "mutation" and "natural selection" ---- WHO's the stupid one now?

    There is NO evidence in the world of Science (not the world of Brian) of even a single-celled organism mutating into a two-celled self-procreating organism.

    It's more plausible that green, two-antennaed, one googley-eyed my favorite martian, green blobby substance from an outer-space alien
    planet created us in the lab and plopped us down here on Earth!

    NOW---I ask you: Is this close encounters of the "ignorant" kind?!

    (mikahawlic-whah?)

    NO- that's NOT the word ver =D

    ReplyDelete
  133. Here's what's on the cd:
    Anyone want the source?
    Ryan?
    Jerry?
    Ryan?
    Huh?
    Anybody?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    "Evolution: The Hoax Destroying Christendom is an expose of the hoax of Darwinian evolutionary theory, its negative and eroding effect on Christian academic thought, and its giving rise to an anti-God/atheistic pagan philosophy in the world at large.

    Learn about the Chicago Convention of scientists in 1980 who declared Darwin's theory of evolution to be without merit and lacking any evidence to its credibility,

    and about the forces within the evolutionary scientist community who have stated they will do everything to oppose creationism.

    Learn about the scientists who

    were once atheists who now espouse

    creationism and state publicly

    that evolutionary theory is

    without logic or evidence.

    This CD is intended to help those who wish to understand the nature of the arguments about evolution and where the majority of scientists now stand on this issue, and how and why academia refuses to stop teaching this erroneous evolutionary theory to our students in school"

    ReplyDelete
  134. MI says, "whereas, between my husband an I-

    have 5 degrees in the field of Science .."

    LOL, you are hilarious MI.

    Would you care to list the degrees that YOU personally have in field of science, for us to 'voir dire'?

    Or don't you imagine that you could answer questions connected with the subjects which you purport to have degrees in?

    Anyways, much like, if I was AT a university I could claim the hundreds if not thousands of degrees 'between us' which would count for NOTHING as far as I, personally, was concerned, any degrees which your husband might have makes you not one teensy-weensy bit smarter, now isn't THAT right?

    By the way, for no particular reason that I can think of, maybe you'd like to list the degrees in the field of science that your husband has.

    It is actually impossible to imagine that you've been holding on to this 'nugget' of information for all this time and continue to spout your anti-scientific drivel.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Isn't it funny how creationist go after Darwin. It's like someone showing how Aristotle was wrong about the atom to try to "debunk" Quantum Mechanics.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Brian,
    I've known about punk eek, as you put, it for awhile. I'm merely just getting out the word to a fellow believer. (I daresay you'd like a copy of the cd? No, you silly boy, and I can give you 2 reasons why you wouldn't

    #1 YOU WOULD NOT BE DEFINITIVELY BE ABLE TO REFUTE IT

    and
    #2 YOU WOULD ONLY CENSOR IT ------

    (and you have in the past - shh, our little secret about your censoring the article refuting the scandal in Rome because it referred to atheists as being uneducated to the facts and exposes the atheists' anti-God agenda)
    ---------------------
    "PE is not a saltational theory of evolution. The emphasis upon applying consequences of peripatric speciation to paleontology shows this critique to be unfounded. PE is no more saltational than peripatric speciation is in study of modern organisms."
    Punctuated Equilibrium Explained

    The above shows that P.E. is not what you think it is. It in no way shows anything like divine interference. It is not saltational, which as YOU SURELY KNOW means that it doesn't 'jump' like you wingnuts believe that it does.

    And YOU ARE A LIAR. I have never censored you about anything, much less something that stupid which doesn't even exist.

    And as if you would have 'kept' 'our little secret' if there was ever such a thing, which there was not, since I CAN'T STAND YOU so why would I keep any secret with you or you with me. Shame on you, you pathetic liar. No, really, you are a lowlife liar for Jesus. How's that make you feel?

    ReplyDelete
  137. whereas, between my husband an I-

    have 5 degrees in the field of Science (because we love Science so much!)
    -----------------
    List them. List them all. And then we'll talk IN THOSE FIELDS and we'll see whether you're just another liar for Jesus or not.

    You've already PROVEN that you're a science moron, MI. And I mean a TOTAL science eeeeeediot. So this ought to be interesting.

    Remember that creation science, biblical archeology and dinosaur husbandry do NOT count.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Isn't it funny how creationist go after Darwin.
    ---------------
    I know. It's so ridiculous. They think it's like God. If you disprove God the whole religion falls apart, so they assume that it's the same with evolution and Darwin. They cannot see that science has built on the idea and had discovered and proven so much more than even Darwin ever suspected about it, that it's moot now whether he was exactly right or not.

