Religion: Respect? Ridicule!
Brandon G. Withrow asks this provocative question in The Huffington Post today: Will 2012 Be The Year Of The Atheist?
Methinks not.
Homo sapiens sapiens is not prepared to live in the absence of incarnate goodness and evil. “God” and “Devil” remain safe.
Atheism requires a dapper, dauntless intelligence most humans are not prepared to exercise.
Another year of fairy tales and conjoined violence await the parasites on this third rock from a small star.
Ho-hum.
 | Con-Tester on The year of the Atheist? |
 | Hans Matthysen on The year of the Atheist? |
 | Shazee on Religion is like a penis |
| Con-Tester on The year of the Atheist? |
| Hans Matthysen on The year of the Atheist? |
| Con-Tester on Religion is like a penis |
| Hans Matthysen on Religion is like a penis |
| Hans Matthysen on Religion is like a penis |
| Con-Tester on The year of the Atheist? |
| Shazee on The year of the Atheist? |
| Shazee on The year of the Atheist? |
 | soois on The year of the Atheist? |
| soois on The year of the Atheist? |
| Shazee on The year of the Atheist? |
| Con-Tester on The year of the Atheist? |
Pew Forum Religion News
Unfortunately, I have to agree.
Remember too, that 2012 is the year the world is supposed to end. If you can’t get them to believe by promising eternal salvation, at least you can scare them into church. The end justifies the means.
But the article also makes clear that many atheists do not “come out” because of fear of ostracism. It’s not just intellectual courage that is lacking, but also moral honesty and a distrust of popular opinion.
On a frivolous note, as Oscar Wilde said: “Ah! don’t say that you agree with me. When people agree with me I always feel that I must be wrong”.
Best wishes for 2012!
Irma
December 31, 2011 at 07:41
Thought it was supposed to end 2011, wasn’t it 21 May or something?
Shazee
December 31, 2011 at 17:16
Thought it was supposed to end 2011, wasn’t it 21 May or something? Or was it 21 September?
Shazee
December 31, 2011 at 17:17
On 21 December 2012, the Mayan calendar runs out of days. Crediots of several particularly naïve stripes propose that this means the Mayans knew when the world will end and aligned their calendar accordingly, and so the world will end on that day. The situation is in principle no different to saying that we can’t count beyond four digits, and so the world will end on 31/12/9999, i.e. in about 8,000 years.
Basically, it’s an especially hilarious line of asinine unreason.
After his previous failed prognostications for 21/5/1988 and 6/9/1994, Harold Camping predicted the return of Jesus to Earth with “The Rapture” commencing on 21 May 2011, culminating in global annihilation on 21 October 2011. Lots of people bought into his lunacy, including many crediot/religiot/godiot/bibliot acolytes here in SA.
As is now patently obvious, nothing especially noteworthy happened at the appointed time, least of all the sobering up of Camping and his mindless dupes who now insist that in reality a “spiritual judgement” occurred (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean).
Con-Tester
December 31, 2011 at 18:38
I don’t know Nathan, this new militant version of Atheism might very well have its day.
Especially since in militant -OH! I mean…ahem- “New” Atheism, contradicting oneself in order to take another swing at religion is a perfectly legitimate strategy.
New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens should follow the example of Marx and Darwin instead of baiting the devout.
“The struggle for a free intelligence has always been a struggle between the ironic and the literal mind.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Balanced Truths
December 31, 2011 at 21:04
Unintelligible blather and remarkably uninspired and contrived prattle aside, Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping…) You know the question, right? Or have you forgotten? Need I remind you perhaps?
Oh, do forgive my leaky memory! This is you “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”. Clearly, you’re far too wise, mature, balanced and truthful to be baited by such childish tactics as mine…
Con-Tester
December 31, 2011 at 21:34
New Atheism, like Gray said, is very similar to religious politics, complete with propaganda and construing the facts to suit the cause.
Pope Benedict XVI is the boss of a church that acts as a ‘patron, protector and financier of child rape’, says one secularist writer. Last week the UK Independent reported that in America, ‘over 10,000 people have come forward to say they were raped as part of this misery-go-round’ overseen by His Holiness and His Lackeys. In Ireland alone, a tiny country of 4.5million people, ‘Thousands were raped in reform schools’, said a British broadsheet headline last year, ramming home the ugly truth of how many kids have been raped by the Catholic Church’s army of paedophile priests.
But how true is this ugly truth? Were 10,000 children in America and thousands more in Ireland really raped by Catholic priests? In a word, no. Instead, what has happened is that in the increasingly caliginous, almost Inquisitorial mindset of sections of the New Atheist anti-pope lobby, every allegation of abuse against a Catholic priest – whether it involved sex talk or fondling or actual penile penetration – has been lumped together under the heading of ‘rape’, and every allegation has been described as an actual proven ‘rape’ regardless of whether it resulted in a legal trial, never mind a conviction.
The term ‘paedophile priest’ has become such a part of everyday cultural lingo that most people, when they read in last week’s relatively respectable UK Independent that ‘over 10,000 children have come forward to say they were raped [by Catholic priests]’, would probably think, ‘Yeah, that’s possible’. But it isn’t true. The Independent was referring to a study commissioned in 2002 by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which was published in 2004 under the heading ‘The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States’. This study covered the period of 1950 to 2002, and it did indeed find that 10,000 individuals in the US – 10,667, to be precise – had made allegations of sexual abuse against priests (against 4,392 priests in total, around four per cent of the 109,694 Catholic priests active in the US between 1950 and 2002). But this doesn’t mean that these 10,000 ‘[came] forward to say they were raped’.
The 10,667 made various allegations, ranging from verbal abuse (being forced to indulge in sex talk) to being shown pornography to being touched by a priest over or under their clothing. Then there were the more serious allegations, which included being coerced into mutual masturbation, oral sex and, in some instances, rape. Yet where 3,553 of the individuals claimed to have been touched over their clothing and 3,981 to have been touched under their clothing, a smaller number claimed to have been subjected to what is described in the report as ‘penile penetration or attempted penile penetration’, that is rape or attempted rape; 990 boys and 213 girls made this allegation – a total of 1,203 individuals, not 10,000.
Moreover, if we are serious about such Enlightened ideals as justice and equality before the law, then we have to accept the fact that not all of these allegations were ultimately proven to be true. Out of the 10,000-plus allegations made against priests in America, 3,300 were not investigated at all because they were made after the accused priest had died (surely even the most riled anti-pope commentator accepts that a man who is no longer around to defend himself cannot be convicted of a crime). Of the 4,392 priests in America who were accused of sexual abuse in the period of 1950 to 2002, 1,021 were investigated by the police, and of these, 384 were charged, of whom 252 were convicted. So around six per cent of all American priests who had allegations made against them were finally convicted. (Of course there are many reasons for this relatively tiny number of convictions: some alleged victims were pressured to keep quiet; some (25 per cent in the US) didn’t make their allegations for more than 30 years after the alleged incident occurred; and in some instances there was just a lack of evidence.)
So nothing like 10,000 individuals in America ‘say they were raped’ by Catholic priests. In truth, 1,203 made this allegation. And not all of them resulted in a conviction. Every allegation of rape should be treated seriously, of course, but what happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty? How did a complex US report about all manner of allegations against priests come to be translated in the words of the Independent into the idea that ‘over 10,000 people have come forward to say they were raped [by priests]’? Because in the outlook of certain sections of the intolerant New Atheist lobby, everything from sex talk to fondling to being shown a porn flick is ‘rape’ – if it’s done by a priest, that is – and every priest is guilty of what he is accused of despite the question of whether or not he was convicted in a court of law.
A similarly warped conflation has been made in relation to Ireland, now widely looked upon as a country where crazy priests spent most of their days handing out communion wafers and/or raping children. When the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was published in May 2009 – with its analysis of accusations of abuse made by individuals who had attended Irish reform schools between 1940 and 1999 – the media reported it as if it had uncovered apocalyptic, Caligulan levels of sexual depravity. ‘Thousands were raped in Irish reform schools’, said the Independent. ‘Thousands raped in Ireland’s Christian Brothers schools’, said the Belfast Telegraph. ‘Thousands raped and abused in Catholic schools in Ireland’, said the Guardian.
So were thousands of children – in particular boys, the main focus of the media reports – raped in Irish reform schools? No – 68 were, allegedly. Two-hundred-and-forty-two male witnesses made 253 reports of sexual abuse against the staff of Irish reform schools at the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse – and of these, 68 claim to have been raped. Once again, not all of the allegations resulted in convictions. Some witness reports involved priests who had died, and out of the 253 male reports of sexual abuse, 207 related to the period of 1969 or earlier; 46 related to the 1970s and 1980s. How did 68 claims of anal rape made against the staff of Irish reform schools over a 59-year period translate into headlines about thousands being raped? Because once again, everything from being neglected to being smacked to being emotionally abused – which thousands of Irish reform-school kids were subjected to – was lumped together with being raped, creating a warped image of a religious institution that rapes children on an almost daily basis. (If it were true that 10,000 Americans had claimed to have been raped by priests between 1950 and 2002, that would have amounted to more than one alleged priest-rape every two days.)
Why is it worth pointing out these basic facts? Not in order to defend the Catholic Church, which clearly has a sexual abuse problem, or to minimise the suffering of those individuals who ‘only’ suffered being verbally abused, shown dirty photos or fondled over their clothing by Catholic priests – all of those acts are abhorrent and potentially punishable in a court of law. No, it is worth pointing out the reality of the extent of allegations against the Catholic Church in order to expose the non-rationalist, anti-humanist underpinnings of the current fashion for Catholic-baiting amongst the liberal, opinion-forming classes in the US and the UK. The wildly inaccurate claim about thousands of children being raped by the representatives of an institution which actively ‘protected and financed child rape’ suggests that modern-day atheism, this New Atheism, has zero interest in applying the tools of rational investigation and critical questioning to the problem of certain religions’ infrastructure, and instead is hellbent on using the politics of fear to invent a fantastical rape-happy ogre, in contrast to which it can pose as the pure defender of childlike innocence and societal integrity.
The irony is almost too much. For in the past, of course, it was the Catholic Church, especially during the period of the Inquisition, which viewed being accused as the same thing as being guilty, and which demonised its enemies, on the basis of questionable evidence, as depraved perverts whose mad habits posed a threat to morality and stability. Now, somehow, bizarrely, worryingly, the so-called New Atheists have adopted these very tactics in their drive to depict religion as the greatest evil of our age.
By Brendan O’Neill (journalist)
Compare these measly statistics to South Africa.
Wiki says:
According to a survey for the period 1998–2000 compiled by the UN, South Africa was ranked first for rapes per capita. The incidence of rape has led to the country being referred to as the “rape capital of the world”. One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by the Community of Information, Empowerment and Transparency said they had been raped in the past year. More than 25 per cent of South African men questioned in a survey published by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in June 2009 admitted to rape; of those, nearly half said they had raped more than one person. Three out of four of those who had admitted rape indicated that they had attacked for the first time during their teens. South Africa has amongst the highest incidences of child and baby rape in the world.
.
We far outdid a worldwide organisation’s statistics for over half a century, an organisation in charge of billions, in two years flat, nothing to do with religion.
Balanced Truths
December 31, 2011 at 21:52
Similarly, many fundamental proselytising Atheist like RD, CH and other Casual-Tossers would have us believe that the Nazi movement was religious, that the church was ultimately the evil behind the scenes, religion is, after all, the biggest evil mankind has ever seen.
Wikipedia says:
To maintain the purity and strength of the Aryan race, the Nazis sought to exterminate or impose exclusionary segregation upon “degenerate” and “asocial” groups that included: Jews, homosexuals, Romani, blacks, the physically and mentally handicapped, Jehovah’s Witnesses and political opponents. The persecution reached its climax when the party and the German state which it controlled organized the systematic murder of approximately six million Jews and six million other people from the other targeted groups, in what has become known as the Holocaust.
Amongst the German academics who planned it, it was known as the Final Solution.
A closer look at the leaders and brains behind the scenes, in alphabetical order (I only made it to G but I think the common thread is not religion).
AGunter d’Alquen, primarily a Journalist, his function was as Chief Editor of the SS official newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps (“The Black Corps”), and commander of the SS-Standarte Kurt Eggers.
Ludolf von Alvensleben, who graduated with a degree in Agriculture and acted as commander of the SS and police in Crimea and commander of the Selbstschutz (self-defense) of the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia.
Max Amann was and Editor and Head of Nazi publishing house Eher-Verlag
Benno von Arent, a stage designer. He was responsible for art, theatres, and movies in the Third Reich.
Heinz Auerswald was a lawyer and Commissioner for the Jewish residential district in Warsaw from April 1941 to November 1942.
Artur Axmann, studied law and was Chief of the Social Office of the Reich Youth Leadership. Leader of the Hitler Youth from 1940 through war’s end in 1945.
Herbert Backe. He studied at the Tbilisi Gymnasium (grammar school) and studied at the University of Göttingen. He was Minister of Food (appointed 1942) and Minister of Agriculture (appointed 1943).
Alfred Baeumler. From 1924 he taught at the Technische Universität Dresden, at first as an unsalaried lecturer Privatdozent. Bäumler was made associate professor (Extraordinarius) in 1928 and full professor (Ordinarius) a year later. From 1933 he taught philosophy and political education in Berlin as the director of the Institute for Political Pedagogy. A philosopher who interpreted the works of Friedrich Nietzsche in order to legitimize Nazism.
Werner Best studied law and in 1927 obtained his doctorate degree at Heidelberg. He was a SS-Obergruppenführer and Civilian administrator of Nazi occupied France and Denmark.
Paul Blobel studied architecture and practiced this profession from 1924 until 1931. He was a SS commander primarily responsible for the Babi Yar massacre at Kiev.
Hans-Friedrich Blunck was a jurist and a writer. He was a propagandist and head of the Reich Literature Chamber between 1933 and 1935.
Ernst Wilhelm Bohle studied political sciences and business administration in Cologne and Berlin and graduated in business management at the Handelshochschule, Berlin, in December 1923. He was the leader of the Foreign Organization of the German Nazi Party from 1933 until 1945.
Philipp Bouhler studied philosophy for four semesters and in 1921 became a contributor in the publishing house that put out the Völkischer Beobachter. He was Chief of the Chancellery of the Führer of the NSDAP and leader of the Action T4 euthanasia program.
Viktor Brack was a doctor and the organiser of the Euthanasia Programme, Operation T4 and one of the men responsible for the gassing of Jews in the extermination camps.
Otto Bradfisch. An economist and jurist and Commander of the Security Police in Lódz and Potsdam.
Karl Brandt. He became a medical doctor in 1928.- Personal physician of Adolf Hitler in August 1944 and headed the administration of the Nazi euthanasia program from 1939.
Wernher von Braun – rocket scientist, aerospace engineer and space architect- head of the V-2 rocket program at Peenemunde. Subsequently worked for the US Army and NASA, designing America’s pioneering rockets including the Redstone, Atlas and Saturn V
Josef Bühler -degree in law- State secretary for the Nazi-controlled General Government in Kraków during World War II.
Herr Carlton – Noted Nazi Liberal professor of politics.
Werner Catel – Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry at the University of Leipzig, considered an expert on the programme of euthanasia for children and participated in the T-4 Program.
Carl Clauberg – Doctor who conducted medical experiments on human beings in Nazi concentration camps during World War II.
Leonardo Conti – Head of the Reich Physicians’ Chamber (Reichsärztekammer) and leader of the National Socialist German Doctors’ League (Nationalsozialistischer Deutscher Ärztebund or NSDÄB).
DKurt Daluege – studied engineering at the Technical University in Berlin, acted as SS-Oberstgruppenführer and Generaloberst der Polizei, as chief of the Ordnungspolizei (Order/uniformed Police); from 1942 ruled the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia as Acting Protector after Reinhard Heydrich’s assassination.
Richard Walther Darré – attend school in Heidelberg; exchange pupil to King’s College School in Wimbledon, then spent two years at the Oberrealschule in Gummersbach, followed in early 1914 by the Kolonialschule,then to Witzenhausen to continue his studies and complete his PhD in 1929. He was Minister of Food and Agriculture from 1933 to 1942.
Rudolf Diels -study law at the University of Marburg- was a German politician. A protégé of Hermann Göring, Diels was the first director of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1 April 1934.
Otto Dietrich -went to the universities of Munich, Frankfurt am Main and Freiburg, from which he graduated with a doctorate in political science in 1921- Press Chief of the Third Reich.
Oskar Dirlewanger -studied at the university in Frankfurt and obtained a degree in political science in 1922- Commanded the infamous SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger unit made out of amnestied Germans convicted of major crimes.
EIrmfried Eberl -physician. Eberl graduated from the medical program in 1933 and gained his doctorate a year later. He was Commandant of Treblinka, July to September 1942.
Dietrich Eckart -studied law at Erlangen, later medicine at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, also a poet, playwright and journalist. He was an important early member of the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party and a participant of the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch.
August Eigruber -underwent training in geodesy and fine mechanics at the Austrian Federal Teaching Institution- Gauleiter of Oberdonau (Upper Danube) and Landeshauptmann of Upper Austria
Richard Euringer – Writer- who selected 18,000 “unsuitable” books which did not conform to Nazi ideology and were publicly burned.
Gottfried Feder. After attending humanistic schools in Ansbach and Munich, he studied engineering in Berlin and Zürich (Switzerland); after graduating, he founded a construction company in 1908,from 1917 on, Feder studied financial politics and economics. He was an Economic theorist and one of the early leaders of the NSDAP.
Hans Frank -studied law- Governor-General of occupied Poland and involved in perpetration of the Holocaust.
Roland Freisler -studied law at the University of Jena, becoming a Doctor of Law in 1922- State Secretary of Adolf Hitler’s Reich Ministry of Justice and President of the Volksgerichtshof. He sentenced hundreds of people to their deaths, including Sophie Scholl, and various members of the July 20 Plot. He was killed while returning to collect some files during an air raid on Berlin.
Wilhelm Frick. Frick finished school in Kaiserslautern. Between 1896 and 1900, he studied at the University of Munich, the University of Göttingen and the University of Berlin and completed his degree in law in Munich. Frick earned a doctor of laws from the University of Heidelberg in 1901. He was Minister of the Interior until August 1943 and later appointed to the ceremonial post of Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.
Hans Fritzsche – studied briefly at a number of universities before becoming a journalist for the Hugenberg Press – Senior official at the Ministry for Propaganda.
Walther Funk – studied law, economics, and philosophy at the Humboldt University of Berlin and the University of Leipzig – Minister for Economic Affairs from 1937 to 1945.
Karl Gebhardt – Head physician – Personal physician of Heinrich Himmler and one of the main perpetrators of surgical experiments performed on inmates of the concentration camps at Ravensbrück and Auschwitz.
Achim Gercke stated that beside the task of maintaining one’s own blood pure, there was the task of “extinction”, which would obey the great law of Nature to eliminate the bad and so be truly humane. He acted as – Expert of racial matters at the Ministry of the Interior and devised the system of “racial prophylaxis” forbidding the intermarriage between Jews and Aryans.
Kurt Gerstein-(Finaly someone with ties to the Church). He indulged himself at the University of Marburg for three semesters, he then transferred to the technical universities in Aachen and Berlin/Charlottenburg where he graduated in 1931 as a mining engineer. On 4 September 1937, Gerstein started studying Medicine at the University of Tübingen. He was an SS officer and member of the Institute for Hygiene of the Waffen-SS. He witnessed mass murders in the Nazi extermination camps. He gave information to the Swedish diplomat Göran von Otter as well as members of the Roman Catholic Church in order to inform the international public about the Holocaust. In 1945 he authored the Gerstein Report about the Holocaust. Afterward he allegedly committed suicide while in French custody.
Joseph Goebbels earned a Ph.D. from Heidelberg University in 1921, writing his doctoral thesis on 19th century romantic drama; he then went on to work as a journalist and later a bank clerk and caller on the stock exchange. He was one of Adolf Hitler’s closest associates and most devout followers, he was known for his zealous oratory and anti-Semitism. Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda throughout the Third Reich and World War II. Named Chancellor of the Reich in Hitler’s will, a position he held for only one day before his own suicide.
Hermann Göring. In 1933, Göring banned all Roman Catholic newspapers in Germany, not only to suppress resistance to National Socialism but also to deprive the population of alternative forms of association and means of political communication. He was Hitler’s designated successor (until expelled from office in April 1945), and commander of the Luftwaffe (German Air Force). As Reichsmarschall he was the highest-ranking military officer in the Third Reich; he was also the sole holder of the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross. He was sentenced to death by the Nuremburg Tribunal but committed suicide before he could be hanged. He was a veteran of the First World War as an ace fighter pilot, a participant in the Beer Hall Putsch, and the founder of the Gestapo.
Robert Ritter von Greim – focused on a career in law, and succeeded in passing Germany’s rigorous law exams – German Field Marshal, pilot and the last commander of the Luftwaffe succeeding Hermann Göring in the last days of World War II.
Walter Groß -physician- was chief of the Racial Policy Office of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). Implicated in the Final Solution.
Hans Friedrich Karl Günther , he was a eugenicist. He studied comparative linguistics at Albert Ludwigs University in Freiburg, but also listened to lectures on zoology and geography. In 1911, he spent a semester at the Sorbonne, Paris. He attained his doctorate in 1914. In 1919 he started his writing career, with “The Knight, death and the devil: the heroic idea” he advocated “biological nationalism”. He was responsible for Academic, teaching racial theories and eugenics.