    It's like saying that if we can only disprove Newton, then things wouldn't fall down anymore; If we can only disprove Galileo, then geocentrism will be true again...

    The sheer depth of STUPID here is like the Marianas Trench.

    ReplyDelete
  139. MI, while my inclination is to just delete you forever from here on in, since you're just a liar for God and all, I've decided not to. I want you to keep posting here forever.

    This website talks a lot about christian ignorance, but what it really needs to remain interesting is a living, talking EXAMPLE of it posting here on a regular basis.

    So have at it. You're practically the star of my show. Enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  140. MI,
    There was a time when most, if not all people on earth thought the Earth was flat. Understandable, but then some people figured out it was not flat but close to round. As time went by some refused to give up the idea the earth was flat. So it is today with evolution. Many, such as you refuse to see the clear cut evidence that evolution is a reality. That hardly proves there is not a God, just that mans ideas about God has to be up dated to include what we have discovered. What is it that you find so hard about giving up the antiquated ideas our forefathers held as being true? Are you as stuck in the past as those who, hearing of new discoveries, refused to believe, and died of old age thinking they had lived their lives on a flat planet?

    ReplyDelete
  141. Oh, and as to the 'atheists anti-God agenda:'

    Atheists have a 'learning' agenda. A 'logic' agenda. A 'reason' agenda. Your religion has an ignorance agenda. So naturally they clash. This in no way means we hate your God. It just means we hate your stupid lies about us and about science, which are based in your insisting that your God is real when He is decidedly not. Since your whole worldview is based in a lie, naturally you would hate those who do not tolerate lying.

    That's the explanation. Of course, like everything else, you can't handle the truth. It's not in your nature, after all. You were suckled on deceit and misdirection, and your morality is based in coercion, threats, lies and fear. So you're lost causes that can't even see reality anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  142. When the leaders of THE church demonstrate they do not believe in the myth (Christianity) they are selling I have to wonder how their followers are dealing with it. Jesus let it be known that their was no worse offence to the entire universe than to molest a child. Now it has become obvious the leaders of THE church say that is pure BS. They pay no attention to Jesus or what he said, when the urge to molest a child is convenient. The pope, and his fellow priest are very talented con men. The are probably sitting around the Vatican right now, stoned, drinking house wine, watching child porno and laughing their ass off. Like Barnum said, their is a sucker born every minute, and the boys in charge of the Vatican love the donations, and adoring reverence their followers shower on them. Ignoring the pain of their victims, the children, they filled their lust. One might say this is the result of Christianity, after all the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And who is more devoted to the myth of Christianity than the clergy?

    ReplyDelete
  143. shh, our little secret about your censoring the article refuting the scandal in Rome because it referred to atheists as being uneducated to the facts and exposes the atheists' anti-God agenda
    ----------------
    You know, I'm not even sure here, but it is possible that I deleted something like that which you posted. If I did, it wasn't censorship, it was me not putting up with your obvious lies and deceit in such times about such a subject. I never gave it any further thought than that, since I detest your lying so much I felt quite justified. After all, it is my blog.

    I am not sorry if such is so, but if you do it again I shall let it stand, since I've decided that your posts need to be seen here as well as mine. Let the audience judge them. I'll only delete your posts from now on if you get abusive or are using other people's identities as you used to do.

    However, when you display willful stupidity or deceit, don't expect me to soft-pedal it. If I let you be who you are, then surely I can be who I am. And I still detest your dishonesty and your immoral morality system.

    So have at it.

    And one more thing. Please for courtesy's sake, do not post long tracts of literature that you copied somewhere and want to paste in here; instead you may feel free to post the link or URL to it. Those of us who would have read it, will read it that way too. Short quotes are of course fine no matter what.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Brian,

    Here's another one (has this come up before?)

    If Mary was made to be "with child" by the Holy Ghost, how did he become male? Ghost jizz 'Y' chromosome?

    Just wondering...

    ReplyDelete
  145. Also: RE the Faith vs. Love discussions above...

    Glad that Brian has found the one for him. But as he said, it's a delusion he willingly accepted.

    I am the other side of that coin, Mike. Three women have told me that they "love" me, to the extent that I gave them the benefit of the doubt, loved them in return, and married them.

    But as it turned out, they were all ultimately faithless, despite the assertions they made to me at first.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Mike said,

    "I have seen many strangers come to the aid of those who were in despair as in the recent earthquakes and hurricanes the world has experienced.
    Love is what motivates people to be good and kind to strangers…"

    More likely that the greater majority of them are busybodies who want to project to the rest of the world that they're "good Christians" for more selfish reasons.

    But their actions, whatever the motivation, say nothing of the existence of God or Jesus.

    Yeah, I'm cynical and mistrustful, and I believe most of what the greater portion of humanity does is out of a sense of self-interest first and foremost.

    ReplyDelete
  147. If Mary was made to be "with child" by the Holy Ghost, how did he become male? Ghost jizz 'Y' chromosome?
    -------------------
    And if Chris and Elmo were turned into bees by Abby, why weren't they turned into drones instead of worker bees, which as we all know are all female?
    Oh, I guess that's because Sesame Street is just a fantasy. You can tell, since it doesn't make any real sense. You can point to a lot of illogical things like that on Sesame Street. It's very easy to tell, actually, that it is all made up.

    Of course, try explaining that to my nine-month-old.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Glad that Brian has found the one for him. But as he said, it's a delusion he willingly accepted.
    ---------------
    The rewards outweigh the objections of my rational side.

    My emotional side points out that if you judge love to be an illusion, then so you must also judge happiness, both being ultimately entirely in the mind.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Just FYI...

    I've been 'afk' for the last few weeks because I'm still unemployed but launching a new surveying business. It's either that, or wait till the unemployment runs out and let the banks take everything back.

    Wish me luck, and a robust economy in which to prosper (prayers don't help, MI...no one is there to answer).

    ReplyDelete
  150. I envy what you have with your family, Brian.

    Whatever "love" there was inside of me has been squoze out by a succession of harpies (all of which claimed at least a nominal allegiance to Christianity), and I fear it's beyond healing.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Ryan -- that post was not about creationists or believers attacking Darwin -- it was his own evolution scientific elite. =D
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Brian, you're mean to me and you hurt me very much.
    But, I'll give in to your request for those degrees.

    Me: Chemistry, Pharmacy, (Masage Therapy which doesn't count) and Acupuncture

    My hubby: Biology and Medicine- 2 specialties: Peds and Emerg.Med
    +++++++++

    As for holding onto that nugget: honestly, it's just common knowledge amongst anyone who really follows Science.

    I'm taken aback that this is the first time any of you have even heard of such information/news.

    But as for that little nugget I'll leave it up for you all to chomp on (or not).

    I report; you decide.

    =D
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    ReplyDelete
  152. I envy what you have with your family, Brian.

    Whatever "love" there was inside of me has been squoze out by a succession of harpies (all of which claimed at least a nominal allegiance to Christianity), and I fear it's beyond healing.
    -------------------
    That's sad to hear, Ed. I had similar happen to me. Two atheists and a fundy. I tried to remain open to love, but it took a while after the third one. I mostly took my negative energy out by having sex with a lot of women. Shallow fun, but better than no fun at all. Then I guess I got lucky, after doing a series of specific visualization exercises which completely coincidentally were in an attempt to manifest love. Yes, another coincidence of mine. I can explain it of course, logically, so it means nothing....

    Anyhow, all I can say is that I used to fall right back into the fire every time. I'd look for the same things in every person before I learned to change what I was looking for. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    I later in life learned to judge potential mates on their physical attributes, their emotional qualities, their intellectual ability, and their 'will' or their spirit, including their belief systems, personal drives, etc; how well matched we were in all four categories. When I found a woman that fit me well in all four, I married her, and here I am. It worked for me, but of course things that work for one person rarely work for another...
    I got the idea for those specific four categories from the idea of earth, water, air, and fire, in that order. I like to think elementally.

    ***

    I wish you the best of financial luck in the near future. Hopefully the economy will improve some in the short term.

    ReplyDelete
  153. As for holding onto that nugget: honestly, it's just common knowledge amongst anyone who really follows Science.
    -----------
    What nugget? What's common knowledge? I missed something.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Floyd-- My husband and I debated all of this stuff one way or another with Mr. William Hays on DD's blog....

    ReplyDelete
  155. Ryan -- that post was not about creationists or believers attacking Darwin -- it was his own evolution scientific elite. =D
    -----------
    Hahahah... no silly, he was talking about you attacking him by posting such idiocies. You missed that, too. Like you miss so much.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Mike, you were wondering if Brian would appreciate the humor of that joke I sent you?

    Let's see: ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel,
    "Pick up your shovel, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you
    to the Promised Land."

    Nearly 75 years ago, Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on
    your asses, and light up a camel, this is the Promised Land."

    Now Obama has stolen your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of
    camels and mortgaged the Promised Land!

    I was so depressed last night thinking about Health Care Plans, the
    economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, retirement
    funds, etc . . . I called Lifeline. Got a call center in Pakistan. I
    told them I was suicidal.

    They got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck....!