Franz Gürtner – attended the University of Munich where he studied law- Minister of Justice responsible for co-ordinating jurisprudence in the Third Reich.
Balanced Truths
December 31, 2011 at 23:09
Very Balanced. Very Truthful. Very non-self-serving. Very deep analyses. Very insightful. Very accurate. All of it. I, for one, am now totally convinced that religion has been and is being unfairly targeted all along. Not a bad start for 2012.
Who can I repent to? To whom can I confess my sins? Who shall absolve me of my casually blind and tossful stupidity?
Still, there’s an unresolved issue, Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping…) You know the question, right? Or have you forgotten? Need I remind you perhaps?
Oh, do forgive my leaky memory! This is you “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”. Clearly, you’re far too wise, mature, balanced and truthful to be baited by such childish tactics as mine…
Con-Tester
December 31, 2011 at 23:45
Balanced Truths,
Jy maak my naar man. Wat is jou argument nou eintlik? Die priesters het nou wel n klompie onskuldige kinders verkrag, maar nie soveel as wat julle beweer nie? Hulle het nou wel die ander seksueel gemolesteer, maar daar was darrem nie penetrasie nie?
Behalwe dat so n argument fundamenteel siek is, het jy dit al oorweeg dat die bron van die “abuse” kom van n instansie wat julle wil he ons moet respekteer, en respekteer omdat dit iemand se geloof verteenwoordig?
Dit sulke tipe rasionaliserings van barbaarse gedrag wat my laat voel ons is moontlik nie militant genoeg nie.
Se my, as die beskuldigings gemik was teen n atteistiese liefdadigheids organisasie, sou jy dit steeds met n “geballanseerde waarheid” probeer regpraat het? Ek weet van bitter min atteiste wat sou.
Shazee
January 1, 2012 at 07:40
“Why is it worth pointing out these basic facts? Not in order to defend the Catholic Church, which clearly has a sexual abuse problem, or to minimise the suffering of those individuals who ‘only’ suffered being verbally abused, shown dirty photos or fondled over their clothing by Catholic priests – all of those acts are abhorrent and potentially punishable in a court of law. No, it is worth pointing out the reality of the extent of allegations against the Catholic Church in order to expose the non-rationalist, anti-humanist underpinnings of the current fashion for Catholic-baiting amongst the liberal, opinion-forming classes in the US and the UK. The wildly inaccurate claim about thousands of children being raped by the representatives of an institution which actively ‘protected and financed child rape’ suggests that modern-day atheism, this New Atheism, has zero interest in applying the tools of rational investigation and critical questioning to the problem of certain religions’ infrastructure, and instead is hellbent on using the politics of fear to invent a fantastical rape-happy ogre, in contrast to which it can pose as the pure defender of childlike innocence and societal integrity.”
Balanced Truths
January 1, 2012 at 08:45
It would be epistemological to dismantle the church for exactly what it is, it is decidedly unscientific and dishonest to use underhanded political tricks to demonise it.
Nothing good will come of this “New” Atheist movement, not because of it’s tenets but due to the mendacious tactics this movement employs.
Balanced Truths
January 1, 2012 at 08:47
I don’t believe that “scientific” is a word that should be used in relation to the church or religion in general.
To accuse atheists of an underhanded political agenda in relation to the RCC is rich irony.
Shazee
January 1, 2012 at 09:20
The Roman catholic church hardly needs any help from atheists to be demonised, whatever the tactics used, care to debate that?
Shazee
January 1, 2012 at 09:28
Shazee
The word ‘scientific’ should not be used to describe the spiritual nature of the church or religion. There is nothing wrong with using scientific principles to investigate, for instance, how much money is given to the church each year and what percentage is used for humanitarian goals. No, the above reference is valid in the light of the “New” Atheist’s drive to own the scientific industry and all its related virtues for their cause and to separate not only the religious institutions form science but to also cast doubt on the credibility of any religious and/or spiritual scientist.
It is, at this stage, delusional to turn a blind eye to the knee-jerk reactions the “New” Atheist and “New” Creationist organisations are getting from each other and only fools will deny the grossly distorted manifestations of these two camps this feud is causing.
No, to do the above while claiming the church, any church, is innocent would be, yes, but that is hardly what I am saying.
It is however what ‘New’ Atheists like RD and CH would have everyone believe, and it is exactly this relation that Con-Tester would have everyone believe I and the John Gray’s of the world care about in order to push us into the ‘opponent’ camp so that they can discredit us with underhanded political tactics.
It is these tactics that make it very clear they are trying to win a debate, to push a viewpoint across, to proselytise their requirements and discredit the opposition, even when it is the truth, at all costs, not, sadly, to promote the truth as they say.
Actually, I would debate that. The church was slowly falling out of favour all by itself, in this new age of technology it is becoming harder and harder to hide the truth from those who care to educate themselves. Unfortunately the largest portion of the billions of humans on Earth don’t care to educate themselves, they are too busy trying to survive, by any means possible. That is exactly why this public battle between Atheists and Theists are going to cause so much trouble. It is evolving into an emotional battle where propaganda, movies, books, lectures and organised groups are being manipulated to stir up feelings and to provoke action, not to promote the truth.
To demonise the church is a dishonest endeavour wherein its proponents strive to hide and discredit any and all virtues the church might have and not just to highlight all the faults but to carefully manipulate the truth to make religion and spirituality resemble a far more virulent threat than it is. The help of “New” Atheists are required to demonise the church because science would persist with or without theists and atheists and would remain impartial to religion and since the general population does not give two hoots about the truth from one moment to the next.
No, it requires this movement to incite the masses, and to build momentum, instead of just promoting the truth in all it’s unbiased splendour and letting the superstitions fade away at their own pace, as they surely would have.
These underhanded tactics will only serve to ensure both sides become progressively further corrupted.
Balanced Truths
January 1, 2012 at 11:12
It is dishonest for Christopher Hitchens to say this:
It is dishonest when the truth is that the Nazi party either renounced the church or was merely tolerant of it and that the individual members were largely atheistic. (Laqueur, Walter 1996). Into the early 1930s the German Center Party, the German Catholic bishops, and the Catholic media had been mainly solid in their rejection of National Socialism. They denied Nazis the sacraments and church burials, and Catholic journalists excoriated National Socialism daily in Germany’s 400 Catholic newspapers. The hierarchy instructed priests to combat National Socialism at a local level whenever it attacked Christianity (Cornwell, John October 1999). It is also the truth and perfectly reasonable that the church changed its stance after the Final Solution became a reality, it would clearly have been suicide not to, besides, the organisation is mentioned in many historical accounts to have secretly aided the cause against the Nazi movement.
Balanced Truths
January 1, 2012 at 11:36
Balanced truths, I struggle to determine on which side you are on, and please don’t tell me you are a neutral.
On the one hand you say that the church was dying a natural death as though it would be a good thing (which it would be), and on the other hand you highlight “was” as though the atheist movement (and I doubt if it is a movement) is somehow responsable for a revival.
I stand by my comment that it is sickening to try and rationalise or soften the very real abuses of the RCC in any way shape or form by claiming the accusations are exaggerated or was motivated by a political agenda. As far as I am concerned, almost no tactic short of violence would be unjustified in getting rid of this evil institution.
You say that atheists are trying to appropriate science and to seperate the church from science? I would love you to explain what you mean by that. The church which exists on the strenght of revealed truth and which actively discourages critical examination of its doctrines, the church which teaches that it is a virtue to believe absurdities in the absense of proof, or even better, despite proof to the contrary, needs atheists to seperate it from science???
Anyway, I was under the impression that the debate was going to be about the inherent evil of the church and not about the alledged political agenda of the “new” atheists.
By the way, if there is an agenda to get rid of harmfull superstition, of parasitic organisations that exists on human gullibilty, of recruiting grounds for mindless fanatics and of organisations that give aid and comfort to perverted child abusers, please, please, count me in.
Shazee
January 1, 2012 at 15:18
Jip. Ek vermoed dit gaan nog ten minste twee geslagte vat voor daar dalk sinvol gepraat sal kan word van The Year of the Atheist.
En in alle billikheid, Irma, dis nie die kerk wat die 21 Desember-apokalips verkondig nie.
Daan Van der Merwe
January 2, 2012 at 06:06
I fully expect this to be the year of the atheist, at least in the United States. I don’t think it is about dismantling the church or propegating fears and allegations against the pope. I think this is simply going to be a statement against the opressive influence of Christianity on American law makers. It has come to the point where law makers and presidential hopefuls openly put religious agendas ahead of constitutional liberties. In a country built on freedom of religion, laws are being written to outlaw gay mariage, supress science, teach creationism or intelligent design in public schools, bring prayer to schools, use Christianity as a basis for legal decisions. This is not okay. The atheist movement, as I see it in my small neighborhood of the world, is about making ourselves known as a substantial demographic that wil not sit quietly as the religious right crams there hateful bigotry down our throats and into legislation.
As far as the fear of ostrecism goes, it is certainly valid, but not the only factor in the muted voice of the average atheist. More than social suicide, what keeps many atheists from speaking out is our disdain for having others push their beleifs on us. I don’t want you trying to save my soul, so I will not try to free you from your dogma. We do not want to mimick the obnoxious behaviors of evangelicals. Most atheists consider themselves free thinkers, and are not inclined to become an organized sect of atheists against organized sects. Creating a church of atheists is much like starting a council of anarchists- how many would come to the meetings? This is changing now out of necessity. The religious right has too strong of a hold on government and public policy for us to continue minding our own business and keeping our beliefs private. It is time to speak up and be heard. The constitution protects freedom of religion which must also include freedom to reject religion. The bible must not be put before our constitutional rights.
My perspective is obviously painted by the political climate here, but I do look foreward to hearing how this is playing out around the world.
Amisha Jordan
January 2, 2012 at 12:03
Well said, Amisha.
Nathan Bond
January 2, 2012 at 14:08
Shazee
January 1, 2012 at 15:18
I assume you refer to two sides, ‘us’ and ‘them’ . One of humanity’s more disastrous failings. The concept of sides is found inadequate in the light of a common goal, the truth. Not simply the empirical truth, because the Nazi organisation saw more of that kind of truth than your ‘New’ Atheist side cares to acknowledge. Eugenics is, after all, a valid scientific pursuit, if human morality does not stand in the way. Science does not judge, the data is just data, and the material and methods do not require compassion.
Perhaps there is a more balanced truth.
Usually the truth does not win you friends, but it influences people. When you manipulate it to get your way it shows, perhaps not immediately, but it shows sooner or later. James Watson was scientifically correct when he said “[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really”. But was he right in saying it?
The churches of this world have a place and a function, it would be best if they performed this function where it matters and stayed out of scientific matters and the affairs of government. The church as we know it has been way too powerful, and has been a very convenient tool for evil masters. I would have been very happy to see it slowly evolve into a less powerful opiate.
You can no longer argue against the fact that “New” Atheism is a movement.
It has been gaining popularity, not so much for promoting science, but due to the public attacks on religious stupidity, it is exhilarating and sensational, however, it is inadvertently moulding its own opposition in the form of a very ugly branch of religious fanatics, Fundamentalists, Young Earth Creationists. Sects that are branding Atheists as Demons. Evolution, for Theists, has suddenly become part of the ‘them’ group and the ‘us’ group has been effectively cut off from it.
But the motivations was exaggerated, grossly so, do you propose turning a blind eye to that? Would you condone fabricating evidence?
The fact that this exaggeration is quoted and proselytized only acts to implicate, either by design or opportunity, those purporting it.
If rape is the problem then attack rape, why pick the RCC if their statistics are so low, why not pick the culture of the South African black population, or are you afraid of going Watson’s way, you surely will.
Then I suggest you be careful when you form ‘us’ and ‘them’ groups. The institution may be evil due to its powers-that-be but there are also good people, who work for humanitarian reasons, involved. It is a fact that the larger portion of charity organisations has religious connections.
Since Darwin, the church saw a big danger to the literal interpretation of Genesis, this discovery of evolution was seen as an inadvertent attack on their sacred book. The “New” Atheist movement has made it loudly public that Evolution is a counter to Religion, that it somehow proves that there can be no God. It is a manipulative lie that draws science into the battle of Theist vs Atheist and it makes science, by implication, a no-go-area for Theists. It removes the chance of slow gradual change because it removes the influence the scientific truth would otherwise have had. If you demonise something it means you are required to hate it simply because it is acceptable to do so. Hate begets hate, it is not reasonable, extremism never is.
The clashes between church and science, like Galileo’s, have proved that the church cannot win arguments with science in the long run and for a long time the churches were losing the authority they once held. It required the “New” Atheist movement to renew the Theistic fear for Science, these vehement public attacks giving them incentive to get more organised in order to manipulate and degrade science and inadvertently giving religion, and sadly, in particular, these atrocious attributes you mention above, a revitaliser.
With a title like, “The year of the Atheist?”
The inherent evil of the church is organised corruption, politics, the greatest human failure. It is no different for the “New” Atheist movement.
That is where we differ, I am not satisfied with just any agenda. It would arguably be better for all if we chose diplomatic truthful methods.
Balanced Truths
January 2, 2012 at 15:20
Agreed, Nathan: Very well said by Amisha Jordan.
————————
It has always been this Bollocksed Goofs’ (
) habit, well beyond the point of being a characteristic feature, to let loose aimless torrents of perplexing sermonising. He struggles much to render clear speech. This strong penchant for obscurantism and obfuscation is itself revealing, and is all the more evident in self-serving-but-wholly-inopportune comparisons and reinterpretations of history that clearly neglect in toto the big picture.
As near as I can tell, this shifty specimen’s view is that atheists must cease and desist denouncing religion ASAP. This, for two reasons: First, it upsets believers (to which my response is, “Good. People only change when something compels them to.”) Second, because there might just be some truth to their beliefs (to which my response is, “Maybe so. Then let them stop pretending to be friends of science and rationality, and let them bring adequate proof for their extraordinary claims. And must we now also resist criticising all beliefs, however popular and unlikely, because they ju-u-u-ust might be true?”) Sometimes he seems to object to using the findings and methods of science in the debate (to which my response is, “Good luck to you with that. Clearly, faith alone is not enough for the faithful, who usually drag it into contention in the first place.”) But, as said, owing to a severe communication defect, most of the time it’s not easy to fathom exactly what this joker is getting his knickers in a knot about, except that he sees the “New” Atheism as the New Great Evil™.
Besides the fact that SA is one of the more religious countries in the world, and besides the plain fact that one evil cannot be used to excuse another, the actual fact is that sexual abuse of children has occurred within the halls and under the stewardship of an authority, namely the RCC, that proclaims itself as the guardian and protector of humanity’s morals and spirituality (whatever the fuck that might be). When, as a worldwide institution, you call yourself such a guardian, you need to be extra sure that there aren’t any blemishes on your record because you will, quite naturally and rightly so, be held up to a stricter standard of morality. Even more, when a blemish is uncovered, you must deal with it openly, quickly and decisively, not sweep it under the rug along with piles of other dirty linen. At this time, we are nauseatingly familiar with the bankrupt morals and hypocrisy, as they were repeatedly exposed through the latter action.
The impressively self-important reconstructionist rant over Nazi atheism is a total hoot and shows the lengths to which the smarmy “friends of reason” will go to promote their delusions. For one thing, it’s intensely curious how the idea that atheism (rather than, say, a religiously fanatical belief in evidence-free dogma) supposedly was a principal motivation for Nazi atrocities and genocide, how this idea has so far evaded making it into mainstream history. Typically, this is the superficial agenda-laden nonsense one finds at bibliot/crediot/apologiot/godiot/religiot websites (presumably to expose the evils of atheism), and nowhere else. For another, the Vatican gave some legitimacy early on to the Nazis in Germany and remained largely neutral during WWII (Google “Reichskonkordat”; see also the Wikipedia article “Vatican City during World War II”). The issue of the Vatican’s conduct in respect of the Holocaust is not at all clear (see the Wikipedia article “Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust”), but alone the fact that this is a contentious issue is telling: A supposedly moral authority must shield against even the hint of any such equivocations. For yet another, the Nazis first gained prominence in southern Germany (Bavaria) where the population was (and still is) predominantly Roman Catholic, so there was nothing in the Nazi creed that the Germans, as a whole, felt to be inimical to Roman Catholicism. For yet another, the Nazis’ professed atheism was a reaction to an established order that they saw as oppressive to the German people (religion in Germany was, and is, tightly bound to the State). The Nazis did their level best to supplant “god” with an incoherent quasi-religious potpourri of occult/pagan/mystical notions.
And the idea is utterly laughable that Nazism somehow foreshadows how the current friction between atheism and theism will develop. Where are the atheist storm troopers? The atheist concentration camps? The atheist Luftwaffe? The atheist Gestapo? The atheist national identity? The atheist rallies baying for the blood of its enemies and oppressors? The atheist book burnings? The atheist invasions? Where are these things? No, the historical situation in Europe ca. 1930 to 1945 vividly illustrates what happens when a new, fanatical, dogmatic, authoritarian cult of unreason bashes heads with an old and established one. It wasn’t a conflict between theism and atheism. It was a conflict between rival superstitions vying for dominion over a section of the public. Had the RCC had access to the Nazi’s weapons and technology during the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the conquest of the Americas, what makes anyone think they wouldn’t have deployed them? After all, in those prior instances, they showed no restraint whatsoever in deploying the current state-of-the-art in weapons against heathens.
In neither case should the RCC need reminding of Galatians 6:7. Nor is it much surprising that the committed closet apologist is unable to see the oh-so-slap-in-the-face distinct parallels between formalised religion and any dogmatic, authoritarian evidence-free creed. You can include Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and several lesser autocrats in that, too. Does it really need to be spelled out that all formalised religions began life as dogmatic, authoritarian evidence-free creeds? Does it really need to be spelled out that all formalised religions, once they have achieved a certain minimal level of acceptance, invariably become tools of socio-political manipulation — specifically, manipulating the ordinary person into submissiveness through promise of some great post-mortem reward?
So, mendacious tactics, indeed. Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and…) Or are you still “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and is this how “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?
Con-Tester
January 2, 2012 at 15:46
Bollocksed Goofs (
) wrote (January 2, 2012 at 15:20):
So reinventing history from scratch, as in the first above-cited paragraph, qualifies as “diplomatic truthful methods,” yes? Religiots/crediots/bibliots/godiots were wholly content with evolution until the new atheists (or ‘“New” Atheists’ — take your pick) launched the first evolution-negates-god salvo, yes?
Sadly, there’s never a LOL icon big enough to do the deceptions, delusions and deliberate distortions full justice.
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and…) Or are you still “rest[ing your] case with [me]” with a healthy dose of “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?
Con-Tester
January 2, 2012 at 17:27
Google “Wiki Reichskonkordat” and see also the bit above that “Nazi attitudes towards the Church”.
Balanced Truths
January 2, 2012 at 18:18
wiki
Balanced Truths
January 2, 2012 at 18:22
Do you demonise religion?
“It’s an easy enough question that can be answered in just two or three letters. At this point, it’s irrelevant who exactly is the egomaniacal and/or soporific mammary around here. What matters is your credibility — or at least it should matter to you, but maybe doesn’t and that’d be revealing, too…”
“But I guess it’s something of an incentive to engage in such hilarious avoidance tactics when you’re just, just functional enough to know that whichever clear answer you give means that you’re exposed as a total fraud, and it doesn’t help either when a few other contributors have seen straight through you as well.”
So what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Balanced Truths
January 2, 2012 at 18:49
Which reminds me:
Thus dear CT,
Science & Religion: August 31, 2011 at 22:16 and September 1, 2011 at 20:54 (with special reference to my post of September 3, 2011 at 14:36) will have to be addressed with a modicum of honesty before any new issues can be addressed. But thank you for proving my point yet again. Your piss poor answer of September 3, 2011 at 16:33 is, as you say, “a slippery evasion” and my answer of September 3, 2011 at 17:31 clearly addressed your stupid question, if it is not clear enough for your paranoid ego, well then that’s your problem, join verifuktap for counselling.
I unfortunately have to add a few points to the long list of standing questions you have refused to answer as I would beg you to let our
know where ‘[my] idiotic rant has been addressed’ by you.
Balanced Truths
January 2, 2012 at 18:54
Good, so now that you’re talking to me again — not unexpectedly, with much avoidance and evasion, and much incoherence, and four times nogal within a 36-minute period — you still seem compos mentis enough to answer my simple yes-or-no question, Bollocksed Goofs (
). So what’s your answer? Come, come, it’s simple enough.
Or are you now going to go back into your sulky “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and “from here on out … for the largest part … ignore[ing me]”?
But whatever your decision on the above, thanks for substantiating my point that it’s an unctuous little ruse to say that you “can be sympathetic to religion and yet not have any religious convictions” — just as much as your stamp-my-little-feet assertion that you’ll ignore me. You just can’t trust these sycophantic wannabe fence-sitters on anything they say.
So, what is it: “yes” or “no”, eh?
Con-Tester
January 2, 2012 at 19:24
Oh, lest I be accused of lethargy, I’ll let posterity be the judge of whether I demonise religion. To me, the very concept of “demonisation” is absurd, given that demons as abstract supernatural entities are worthy of no more than a horse laugh.