    ReplyDelete
  157. Me: Chemistry, Pharmacy, (Masage Therapy which doesn't count) and Acupuncture
    ----------------
    You even mis-spelled one of your three jobs. I'll let you figure out which. And by pharmacy I assume you mean pharmaceutical science, which is how someone that actually graduated in it would say it...

    Chemistry and pharmaceutical science. Great. So describe to me how toxicity in a given substance is tested in lab animals, specifically rats. In your own words. I'll be googling, so be original. Use all the relevant scientific terminology and jargon that you wish to. Such as how it is graphed, what units are used etc. Explain it in your own words, any way you want to.
    This should be easy for you.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Bri,

    Why is it that when Ryan and others can post links that attack say, The Pope or whatever,--it's d it's just part of the discussion ---

    BUT-- when a believer posts an article on the other side of the fence; why is that considered attacking?

    As for the Christians attacking Darwin, I'm not attacking him; I'm just the messenger for all of his scientific elite ones who drove him (Darwin) and his theories into the ground.

    I'm just the messenger.

    Please remember that!

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Also, Brian, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and recheck back on your 2nd blogpost to see if those posts about me posting to Richelle about homeschooling, along with my posting a link to an article that speaks to Ryan's links about the Papal scandal
    and along with other's people's posts being there -- it would have seemed that the entire second page of posts (some 6 comments or so, maybe?)

    Perhaps there was a glitch in the system? Who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  159. And that was two jokes run together, the first of which was not funny at all, and the second of which was fairly funny.

    So they averaged a 'meh.'

    ReplyDelete
  160. When Darwin fucks children or allows it to happen, then I'll talk badly about him too.

    Oh he didn't, did he? He just figured out how wrong your belief system is about life. And that, to you momos, is the Unforgivable Sin, isn't it?

    He didn't like it either, at the time. Did you know that? He just could see the truth in front of his eyes, whereas you are as blind as a cavefish.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Plus, Darwin didn't lie to us. It all holds up.
    Your Pope lives by the lie. Plus, as it turns out, he's one evil old dirtbag to boot. But he fits your morality system, no doubt. Hell, you'll probably canonize him. Saint Benedict the Penetrator. Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  162. MI,

    "Alas poor James is dead
    We see his face no more'
    For what he thought was H2O
    Was H2SO4."

    Like it?

    It's better than the bilirubin-laced HCL-processed alimentary residues that you tell.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Brian, okay, let's see.

    Firstly, in terms of dose per unit of body surface toxic effects in man occur in the same range as those in an experimental rats.

    In terms of body weight, humans are more vulnerable than rats by a factor of about 10.

    Chemicals are first tested for toxicity by finding the LD50 (Median Lethal Dose at 50%).


    A single dose is given to a single animal and then you increase the dose until toxic effects are demonstrated.

    The principle is based upon a dose-response curve.
    (dose vs. the response)

    The dose is dose per unit body surface or dose per unit body weight(ex: mg/kg) and the response is intoxication vs. lethargy vs. morbidity/mortality.

    On a graph one sees the data as:

    dose (as in mg/kg) on x axis

    and %mortality on the y axis.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The LD50 is determined by drawing a vertical line from the point of 50% mortality and that gives you the dose.

    Okay, then. hope that helps.
    I'll check back sometime later =D

    ReplyDelete
  164. I'm just the messenger.

    Please remember that!
    --------------------
    From Wonderland? Narnia? Neverland?

    It sure isn't from this world.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Okay, then. hope that helps.
    I'll check back sometime later =D
    ------------
    It does help. Very good.

    The person that wrote that, can understand evolution. If they do not, it is because they choose not to. But that person can definitely understand technical jargon and science, at least the basics.

    So now explain this to me:

    Macroevolution VS microevolution

    Should be easy for you. Go for it, you're on a roll.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Specifically explain to me what it says about how creationists think about it, and why they're wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Wait a minute, Brian.
    Quiz time's over for me.
    Now for you: where is the fossil evidence of the one-celled organism to the ape man? Where is the evidence of the evolution of a one-celled organism's evolution to the ape man?

    Now, strictly adhere to Darwin's theories as you provide the missing fossil evidence that's needed to make me a believer.

    Can you do this without googling?

    ReplyDelete
  168. I just looked on your Feelings blog and sure enough, the second page of newest posts are still missing.....

    ReplyDelete
  169. MI: again, there you go with your Darwin strawman. Darwin's theories are outdated. Biological evolution no longer stands or falls on fossill evidence (i.e. even the pre-cambrian bunny would have a hard time overcoming all the new genetic evidence).

    If we never found a single fossill, we'd still have ample evidence in the form the genome. Read Francis Collins "The Language of God" for further details, it's not the best, but I suggest it because he's a christian so you'd have a harder time dismissing it.

    If you really want to know, then check out Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is true". It's a good survey.

    ReplyDelete
  170. I just looked on your Feelings blog and sure enough, the second page of newest posts are still missing.....
    --------------
    Yeah, that's because it has 192 comments on it, and the capacity is 200 per page. So that's your reason there's no second page. Ya dummy. No really, that is rather a dumb thing, isn't it? To be looking for a second page when there aren't even enough posts on it to fill the first one... not very smart.

    No way you wrote your little LD50 thesis there. If you did, you're the dumbest smart person on earth. You can't even tie your shoes, scientifically speaking, and suddenly you write something COHERENT like that, well, it doesn't match, it isn't you. For instance, asking me just now about the one-celled-organism thing is just like asking me "Why are there no unicorns, if there are horses and there are goats, smarty-pants?" or something equally stupid. Which you would KNOW, if you WROTE the other answer. If you wrote the first one, you'd see how retarded the second one is.

    Stop being stupid, and stop the lying. Stop asking me nonsense questions, if you can see they're nonsense; and if you wrote that toxicity answer, you surely can see they're NONSENSE. This is what I mean by 'cut the crap' and 'stop lying to us.' Either you DIDN'T write the LD50 answer OR you're smart enough to not write these stupid replies and questions like the one-cell-organism one.
    So figure out who you are and get back to me.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Where is the evidence of the evolution of a one-celled organism's evolution to the ape man?
    ------------
    I'm sorry, I have to go back to this one.

    What the hell is the question, even? It makes no fucking sense. What are you asking me? Show you an amoeba with two legs, two arms, and a little beard? Or show you all the gazillion steps between primevel protokaryote and modern man? Only a total mouthbreather would ask either one, so.......
    I'm afraid that I can't tell in which way you are being an idiot here. It's one or the other. I'm stymied.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Wait a minute, Brian.
    Quiz time's over for me.
    -------------
    Uh no, it isn't. That second page I directed you is written very, very simply... if you wrote the LD50 toxicity reply it will be like reading a bazooka comic for you. So read the second one and tell me that you STILL CANNOT SEE THE ANSWER, or tell me that you finally can. It explains one of the many ways in which you are wrong about evolution. You need to see this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  173. to the ape man?
    -------------------
    Even the fact that you phrased it this way is screaming ignorant at me.
    Nobody calls our ancestors 'ape men.'
    Apes and men are not 'father' and 'son,' they're 'brothers.' Two ends of a branch on a huge tree. The first did not beget the second. The arose side-by-side.
    The both came from simpler hominids, all the way back to a squirrel-like animal that appeared after the dinosaurs died off sixty-five million years ago. And they (squirrel-like protohominids) came from more primitive mammals, which came from reptiles, which came from amphibians, which came from fish, which came from cephalopods which came from worms which came from more primitive multicellular organisms which came from early colonial organisms which came from one-celled- organisms grouping up together, which came of course from just plain one-celled organisms, which came from more primitive one-celled organisms getting together (organelles etc) which came from early protocaryotes, which came out of the evolution of complex organic molecules, which came from the many organic molecules present in the early earth's atmosphere and oceans. Which came from volcanoes and meteorites and other sources.

    There, I did you one better. I've just traced man all the way back to the primevel soup. Good enough?

    ReplyDelete
  174. As to apes and men...

    Which is the more highly evolved?

    Uh, that depends, actually.

    Sure, if you're talking brains, we win...

    But in just about EVERY other area, they slay us. They're waaay stronger, and have two extra hands which we lack and we never, ever had. In trees they are amazing where we are clumsy.

    It took them just as long to get where they are, as it took us to get where we are. We just 'concentrated' on different things.

    So we're actually pretty even, as far as how evolved we both are.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Oh and incidentally MI, I found your missing post to richelle. It is the very last post on my 'coercive morality' blog, two blogs back.

    And you accused me of censoring you.

    I'd say 'shame on you' but really, what more can I expect?

    ReplyDelete
  176. Me: Chemistry, Pharmacy, (Masage Therapy which doesn't count) and Acupuncture
    ---------------
    Actually, both maSSage therapy AND acupuncture do not count.

    And you mis-spelled massage, and you used 'pharmacy' instead of 'pharmacological science' or the most common 'pharmacology.'

    This indicates dishonesty here. You're just not credible. Kinda like the book you love so much.

    ReplyDelete
  177. "..where is the fossil evidence of the one-celled organism to the ape man?"