Yes, I disdain religion, just as I hold in contempt any and all forms of fanatical, dogmatic, authoritarian cults of unreason. If you want to call that “demonising”, then the answer is still “yes”.
Simple, eh? Clear enough, eh?
Your turn to answer yes-or-no questions.
Con-Tester
January 2, 2012 at 20:01
BT, no, I don’t condone the fabrication of evidence, but the evidence was not fabricated, was it? It was merely interpreted – sounds familiar?
I cannot agree with you that the churches has a role to play in any capacity whatsoever. What would that purpose be? The perpetuation of superstition and ignorance, of bigotry and the teaching that it is a virtue to believe without
evidence or contrary to evidence, that is ok to hate anybody who don’t believe exactly as you do for no other reason than their disbelieve?
I also don’t buy your pie in the sky argument that we should persue a common goal of seeking a “balanced truth” together. When has the church ever retreated from a single point of dogma except under extreme duress? The church has proven over and over that it is very willing and capable of suppressing any opinion or fact it does not like by any means (violence if needs be, or even without the need) Reasonable and rational people have been respectfull for far too long. The church, and religion in general, is a destructive and evil construction that should be opposed and stamped out as soon as possible – it is in very real sense us or them. (Or would you like to introduce me to a priest,vicar,dominee who feels that he would like to explore a balanced truth with me regarding scepticism,atheism or evidence based believes?)
You seem to argue that atheists are reponsible for the childishly silly ideas of young earth creationists or the dangerous delusions of crazy fundamentalists, ag asseblief man, what do you suggest we do – appease them, like Hitler (you seem to be fond of him). I suggest the result of such a polcy would be much the same. Now it is the fault of reasonable people that these idiots are becoming dangerous because it is being pointed out how untenable the superstitions are that they so fondly and tenaciously hold?
My ou maat, dit smaak my jy wil he ons moet n bederfde kind paai omdat hy vloermoer gooi, doen jy dit maar, ek het genoeg daarvan gehad.
Shazee
January 3, 2012 at 00:44
BT, no, I don’t condone the fabrication of evidence, but the evidence was not fabricated, was it? It was merely interpreted – sounds familiar?
I cannot agree with you that the churches has a role to play in any capacity whatsoever. What would that purpose be? The perpetuation of superstition and ignorance, of bigotry and the teaching that it is a virtue to believe without
evidence or contrary to evidence, that is ok to hate anybody who don’t believe exactly as you do for no other reason than their disbelieve?
I also don’t buy your pie in the sky argument that we should persue a common goal of seeking a “balanced truth” together. When has the church ever retreated from a single point of dogma except under extreme duress? The church has proven over and over that it is very willing and capable of suppressing any opinion or fact it does not like by any means (violence if needs be, or even without the need) Reasonable and rational people have been respectfull for far too long. The church, and religion in general, is a destructive and evil construction that should be opposed and stamped out as soon as possible – it is in very real sense us or them. (Or would you like to introduce me to a priest,vicar,dominee who feels that he would like to explore a balanced truth with me regarding scepticism,atheism or evidence based believes?)
You seem to argue that atheists are reponsible for the childishly silly ideas of young earth creationists or the dangerous delusions of crazy fundamentalists, ag asseblief man, what do you suggest we do – appease them, like Hitler (you seem to be fond of him). I suggest the result of such a polcy would be much the same. Now it is the fault of reasonable people that these idiots are becoming dangerous because it is being pointed out how untenable the superstitions are that they so fondly and tenaciously hold?
My ou maat, dit smaak my jy wil he ons moet n bederfde kind paai omdat hy vloermoer gooi, doen jy dit maar, ek het genoeg daarvan gehad..
Shazee
January 3, 2012 at 00:49
Shazee,
Ek moet jou aanspreek oor jou stelling wat betref kinders wat “vloermoere” gooi. Dit is betreurenswaardig dat so ‘n stelling van jou afkomstig is. ‘n Ou sou dit verwag het van ‘n tipiese godioot. Maar nou ja, of iemand nou die godsdiens kak afgesweer het of nie, wat het so ‘n persoon nou eintlik geleer oor babatjies en kinders? Niks.
Is jy die tipe ou wat jou belt sal afhaal vir ‘n laitie wat, soos jy dit noem, ‘n vloermoer gooi?
Indien so, verloor ek alle respek vir jou. Wat ek jou kan verseker, is dat indien jy ‘n kind te lyf gaan met ‘n belt of iets, sal daardie kind eendag as volwassene, na iets aangryp om soos ‘n kruk te gebruik, en dit kan wel godsdiens wees, of enige ander esoteriese kak.
‘n Vloermoer, is niks anders as ‘n klein liggaampie wat vir jou wil se dat hy nodig het om ontslae te raak van geweldige frustrasie, wat opgebou het vandat hy as babatjie nie toegelaat was om sy pyn uit te huil nie. Weet jy enige iets van die pyn waarmee klein babatjies gebore word? Ouers wie dit nie weet nie, sal ernstige foute begaan met hulle kinders.
Dit is waarvandaan godiootheid kom. Klein wesentjies wie nie ontslae kon raak van uiterste pyn in hulle klein liggaampies nie. Dan word daar gegryp na ‘n slaanding en nog meer pyn word toegevoeg, of daar word hard op die kind geskree om stil te bly. Ek wens ek kan mense kry om net so ‘n bietjie te lees van Arthur Janov se werke. Hy verduidelik dit veel beter as wat ek kan, as gevolg van meer as 45 jaar se kliniese navorsing.
As ‘n babatjie huil, tel haar op en hou haar net vas. Moet nie skud of shush nie. Bly doodstil. Laat sy huil, al vat dit tien minute, of ’n uur of wat ookal. Sy huil omdat daar pyn in haar klein wesentjie is. As sy wil loswikkel, laat haar gaan, maar bly by haar, dat sy weet jy is daar. As sy op die vloer wil huil, is dit ook OK. Bly doodstil. Laat haar alles uithuil.
Moet NOOIT ‘n kind wat huil in ‘n kamer toesluit nie. Dit is krimineel!
Laat kinders kwaad word, en laat hulle alle gevoelens en emosies uitleef. Luister net. Moet nie onderdruk op enige manier nie. Beaam die kind se gevoelens, en hy of sy sal nie eendag in feetjies en ander kak wil glo nie.
Ons probeer mense se opinies oor godsdiens verander, maar die algemene vestiging van pyn wat opgedoen was as kind, word glad nie aangespreek nie. Kinder se gevoelens was, en word nog, onderdruk tot ‘n groot mate. ‘n Mens sien dit elke dag. Hoekom sien ‘n mens op baie van die blogs en webwerwe, “Report Abuse”. Onderdruking van gevoelens is mishandeling. “Pakslae” is mishandeling.
Doen bietjie navorsing. Google beitjie en vind uit hoeveel kinders daar mishandel word, elke minuut, uur, of elke dag wereldwyd. Jy sal geskok wees.
As jy se dat jy “genoeg gehad het” van ‘n kind se vloermoere, dan is daar beslis kak in joy wese wat moet uitgewerk word, want dit beteken dat ‘n kind se gehuil of woede jou angstig maak. Die probleem le by jou, nie by die kind nie!
verifanie
January 3, 2012 at 11:08
Verifanie, ou maat, jy laat my nou klink soos n kindermishandelaar omdat ek gatvol is om geloofskoppies te paai en respek te betoon vir vir hulle dikkoppige bygelofies.
Om jou vraag te antwoord; nee, ek is nie die tipe ou wat kinders met n belt sal slaan nie, of hulle op enige wyse sal mishandel nie,inteendeel. Ek glo darrem ook nie ek het dit op enige wyse aangedui dat dit is wat ek wil doen nie. Ek is van mening dat daar veel meer probleem ouers as probleem kinders is.
My verwysing na kinders wat vloermoere gooi is gemik op wat jy die godiote noem. Hulle tree op soos wat jy van kinders sal verwag wat nie van beter weet nie, maar hulle het nie die verskoning dat hulle onskuldige kinders is nie, hulle is grootmense wat weier om hulle verstand te gebruik. Ek weier om hulle te paai en ek gaan nie daarvoor om verskoning vra nie.
Shazee
January 3, 2012 at 16:46
Shazee,
Dankie vir jou antwoord. Dit is vir my ‘n rare ondervinding om, nadat ek iets oor kinders geskryf het op hierdie blog, ‘n bevestiginde antwoord te kry van iemand wie saamstem dat ‘n mens nie kinders moet mishandel nie.
Die probleem le egter daarin, dat a.g.v. totale onkunde deur mense wie met hulle neuse heeldag in die bybel sit, of net YOU of HUISGENOOT lees, weet hierdie mense nie wat “mishandeling” eintlik behels nie.
Mishandeling, of mis-hantering, hoef nie noodsaaklik net fisiese aanranding (pakslae) te wees nie. Byvoorbeeld, as ‘n babatjie se behoeftes nie bevredig word nie, is dit pynlik en veroorsaak lyding. As die verwagtende moeder rook of drink, op ‘n streng dieet gaan om haar lyfie te behou, of as sy doelbewus met ‘n keisersnee wil geboorte gee, beskadig dit die foetus al klaar. Deur die ma erg te verdoof met geboorte gee, veroorsaak ernstige en baie nadelige lewenslange nagevolge in die foetus wat nou die lewe gaan sien. Die eerste vyftien minute of so is absoluut krities en nodig dat daar ‘n hegtheid plaasvind tussen die ma en die nuwe baba. Die ma moet wakker wees, nie bedwelmd nie.
‘n Babatjie wat erge pyn opgedoen het met geboorte, of selfs voor dit, gaan verskriklik baie huil, en aanhoudend ook. Dalk sal dit eers begin wys as die kind so twee of drie jaar oud is.
Die meeste ouers skud en shush aanhoudend vanaf die kind se geboorte.
Ook sommer regdeur sy of haar lewe:
“Moenie sleg voel daaroor nie” “Hou nou op met jou gehuilery” “Jy is mos nou al groot”
“Jy gaan nou tekere soos ‘n baba” “Kyk hoe kwaad word jy nou” “Word nou groot, toe”
“Ek sal jou iets gee om oor te huil” “Moenie terugpraat nie” “Ek is jou ma/pa, jy MOET
my respekteer” “Moenie jou opruk teenoor my nie” Ad nauseum.
Geen wonder dat daar so baie godiote op aarde is nie.
verifanie
January 3, 2012 at 20:50
Verifanie, Jesus het ook nie kindermishandeling verdra nie en dit is volgens die geloof wat God, deur Hom tot stand gebring het.
Hans Matthysen
January 4, 2012 at 22:50
Hans, is dit nou dieselfde god wat vir Abraham opdrag gegee het om sy seun te slag en op die laaste oomblik gese het hy maak net n grappie? Al gedink hoe die seun wat al vasgebind was en le en kyk het hoe sy pa (in opdrag van god) die mes slyp om sy keel af te sny daaroor gevoel het?
Is dit dieselfde god wat opdrag gegee het dat kinders wat hulle ouer ongehoorsaam is gestenig moet word?
Is dit dieselfde god wat sy eie seun wreed laat vermoor het omdat ander ouens vrugte gesteel het?
Ja, nee, ek kan sien hoe lief hy vir kindertjies is, hy sal hulle nooit, ooit laat mishandel nie.
Lees jy ooit jou eie bybel Hans?
Shazee
January 6, 2012 at 04:19
…. of is dit dalk die God wat die bere die kindertjies wat die bleskop ou man gespot het, uitmekaar laat skeur het? Die ironie is natuurlik dat daar van ons verwag word om leiding van God kry oor hoe om ons kinders groot te maak. The same God that sent his own child to earth and put a hit out on him….
Jan Swart
January 6, 2012 at 05:26
Or selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11). How about killing your own child because you’ve made a bargain with this “god” (Judges 11:29-40)? “God” sez it’s okay to kill your enemies’ kids (Isaiah 13:16). But if you want to get really gory with your enemies’ children and their unborn, this “god” gives clear commands for what you must do (Hosea 13:16). Then, if you’re still not happy, you can smash children’s heads against rocks (Psalms 137:9).
Oh, but wait! We must read all of this “spiritually” (whatever the fuck that might be) and “in context” (the new non plus ultra dodge of apologetics). If we’re still confused, we can just sweep it under the “new dispensation” rug (and ignore the pressing question of how it is possible for an allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator’s creation to go off the rails).
Con-Tester
January 6, 2012 at 08:49
It occurs to me now that in this sense, Hanswors is of course correct: There’s clearly plenty of reason to be kakbang of Holey Babble verses. There are enough people, past and present, who take such shit literally and who act on it.
What’s that you say? “No True Crushtian™”, eh?
Con-Tester
January 6, 2012 at 08:58
I have a hard time taking Balanced Truths seriously. When your primary source is wikipedia??? Are you kidding me? And yes, if ONE child is being molested in the name of the church then that is one too many. Learn from the feminists.
BTW there is no such thing as “balanced truths”. It’s either true or it isn’t. No balancing required. Only required when you are trying to “balance” truth with fiction.
One more comment to Balanced Truths on most of your posts: TLDR. (Too Long Didn’t Read) Oh yes, also: it’s unbelievably boring. Make your point. Life is too short for this BS.
Irma
January 6, 2012 at 16:14
Ís.
Nathan Bond
January 6, 2012 at 20:29
Con – Tester,, ek is beindruk man, vir iemand wat gaan braai ken jy darem wragtig jou bybel jong.
Shazee
January 6, 2012 at 21:55
Cookies can be tough, the way they often crumble. “All of the people some of the time” vs. “some of the people all of the time” and all those other grave aphorisms.
What’s needed is Hanswors’ clarification of what went wrong.
’Til then, bugger.
————————
Shazee, Google ken die Holey Babble aansienlik fokken beter as ekke. Sulke feite kan redelik maklik opgespoor word as jy weet hoe en waar om te soek. Wat my nogtans pipienatbroek tiekel is hoe godiote/galoofiote/bibliote/relegiote/apologiote altyd en heeltemaal onstelselmatig vir jou sê hoe dìè en dààì gedeelte metafories te verstaan is, en dààì en dìè gedeelte letterlik. Duidelik is die vraag dan, “Fokkit, as jy in elk geval self in elke geval gaan besluit wat reg (die letterlikke gedeeltes) of verkeerd (die metaforiese gedeeltes) is, hoedefok is daai storieboek van énige praktiese fokken nut!?”
Con-Tester
January 6, 2012 at 22:24
Shazee, die storie van Abraham is simboliek en dit dui daarop, dat ek die ramgesindheid in my moet offer en nie wat God aan my gegee het nie. Lees gerus Rom. 8 v 5 en 6.
Hans Matthysen
January 6, 2012 at 22:40
Dààààààsy! Dis weereens fokken “simboliek”…
Con-Tester
January 6, 2012 at 22:46
Jan Swart, dit wys maar net dat as julle atiëste julle sin kon kry, sou julle alle Christenne wou vermoor soos hulle in die ou tyd. Jesus, mens is gekruisig sodat Christus kan lewe en vandag is dit nog so. Dit is dieselfde simboliek wat vir my toon dat ek vir ander moet lewe en nie dat ek selfsugtig moet wees en dat alles net om myself moet draai nie. Lees maar Rom. 6 en moontlik sal jy die boodskap begryp.
Hans Matthysen
January 6, 2012 at 22:55
Nòg “simboliek”. Kry vir jou. En daar’s nog op die horison. Lagwekkend.
Con-Tester
January 6, 2012 at 23:03
Con-Tester, you read things that are not written in Exodus 21 v 1 to 11, as It was the custom of those people to arrange marriages and not a command from God. Simboliek bestaan seker nie in jou beperkte woordeboek dus sal ek maar verder verby hou.
Hans Matthysen
January 6, 2012 at 23:36
As predicted, you certainly don’t disappoint, Hanswors. You deliberately ignore the plain, clear meaning of Exodus 21:7—9.
Wie’s nou kakbang vir bybelversies, hmm?
Con-Tester
January 6, 2012 at 23:56
Hans, ek buig voor jou meerdere kennis van die bybel.
Ek moet erken, man, hierdie “simboliek” ding kry my so effens onder, nou het ek gewonder; wat daarvan jy (met jou meerdere kennis) vat n hoofstuk van die bybel – se byvoorbeeld Genisis – en se vooraf vir my watter deel is simbolies en watter deel kan ek maar letterlik opneem.
Daarna debatteer ons hom. Klink dit vir jou redelik?
Hans, as jy nie die uitdaging wil aanvaar nie sal ek geen keuse he as om met CT saam te stem dat dit eintlik jy is wat “kakbang” is vir n debat oor die bybel sonder die agterdeur van simboliek
By the way, wat op aarde is “ramgesindheid” ??. Dit klink vir my effens obseen, iets soos n orige bok dalk?
Shazee
January 7, 2012 at 04:50
Hans, ons wil regtig nie alle christene vermoor nie. Laat ek Pat Condell parafraseer – we don’t wish you harm, we wish you mental health.
Shazee
January 7, 2012 at 09:31
Shazee, I wish you free thinking as at present you are under others influence. Genisis gaan nie oor die skepping van die heelal nie maar is simboliek betreffende elke een se begin. Jesus het in vergelykenisse gepraat om aan ons boodskappe oor te dra en so is dit met baie Bybelverhale. Die ramsgesindheid gaan oor hardkoppigheid.
Hans Matthysen
January 7, 2012 at 23:02
Con-Tester, the custom of the people of those days was not a request from God, so I have not ignored anything. You seem to presume that it was the will of God that one should sell ones daughter. See, I am not afraid of Bible verses so sorry to disappoint you.
Hans Matthysen
January 7, 2012 at 23:09
Dààààààsy! Dis weereens bliksemse “simboliek”! Sò gepraat van “hardkoppigheid,” Hanswors, will you answer my question?
It should be easy for you since “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?
Con-Tester
January 7, 2012 at 23:10
Eeeh, but Hanswors, the entire Holey Babble is one huge, drawn-out command from your skydaddy, isn’t it? Or are you now saying it also contains literal descriptions of pious people’s customs that we should read “symbolically”? If so, how do you jump through all these logical and epistemological hoops with such consummate agility?
I mean, Exodus 21:7—9 clearly talks about selling your daughter to a wealthy man as a sex slave should he wish to take her as such. And the Holey Babble is your skydaddy’s inerrant word, as unfailingly dictated to a few special blokes. Please explain what your skydaddeeeeee meant with all these convoluted complications!
After all, “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?
Con-Tester
January 7, 2012 at 23:18
Let’s neaten that up a little.
Eeeh, but Hanswors, the entire Holey Babble is one huge, drawn-out command from your skydaddy, isn’t it? Or are you now saying it also contains literal descriptions of pious people’s customs that we should read “symbolically”? If so, how do you jump through all these logical and epistemological hoops with such consummate agility?
I mean, Exodus 21:7—9 clearly talks about selling your daughter to a wealthy man as a sex slave should he wish to take her as such. And the Holey Babble is your skydaddy’s inerrant word, as unfailingly dictated to a few special blokes. Please explain what your skydaddeeeeee meant with all these convoluted complications!
After all, “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?
Con-Tester
January 7, 2012 at 23:51
Hans,jy se Genisis is simboliek?
As ek reg onthou is die eerste woorde van die bybel – “In die begin het god die hemel en die aarde geskape” – nou se asb vir my, watter deel van die sin is simboliek?
As ek die sin letterlik opneem het god die heelal geskep en as dit simboliek is, wat de moer beteken dit dan???
Soos n mens so mooi op Engels se; here’s the rub: as die storie in Genesis net simbolies is, dan het Adam en Eva nooit bestaan nie, en het die sondeval nooit plaasgevind nie – dit is mos net simbolies,reg? – dit sou beteken god het homself laat vermoor (jesus is mos god ne?) Vir n sonde wat nooit werklik plaasgevind het nie (dit was mos net simbolies ne?)
Hans, my ou mater, ruik jy nie lont nie? As die skeppingsverhaal letterlik opgeneem word is dit duidelik n klomp stront en as dit simbolies gelees word is god n geestesversteurde sado- masogis.
Shazee
January 8, 2012 at 06:56
Shazee
January 3, 2012 at 00:49
No, Shazee, this is just not truthful. Just like scientists are not allowed to interpret statistical analyses into significance, just so, you cannot condone a lie to prove your point, even though you may have a valid argument and cause.
It is my experience that few religious organisations preach hate.
The principles of belief relies heavily on personal experience and the matter of proof is circumstantial and pertains to individual perceptions.
Just like atheists are forming cell groups, flocking together for communion with likeminded individuals, so it has always been for the religious, and every other human group interest. According to the religious texts, the church is supposed to be like this.
The corruption that is politics has changed this body into an organised political party that uses fear mongering and dogma to achieve their own selfish and most often financial goals. Be that as it may, most organisations that goes out of their way to sacrifice their own needs to afford help and support to poor countries, communities and troubled individuals are affiliated with churches. As I said, they are not all bad. This is a point you “New” Atheists cannot concede to as it would hamper your cause.
Many churches have started changing, moving away from the strictest adherence to the dogma in order to allow, for instance, homosexual marriages. Just like governments had to afford changes to allow the legal aspects of this. You don’t often see change happening if there is not a suitable amount of pressure.