    This is a bogus question. What is it that you are asking for? Anyone with even a rudimentary scientific background ought to know that there is absolutely nothing that could be dug out of the ground that could possibly be an answer to that question.

    " Where is the evidence of the evolution of a one-celled organism's evolution to the ape man? "

    This is simple. The evidence is that all life is connected. All life on this planet is made up of the same stuff, RNA and DNA.

    There's plenty evidence that DNA is identical in each individual living thing but that it varies across the population of each specie.

    For example, the DNA of you is all the same, but the DNA of all humans varies. But your DNA does not vary randomly, no, it is a combination of your parents DNA, which is a combination of their parents DNA.

    There's evidence that within each specie of life form there is a variation in the gene pool which allows for adaptation, over time, of a particular specie to their local environment.

    This is called, "Evolution by natural selection."

    If we listed all the different life forms on the planet we'd notice that they are grouped and that grouping is dependant on how similar their DNA is. In other words, they are physically related to each other and not just 'stuck' into groups by people who noticed that they are similar.

    ReplyDelete
  178. " Where is the evidence of the evolution of a one-celled organism's evolution to the ape man? "
    -------------
    Plus pboy, there is always evidence *at each step* in each species, that it descended from some particular other, similar species that came before it. Together the string of evidence forms a chain that goes all the way back to the primitive unicellular animals.
    So there's that, too.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Anyways, MI, we all know the religious explanation about the 'kinds' of animals brought on to Noah's Ark and that, right?

    But you must admit that the Ark couldn't possibly have contained every kind of animal, there are just so many kinds of each kind of animal.

    The deer family, for example. There are red deer and white tailed deer and mule deer, reindeer, elk and moose, right off the top of my head.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer

    But there are enough different kinds of deer to fill an Ark just with one mating couple of each, so you need to delude yourself that Noah only needed to bring two anscestors to all the varieties of deer we see on the planet today, right?

    Now this is where you take both sides of the argument. You cannot say that there is no such thing as evolution by natural selection on the one hand, and use evolution by natural selection, or 'adaptation' to explain the many different 'kinds' of animals(not just deer), on the other hand, which seems to be what you are trying to do.

    If you're saying that there was an archetype 'deer' brought on board the Ark which is the common anscestor of all the different kinds of deer we see today, then you're saying that all those different kinds of deer evolved over a mere four thousand years or so.

    Not only that, you're imagining that the land bridges necessary for animals, including humans, to spread across the continents came and went over a ridiculously short time span.

    You seem to be setting God the impossible task of answering prayers for weather while having a totally different global weather agenda.

    This kind of thing is where you guys just invoke magic.

    ReplyDelete
  180. And taking the many species in the deer family as examples, when we look at any one of them and trace it's lineage, one can tell using science that it's been around, pretty much the same as it is now, for way over six thousand years. All the many kinds of deer we have today have been pretty much just like they are now for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. And that's just the deer. Everything else is the same. All the many, many species of frogs for example. Even all the (over thirty thousand!) species of ground beetle. All of the zillions of species around today, animal and plant, each show history of having been here a very long time. Far, far longer than the Bible allows for. And that's just how long they've been here in their present forms, not even getting to the earlier species that they evolved from, and so on all the way back to the beginning. Which is over four billion years in the past. Everything agrees on that. Everything agrees on all of this. Except for religion of course, but that doesn't even count.

    ReplyDelete
  181. It's funny that you seem to love to demand evidence all the time when it comes to evolution of life on this planet, MI.

    We can pick up the Bible and find evidence that God believes that there are other gods. It's right there in your 10 Commandments.

    Seems to me that you are not willing to face ANY evidence that living things evolve, in spite of having to invoke exactly that(evolution) after the supposed flood. Nor are you willing to face any evidence that your idea of 'GOD' is confused and confusing.

    Seems to me it would have been straightforward for Yahweh to say that HE was THE only GOD, and not just that HE was the only GOD that the Hebrews were supposed to worship.

    But there's always wiggle room to say that supposedly profound truth is actually a bad translation or the funny old people at the time wouldn't be able to face the obvious truth that you see or that GOD himself used a loose definition of 'GOD' to make his point, rather than laying it out straight for us.

    That your religion's beliefs have evolved over time is proof enough that ideas certainly evolve and you can use this idea to your advantage when that suits you.(Them funny old people with their funny old ideas put 'the truth' in their funny old way.)

    So, we can read that those funny old people have their god tell them to not worship OTHER gods, even though we know(wink) that there AREN'T any other gods TO worship!

    We can confuse the issue further by defining the word 'true' to mean 'real' if that suits our momentary argument.(true gods and false gods)

    We can DEFINE a good person AS a person who believes in God in the way we like, forcing a non-believer to become a bad person, or an evil person or just a misguided person, the above being interchangable depending on what suits us at the moment.