Reasonable people are so because they are not expecting or demanding more than is possible or achievable, they understand what is acceptable, according to the common sense or normal practice of others that are not like them, and they are tolerant of differences. This is a group you New Atheists are not counted under at present.
I wondered about the feigned ignorance about “New” Atheism, the above is a statement of unreason and spoken like a true politician.
Unfortunately I would be of little help to you, I don’t know any.
I said no such thing, I said your foolhardy and lofty methods will just strengthen these delusions. I am saying that the new Creationist drive to corrupt science is due to your ignorant and childish group, yes, that I am saying.
As I said, you are not reasonable people. And no, they and every other organised group of humans are in a perpetual state of ‘being dangerous’ to someone or something. It is your fault that they are becoming agitated and swept up, because it is your cause to agitate and ridicule, it is your unreasonable angry and offensive approach that is emotionally juvenile.
Balanced Truths
January 8, 2012 at 15:25
Irma
January 6, 2012 at 16:14
I use Wiki when my references are incorrectly labelled as “creationist”. And no, thank you all the same, I would rather not learn anything from the ‘feminists’. There is another organised group of irrational and unreasonable people with emotionally immature political agendas.
Just like all questions can be answered with yes and no.
Spoken like a true politician, stick around, you will learn a lot from others here, in particular, how to employ logical fallacies to better your position.
Balanced Truths
January 8, 2012 at 15:39
BT, the more I read your postings, the more you sound like a closet fundie.
You seem to argue that churches are actually harmless clubs of the like minded and that the atheists, by ridiculing their absurd believes, are turning them in to dangerous radicals!
I grant you that every idiot is free to believe whatever he or she pleases without interference or comment from anybody, as long as it is being done privately without interfering with anybody or harming anybody. But that is not exactly what is happening, is it?
Very young and impressionable children are being brainwashed into believing this nonsense and it is very effective too – how else do you account for apparently otherwise intelligent adults believing this absurd bullshit? I agree with Richard Dawkins that to teach a child that it is a virtue to believe something without evidence amounts to child abuse.
The “harmless” churches leads to George Bush being able to say that gay people should not be regarded as American citizens.(And to say god told him to invade Iraq)
It leads to 9/11 and suicide bombers. It leads to the trans generational slaughter in Ireland.
As has been pointed out, it is no use pointing to the soup kitchen, church bazaar brand of church member to justify the very real atrocities that blind faith, in its extreme form, eventually leads to.
You say that political agendas have corrupted these “harmless” churches? Tell me, how likely is it that anybody would be convinced to wear a belt of explosives had he not been indoctrinated from infancy to believe the absurdities that the “harmless” churches are peddling and corrupting young minds with? There might be a political agenda behind the actual atrocities,but it is blind faith that creates the willingness to commit them
I think it was Sam Harris who pointed out that a sustantial percentage of the American population would regard a nuclear war as a desirable event, because of their religious believes.
Now you call atheists unreasonable? You want us not to speak out against the extreme harm that blind faith can, and actually does cause so as not to antagonise the faithheads?
Reason has been tried, only ridicule remains.
Like I said, you sound like a closet fundie – I prefer an honest faithhead any day of the week.
Shazee
January 8, 2012 at 19:24
The argument that many charities are aligned to some or other religious tradition is not an argument for religion. You could just as well argue that we owe education, universities and centres of learning to religion, specifically the RCC in the case of the Western world. Well, it is, on its own terms, true enough — if you choose to ignore that (1) it was done with money extorted from the duped masses; (2) it was done with ad maiorem Dei gloriam first and foremost in mind; and (3) whenever new knowledge threatened dogma, the religious tripped all over themselves in their haste to suppress it. After all, it took them about 400 years to acknowledge that Galileo had a point, and, in a step marked by uncharacteristic alacrity, just short of a century to accept that Darwin did. The plain message is that empirical facts must defer to dogma, even if it means that new dogma must be invented to paper over the cracks.
Very fucking honourable and upstanding indeed!
Similarly, the idea that atheists cannot concede that religious precepts have inspired great things is total bullshit. Of course religions have inspired great works! At what cost, though? And were the religious artifices truly necessary to inspire them in the first place? Experience from historically recent secularism (which should not be conflated with the religious zealotry and extremism of Nazism, Socialism, Imperialism and/or Communism) shout a resounding, “No!” Is it any coincidence that theocracies are, from the perspective of the individual subject, indistinguishable in their practical aspects from any other form of absolutism?
This bloke’s just like Julius Malema, i.e. a fundie of a different sort: The more you poke him in the eye with his own stupid “reasoning”, the more self-righteously he exposes the stupidity of his “reasoning”. It’s all puff and bluster, long on tedium and squat on substance. Hilarious.
For one among a glut of examples, when he writes, “Just like all questions can be answered with yes and no” in response to the valid criticism that truth needs no balancing, it exposes a stunning depth of insight (quite apart from a few of those pesky logical fallacies that are, by all accounts, so much to be disdained). Then, the idea that “the new Creationist drive to corrupt science is due to [the ‘New Atheists’]” is offered without any reason, argument or evidence whatsoever, and must rank as perhaps the most ridiculously absurd bits of confected bullshit ever to be advanced as an argument against atheism. It is no less than a seditious buggery of historical fact and so obviously in error as to defy classification. “You mustn’t oppose child slavery because it will encourage the slavers to become more clever in hiding their practices.”
But this is the tripe that the self-appointed “Truth Balancers” would feed you. And expect you to swallow.
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), your spittle-flecked (Note: it’s “flecked”, not “freckled”, okay?) diatribe has now been addressed for the third time. I guess that you must have missed it ( 
), so what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and…) Or are you still “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”? Should I perhaps remind you of the question, to which I defy you to point out where you have given an unequivocal “yes” or “no” answer? If your answer isn’t silence, it’ll be evasion. Guaranteed.
Con-Tester
January 8, 2012 at 21:14
Shazee
January 8, 2012 at 19:24
No, I abhor fundamentalism.
See, that is the them vs. us nonsense right there, I have argued no such thing.
Quite so!
So you claim that if I tries to find some information on some coments on on hapenings theists would have had in private then I’s would be unsuccesfull.
Honestly, that is kinda the problem, in that, both sides to this us vs. them thing would be perpetuating the rivalry. Theists are not keeping their religions to themselves, granted, this is irritating, but the atheist now has to respond with an equal amount of, if slightly less civilised and tolerant, arrogance.
Each person gets to make their own choices, I have little to no influence on what my child will choose to believe, no matter how hard I try, as long as I allow them to educate themselves from sources that they can verify themselves, such as Wiki, which our new American politician would like to discredit. Ludicrous, that is, the principle of reading a statement, backed by references from which you can ascertain the identities of the organisations and individuals involved and you can find leads to other studies independently verifying these statements, does not require any belief or faith in any source, it requires a care to know the truth.
Bulshit! It is a basic human survival instinct to believe whatever crap will make us get through the day, none of us are exempt. As with everything there is a Golden Midway, a Balanced Truth, it is not the fact that things are believed without evidence that matters, it is the form, the severity, and the consequences of the belief that matters.
I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it, George Bush, does not in my opinion give two hoots about the finer intricacies of Christianity, he is first and foremost, a politician, he speaks what he thinks his people want to hear.
I’ll give you 9/11 and the Muslim danger, but not the Ireland lie, no, that was started for different reasons, it is again human nature and has little to do with the names they chose for “Us” and “Them”.
Yes it is. Especially since if you did eradicate all knowledge of any God or religious texts, and allowed for several generations to pass, you would still have blind faith floating around, it is a human trait.
The Japanese Kamikaze fighters did not require 72 Virgins to motivate themselves, it was merely Giri that made them do it, duty. It is never enough to say God wants it, it is Gods will, no, you would have to justify it, and you would have to be able to lie about what you want God’s will to be well enough for others to believe you. It takes a diabolical mind to achieve this indoctrination, and, it is not the main activity of churches all over the world, it is the main activity of politicians
Yes. On both counts. Two of our most apoplectic human failures.
Sam Harris said: “Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”
Reasonable people seems to be one of these concepts that elude Atheists.
He also said: “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.”
This I wholeheartedly agree with.
Yes, I call you unreasonable in the extreme, no I don’t want you to stop speaking out against blind faith, but, yes, I think it would be better if you didn’t antagonise the religious freaks of the world.
As I said, reason seems to evade you lot.
Coming from a closet “New” Atheist that insult looses any effect. An honest faithead … revealing.
Balanced Truths
January 8, 2012 at 22:02
Oooh, let’s prove to the world just how hard we can “rest [our] case” with Con-Tester and how intensely we can “for the largest part” ignore him. We do this by not letting any of his comments stand without an opportune riposte to another commenter…
Con-Tester
January 8, 2012 at 23:33
BT,I am not a closet atheist, I am quite open about it, or haven’t you noticed? I don’t, for instance, claim to be a faithhead who is nevertheless sympathetic towards atheism.
Thank you for granting me 9/11 and suicide bombers, but if you agree with me here, why do you shortly thereafter say “it is never enough to claim god wants it” ? Seems a bit contradictory.
You claim that blind faith will be hanging around without religion. On what do you base that claim? Blind faith in what? Are you talking from personal experience? What “crap” do you believe to get you through your day?
You concede that you might be mistaken about George Bush – you are, do the research.
I don’t really know what to say about your confusing (confused) claim that I said, or implied something to the effect that you will be unsuccessful if you try to get private information regarding atheists????
And yes, I do prefer an honest faithhead to a closet fundie any day of the week. You say this attitude is revealing….revealing of what?
Shazee
January 9, 2012 at 05:48
Religious neighbourliness in full flight. This sort of mania is the inevitable outcome of the uncritical hysteria that fanatical authoritarian evidence-free cults of unreason, among which religion is the purest and by far the most common form, inspire.
Con-Tester
January 9, 2012 at 19:36
Con-Tester, again you missed the point. It was not on God’s command that one sold his daughter to another for marriage and I do not believe in a sky-daddy, so wake up the coffee’s cold.
Hans Matthysen
January 9, 2012 at 22:11
No Hanswors, it’s you missing the point. Your Holey Babble storybook is your skydaddy’s infallible and eternal word. At least that’s what you godiots/religiots/crediots/bibliots/apologiots keep insisting on. Either your Holey Babble is your god’s word, or it’s a bunch of fairytales. If it’s your god’s word, why is it okay with him to sell your own daughter into slavery? If it isn’t your god’s word, why take it seriously?
You should be able to answer these questions without difficulty since “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and…)
Con-Tester
January 9, 2012 at 22:17
Shazee, in die begin was die “Woord” en die “Woord” is God. In jou begin, het alles deur die “Woord” ontstaan. Jy het nie geweet ‘n tafel is ‘n tafel as die “Woord” dit nie vir jou geleer het nie.
Die doel van die Bybel is nie vir geskiedenis doeleindes nie en is vir alle tye (heden) geskryf. Ek was ook maar ‘n mens wat bestaan het en toe kry ek ‘n nuwe lewe daarom is ek werksaam in God se tuin soos ‘n Adam.
Die denke van die mens wou my ook oorweldig en die verbond van God, die Ark, het tot my redding gekom anders het die sondevloed my ook oorweldig.
Daar is geen lont nie, dit is my vuurigheid van Gees wat jy ruik.
Hans Matthysen
January 9, 2012 at 22:39
Hans, jy gaan my tot drank dryf.
Die hemel en aarde was in 6 dae, ongeveer 6000 jaar terug geskep totdat die wetenskap onteenseglik bewys het dit is nie waar nie – toe hou die bybel op om n wetenskap handboek te wees.
Die bybel was letterlik waar, en die onfeilbare, onveranderlike, ewige woord van god totdat die interne teenstrydighede en geskiedkundige onakkuraathede uitgewys is – toe hou die bybel op om n geskiedenis handboek te wees.
Ek vra jou met trane in my navy blou oe, hoeveel keer moet iemand vir jou lieg, blatant en onnosel lieg, voordat jy lont ruik?
Se my, net om my nuuskierigheid te bevredig,wat sal dit vat om jou geloof te laat wankel? Is daar hoegenaamd enigiets wat sal? Wil jy so graag glo jou god bestaan dat jy vir geen rede vatbaar is nie?
Shazee
January 10, 2012 at 08:03
Con-Tester, you don’t appear to be very bright as you still have not realized, that God did not command one to sell his daughter.
The Bible is babble to you due to you not being so bright as you don’t seem to understand the simple-list things written in it.
You appear a bit retard as you keep repeating certain things or does it amuse your audience. Oh, sorry, I forgot; small things amuse small minds.
Hans Matthysen
January 10, 2012 at 22:40
Shazee, die Bybel was nog nooit ‘n wetenskaplike boek nie en daar is mense wat dit graag so wil sien, siestog! Dit wil voorkom of jy my verwar met sulke mense en tog sou ek nou verwag, dat ‘n belese mens soos jy, werklik ‘n verskil sou agter kom.
Hans Matthysen
January 10, 2012 at 22:48
But Hanswors, you’re still not seeing what is obvious even to a Grade 2 pupil: Your Holey Babble talks about some sick fucks who are willing to sell their daughters into sexual servitude. I never said your skydaddy commanded it, did I? But your Holey Babble doesn’t say that that’s bad. It reports it as if it is just fine to do so. Assuming that you have a daughter, would you sell her as a sexual slave to some rich fucker? Is that a “no” I hear? Then why does your skydaddy not condemn this practice outright and without any wishy-washy bullshit? Maybe it’s you and your skydaddy who aren’t so bright, no?
And hey Hanswors, you still haven’t answered properly yet: What is “spiritual”? How does one reliably, objectively and unmistakably detect it? Or is it just some brainfart you pull from your arse every so often so you can act superior and make yourself feel better? Because that’s what it looks like. Will you tell us, b>Hanswors?
Answering the above quickly and easily should be a breeze for you since “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and chirping and…) Would you like me to remind you of the question, maybe? (That’s another simple yes-or-no question, see?)
Con-Tester
January 10, 2012 at 22:50
Hans, jy is heeltemal reg, die bybel was nog nooit n wetenskap handboek nie, dit was nog altyd die verbeeldingsvlug van n paar ouens wat iets gerook het wat seker wettig was in hulle tyd.
Die punt is egter nie of jy persoonlik dink die bybel is n wetenskap handboek nie, die punt is dat dit die verskoning is wat gebruik word as iets in die bybel as onwaar bewys word deur wetenskaplike metodes – ditto vir geskiedkundige feite. Is dit nie juis die verskoning waarna jy self blitsig gegryp het nie?
Daar is in elk geval soveel teenstrydighede in die bybel self dat eksterne bewyse van sy onbetroubaarheid as n handleiding vir enigiets hoegenaamd byna oorbodig is – as jy die stelling oor teenstrydighede betwis, se maar en ek sal vir jou n klompie voorbeelde aanstuur.
Ek vermoed dat jy in elk geval van die teenstrydighede en onwaarhede bewus is, maar dit maak geen indruk op jou nie. Ek vermoed dat daar absoluut net mooi niks is wat jou sal laat twyfel in wat jy glo nie, ongeag die bewyse, ongeag rede, ongeag logika, ongeag wat ookal. jy sal dit eenvoudig rasionaliseer. Dit is per definisie wat blinde geloof beteken. Dit verstom my eindeloos dat mense met n blinde geloof nie die verleentheid raaksien van wat hulle sonder bewys, en erger nog, teenstrydig met oorweldigende bewyse glo en skaamteloos verkondig nie.
Ek het al begin wonder of mense soos Con – Tester en die ander ouens op die forum nie al moeg en moedeloos is om dieselfde stront eindeloos val alle hoeke af te moet uitwys vir die onlogiese, kinderagtige snert wat dit is nie.
Die punt is moontlik dat volwassenes wat sulke stront glo potensieel net te gevaarlik is om dit onuitgedaag te laat.
Ek vra weer Hans, is daar hoegenaamd enige bewys van watter aard ookal wat jou sal laat wonder of jy net moontlik verkeerd mag wees, of is jy vasberade om te glo, kom wat wil?
Shazee
January 11, 2012 at 07:36
Shazee, ek het al ’n ruk terug herhaaldelik Hanswors se aandag gewys op ’n skakel na ’n dokument wat oor die 400 teenstrydighede beskryf wat in sy Huilige Babbel voorkom. Hanswors sê met groot gerief dat hy dit alles afgehandel het en dat dit nie teenstrydighede is nie. Mens sal natuurlik absoluut nêrens op dìè blog enige bewysstuk kry wat sy bewerings staaf nie, maar nou ja, so’s die galoof…
Een of ander VSAse kreasionis (dalk William Morris self, maar ek onthou nou nie mooi nie) het ’n paar jaar terug effektiewelik verkondig dat hulle glad nie oop is nie vir enige rede of bewyse of debat nie, en dat hulle met hul onredelikhede net sal aanhou en aanhou en aanhou tot hul oppenente uitgeput is en tou opgee sodat hulle hul godsdienstige agenda’s kan instel. Dit was die eintlike boodskap gewees maar hy het dit ’n bietjie anders gestel. Dit lyk asof b>Hanswors baie deeglik na die man se aanbevelings geluister het en dit ywerig nakom. Dus moet elke ateïs oorweeg of dit rêrig ’n goeie ding is om hul teenstand te staak teen sulke onredelikheid, hoe ontmoedigend en gemoedsbekakkend dit ookal mag wees.
Con-Tester
January 11, 2012 at 08:53
Con – Tester, ek stem saam dat dit gemoedsbekakkend kan word. Ek beleef dit elke dag maar vind steeds soms ongelooflik dat enige persoon by sy volle verstand so doelbewus dikkoppig en onredelik kan wees.
Maar nou ja, die kak wat die ouens kwytraak kan darem soms “entertaining” wees.
Shazee
January 11, 2012 at 13:01
Con-Tester, ek het jou al die teendeel gewys in een of twee van die 400 voorbeelde en jy was nie in staat om my te weerlê nie. Ek het jou uitgenooi om elk van die 400 sogenaamde teenstrydihede een vir een deur te gaan en jy sie blykbaar nie daarvoor kans nie. Jy is meer bek as binnegoed omdat jy almal probeer bully met jou titels en sodra iemand jou kan teregwys, gooi jy tantrums om die aandag weg te lei van die feit dat jy onkundig is, wat die Bybel betref.
I have told you before that I do not believe in a skydaddy, yet some things don’t seem to register and you give thus the impression of one who is retard.
I have referred you to the dictionaries yet you appear to think you are above that.
Hans Matthysen
January 11, 2012 at 21:37
Shazee, wanneer jy met my gesels oor die Bybel, dan gaan dit nie oor hoe ander die Bybel verstaan of nie verstaan nie, dit gaan oor hoe ek die Bybel verstaan en of jy my verkeerd kan bewys. Ek verskil met die meerderheid se sienning van die Bybel en dit is ook waar jou verkeerde indruk oor die Bybel ontstaan het.
Daar is geen teenstrydighede in die bybel wat net in die regte konteks gelees moet word. In die land van die blindes is daar ‘n een oog koning en ek woon nie in daardie land nie hoor.
Hans Matthysen
January 11, 2012 at 21:51
My goeie fok Hans, jy is darem n sucker vir punushment! Jy weet mos al teen die tyd jy gaan geslag word as jy sulke kak praat. Lyk my jy geniet dit op een of ander perverse manier, kan nie wag nie.
Shazee
January 11, 2012 at 21:53
But Hanswors, you typically miss the point. Yet again. First off, even if one concedes that that you have a point about the one single contradiction you fabricated some excuse about (and I concede no such thing), you’re still left with more than 400. I don’t need to go through them with you one by one. You do. I gave you the link many times. Do you know how to clicky-clicky? Yes? Well, do so! Then start addressing! Easy, hey?
And Hanswors, where did I ever mention my “titels,” hmm? If you feel intimidated, that’s your own mind giving you hell.
Where, dear Hanswors, are these “tantrums” I allegedly “gooi,” hmm? If you feel tantrumised, that’s your own mind giving you hell.
And Hanswors, why do you keep writing lots of useless words that dodge my questions? Surely, answering them should be a total turkey-shoot for someone like you who “understand[s] more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and…)
Con-Tester
January 11, 2012 at 21:54
Hans, ek is besig om die bietjie simpatie wat ek met jou gehad het te verloor.
Jy gorrel onsamehangend oor jou interpretasie van die babbel (see CT, I am getting the hang of the lingo) en ontwyk my vraag nou al vir die tweede keer.
Ek vra weer, wat sal jou laat wonder of jy dalk net moontlik verkeerd mag wees?
Ek kan jou se wat my sal laat twyfel of ek reg is – bewyse. As jy vir my bewyse kan gee (behalwe bewyse wat uit jou babbel kom) dat ek verkeerd is sal ek dit erken en jou gelyk gee.
Hoe is daardie vir n geleentheid, Hans, jy kan n goddelose atteis bekeer as jy jou kaarte reg speel.
Shazee
January 11, 2012 at 22:16
Con-Tester
January 12, 2012 at 17:41
Shazee, geen een kan ‘n ander bekeer aangesien om te bekeer, lê by elkeen self. Ek sit nie onder ‘n wonderboom nie en was tot op hede nie ‘n “sucker” vir straf nie. Ek soek nie simpatie nie maar wel eerlikheid.