    But it is just confusing the issue. You and I know that God isn't going to stop any murders today no matter how 'all powerful' you imagine HIM to be, and no matter how many of God's LAWS the government is trying to foist off on us. (Eire is a Catholic Nation, but they still have murders, yes they do.)

    ReplyDelete
  182. "I'm stymied" - Brian
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Exactly.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Love, your previous post had over 206 posts before some accidentally disappeared....

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    I graduated with a B.S. Degree in Chemistry and a Pharm.D, if you wish to get technical.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Which science degrees did you graduate (legitimately) with????

    (Hint, when you do not answer concrete questions with rational concrete answers, it doesn't bode well for you in the converstion, especially in the dept. of brains)--
    Name-calling, verbal intimidation and self-confusing comments are all you can muster up.

    If you fancy storming around as an expert in Science -- you ARE deluded.

    Myopic pride and arrogant ignorance will surely be the downfall of you - if - you're not careful......

    ReplyDelete
  183. I'm back home now from Massanutten and really need to devote my time to my family and to God as Holy Week has begun with Palm Sunday today.

    I've enjoyed blogging with everyone again and I wish you all well and will keep you in my heart.

    PEACE! MI =D

    ReplyDelete
  184. Which science degrees did you graduate (legitimately) with????
    ------------
    I never claimed to be a scientist. I am however a gemologist, which is materials science. GIA Graduate Gemologist. And also I am an ameteur naturalist. My lifelong love of science is why I can see you for what you are, a total charlatan. You're a science idiot who claims advanced degrees. This is not possible. You are a liar. If you think that's an ad hominem, you're right, but it's a true one.

    Go have fun with your palm on sunday. We'll be here when you get back. We can't wait to hear more. How you conquered Everest when you were sixteen only to find out that it was only thirty feet high and the whole thing was all just liberal spin... Whatever you care to share. You never fail to amuse, whatever else can be said of you.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Myopic pride and arrogant ignorance will surely be the downfall of you - if - you're not careful......
    -------------
    Oh, don't worry. I'm very careful not to hang around with crazy christians, whose myopic pride and arrogant ignorance would indeed be the death of me if they knew what I say about them here, and they had their guns handy. (and when do they not?)

    Thanks for the warning. They are pretty frigging dangerous at that, aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  186. "I'm stymied" - Brian
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Exactly.
    -So you too can see that it is impossible for me to determine which kind of idiot you are?
    That was, after all, the context.


    Love, your previous post had over 206 posts before some accidentally disappeared....
    -And you're saying that the very post that you accused me of censoring you over somehow magically jumped out of whatever posts you think was accidentally deleted from that blog and went over to the very end of the previous blog?

    Okay. Sure it did. After all, whatever you hallucinate is true.

    ReplyDelete
  187. MI: "Love, your previous post had over 206 posts before some accidentally disappeared...."

    I have no recollection of the last post every getting above 200, or having less now then it ever did.

    You are delusional on several levels.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Seems that MI noticed that you paid attention to that 'censoring' thing and she's jumping all over that.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Yes Jerry, I am reading you loud and clear.
    I don’t care Jerry really… Nor do I FEEL insulted. I merely pointed out your constant insults .
    I know an insult when I hear one.

    You may need the approval of others Jerry, but I don’t…and it sounds as if you need the approval of complete strangers as well. Jerry I sense you have a deep underlying problem , maybe you were rejected as a child and feel the need for acceptance. Jerry ,you must learn to accept yourself and be happy for who you are. STOP trying to please others Jerry it is not mentally healthy.

    You claim to have knowledge of “a god” But you never offer any information on how you received this knowledge. Did it come from the Bible? If your answer is yes, then you must of cherry picked the verse’s you feel would best fit a description of what a God should be like in your mind. Or maybe your god is a figment of your imagination , maybe you dreamed him up and thought you just had a spiritual experience.
    Where ever your god came from you obviously consider your god to be better than others gods. Maybe Jerry, you made him up to satisfy some deep rejection you are still suffering from when you were a child.
    I don’t know Jerry, Maybe the Dalai Lama is a earthen figure of your god… It’s anyone’s guess.
    Please seek help!!!