Hans Matthysen
January 12, 2012 at 23:02
Con-Tester, I have listened to the above clip and agree with a lot that is said. I do not disrespect Atheist and I do not see Atheists as my enemy. The attitude most of you have towards me, caused by your prejudgment, is what you reap from me. I know that most religions regard Atheists as their enemy, yet you fail to realize that you will always have the exception. Jesus and the Apostles are not guilty of the things many religious people are accused of (also mentioned on this clip) and they showed us the correct example. You and others on this blog, have failed to acknowledge this fact because of your prejudgment.
Hans Matthysen
January 12, 2012 at 23:23
Did we watch the same video, Hanswors? Because it certainly doesn’t look like it.
And Hanswors, since you see things so clearly, why don’t you educate me by answering my questions?
That should be no problem for someone who “understand[s] more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). Or are you also going to “rest [your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”?
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and…).
Con-Tester
January 12, 2012 at 23:36
Hans, wat sal jou laat twyfel? As daar niks is wat jou sal laat twyfel nie, se dan so.
Hoe moet mens n vraag stel dat jy dit sal antwoord?
Ek weet waarom jy die vraag ontwyk – as jy se nee ontbloot jy jouself vir die blinde fundie wat jy is, en as jy n bewys of omstandigheid noem wat jou sal laat twyfel,is jy bang iemand bring vir jou die bewys.
Julle ouens se motto is mos – I reject reality and substitute my own -
Shazee
January 12, 2012 at 23:37
Goeie punt Shazee en glad nie onbillik om van Hans te verwag om te antwoord nie. Die probleem is dat Hans se brein onomkeerbaar beskadig is. Hy het my opregte simpatie en ek stel dit sonder sarkasme. Wanneer iemand breinskade gedurende bv ‘n motorongeluk opdoen, simpatiseer ons onvoorwaardelik. Die feit dat Hans se breinskade deur sy dogma veroorsaak is, is eintlik irrelevant. Feit is dat dit die skade ongelukkig onomkeerbaar is. Hans is dus (letterlik) verlore. Die antwoord wat hy gaan verskaf op jou baie eenvoudige vraag, sal heel voorspelbaar(weereens) bewys dat my diagnose van sy brein nie ongegrond is nie.
Insiggewend dat hy reeds in sy vorige “antwoorde” op ongemaklike kwotasies uit sy heilige boekie die standaard godioot antwoorde van “letterlik vs figuurlike” interpretasie asook “buite konteks” gebruik het (gaap, gaap). Komaan Hans, daar is nog: Wat van “lost in translation” of “Jesus het alles vd ou testament verander” of my gunsteling van “ons-verstaan-nie-nou-nie-maar-eendag-sal-ons”?
Malherbe
January 13, 2012 at 09:44
Malherbe, ek is bevrees jy is reg. Ek is bereid om goeie geld te wed ek gaan nie n reguit antwoord uit Hans kry nie. Hy kan dit nie bekostig nie.
Ek voel ook amper jammer vir die arme drommels.
N mens moet seker breinskade he om so breindood te glo en verkondig wat die ouens doen.
Die probleem is natuurlik dat hulle vir elkeen van ons sal voorskryf wat om te glo en hoe om te leef, as ons dit onuitgedaag laat.
Shazee
January 13, 2012 at 20:21
Con-Tester, take note of what is spiritual; 2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
Hans Matthysen
January 13, 2012 at 22:57
Shazee, hoekom sal ek wil twyfel? Ek het vrede, geregtigheid en blydskap in die Heilige Gees. Ek dink nie eers aan iets wat my sal laat twyfel en ek weet nie of daar iets is wat my sal laat twyfel.
Hans Matthysen
January 13, 2012 at 23:03
So Hanswors, you’re saying that “spiritual” = “unseen and eternal”. That would mean that, among others, mass and energy are “spiritual”. While I know how to detect and measure both mass and energy reliably and objectively, your “unseen and eternal” definition doesn’t tell me how to detect and/or measure “spiritual” things objectively and reliably. In order to be counted as “real”, such measurement/detection criteria are essential. Can you or your Holey Babble provide them?
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still making an awful racket…).
Con-Tester
January 13, 2012 at 23:08
Malherbe, daar is natuurlik die moontlikheid dat jy breinskade opgedoen het en ek sal jou nie daaroor oordeel of minderwaardig ag nie. Wat die Bybel betref blyk dit of jy verlore is omdat jy nie kan uitmaak wat daarin staan.
Hans Matthysen
January 13, 2012 at 23:11
Ja Hans, ek kan ook nie aan iets dink wat jou sal laat twyfel nie.
Ek kan aan heelwat dink wat iemand sal laat twyfel as hy oop en vatbaar is vir rede, maar dit is jy duidelik nie.
Shazee
January 14, 2012 at 06:50
Shazee wrote January 9, 2012 at 05:48
I said you are a closet New Atheist, and that you are, this is evident by the way you are still not entirely versed in the level of ridicule you display, you also still feel the need to really care about the opinions of the theists you engage with. You also seem to think that you still get an honest Theist.
No need to thank me, it is what it is. The above phrase is indicative of the need to indoctrinate the person on several levels, building the foundation of the lie and then adding several layers of related manipulations on top, eventually reaching the end goal. To get someone to commit suicide by taking many lives with is something that requires very special indoctrination, this is not basic religious behaviour but requires special circumstances, it is warfare, soldiering in its worst form.
An unfair question, but suffice to say you wake up every day with the blind faith that you will see tomorrow.
No, I am not, you do the research, and you can start by trying to comprehend what I actually said.
Perhaps you should enlighten me as to exactly where I said, or implied, that, in context if you please.
It is revealing of your infancy, child, it is revealing that you have only just started the process of challenging this human corruption, you are still leaving yourself largely unguarded when you attack, often displaying the same mistakes you attack.
Balanced Truths
January 14, 2012 at 07:39
Hans, jy vra waarom jy sal “wil” twyfel.
N mens twyfel gewoonlik nie omdat jy “wil” of nie wil nie.
Twyfel is gewoonlik (vir n redelike en logiese persoon) n funksie van iets wat nie sin maak nie, van n teenstrydigheid, van n bewys wat kortkom of iets wat nie strook met wat waargeneem word in die werklike lewe nie. Al die voorgenoemde laat my ernstig twyfel aan die bestaan van n liefdevolle en almagtige, alwyse skeppergod wat homself bemoei met my of jou lewe.
As jy n besluit geneem het dat jy nie “wil” twyfel nie is my siening uit die aard van die saak vir jou irrelevant. Jy het jouself dus verwyder na n vlak waar geen rede of bewys tot jou sal deurdring nie.
As dit jou vrede en gemoedsrus gee, voorspoed daarmee, ek self het nog nie besluit om my verstand af te skakel nie.
Shazee
January 14, 2012 at 08:59
Bt, every time you post you sound more and more confused.
Once again, I am not a closet atheist,old or new. I am an atheist, quite openly,in the sense that I do not believe in the existence of a deity of any description whatsoever. Is that clear enough for you? If you want to call me an atheist, thanks for the compliment,if you want to call me a new atheist, thanks for the compliment. If you want to call me in the closet about my atheism, what would convice you that I am decidedly not in the closet?
Your comment regarding my level of ridicule is a bit ambigious; do mean to comment on the quality of my ridicule or are you trying to say that my level of ridicule is indicative of something?
Yes I do care about the opinions of theists, and yes, I have met honest theists.
I care about the opinions of theists simply because those deluded,dangerous and harmfull opinions are being foisted on the rest of us, because it influences pupblic opinion, because it is being taught to our children. I care about it in the sense that I see the urgent need to engage with those opinions and to show it up for the pernicious nonsense that it is.
I believe that many, if not most, faithheads honestly believe exactly what they say they believe, that is what makes it so dangerous. There is a diffirence between honest delusion and willfull dishonesty. It might be pigheaded and unreasonable to hold those believes in the teeth of evidence and reason, but they honestly, and dangerously, actually hold those beliefs.
You don’t like a question and you cry foul. As I reccall you made the comment that everybody believes some “crap” to get them through their day. Having made that comment, how is it unfair of me to ask what crap you believe in?
Anyway, “believing” that you will live to see the following day, in the sense that you live your life as though you will probably wake up tomorrow morning, hardly qualifies as a fundamental believe on par with the believe that the invisible man in the sky is coming back for me someday soon. And you call my reasoning infintile?
About George Bush, a man who made weekly calls to Tedd Haggard regarding national and international policy decicions is not a fundamental faithhead?
You seem to be just about ready to come out of the closet, be brave and take the plunge.
Shazee
January 14, 2012 at 11:12
Shazee, I have not said that you are in the closet regarding your atheism, it is a conclusion you have come to based on fact and reason, that is just, and right. You are in the closet as to your New Atheist status because you seem to be honestly concerned about Theists and not just resigned to calling them names and ridiculing their ridiculous beliefs. The new militant Atheist is politically motivated to eradicate all religion, they hate it with a passion and they ‘demonise’ it. They are prepared to lie and exaggerate to prove their point.
One can be an honest person, but not an honest Theist, to be a theist you have to subscribe to some level of theism, and that is a lie and requires knowledge of a God they cannot have.
It is not unfair to ask me what crap I believe in, it is unfair to ask me to come up with the crap I believe in to get me through the day, these things will vary and change from day to day, as it does for all of us.
Your reasoning is not infantile, quite the contrary, your reasoning is sound, your conclusions, perhaps not, and your willingness to overlook human mistakes that have repeated themselves over human history, always with tragic results, just because they are made by the ‘us’ group is what makes me call you a closet New Atheist. Fundamental, militant, angry atheist always respond in the same way, they are predictable because their belief in their cause requires set responses. These responses are revealing as to the level of their dedication to their cause as oppose to the need to stand by the truth unemotionally.
George Bush may be a faithhead, as you put it, but his motivations are political, he knows what tools will work for him and he employs them without a care. To blame any of his stupid political decisions on Religion is an attempt to further your cause. Their may be a measure of truth in it but it is not the whole truth, it is not the balanced truth. Some observations are based on an impossible number of influences that cannot be weighed up according to any set of rules and as such a conclusion cannot be reached.
I will probably never call myself an atheist because I do not have the arrogance to make that conclusion in the face of the complexity of the observation of a feasible interpretation of God.
If I saw true random action then I would, but this universe could well have a personality, this life could well be a lesson, I do not know this for a fact and I cannot discount it because it could be an explanation for many observations. I do not see why the material world and the fact that we must be able to find scientific explanations for what we observe should subtract from this in any way, it would be unnatural if it was so.
Balanced Truths
January 14, 2012 at 18:51
“[There] may be a measure of truth in it…”
Balanced Truths
January 14, 2012 at 18:54
BT, if I understand you correctly, you seem to define a new atheist as someone who is actively opposed to religion, as opposed to traditional atheists who was content simply to state his lack of believe in a deity and leave it at that.
If so, regard this as my coming out. I am actively opposed to religion. I detest blind faith in all its manifestations, in fact, I find it repulsive.
It is an insult to human intelligence and human dignity. It is harmful and dangerous, as has been proven over and over again.
I truly and honestly cannot see the point or the benefit in not opposing these dangerous delusions so as not to antagonise the religious, as you seem to be advocating.
If they kept their insane beliefs to themselves it would have been a diffirent matter, but that is not what is happening. If their delusions had no impact on the rest of us, I would have adopted a live and let live attitute.
Why is it necessary for an atheist to come out of the closet – I mean, why should he have found it necessary to be in the closet in the first place?
Is it perhaps because these harmless eccentrics mean us no harm?
Why should anybody have to fear to state an unbelieve in anything? Is it because of the tolerance of the religious parhaps?
Someone once said that the term atheist should not even exist, after all, there is no term for someone who does not believe in faeries.
An atheist cannot, per difinition, demonise anything as we believe in demons as little as we believe in gods. If by demonise you actually mean that we point out the harm that blind faith causes, then, guilty as charged, and gladly so.
Shazee
January 14, 2012 at 21:04
Shazee, my brein is nie afgeskakel nie, die Bybel maak vir my sin en bots nie met die wetenskap nie. Julle kan nie vir my ‘n teenstrydigheid wys nie, dus is die vraag; is jy oop vir rede? Wanneer een ‘n verkeerde persepsie het van wat ons moet dink God is, dan moet een eerder die regte persepsie kry.
Hans Matthysen
January 14, 2012 at 22:08
Hans,ek begin verstaan waarom CT jou hanswors noem. Jy is regtig nar wat baie snaakser sou wees as dit nie so tragies was nie.
As die bybel versoenbaar is met wetenskap, se my hoe verklaar jy evolusie? As ek reg onthou ontken jy nie evolusie nie. Moet asseblieftog nie met die storie kom dat god evolusie as n skeppings instrument gebruik het nie. Jy aanbid mos n almagtige god, ek is seker hy kan beter doen as n multi- biljoen jaar proses.
Die teenstrydighede in die bybel is al by herhaling aan jou uitgewys. Daar is n menigte, duidelike, onbetwisbare, onwegredeneerbare teenstrydighede. Om steeds soos n donkie aan te dring dit bestaan nie is is of oneerlik of onnosel, trek maar die skoen aan wat jou pas.
Shazee
January 14, 2012 at 22:46
But Hanswors, now you’re talking the same kind of impenetrable, inconsequent and illogical horseshit as your verbosely moralising postmodern maatjie, ol’ Bollocksed Goofs (
) over there. With your “regte persepsie” and your continued insistence that it’s up to others to prove you wrong, you’ve got the whole world waxed, right? It must be great never to have even the slightest doubt, eh? Then again, your repeated (but awkwardly failed) attempts to demonstrate your wisdom here strongly hint that faith isn’t enough. You seem to feel that you need to prove your fairytales, however ham-fistedly. Now, I wonder why that might be…?
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Come now, it’s not that hard, even for a self-important, mostly-incomprehensible-drivel-spouting bonehead of your magnificent splendour.
Con-Tester
January 14, 2012 at 23:02
Shazee, jy het blykbaar nie mooi verstaan nie. Wie het die woord versoenbaar gebruik? Ek het gesê dat die Bybel nie teen die Wetensap is nie. ‘n Groot verskil sou ek sê dus lees wat ek skryf en nie wat jy dink ek skryf.
Daar is geen teenstrydighede in die Bybel en ons kan elke sogenaamde teenstrydigheid induwidueel bespreek. Om vir my vier-honderd te gee en te dink ek gaan nou al vier-honderd beantwoord en dan kyk jy nie eers daarna nie, sal nie gebeur nie. Ek het drie induwidueel reeds behandel en uitgewys dat daar geen teenstrydigheid is nie. Jy het dit nie gelees nie en suig nou die herhaling storie uit jou duim uit. Jy is die een wat soos ‘n donkie gelei word deur onerkentlikes soos Con-Tester.
Hans Matthysen
January 15, 2012 at 22:12
Con-Tester, you are still avoiding discussion on a subject above your intellect writing a lot yet saying nothing. I have now also given you a biblical answer to your question and all you can come up with is to avoid discussion on the subject. You appear to be a very dumb and queer Professor.
Hans Matthysen
January 15, 2012 at 22:19
Hanswors, I’ve checked and Mrs Con-Tester says I’m not queer. You’d better believe it because she knows considerably more than any other mortal…
My questions may seem like nothing to you but they aren’t to me. That’s why I keep asking them. That may make me an “onerkentlike” in your view but that’s because I don’t understand your answers. Maybe you’re right. Maybe they are “above [my] intellect.” Then again, it could be you who’s “avoiding discussion on a subject” and “writing a lot yet saying nothing.” It would be good if you could explain yourself in a clear, unambiguous way, unlike your confounded postmodern maatjie, ol’ Bollocksed Goofs (
) over there, who insists, like you do, that certain criteria are met. Maybe you should try to speak clearly with no funny shit, such as unstated assumptions and tortuous lines of “reasoning” lurking in wait for us lesser intellects.
It would be a great help.
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? If you ask me, this “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]” shtick of yours is hardly convincing. Go on, be a demon and give honesty and straightforwardness a whirl. It’s quite liberating, you know.
Con-Tester
January 15, 2012 at 22:39
OK Hans, jy het my uitgevang. Jy het nie die woord “versoenbaar” gebruik nie, ek het. Sal jy nou die vraag wat ek gestel het in elk geval probeer antwoord? Hoekom is dit feitlik onmoontlik om n reguit antwoord uit jou te kry?
As jy al voorheen die teenstrydighede geantwoord het, herhinner my asb waar en wanneer, ek sal dit graag wil lees.
By the way – kan jy my se waarom Adam en Eva uit die paradys geskop is? – en ek bedoel nou letterlik wat die spesifieke rede was waarom god hulle nie toegelaat het om verder daar te bly nie?
Shazee
January 15, 2012 at 22:43
Hans!!! Dagsê.
Ek is bevrees die Bybel bots reg van die begin af met die wetenskap.
Genesis 1:
“In die begin het God die hemel en die aarde geskape”. Faain.
“En duisternis was op die wereldvloed. En God het gesê: “Laat daar lig wees!”. Onmoontlik.
Direk na die Big Bang was daar juis heeltemal te veel lig op die aarde. Soveel so dat die aarde inderdaad “woes en leeg” was. Die son het verhoed dat enige vorm van lewe op aarde kon ontstaan en ontwikkel.
Eers nadat die orsoonlaag oor ‘n tydperk van miljoene jare om die aarde gevorm is, het plante ontstaan en ontwikkel. So ook lewe in die oseaan in die vorm van eensellige organismes.
Daan Van der Merwe
January 17, 2012 at 05:29
Volgens ons beste huidiglike wetenskaplike kennis, was daar sowat agt biljoen jaar — 8,000,000,000 — tussen die oerknal en die formasie van ons tuislike planeet. In die Babbel se god se terme, waar ’n duisend jaar soos ’n dag is, is dit omtrent 21,903 goddelikke jare, wat ’n bietjie meer is as een goddelikke dag, soos Genesis se beriggewing dit wil hê.
In fact, the difference spans six orders of magnitude. You don’t need to be a genius to see that the error far exceeds the estimate, rendering the estimate entirely worthless.
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Your estimate, like the Genesis account, is so fuzzy as to have no probative value whatsoever.
Con-Tester
January 17, 2012 at 22:40
Daan, die vraag is, in watter begin of in wie se begin, want dit is sinnebeelde. In my begin het alles deur die “woord” tot my gekom. Die aarde (waarop die saaier saai) was woes ( van die sienswyse van die mens) en leeg (wat die geestelike betref). Toe dinge vir my begin verstaanbaar word, deur die woord, was daar lig.
Kyk wat sê Rom. 8 v 5 en 6 (Die King james vertaling stel dit nog vir my beter).
Hans Matthysen
January 17, 2012 at 22:48
Con-Tester, dankie vir die interesante wetenskaplike inligting. I am only avoiding discussions on Mickey Mouse.
Hans Matthysen
January 17, 2012 at 22:55
Oh no, Hanswors, it’s not so easy. You’re blatantly avoiding much, much more than that. My questions, for instance, or the slap-in-the-face incompatibility of biblical stories with known fact, or poke-in-the-eye biblical contradictions, self or otherwise. Come now, you religious types just love asserting your diligence, so how about demonstrating some? (In case the question mark leaves any room for doubt, that’s another question for ya.)
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Your avoidances are so transparent that one might grind high-quality lenses from them.
Con-Tester
January 17, 2012 at 23:02
Shazee, Adam is in werklikheid uitgestuur om die grond te bewerk waarvandaan hy afkomstig was en is nie regtig uitgeskop nie, want hulle het aan die oostekant van die tuin gaan woon en nie buitekant nie. Hy was uitgejaag omdat hy traag was om te gaan werk. Een van my broers was ook traag om te gaan werk en my Pa moes hom letterlik uitjaag om te gaan werk en nie weggejaag nie. Ek dink die vertaling is misleidend en moes eerder “uitjaag” gesê het as “wegjaag”. In Gen. 4, het Kain weggegaan van die aangesig van die Here en was die Here nie in die Tuin van Eden nie?
Hans Matthysen
January 17, 2012 at 23:15
Shazee, moontlik sal Con-Tester jou ver terug op hierdie blog van Nathan kan sê waar ek antwoorde gegee het op sogenaamde strydighede.
Hans Matthysen
January 17, 2012 at 23:18
Nee Hanswors, ek kan geen enkele voorbeeld onthou waar jy enige bybelse teenstrydighede bevredigend beantwoord het. Ek onthou weld at jy gesê het dat dit nie teenstrydighede is nie sonder om die teenstrydighede te verklaar. Ek onthou ook dat jy my as ’n “onerkentlike” beskryf het (hierdie gespreksdraad, Januarie 15, 2012 om 22:12), wat nou, soos teen die bostaande agtergrond gemeet, vir my vreeslik snaaks is…
Which also reminds me…
Con-Tester
January 17, 2012 at 23:29
Hans, ek dog jy ken die bybel. Gaan kyk na Gen 3:22 – 23. (Veral die King James vertaling)
Moet seker maar weer geinterpreteer of simbolies gelees word ne?
Shazee
January 18, 2012 at 07:09
Shazee, die Gèrubs het die boom bewaak ja en dit sê nie dat Adam nie kon terugkeer na die tuin nie. Dit is die aanname wat mense maak. Die mens is weggedryf om die grond te bewerk omdat hy gestuur is en natuurlik moet almal eers met goedkeuring van die Gèrubs weer toegang kry. Skuus ja, my fout. Ek moes seker eers weer gelees het voordat ek jou geantwoord het omdat dit die Gèrubs was die wat aan die ooste van die tuin gaan woon het. Ek onthou nie altyd alles presies en sal eerder volgende keer eers weer lees voordat ek so uit die vuis uit antwoord.
Hans Matthysen
January 18, 2012 at 21:41
Con-Tester, dit wil voorkom of jy ook nie altyd als onthou nie dus nooi ek jou om een vir een, sogenaamde tenstrydigheid, per beurt op te noem vir bespreking. Natuurlik was my antwoorde nie vir jou bevredigend nie en tog kon jy nie my antwoorde weerlê nie.
Hans Matthysen
January 18, 2012 at 21:47
Ouch Hanswors, I gave you the link often enough. It even appears in this thread. All you need to do is look. “Seek,” as that Holey Babble platitude goes, “And ye shall find.” Except in this case it’s actually there to be found.
Your brain-dead insistence that it’s up to others to disprove your contentions is absurd. I’ve got your soul in a Jiffy bag here in my freezer. You can’t prove me wrong. Therefore I am right.
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
)… Even a lethargic intellectual fugue like you should know the tune by now.
Con-Tester
January 18, 2012 at 21:56
Hans, die regte antwoord is dat god vir Adam en Eva uit die tuin van Eden uitgedryf het omdat hy bang was hulle eet ook van die boom van die lewe en dat hulle dan soos hy sal word en vir ewig sal lewe …. Dit staan in die bybel,regtig…
God hou duidelik nie van kompetisie nie.
Ek wou maar net sien hoe goed jy die bybel regtig ken omdat jy altyd so vol selfvertroue beweer ons ouens sal ook glo as ons maar net die bybel beter ken of verstaan.
In elk geval, wat is al die pratery oor Gerubs wat aan die oostekant van die tuin gaan bly het? Ek dog dan Genesis is net simbolies?
Het die Gerubs net simbolies aan die oostekant van die simboliese tuin gaan woon? Van wat sou dit n simbool wees?
Waarom sou die mens met toestemming van die Gerubs tot die tuin kon terugkeer – die tuin is dan net simbolies, of sou hulle net simbolies terugkeer na n simboliese tuin? (Met simboliese toestemming van die simboliese Gerubs natuurlik)
Shazee
January 19, 2012 at 07:50
Con-Tester, ek gaan nie 400 sogenaamde tenstrydighede deurwerk en vir jou verduidelik en het reeds gesê dat julle een op ‘n slag kan meld en dan kan ons daaroor gesprek voer. Ek het nie nodig om aan jou en kie iets te bewys nie en sal wel vir julle wys dat julle verkeerd is oor die tenstrydighede. Jy het blykbaar die breindood aandrang.
Hans Matthysen
January 19, 2012 at 22:20
Hanswors, I know you think there aren’t any contradictions in your Holey Babble. Yet there they stand, unaddressed. Linked to. Avoided. Evaded. For everyone to see.
Repeatedly.
So come now Hanswors, some diligence and effort please. On the other hand, if you have nothing to prove, why are you trying so hard to not prove anything?
All of which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? In case it hasn’t sunk in yet, I can carry on doing this indefinitely. All it takes from you is a definite “yes” or a definite “no”.
Con-Tester
January 19, 2012 at 22:33
Shazee, die tuin stel verskillende senario’s voor, dit kan ‘n huwelik voorstel, ‘n gemeenskap voorstel ens. Wanneer een net begin kwaad sien en kwaad praat, sal een uitgedryf word en dan kos dit harde werk en sweet om weer vrede en geluk weer tot stand te bring. Wanneer een die mooi in alles raak sien en daarop bou, word so ‘n “tuin” ‘n “Paradys” want een ervaar vrede, blydskap en geregtigheid. Dit gaan dus nie oor kompetisie nie want ons almal weet, dat geen mens of gemeenskap is perfek nie. Daar is Gerubs in God se gemeente wat die “Boom van die Lewe” bewaak. Die oostekant is waar die son opkom en dit moet dus altyd lig in ons lewe wees. Die duisternis moet nooit die lig oorweldig nie.
As een met die verkeerde kleed (gesindheid) by die veesmal is, sal een uitgewerp word.
Terloops, ek is nou nie ‘n skrifgeleerde nie.
Hans Matthysen
January 19, 2012 at 22:48
Con- Tester, you don’t seem to understand what I said in English so I now tried in Afrikaans, yet to no avail. Word wakker, jou koffie word koud!
Hans Matthysen
January 19, 2012 at 22:52
Oh, I understood perfectly well, ou Hanswors. I understood completely that you’re dodging, and so did everyone else.
But on second thoughts, Hanswors, pick any 40 of those contradictions. That’s less than 10% of the total. If you can resolve them satisfactorily I’ll give the rest to you free and gratis with no further obligation. As Shazee has got you to admit, your knowledge of your Holey Babble is less than perfect. You should look on this opportunity as one to learn about your so-called “holy” book. And since you keep saying that I can’t prove you wrong, it’s also a great opportunity for you to prove me wrong.
So, what do you say, eh?
So come now Hanswors, some diligence and effort please. On the other hand, if you have nothing to prove, why are you trying so hard to not prove anything?
Which again reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
)…
Con-Tester
January 19, 2012 at 22:58
Hans, hoekom probeer jy nie maar regtig om so n paar van die teenstrydighede met logiese redenasie en goed nagevorsde en gefundeerde feite van jou eie te weerle nie?
Selfs jy moet seker toegee dat al die honderde teenstrydighede wat al uitgewys is nie almal maar bloot deur n aanspraak op simboliek of allegorie verklaar kan word nie.
Solank as wat jy die agterdeur van simboliek te alle tye oophou is enigiets natuurlik verklaarbaar. Dit is nie bewys nie Hans, dit is nie weerlegging van ongegronde bewerings nie. Dit is bloot blinde geloof.
Kan jy vir my se op watter basis het wie besluit watter dele van die bybel is bloot simbolies en watter dele is letterlike geskiedenis? Dit is tog n eenvoudige vraag, Hans, en jy wat so vol selfvertroue simboliese verklarings verskaf moet tog self ook weet op watter basis jy dit doen? Sal jy asb net die vraag reguit en sonder ontwykings antwoord?
Ek het jou al voorheen gevra, en ek doen dit weer; sal bereid wees om n hoofstuk van die bybel, wat ek identifiseer, vooraf as letterlik te bevestig en dit dan daarna te debbateer?
Shazee
January 20, 2012 at 07:53
Con – Tester, you must be carefull with this Mickey Mouse religion of yours.
Did you know that there is a Fatwa out on Mickey Mouse, I shit you not?!
Check out – “Saudi cleric says Mickey Mouse must die”.
It seems that Sheikh Muhammed al – Munajid, a former diplomat at the Saudi embassy in Washington, when asked about Islam’s position on mice, said that Mickey Mouse is a soldier of Satan an must die.
It seems that the Muslims are after you now!
Shazee
January 20, 2012 at 16:22
Well, that puts Mickey Mouse in among some very good company, which is hardly unexpected…
Con-Tester
January 20, 2012 at 17:45
Ongelooflik, n mens kan skaars glo grootmense dink sulke kak uit.
Shazee
January 20, 2012 at 22:28
Con-Tester, I have a better understanding of the Bible and have never boasted of having knowledge of the Bible. I trust you know the difference.
I leave the choice in regard to the forty, to you and make it one at a time.
I see you always try to deviate from the subject at hand by trying to shift the attention to mistakes one makes and acknowledges. I am sure everybody can see that you are the dodgy one and acknowledging your own mistakes are non existent by you.
Hans Matthysen
January 21, 2012 at 21:13
Shazee, jy sien, daar is baie wat waarde uit die Bybel kry omdat hulle nie eenrigtingdenkend is nie. Lees die boek met verstand en moet nie blindelings onverklaarbare dinge wil glo nie. Gees is onbeperk en kan nie met mense mates gemeet word nie. Dit is nie ‘n verskoning nie en is ‘n feit wat Atiëste nie pas nie omdat vrede, blydskap en geregtigheid, in die Heilige Gees, nie gemeet kan word nie. Die boodskap wat ek vir jou verklaar het, kan jy nie weerlê nie en nou reken jy dit is kak wat ek uitgedink het. Wat ‘n flou verskoning is vir een wat nie erkentlik wil wees nie.
Hans Matthysen
January 21, 2012 at 21:34
Hans,Hans,Hans, my goeie fok ou maat, ek begin nou regtig wonder wat jy in plaas van verstand gebruik.
Verstaan ek reg dat jy my beskuldig dat ek iets blindelings glo?????
Wat presies glo ek blindelings??
Het ek jou nie mooi gevra om nie n eenvoudige vraag te ontduik nie? Het jou gotvirus jou verstand so aangetas dat jy nie meer in staat is om vir n oomblik helder te dink nie?
Ek se weer; jy wil alles wat nie sin maak in die bybel met n simboliese ontsnapklousule ontduik.
Hoe moet ek die uitdaging eenvoudiger of meer direk stel? Kies jy dan self n hoofstuk in die bybel wat jy as letterlik verklaar en dan debatteer ons dit.
Die hele bybel is tog seker nie simbolies nie? Ek bedoel, daar is tog sekerlik dele wat letterlik opgeneem kan word, of is daar nie?
Ek is bereid om groot geld te wed jy gaan weereens die uitdaging ignoreer of met n ontwykende antwoord kom – wat se jy Hans, aanvaar die uitdaging sonder ontwyking en ek kom die wegraping idioot se weddenskap met Nathan namens hom na.
Shazee
January 21, 2012 at 22:29
So Hanswors, when you wrote, “I understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20), you weren’t boasting of having knowledge of the Holey Babble? What could you have meant? Please explain it to me!
No Hanswors, you choose your forty. That’s the deal otherwise you’ll later say I’m being unreasonable. If you won’t even make your own choices, it’ll look just like you’re ducking and dodging and diving.
Once again, it’s a wonderful chance for you to prove me wrong, to stop me from deviating from the subject and shifting the attention away to mistakes you make and acknowledge, and to expose me for the dodgy one so that I can acknowledge my non-existent mistakes.
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Con-Tester
January 22, 2012 at 08:09
Shazee
January 14, 2012 at 21:04
Atheism is a conclusion, nothing more, just that, the new angry atheist has an urge to force this conclusion on others in the absence of any concrete data or proof that this conclusion is in deed one hundred percent correct for said others.
I find this preposterous notion that there is a theist lurking around every corner, biding their time to attack a poor innocent atheist just because said atheist has chosen to see through their dogma and blind beliefs, hilarious, really scary stuff that! No one should have to fear to state an unbelief in anything, and as far as I can see no one has to either. I have not read a single article in my local newspaper of anyone being lynched because they did so.
Quite so, but you will change that for us won’t you, this new atheist movement has already changed that for us.
Demonise is a term that has nothing to do with whether or not demons exist, that should be apparent to anyone, who is willing to be honest, but you seem to be getting the hang of this new atheist way of arguing. No Shazee, be honest, demonise means you whish to cause somebody or something to appear evil or threatening in the eyes of others, so much so that you are willing to employ lies and exaggerations, political strategies, to achieve your goals. Welcome tot the New Atheist group. May it, against all odds, bring you happiness.
Balanced Truths
January 22, 2012 at 09:19
BT, how the heck can you, after your last post, still call yourself truthful? Are you blind? Do you live on the moon? Surely it should not be necessary to point out how religion is enforced and impacts (negatively)on society in general on a daily basis? Why is it necessary for me to go to a government (secular) school and ask that my child not be taught abut heaven and hell? Are you aware that some companies in SA opens their working week with prayers on a Monday morning?
Shazee’s questions are valid and by dodging it with a “atheism is a conclusion” answer, is simply dishonest. Nobody stated there is a “theist lurking behind every corner”, but you must be ignorant to the extreme not to see how religion is forced upon society and the consequences for so-called out-of-the-closet non-believers. If this was not true, why is it necessary for many of my friends who diligently uphold the facade of christian belief, to whisper behind their hand that actually they agree with my views, but “keep it between us, because it won’t go down well with the wife or the boss or friends or the hunting club, or, or ….”?
I would like to humbly suggest that you change your name, because you are giving Truth a bad name. Likewise Balanced. May I suggest Apologist Draadsitter? perhaps?
Malherbe
January 22, 2012 at 11:25
Shazee, Hanswors is indeed a hanswors and not a very clever one at that. The only question is whether he was born that way or if religion is to blame for the current state of the substance in his cranial cavity. But he certainly has some comic value. Not the Monty Python-type humor though, more like Leon Schuster slapstick. Puts a smile on the face like a monkey in the zoo or the clown slipping on a banana peel. As for Sunday morning entertainment, it certainly beats the hell out of sitting in a church and howling to the gotte.
Malherbe
January 22, 2012 at 11:38
Found out. Once more. By yet another. Too precious. That avatar’s not wearing shades, it’s a blindfold.
Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Con-Tester
January 22, 2012 at 11:45
Bollocksed Goofs (
) wrote (January 22, 2012 at 09:19):
Nathan, this blog seriously needs a giant LOL emoticon, preferably also readily usable in groups of twelve. The above gem not only precisely explains the etymology of the term, it also is so admirably postmodern as to meet all the usual criteria of “balance” and “truth”…
(Remember that postmodernism is the subtle art of making words mean whatever you want them to mean at any given moment because postmodernism holds that the Ding an sich — thing in itself, the real reality — of the world is inaccessible to us, and all we are and can be privy to is the world as filtered by our senses and as coloured by the totality of our prior perceptions.)
But here is the full and complete dictionary entry (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Sixth Edition, 1976):
Now if “demon” has no precise referent, then “demonise” is an empty term. But the same dictionary speaks only of “evil spirit”, “devil” and “(malignant) supernatural being” in relation to the word “demon”. The existence of those things as anything other than imaginative constructs or delusions is hardly proved, and so “demon” has no clear and proper real-world referent. Thus, “demonise” looks suspiciously like a hollow contrivance.
Which hollowness and concomitant noisiness reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Con-Tester
January 22, 2012 at 14:30
Malherbe
January 22, 2012 at 11:25
Easily
No
No, the moon has no atmosphere and I have no means to escape earth’s gravity, besides, even if I could, I don’t have a suit.
Wearing your seatbelt is enforced, where, please, is religion enforced. Have you received any fines, or jail time for not believing?
It isn’t really, you can take an interest in your child’s upbringing and counter these naive viewpoints, you can also teach your child to exercise the required discretion that will be invaluable in a million other ways throughout his or her life.
Yes, but I have never seen it cause any real harm, deluded as it may be.
I don’t see how I dodged that question at all, in fact my answer is pretty straight forward and it remains.
I beg to differ regarding the first, but, as for the rest, there will always be sensitive demented people to whom you cannot say things that are perfectly logical or absolutely true simply because it will clash with their blind convictions, however, just because they are unreasonable or deluded does not give you the right to act on the emotional need to push the true facts down their respective throats, anymore than you get to slap them in the face without suffering the consequences.
Religion is not healthy, granted, it is definitely a problem, blind faith is a crutch to the majority of the human race, but, it is not the Demon you try to make it out to be, that is your new atheist version, and a dubious one at that.
You may suggest all you like for what good it will do you.
Balanced Truths
January 22, 2012 at 18:49
Hi Nathan, hope you are having a splendid Sunday. I am aware that you would most likely not have been endeavouring to join and enjoying the local Church service this lovely afternoon, or evening, whenever they are held, so I though to share with you, as you are a literary genius, something that I found on the internet that I thought was quite interesting, it seems the online Oxford dictionary seems to describe the word Demonise as: “[with object] portray as wicked and threatening. They give the example: “he was demonized by the right-wing press”.
This amazing discovery was what lead me to investigate another reputable source the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, they had this to say:
demonize verb (British English also -ise)
demonize somebody/something
to describe somebody/something in a way that is intended to make other people think of them or it as evil or dangerous.
This just blew my mind because apparently according to another participant on this blog whom I, and this is only my personal opinion, think is a ghastly cunt, an unmitigated piece of ordure, a treacherous fuck, that may continue to stuprate himself wholly unhindered by me, came to the preposterous conclusion that the Oxford dictionary is a source of post modern drivel.
Oh well, just thought I would mention it, as always, thanks for listening.
xxx
Balanced Truths
January 22, 2012 at 19:14
de·mon·ize
de·mon·ize [dmə nz]
(past and past participle de·mon·ized, present participle de·mon·iz·ing, 3rd person present singular de·mon·iz·es)
vt
cause to appear evil to others: to cause somebody or something to appear evil or threatening in the eyes of others
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Balanced Truths
January 22, 2012 at 19:19
MacMillan Dictionary:
demonise – thesaurus entry
a British spelling of demonize
*Synonyms or related words for this sense of demonise*
To harm someone’s reputation: discredit, slander, taint, bruise, stain, smear, disgrace, cast aspersions (on), blacken someone’s reputation/name/character, knock someone off their pedestal…
Balanced Truths
January 22, 2012 at 19:33
BT, thank you for wishing me happiness.
You keep on calling me an atheist (I see I have now graduated to new atheist) as though it is supposed to be some kind of insult – once again, thanks for the compliment.
You really should try to get it into your head that I regard myself as an atheist openly and proudly, we have been through this before, haven’t we? Jy moet regtig probeer fokus ouboet.
Would you mind pointing out the specific lies and exaggerations that I have employed in achieving my “political” goals?
You really should stop suppressing your fundie hankerings, it is making you sound more and more confused as you go along.
Shazee
January 22, 2012 at 19:40
Oh dear, the Master Fallacymonger-cum-Chief-Distorter strikes once more. Looks like practice does indeed make perfect.
Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), some corrections for ya:
• “straightforward”;
• “thought”;
• “Internet”;
• “led”;
• “Learner’s”;
• “postmodern”;
• Your opinion of me is as hilarious as your reasoning abilities and fragile attention;
• No, you are only source of postmodern drivel.
Besides all of which, I can see just how thoroughly he’s “rest[ing his] case with [me]” and “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [him]”…
Which source reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Con-Tester
January 22, 2012 at 19:44
Bad Con-Tester, bad! Leaving away that definite article! Maybe you should a leaf from ol’ Bollocksed Goofs’ (
) book. I mean, for someone who disdains the ol’ ad hominem, he sure delivers a most amusing barrage of contumely.
Which inconsistency reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Con-Tester
January 22, 2012 at 19:55
Bad Con-Tester, bad! Leaving away that verb! Maybe you should take a leaf from ol’ Bollocksed Goofs’ (
) book. I mean, for someone who’s such a beacon of reason and enlightenment, he sure likes to put the shine on people.
Which hypocrisy reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Con-Tester
January 22, 2012 at 19:58
Shazee, jy glo blindelings dat die Bybel onverklaarbaar is en jy glo blindelings dat daar nie simboliek in die Bybel is nie. Gaan lees ook 1 Kor. 7, want dit is letterlik. Ek stel nie belang in uitdagings nie, want jy is tog nie my vyand nie. Ons verskil maar net in denke van mekaar en ruil maar ons verskillende denke aan mekaar uit. Terloops, ek dink jou geld is veilig as jy liewer nie weddenskappe aangegaan het nie.
Hans Matthysen
January 22, 2012 at 21:08
Ha ha ha Hanswors, what a fuckin’ joke! “[J]y glo blindelings dat die Bybel onverklaarbaar is en jy glo blindelings dat daar nie simboliek in die Bybel is nie.” Where did you get that from!? Shazee is asking you to explain it!
Which misrepresentation reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Con-Tester
January 22, 2012 at 21:17
Con-Tester, I have known people who can quote Bible verse because of their great knowledge of the Bible and when it comes to understanding those verses quoted, they are at a loss. I may not know the Bible as those I have referred to, yet I have a greater understanding thereof and I am not boasting in myself, as it is the Gift of Christ.
I have no intention of proving anybody wrong or making deals with anybody as I would rather share my understanding of what is written in the Bible with others so you may quote the so called contradiction, one at a time please.
Hans Matthysen
January 22, 2012 at 21:29
Balanced Truths, I think Atheism is not only a conclusion but also a confusion.
Hans Matthysen
January 22, 2012 at 21:36
Malherbe, you appear incapable of contributing an opinion in regard to the subjects under discussion so all you can do, is reveal the crap in your brain. I suppose one doesn’t need to be very cleaver to realize that fact.
Hans Matthysen
January 22, 2012 at 21:47
So Hanswors, since you “understand more of the Bible than what [I] ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20) and you “have a greater understanding thereof and [you are] not boasting in [yourself], as it is the Gift of Christ,” why don’t you demonstrate
Why don’t you want to prove me wrong when I say your Holey Babble is a collection of fairytales, Hanswors? Why do you keep saying that nobody can prove you wrong about your Holey Babble, Hanswors? Why won’t you, by exactly the same standard, not make an effort to prove those wrong who disagree with you, Hanswors? Why do you keep dodging those contradictions in your Holey Babble, Hanswors? Why, in short, won’t you answer anyone’s questions, Hanswors?
Is it maybe because you also consider me to be “a ghastly cunt, an unmitigated piece of ordure, a treacherous fuck,” this being the sort of fanatically-expressed opinion one reserves for those who have your number and who can see straight through you? Would you perhaps also — self-contradictorily, please note — like me to “continue to stuprate [myself] wholly unhindered by [you]”?