    I don’t know Jerr ,Christianity has thrived for two thousand years and I don’t see any changes in the near future. The fact is Jerry, since obama has done what he has done, I see more and more people turning to the Christian God for help because of the desperate times that are on the horizon.
    Yes I see a great increase in folks returning to the Christian God… Amen…and Amen…

    ReplyDelete
  190. Hey, you ol' Hasbro Rock Tumbler -
    (wink wink) =D

    I think it's time for a smile and a chuckle:(it's aol slideshow of cute/funny dressed up Easter Eggs)
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    http://www.shelterpop.com/2010/03/16/easter-egg-decorating-bonanza/?icid=main|main|dl5|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shelterpop.com%2F2010%2F03%2F16%2Feaster-egg-decorating-bonanza%2F

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    PS. I'm just having a joke with you about the rock tumbler stuff =D

    I believe you're a gemologist.

    Guess I just can't get away from your blog......

    Smile, Brian, take a deep breath, have a giggle and just take a moment to not be so serious.....
    ;xD

    ReplyDelete
  191. Hey, you ol' Hasbro Rock Tumbler,
    ( just kidding =D)

    Take out a moment to take a deep breath, smile and not be so serious (as in crochety) all the time:

    (aol slideshow of celebrity-decked eggs):

    http://www.shelterpop.com/2010/03/16/easter-egg-decorating-bonanza/?icid=main|main|dl5|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shelterpop.com%2F2010%2F03%2F16%2Feaster-egg-decorating-bonanza%2F

    ReplyDelete
  192. My apologies; didn't see the first post go through.....

    ReplyDelete
  193. Yes Jerry, I am reading you loud and clear.
    I don’t care Jerry really… Nor do I FEEL insulted. I merely pointed out your constant insults .
    I know an insult when I hear one.

    You say you hear me then turn around and admit you do not. The fact that in your mind you thought of the idea, this is an insult shows that thought, this is an insult, was on your mind. Are you really to deny that is a fact? Are you ready to own that thought, or are you going to say I put that thought into you mind? Or perhaps you are going to say you do not have a choice of what you think. In this case you thought of insult, and now deny that you had that on your mind or if it was on your mind I am supposed to be wrong saying you are the creator of that thought. Are you going to own the thought about insult or not? You can deny caring all you want, but if you have had the experience with the spirit you claim to have had, caring for others, all others, is part of the package. You buy Jesus, you buy his brother, one of which I am, he confessed this fact when he said; "Our Father". First two words..........

    ReplyDelete
  194. I don’t know Jerr ,Christianity has thrived for two thousand years and I don’t see any changes in the near future. The fact is Jerry, since obama has done what he has done, I see more and more people turning to the Christian God for help because of the desperate times that are on the horizon.
    Yes I see a great increase in folks returning to the Christian God… Amen…and Amen…

    I say for the failure of Christianity look at your self. What causes the fall of Christianity is failure to deliver. The fruits of the spirit is what I mean. Take yourself, busting your ass to do what you have been lead to believe by Christianity (the bible). The fruit or your philosophy is to say I don't care. That is what Christianity has lead you to. It is perfectly OK within Christianity, to feel you don't care. If you want to be with Jesus, he said "I care" so to be one with Jesus is to care. You might say what you will about how wrong Botts is, but Botts says "I care". Does not matter who you are or what you think, he cares. That is the fruit of the spirit, and it shows through when Botts tells us what he thinks. I do not hear that spirit when you speak, and it is confirmed when you say, "I dont care".

    ReplyDelete
  195. Mike said "since obama has done what he has done, I see more and more people turning to the Christian God for help because of the desperate times that are on the horizon."

    Don't get too excited, countries with socialized medicine see a decline in people who self identify as christian (or any religion for that matter).

    Obviously, correlation does not equal causation, but still...

    ReplyDelete
  196. I believe you're a gemologist.

    -Good, but I'd still be one even if you didn't, you know.

    Guess I just can't get away from your blog......

    -Nah, it's too late now. My satanic pagan atheist magick is such that any christian that posts for more than a year can no longer ever leave.

    So basically, your soul is mine for a late night snack.
    Slim pickings indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  197. There you go twisting what I said into something I did not say.

    Read closely Jerry…. I… DO…NOT…CARE…IF…YOU…INSULT…ME…
    Your opinion of me means nothing…
    I did not say I do not care period. just your insults…

    You do not speak to me with the same respect you show to the rest of the posters here.
    You take great pleasure in elevating yourself ,above me. Nice to see you up their.
    “If Christianity fails it will be because of my kind of Christianity,” says Jerry the man who rejects the only way Christianity can be had.

    What is your true motive behind your comments you direct towards me Jerry.
    It’s not the love of Jesus, your are to judgmental to be speaking on his behalf…

    By the way , If you want to debate a topic any topic with me without all the foolishness feel free.
    But until then don’t bother… This will be my last response to you unless you change .
    Peace.

    ReplyDelete