Which giggle-inducing rant reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Con-Tester
January 22, 2012 at 21:47
So Hanswors, since you “understand more of the Bible than what [I] ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20) and you “have a greater understanding thereof and [you are] not boasting in [yourself], as it is the Gift of Christ,” why don’t you demonstrate how you would “rather share [your] understanding”? I’ve told you that you can pick whichever of those contradictions you want to. Why is this giving you such difficulty? It’s almost as dense as not being to supply a simple yes-or-no answer to a very simple question.
Why don’t you want to prove me wrong when I say your Holey Babble is a collection of fairytales, Hanswors? Why do you keep saying that nobody can prove you wrong about your Holey Babble, Hanswors? Why won’t you, by exactly the same standard, not make an effort to prove those wrong who disagree with you, Hanswors? Why do you keep dodging those contradictions in your Holey Babble, Hanswors? Why, in short, won’t you answer anyone’s questions, Hanswors?
Is it maybe because you also consider me to be “a ghastly cunt, an unmitigated piece of ordure, a treacherous fuck,” this being the sort of fanatically-expressed opinion one reserves for those who have your number and who can see straight through you? Would you perhaps also — self-contradictorily, please note — like me to “continue to stuprate [myself] wholly unhindered by [you]”?
Which giggle-inducing rant reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Con-Tester
January 22, 2012 at 21:54
Hans, dit is nie dat ek blindelings glo dat daar niks in die bybel is wat simbolies verklaar kan word nie, dit is net dat ek wil weet op watter basis jy (of enigiemand) besluit wat is simbolies en wat is letterlik. Jy kan seker die verskil insien ne?
Ek stem saam dat jy persoonlik nie my vyand is nie en ek wens jou geen teenspoed toe nie. Dit is egter nie die punt nie, die punt is dat dit wat jy blindelings en uiters onredelik glo, baie, baie gevaarlik en skadelik is.
Jy se 1 Kor 7 kan ek maar letterlik opneem?
Ok – 1 Kor 7:6 – Paulus se dat hy self iets toelaat, en dat dit nie n gebod is nie (let wel, Paulus laat dit toe, nie god nie)
1 Kor 7:12 – Paulus se dat hy self dit se, en nie die here nie.
Vergelyk dit nou met 2 Tim 3:16 waar daar staan dat die hele skrif deur god ingegee is.
As alles in die bybel god se onfeilbare woord is, wat maak Paulus se persoonlike opinie omtrent die huwelik daarin? Waar kom hy dan vandaan om iets toe te laat of nie?
Terloops; dit lyk darrem asof Con – Tester iets beet het met BT dat hy nou so kleinserig begin raak. N mens se ware kleure kom seker maar onder druk uit ne?
Shazee
January 22, 2012 at 23:07
It’s interesting to examine how “balanced” and “true” is the allegation that among “New” atheists, there is “the emotional need to push the true facts down [believers’] respective throats.”
At the risk of pointing out the manifestly obvious, this right here is an atheist blog. I must be blind, ’cos I don’t see any atheists being marshalled to adopt a recant-or-die agenda, being sent out on a campaign (or volunteering) to conquer and convert the world by pointing guns at anyone’s head. Everything would be hunky-dory but for the apparently interminable procession of religiot/crediot/godiot/bibliot/apologiot dupes who feel it is their god-given duty to come and smear their childish and empty-headed shit all over this blog (without first bothering to read an appreciable portion of it), in order to try to turn “Da Eeeebil Aytists” away from “Da Parf of Inikwitty.” You don’t have to look too hard to see that vocal atheism is a reaction to an onslaught of brain-dead unreason, or where the proselytisations actually begin.
Those who are not able to see the above, moreover, surely haven’t experienced the ostracism, the blind contempt or the condescension freely dished out by religious family and acquaintances upon an honest and open declaration of disbelief, which constitutes another reason for opposing religion wherever possible — in fact, it’s exactly the same ostracism, blind contempt and condescension we have witnessed so often here on this blog. The arrogant religiot/crediot/godiot/bibliot/apologiot rocks up here (bullishly invading the territory of another) and presumes to call the shots. Then again, what do I know? I’m just “a ghastly cunt, an unmitigated piece of ordure, a treacherous fuck” who should, by all rational accounts, “continue to stuprate himself wholly unhindered by [another]”.
Oh, and in Japan before and during the war years, the emperor was considered to be a descendent of the gods incarnate. Yes, a descendent of the gods. The “duty” felt by his subjects towards him was therefore patently religious.
Which neglected facts remind me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Come, come. Throw “a ghastly cunt, an unmitigated piece of ordure, a treacherous fuck” a bone already!
Con-Tester
January 22, 2012 at 23:21
Ghastly cunt…heh,heh….fokken snaaks.
Ja,nee, dit is ongelooflik dat atteiste, nuut of oud, daarvan beskuldig word dat hulle n agenda het wat hulle in ander mense se kele wil afdruk – praat van die pot wat die ketel swart noem.
Wie is dit wat gereelde rubrieke in die koerante het – goeie nuus,woord onderweg, ens, ens.
Wie is dit wat die vermetelheid het om vir jou te vertel dat jy moet besef dit is n christelike skool as jy jou kind by n model-c skool inskryf? Wie is dit wat elke dag die skooldag met gebed open?
Wie het eindelose godsdienstige radio en Tv stasies (ja ek weet ek hoef dit nie te kyk nie, en ek doen ook nie gewoonlik nie behalwe as ek verveeld is en op soek is na entertainment)
Wie is dit wat my kom vra om asb nie ” The god delusion” op hulle perseel te sit en lees terwyl my kar gediens word nie -het hom by the way in sy moer gestuur.
Is dit nie so dat daar biskoppe in die Britse parlement sit nie?
En ek druk my agenda in iemand se keel af?? – my fok!
Shazee
January 23, 2012 at 00:05
Con Tester makes a valid point with regard to this blog being an atheist blog, where the religious hansworse are allowed to post their incoherent drivel with no censoreship. This is obviously how it should be, but have you ever tried to post an atheist argument on a religious-inclined site? Good luck with that one. Now why would that be? My question to Mr Balance-on-the-Draad: Why would the intolerance displayed by my example above be any different to the religously-indoctrinated world at large? If they do not allow my viewpoint on their site, what leads you to believe that they would tolerate non-believers in society?
Do you really think it is fair on a 7-year old child to (as you put it: “….you can also teach your child to exercise the required discretion that will be invaluable in a million other ways throughout his or her life.”) to have to decide between his teacher’s (in many childrens minds a hero)viewpoint and that of his parents. This against the background of the fact that 85% of his classmates will listen to Miss Moron while eagerly nodding heads. You think this is fair? If this is the case, you are not only a Draadsitter, but a cruel one at that.
Malherbe
January 23, 2012 at 09:22
Ja Shazee, meeste van dit wat jy noem, het ek al male sonder tal ondervind. Wonder wat sal gebeur as ek in ‘n gesprek sou noem dat Gert of Piet, so ‘n “goeie ateis is”. Die Krisjuns doen dit heeltyd. Ons moet alewig hoor watter “mooi krisjun” die of daai ou is. “Voete plat oppie aarde” – so asof jy net goed kan wees as jy in gotte glo.
Malherbe
January 23, 2012 at 09:32
Malherbe, jy slaan die spyker op die kop. Ander mense het die reg om wat hulle glo in jou kind se kop te probeer inprent en jy moet tevrede wees om “damage control” na die tyd te doen??
Wie redeneer so? Wat is daarin om te moet respekteer met n geballanseerde waarheid?
Gestel ek is n onderwyser wat elke laaste dag vir die graad 1 klas voor my van my atteistiese lewensbeskouing vertel en dan as die ouers kla redeneer dat hulle vry is om na skool n balans daaraan te probeer gee – kan jy jou dit voorstel? Hoe lank skat jy voor ek doodsdreigemente kry en ontslaan word? Nie omdat ek kinders aanmoedig om gevaarlike en skadelike nonsens te glo nie,nee, bloot omdat ek hulle sou wou leer om vir hulle self te dink en dat n mens nie enige nonsens sonder n bietjie objektiewe bewys hoef te sluk nie.
Ek gee regtig nie om as iemand glo dat daar kabouters in sy tuin woon nie, maar ek maak beswaar daarteen as hy wil he ek moet die geloof respekteer in die sin dat hy die reg het om my kinders daarmee te indoktrineer of dat hy my (in eksteme gevalle) maar mag minag of selfs doodmaak bloot omdat ek nie sy kabouters wil aanbid nie.
Shazee
January 23, 2012 at 11:20
Con-Tester, you seem to be getting on in years as you do repeat yourself a lot. I can never regard you as a cunt, as one can give and get much pleasure from a cunt.
Hans Matthysen
January 23, 2012 at 22:13
So Hanswors, your suggestive and amusing evasion regarding female genitalia aside, will you address my questions? Me repeating myself is merely a reflection of you repeatedly dodging my concerns. So go on Hanswors, give it a whirl. Any 40 of your choice out of more than 400 is a good deal for you!
Which bargain reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Enquiring GC&UPOO&TFs want to know, auto-stuprating commands notwithstanding!
Con-Tester
January 23, 2012 at 22:26
Shazee, onthou dat Paulus ‘n gesant van God was en was dus maar ‘n instrument, wat die gesindheid van Christus geopenbaar het, al het hy raad gegee aangaande vleeslike belange.
Mens moet maar insig kry volgens wysheid wat van God is en nie reëls om te weet wanneer die Bybelgedeelte simbolies is of nie. ( Luk 24:45 Toe open Hy hulle verstand om die Skrifte te verstaan.)
BT moet maar leer om nie Con ernstig op te neem as hy God/ Jesus of ons persoon sleg sê want dit is maar ‘n Atiës se vernaamste wapen as hulle nie konstruktiewe debat kan voer nie of voel hulle kom nou tweede in die debat en hulle is nie bereid om erkentlik te wees nie.
Het Atiëste dan nog nie hulle eie skool en Radiostasie tot stand gebring nie of mors hulle miskien teveel tyd ens. om Christenne te probeer afkraak?
Dit kom vir my voor of Atiëste onder ‘n non-god delusion verkeer, wat veroorsaak dat hulle baie kan sê en skryf en tog vir hulle self niks tot stand kan bring. Dink net, jy sou kon skool gee in ‘n Atiëste onderwys hoedanigheid.
Die doodmaak saak is gladnie wat Jesus ens. verkondig het of as voorbeeld gelewe het nie, dus enigeen wat so optree is nie werklik ‘n Christen nie.
Hans Matthysen
January 23, 2012 at 22:54
Hanswors, you really shouldn’t use terms like “constructive debate” the meaning of which you clearly haven’t the first or foggiest idea of.
Which ignorance reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? There’s a curious GC&UPOO&TFs who can’t stand the uncertainty. Auto-stuprating can only satisfy for so long, you know.
Con-Tester
January 23, 2012 at 23:00
Malherbe, dit wil voorkom of jy nou bedreig voel, nou dat jy bietjie opdraend kry van een wat in Christus glo en lewe. Siestog!
Hans Matthysen
January 23, 2012 at 23:01
Rather attend to some long-overdue questions, Hanswors.
Which GC&UPOO&TF’s suggestion reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Con-Tester
January 23, 2012 at 23:03
Hans, jou ontwykendste antwoorde is soms die insiggewenste.
Jy erken dus nou daar is nie reels omtrent die verklaring van skrifgedeeltes nie, of by implikasie eintlik net een reel: ek kan dit maar opmaak soos ek aangaan.
Se my, hoe openbaar god sy “wysheid” aan jou om te weet watter dele simbolies is? Is dit n stem in jou kop wat se – “o fok, hulle het al weer n deel gekry wat nie sin maak nie,gou,gryp na nog n onsinnige simboliese verklaring” -
Se my Hans, hoekom hoor ek nie ook hierdie stem nie? As god my n bietjie insig en wysheid gee kan ek mos ook gered word. O, wag n bietjie, nou onthou ek weer – ek glo nie en daarom wil hy nie met my praat nie – baie volwasse houding vir die skepper van die heelal; ” hierdie fokkers wil mos nie glo nie en nou gaan ek hulle vir ewig braai, dit sal die donners leer! ”
Jy het in elk geval nie my vraag geantwoord nie. Wat soek Paulus se persoonlike opinie in die bybel? Moet ook nie vir my se hy is n “gesant van god” nie. Hy se uitdruklik dat dit sy eie mening is en hy se uitdruklik dat dit nie van god af kom nie. En verder, as dit sy eie (baie vreemde en verdagte) opinie omtrent seksuele verhoudings en die huwelik is, waarom steur gelowiges hulle daaraan?
Jy mis ook (soos gewoonlik) my punt oor die putatiewe atteistiese onderwyser. Die punt is dat ons nie werklik n begeerte het om ons siening op iemand af te dwing nie, ons kom bloot in opstand daarteen dat ander hulle self die reg toe-eien om hulle kranksinnige bygelowe op ons en ons kinders af te dwing.
Laat ek jou sommer nog n vraag vra – as jy nie glo dat Genesis letterlik opgeneem moet word nie, soos jy erken jy nie glo nie, wat is die punt van jou geloof? Kan jy nog tred hou met al die rasionaliserings?
Shazee
January 24, 2012 at 03:25
Ai Hans, soveel van ‘n geknoop het ek lanklaas teegekom. Al ooit gedink hoe jou argumente in ‘n hof sal klink? Gestel jy was ‘n prokureur wat iemand moet verdedig (vreesaanjaende gedagte)en jy gebruik die tegnieke wat jy deurgaans op hierdie draad so lustig toepas:
Hanswors: Nee Edelagbare, my klient het dit net simbolies bedoel toe hy gedreig het om die klaagster dood te steek.
Regter: So hy wou haar eintlik nie steek nie?
Hanswors: Nee, hy wou maar nie met die mes die.
Regter: So hy wou haar eintlik verkrag.
Hanswors: Nee, hy wou haar letterlik dood hê maar slegs teen die agtergrond van die simboliek van sy tradisies.
Regter: En hoe wou hy dit doen?
Hanswors: Deur haar te steek. Figuurlike bedoel natuurlik.
Regter: Natuurlik. So hoekom het hy ‘n mes in die hand gehad?
Hanswors: Die mes, Edelagbare, is ‘n simbool van manlikheid, want dit gee gewoonlik aanleiding tot ‘n gestekery.
Beskuldigde: Jo Onah, ek soekie hierie hanswors vir prokarier nie. Gee my daai mes lat ek hom wys wat letterlik betieken.
Hanswors, hoekom het die skrywers van die bybel dit nie duidelik gestel watter gedeeltes letterlik of simbolies bedoel word nie? Dit sou die verwarring tog sekerlik oplos? Nog ‘n vraag: jou bybel stel dit onomwonde dat houtoptel op Sondae met die dood strafbaar is. Jou liewe jesus stel dit onomwonde dat elke “jota en tittel” van die skrif voltrek sal word, dat “dit vir ewig staan”. Verduidelik asb die simboliek ( my aannname) van die opdrag van doodstraf vir houtoptelopsondag. Tweedens, dink jy dit was ‘n regverdige/gepaste straf vir hierdie “sonde”?
Malherbe
January 24, 2012 at 10:37
Daar is natuurlik n doel agter die verwarring omtrent wat letterlik en wat figuurlik in die bybel is.
Hoe meer verward en deermekaar jy is, hoe nader is jy aan pappa , “sonny boy” en die heilige spook.
Kyk maar na sy(hulle) self aangestelde gesante op aarde.
Shazee
January 24, 2012 at 22:22
Shazee, ek sien jy is nou letterlik en figuurlik deurmekaar wat ‘n atiës nie eers sal kan meet nie.
God het nog altyd ‘n mens gebruik om tot ‘n ander mens te praat, want God is die “Woord”.
Ek glo nie in stemme nie, want ek sien daar het ‘n paar sogenaamde Christelike gelowe al ontstaan deur ouens wat op heuwels geloop het, tussen bome en stemme gehoor het. Persoonlik dink ek, hulle het nie hulle medikasie geneem nie en nou volg baie mense skidsofrene, want hulle hoor mos stemme.
Aangesien jy nou ‘n reël soek, lees Rom. 8 v 5 en 6.
Ek het nou nie die Bybel se boeke saamgestel nie en tog dink ek wat Paulus daar sê is van pas omdat hy met die Heilige Gees gelei is, in sy denke aangaande die huwelik. Het jy dalk ‘n probleem met wat hy daar sê?
Ek mis nie jou punt nie en dink net Atiëste kan baie kla en tog doen hulle nie iets vir hulle self nie, om dan net op ‘n vuilishoop te sit en soos leë blikke te raas.
1Pe 1:9 en die einddoel van julle geloof, die saligheid van julle siele, verkry.
Hans Matthysen
January 24, 2012 at 22:59
Romans 8:5-6 (KJV):
Fuck, yeah! That answers everything. If only I’d known. What is “Spirit”, Hanswors? What is “spiritually”, Hanswors? Can you give a functional definition that distinguishes clearly and unambiguously between the presence and absence of these things as anything other than illusive brain states, Hanswors? If yes, please do so, and soon please. Enquiring minds want to know, Hanswors!
Con-Tester
January 24, 2012 at 23:14
…which vacuous failure reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?
Con-Tester
January 24, 2012 at 23:15
Malherbe, die Bybel is op so wyse geskryf sodat as jy nie jou gesindheid (ou kleed uittrek en bruilifkleed aantrek) wil verander nie, jy nie eers die Koninkryk van God sal sien nie, wat nog van ingaan.
Jy spook nog met die ou verbond (wette van Moses) terwyl Jesus al ‘n nuwe verbond gebring het. Jy vra die vrae van die skrifgeleerdes ens. Vir jou wil ek sê, dat as een nie tyd eenkant hou om God te dien en te verheerlik sodat jy saam kan deel aan Sy heerlikheid. Dan sal jy sterwe, wat jou geloof betref en nie deel aan Sy heerlikheid nie. Dit is die logiese gevolge en paslike straf.
Hans Matthysen
January 24, 2012 at 23:20
Hans, ek het jou versies gelees en ek sien dit praat van vleeslike en geestelike.
Ek is amper in die versoeking om vir jou te vra wat vleeslike en geestelike nou eintlik beteken, maar ek is bang vir die simboliese verduideliking.
Ek en jy het die gesprek al n wyle terug begin en ek wag nog vir jou objektiewe bewys dat die bybel enige iets anders is as iemand (verskeie iemande) se pypdroom.
Sal ons eers daar begin voordat jy my met die niksseggende en onsamehangende versies van iets probeer oortuig?
Shazee
January 24, 2012 at 23:27
Why did your Jeeeeebusssst! have to come with a new dispensation, Hanswors? Is it because your hemelpappa fucked it up the first time around, directly or by proxy? (The proxy, of course, being putting humans with free will in the world.) For an almagtige, alwetende, alomteenwoordige hemelpappa, that’s a pretty fucking brain-dead move to make, don’t you think? I mean, if you were an almagtige, alwetende, alomteenwoordige hemelpappa, you’d think a bit more carefully—with every ounce of almagtigheid, alwetendheid and alomteenwoordigheid — about how you’d construct the world, wouldn’t you?
Con-Tester
January 24, 2012 at 23:29
Halllluuuuujaaaa! Bring die bruilifkleed (sic)sodat die BOEK openbaar kan word. Is hierdie kleed te koop in Pep Stores Hans?
Malherbe
January 25, 2012 at 08:31
Con-Tester, you nurture your children to become good people, yet if they turn bad when they are grown up, what can you say? I mean, look at yourself! You are well schooled, yet you don’t accept what the dictionary says, what the Bible says or what anybody says. I wonder if you even believe yourself? Your question of why did my Jesus …? Evolution, something you also believe in, maybe?
Why don’t you mention a so called contradiction so that we can try and have a discussion.
Hans Matthysen
January 25, 2012 at 22:20
Shazee, ek wys jou ‘n hoofstuk wat letterlik vertolk moet word, op jou versoek en jy erken dit nie maar probeer die gesprek daarvanaf wegdraai deur Paulus se inset te bevraagteken.
Dit was glad nie ‘n pypdroom om die boeke van die Bybel tot stand te bring nie. Ek sien weer goeie waarde in die versies, maar ag, ek het vergeet. Jy is nog blind en daarom is die versies vir jou niksseggend.
Hans Matthysen
January 25, 2012 at 22:38
Malherbe, jy kom baie onvolwasse voor. Is jy al uit die skool uit? Dit klink of jy bederf is om te dink dat jy als in die lewe kan koop.
Hans Matthysen
January 25, 2012 at 22:42
That you or I can’t fully control how our children will turn out, Hanswors, is obvious and perfectly understandable. After all, neither of us is almagtig, alwetend, alomteenwoordig or oneindig liefdadig. (Then again, you seem to think of yourself as alwetend concerning your Holey Babble.) Because we’re limited, we can’t know or guide our children to be as we wish; indeed, because we’re limited, we can’t even choose what sort of children we make.
On the other hand, Hanswors, your skydaddy is almagtig, alwetend, alomteenwoordig and oneindig liefdadig — at least if you believe your Holey Babble. That means he’s not limited and can make whatever he wants to and know how it’ll work out. So, your skydaddy fucked it all up, either directly or by proxy. “Evolution” doesn’t really explain anything either. Why would your skydaddy deliberately and knowingly disadvantage prior generations just so he can improve things later? Or for that matter why deliberately and knowingly make an imperfect world to begin with that would later need to change and still not be perfect?
As for the dictionary, Hanswors, it doesn’t give a functional definition of “spirit”/”spiritual” that distinguishes clearly and unambiguously between the presence and absence of those things as anything other than illusive brain states.
But you’re right about one thing, Hanswors: I don’t believe in the factual claims of your Holey Babble. That’s because you have yet to furnish even just one vaguely convincing reason for anyone doing so.
So you see Hanswors, my questions — all of them — still stand, entirely unanswered.
Will you answer them with greater care and less evasion?
Con-Tester
January 25, 2012 at 22:46
… which stupefying deficiencies remind me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Or must I do more of this stuprate thing? (Hmm, “stuprate.” Did you think of that all by yourself? ’Cos me, even though I’m familiar with the Yiddish word “shtupping,” I had to look that one up, me.)
Con-Tester
January 25, 2012 at 22:49
Hans, ek begin dink jy is n moroon.
Het Con -Tester nie al vir jou n link gegee waar jy meer as 400 teenstrydighede kan kry om van te kies nie? Het hy jou nie al herhaaldelik uitgenooi om self n paar te kies wat jy wil bespreek nie?
Jy rig nou kastig die uitdaging maar jy weier self halstarrig om enige vraag reguit te beantwoord
Wat gaan aan met jou man?
Ek se jou wat; ek sal jou uitdaging aanvaar (nie namens CT nie, hy het nie my hulp nodig nie) .
Verduidelik die twee teenstrydige skeppingsverhale in Genisis, en as jy weer vir my simboliek gee braak ek op my bybel.
En terwyl jy daarmee besig is verduidelik vir my hoe de donner al die diere op die ark gekom het – onthou – daar was sewe van elke soort, behalwe van die onrein diere waarvan daar net twee was.
Asseblief Hans, as jy my weer die simboliek kak vertel gaan ek soos n jagse wolf vir die maan sit en tjank
Shazee
January 25, 2012 at 22:52
Hanswors, just in case it’s too much effort to scroll up a few comments, kry vir jou hier. That’s the link. The blue, underlined text. Yet again. Go clicky-clicky on it. Pick some. As unlikely as it seems, you might yet learn something new about your Holey Babble.
Which abject lethargy remind me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? I guess it’s more auto-stuprate for this GC&UPOO&TF… 
Con-Tester
January 25, 2012 at 23:06
Ag jirre tog Hans, ek probeer nie die gesprek wegstuur van enigiets nie.
As ek reg onthou het ek jou sover probeer kry om tog net n deel in die bybel te noem waar daar nie n teenstrydigheid is wat sonder simboliek verklaar kan word nie.
Vind jy geen teenstrydigheid daarin dat Paulus sy eie opinie gee, wat hy duidelik stel nie van god af kom nie, in n geskrif wat veronderstel is om god se geinspireerde woord te wees waarvan niks weggeneem of bygevoeg mag word nie?
Vind jy geen teenstrydigheid daarin dat hy sekere goed toelaat en dit duidelik stel dat hy dit op sy eie gesag doen en dat dit nie van god af kom nie?
Ek neem aan jy het hierdie deel gekies omdat jy geglo het dit is die veiligste wat jy kan vind. Miskien is dit, maar as dit is, verstaan ek waarom jy so “kakbang” is vir CT se uitdaging.
Shazee
January 25, 2012 at 23:16
Con-Tester, A so called contradiction still stands, entirely absent.
God is almighty yet does not force His will on anybody. God is the “Word” and by the spoken “Word” we are transformed. Heaven and earth shall pass but the “Word” not and therefore God is not limited. When you refer to a “Skydaddy” you imply a graven image, so it it clear you don’t know what you are talking about.
Hans Matthysen
January 26, 2012 at 22:33
No Hanswors, I don’t know what you are talking about. That’s because what you have just written is a load of incomprehensible babble in dire need of clarification.
Which gobbledegook reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Some intelligibility would be good.
Con-Tester
January 26, 2012 at 22:47
Shazee, ek begin dink jy is die moroon omdat ek reeds die teendeel met drie van hulle gewys het waarop arme ou Con-Tester my nie kon weerlê nie. Moontlik was dit bietjie lank terug voordat jy hier aangesluit het dus hoekom kies jy nie een op ‘n slag om te bespreek. Probeer dan ook minsten erkentlik te wees en nie onerkentlik soos C-T.
Die skeppingsverhale is nie letterlik nie en God gebruik dit wat vir ons sigbaar en bekend is as simbole om vir ons boodskappe te gee. Braak nou maar want jy en ek weet die Heelal is nie ses-duisend-jaar oud nie en as jy dit letterlik wil verklaar, hê dan is jy sekerlik die moroon.
Hans Matthysen
January 26, 2012 at 22:51
“Drie,” eh Hanswors?
“Drie”? Regtig, ou Hanswors?
Go on, provide some date/time/thread references to those “drie”, ou Hanswors. You’ll be able to provide just one. Guaranteed. And for that one you just pulled some bullshit from your fundamental bodily orifice that fails to get to the point.
Which is to say, Hanswors, that more than 400 contradictions in your Holey Babble still await your choice of a small subset for you to pick and address — if you can.
Which unfilled promise reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Surely typing two or three letters isn’t a huge tax on your usual garrulity? Oooops, silly me…
Con-Tester
January 26, 2012 at 22:57
Shazee, die woorde “wegneem” en byvoeg word in ‘n sekere boek gemeld en is op daardie boek vantoepassing. Die Bybel bestaan uit ‘n hele klomp boeke so wanneer jy iets lees, kyk dat jy dit reg verstaan.
Paulus het nie die Bybelboeke bymekaar gesit nie en omdat hy met die Gees van God gevul is, is sy persoonlike denke nie ongoddelik nie en is daar dus nie ‘n teenstrydigheid nie. Lees ook 1 Kor. 11 en sien daar is ook dinge om letterlik op te neem daar. Paulus was deur God geinspireerd omdat hy met God se Gees gevul was.
Ek is geen kakbang vir C-T, want ek is nie ‘n jong student, met geen lewensondervinding, wat hy kan boelie nie.
Moet nie net iets aanneem nie want jy het iets gevra en ek het dit vir jou gegee en nou soek jy enige verskoning om nie erkentlik te wees nie.
Hans Matthysen
January 26, 2012 at 23:09
Nee Hanswors, jy lees nie mooi nie. Shazee sê dat dit lyk asof jy kakbang vir my uitdaging is, nie vir my nie omdat ek nou kamstig ’n boelie is volgens sekere Hansworse van die wêreld. Dit is mos dan duidelik dat jy ’n antwoord op alles het, saak nie maak dat jou antwoorde van voor to agter boelsjit is…
Which prevarication reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
)…
Con-Tester
January 26, 2012 at 23:16
Hans, dit is nie dat ek iets spesifiek lettelik of simbolies verklaar wil he nie, dit is net dat ek wil weet hoe jy bepaal wat is letterlik en wat simbolies.
Ek gaan nou vir eers nie vir jou vra om enigiets vir my simbolies of andersins te verklaar nie, al wat ek jou vra is – WAT IS DIE BASIS WAAROP JY BEPAAL WAT IS LETTERLIK EN WAT IS SIMBOLIES???
Is jy regtig nie in staat om n eenvoudige vraag te antwoord nie? Op hoeveel verskillende maniere moet n mens die vraag vra voor jy die boodskap kry?
Jy ontwyk die eenvoudige vraag nou al so lank met kak soos n gekerm vir “erkentelikheid” dat jy my nie kan verkwalik as ek dink jy is of onnosel of bloot oneerlik nie.
As jy regtig nie die vraag wil antwoord nie, of as jy dit nie kan verstaan nie, gee dan ten minste een of twee teenstrydighede wat jy al bevredigend weerle het, assefokkenblieftog man. Wys my jy is nie so dom as wat jy gewoonlik klink nie.
Shazee
January 27, 2012 at 00:16
Shazee, die antwoord is komen sense.
Hans Matthysen
January 27, 2012 at 22:18
Con-Tester, Boelsjit is seker goed vir die aarde waarop die saaier saai sodat die saad weelderig kan groei.
Jy voer nooit ordentlik gesprek, jy probeer maar skok taktiek om ander van styk te bring en dit is boelie.
Hans Matthysen
January 27, 2012 at 22:24
Ag nee Hans man, tot jy kan insien dat dit n baie flou en ontwykende antwoord is.
Watse kommen sense? Wie se kommen sense?
Is kommen sense nie per definisie subjektief nie?
Hoe definieer jy kommen sense – as dit nie sin maak nie of as daar n teenstrydigheid is, is dit net kommen sense dat dit simbolies of allegories uitgele moet word?
Jy weet Hans, ek besef dat n debat oor die bybel of geloof met jou sinneloos is, maar ek is tog nuuskierig om te sien hoe ver jy sal gaan en hoe onlogies en absurd jy sal raak om die onverdedigbare te verdedig
Hel ou maat, wil jy nie vir eenkeer net n oomblik stilstaan en vir jouself dink oor die goed nie?
Shazee
January 27, 2012 at 23:07
Hans, om met jou n redenasie te probeer voer is om soos jou kop in n groot marshmellow te druk. Amper vang jy my weer met jou ontwyking – wat van daai voorbeelde wat jy beweer jy het al vir CT opgeklaar?
Shazee
January 27, 2012 at 23:14
Hanswors, it’s a Hanswors world you live in where insisting on decent and satisfactory answers to important questions constitutes bullying. Funny how you godiots/religiots/bibliots/crediots always come up with essentially irrelevant accusations whenever things don’t quite go your way.
Bottom line: Are you going to answer those questions or are you going to carry on evading? (That’s another on an ever-growing list of questions for ya. Get at ’em, dawg!)
Which avoidance reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Or do we need a bit more of that self-stuprating thingy? You can tell me ’cos I’m game. But are you?
Con-Tester
January 28, 2012 at 00:09
Vriende,
Wanneer gaan julle besef dat geen ordentlike debat met Hans gevoer kan word nie.
Soos ek al voorheen gese het is dat Hans ‘n geestesprobleem het. Hy sien al die onverklaarbare dinge in die bulshit boek as “geestellik”.
EricV
January 28, 2012 at 07:24
EricV, ek dink jy is reg. Laat ek Mark Twain parafraseer: – suppose you are religious, and suppose you are an idiot, but wait, I repeat myself -
Shazee
January 28, 2012 at 16:20
Shazee, jy en ek weet, dat in Rigters, waar dit praat van bome wat rondloop om ‘n koning te kies, moet simbolies wees. Bome kannie rondloop nie, ook nie praat nie en het ook nie ‘n koning nodig nie.
Jy en ek weet, dat bye nie in ‘n vrot dooie leeu se kake, nes sal maak nie. Dit kan dus net simbolies wees.
Hans Matthysen
January 28, 2012 at 21:24
Con-Tester, are you going to engage in constructive discussion or are you just waiting for an opportunity to make yourself look important?
Hans Matthysen
January 28, 2012 at 21:28
EricV, al geestes probleem wat ek het, is, ek spook om ‘n constuktiewe gesprek met julle te voer oor wat in die Bybel staan.
Hans Matthysen
January 28, 2012 at 21:32
Hanswors, Google “inversion”. And “projection” as a psychological phenomenon. Learn something new. Please.
Then maybe you’ll answer some questions, as unlikely as that seems. When you do, you’ll probably find others more receptive to your childish joke of “constructive discussion”.
Which infantile naïveté reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? More auto-stuprating needed? Okay. (Hmm, “stuprate.” Did you think of that all by yourself? ’Cos me, even though I’m familiar with the Yiddish word “shtupping,” I had to look that one up, me.)
Con-Tester
January 28, 2012 at 23:11
Ja Hans, ek weet bome het nie n koning nodig nie en kan nie loop nie.
Ek weet ook dooies word nie weer lewendig nie, donkies kan nie praat nie, een vis kan nie n menigte voed nie, mense kan nie op water loop nie, mense leer nie oombliklik n klomp tale aan nie, ens, ens.
Maar wat is jou punt? Waarom kan jy gesonde verstand gebruik om in te sien dat sekere gebeurtenisse nie werklik kon plaasvind nie, maar dan besluit jy dat ander wat ewe ongeloofwaardig is het wel?
Dit is wat ek bedoel, en dit bly steeds my vraag; op watter grondslag besluit jy dat n ongeloofwaardige of bloot onware gebeurtenis in die bybel bloot simbolies is? Dit kan duidelik nie gesonde verstand wees wat deurentyd logies toegepas word nie.
Jy gee steeds flou en ontwykende antwoorde.
Shazee
January 29, 2012 at 04:31
Amper vergeet ek weer, wat van daardie voorbeelde Hans?
Shazee
January 29, 2012 at 04:43
Hans, daar is so baie vrae wat ek in my kinderlike onskuld aan jou wil vra, synde jy die bybel so goed ken en die rêêêêrige, werlike interpretasie vir ons kan ontsluit. As jy egter nie eens kan reageer op Shazee en Con Tester se relatief eenvoudige versoeke nie, gaan ek maar eers wag. My vrae het ek as 17jarige aan Oom Dominee gevra en daarna by verskeie geleenthede aan die sg intelligensia in teologie. Sonder enige sukses. Dis nou as jy die standaard snert van “glo soos ‘n kind” en “eendag wanneer jy vrek sal alles onthul word”, nie as antwoorde reken nie.
Malherbe
January 29, 2012 at 14:38
Con-Tester, you would like to change the subject because you don’t understand much when it is about the Bible.
Hans Matthysen
January 29, 2012 at 22:03
Shazee, dit wil voorkom of ons nou vorder en wat is die ongeloofwaardige waarna jy verwys? Dit wat nie logies is nie, is simbolies en ons moet God dien met verstand.
Wat die skeppingsverhale betref wil ek jou daarop wys, dat mens, man en vrou “geskep” is en Adam is “gevormeer”. Daar is duidelik ‘n verskil tussen “skep” en “vormeer”.
Hans Matthysen
January 29, 2012 at 22:23
Malherbe, ek sou dink, dat julle al sou agter gekom het, dat ek nie glo soos ander sogenaamde Christenne nie.
Hans Matthysen
January 29, 2012 at 22:27
Hanswors, you keep dodging questions about your Holey Babble.
Help us understand, please!
After all, you “understand more of the Bible than what [I] ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20) and you “have a greater understanding thereof and [you are] not boasting in [yourself], as it is the Gift of Christ.” So why don’t you demonstrate how you would “rather share [your] understanding” with us?
Which evasiveness reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Still not enough self-stupration, eh? Oh, we GC&UPOO&TFs have it so hard, what with all you godiots’ and pseudogodiots’ demands!
Con-Tester
January 29, 2012 at 22:27
Bullshit = Simbolies
EricV
January 30, 2012 at 05:20
Hans, jy se dat dit wat nie logies is nie, is simbolies en dat ons god met ons verstand moet dien?
In die lig van jou hardnekkige gewoonte om net mooi alles wat wat onsinnig in die bybel is as simbolies te wil verklaar maak so n stelling seker sin (in jou kop ten minste)
As jy nou god met jou verstand wil dien sal ek graag wil verneem hoe jy besluit het dat dit dit onlogies is dat bome rondloop en praat, maar dat dit logies is vir dooie mense om weer lewendig te word, in een geval waar die lyk al begin stink het?
Hoe besluit jy dit is minder logies vir bye om in n dooie leeu se bek nes te maak as vir iemand om op water te loop? (As ek nou gedwing word om te kies glo ek self eerder die storie van die bye, dit is minstens in beginsel moontlik)
Verder weet ek nie waarom jy opgewonde raak as ek iets as “ongeloofwaardig” afmaak nie. Dit is nie werklik vordering in die rigting van jou oortuigings nie. Ongeloofwaardig beteken letterlik “nie werd om geglo te word nie – of – verdien nie om geglo te word nie”
Wat jy probeer se met jou relaas oor “geskep” en “gevormeer” is vir my totaal duister en ek sal liefs nie daarop kommentaar lewer nie.
Sal maar vir oulaas vra: wat van daai voorbeelde? Die teenstrydighede wat jy vir ons kan verklaar sonder n beroep op simboliek?
Shazee
January 30, 2012 at 08:13
By the way Hans, ek vind dit ongelooflik dat jy my kan vra na watter ongeloofwaardighede ek verwys.
Hoeveel keer is dit al hier deur veskeie mense tot vervelens toe uitgewys?
Hoekom begin jy nie sommer met die meer as 400 teenstrydighede waarna CT jou al by herhaling na verwys het nie – ek vind dit ongeloofwaardig
Maagdelike geboorte – ongeloofwaardig.
Opstanding uit die dood – ongeloofwaardig. Wonderwerke wat die wette van fisika ophef – ongeloofwaardig.
Dat die wereldbeskouing van bronstydperk bokwagters meer insig gee omtrent die die ontstaan en werking van die kosmos as wat die wetenskap kan doen – ongeloofwaardig.
Dat die die wraaksugtige, onregverdige, vroue hatende, kindermishandelende volksuitwissende, jaloerse monster wat in die bybel beskryf word werd is om aanbid te word – ongeloofwaardig en pateties.
Shazee
January 30, 2012 at 08:55
Shazee, jy lees van Laserus en dan dink jy vleeslik terwyl Rom. 8 v 5 en 6, vir jou wys, dat jy geestelike dinge moet bedink. M. a. w. wat sy geloof betref het hy gesterwe (in ongeloof verval) en gestink (kwaad gespreek van die geloof, soos wat julle Atiëste doen). Jesus het met hom gaan praat en toe kry hy weer lewe, wat die geloof betref.
Hans Matthysen
January 30, 2012 at 23:48
Con-Tester, I am trying to help, just read above comment to Shazee.
Hans Matthysen
January 30, 2012 at 23:51
Hans, ek begin vermoed dat jy besig is om gek te skeer met ons. Ek dink jy geniet die aandag en daarom hou jy aan kak praat.
Gelowiges is al klaar onredelik en onlogies, maar die sinnelose en redelose drek wat jy kwytraak oorskrei alle denkbare grense.
Geen mens by sy volle positiewe kan die onsamehangende kak wat jy kwytraak regtig glo nie.
Daar is net twee moontlikhede: jy glo dit regtig, en dan is jy of kranksinnig of onredbaar onnosel, of jy skeer gek en ons is te dom om dit agter te kom.
Shazee
January 31, 2012 at 01:21
Hanswors, yes, you are trying. Severely. Helping? Not in the least.
Read Shazee’s reply above. It sums up your position perfectly.
Now don’t go accusing me of changing the subject, see? My questions to you still stand, as does the challenge of addressing any 40 Holey Babble contradictions of your choice from those 400+.
Which vacuous avoidance tactics remind me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
)…
Con-Tester
January 31, 2012 at 08:20
Shazee,aangesien jy die Bybel so goed ken, hoe verstaan jy Rom. 8 v 5 en 6?
Hans Matthysen
January 31, 2012 at 21:52
Hans, ek weet nie eintlik hoe om jou te antwoord nie.
Die skrifgedeelte praat van vlees en gees, en het te vertelle dat vlees die dood bedink terwyl gees lewe en vrede bedink.
Dit is nou alles goed en wel sover as wat dit gaan, maar ek weet eerstens nie wat jy met “gees” bedoel nie en ek dink ook nie jy weet self nie want jy kon dit na verskeie versoeke nog nie bevredigend definieer nie.
Ten tweede help dit nie om my uit te daag om n gedeelte uit jou heilige geskrif te verklaar asof dit sou beteken jy debats punte wen as ek nie kan nie.
Dit kan slegs werk as ons beide die bron van jou uitgangspunt as feitlik korrek aaanvaar en ons verskil bloot oor die uitleg daarrvan. Jy verstaaan mos teen die tyd dat dit nie die geval is nie ne? Ne??
Oortuig my eers uit n ander bron as die bybel self dat dit n geloofwaardige bron van enigiets is voordat jy my uitdaag om dele daarvan vir jou uit te le.
Shazee
January 31, 2012 at 23:15
Soos byvoorbeeld om n paar teenstrydigehede vir ons te verklaar sonder om na simboliek te hap.
Shazee
January 31, 2012 at 23:24
Blind faith is an ironic gift to give to the creator of human intelligence (anon)
Shazee
January 31, 2012 at 23:35
“…..maar die sinnelose en redelose drek wat jy kwytraak oorskrei alle denkbare grense.” Pragtig gestel Shazee.
Die kak wat Hans as antwoord opdis, sou lagwekkend kon wees indien dit nie so tragies was nie. Hans is egter heeltemal korrek wanneer hy die stelling maak “Malherbe, ek sou dink, dat julle al sou agter gekom het, dat ek nie glo soos ander sogenaamde Christenne nie.” Hy het tereg al heelwat verder gevorder op die pad na kranksinnigheid as die gemiddelde Christen.
Malherbe
February 1, 2012 at 14:10
Shazee, geen wonder jy is so deur die kak. Jy kan nie eers sê wat jy dink nie, nee, jy het hierdie moerse redenasie wat jou op die ou end skoon verward maak. Dit is of julle atiëste nie kan fokus nie omdat julle in julle moer in dwaal en ek wonder of dit julle nie ook “Delusional” maak nie?
Ek is maar ‘n ongelowige Thomas wat eers moet sien (verstaan) voordat ek glo en het dus nie ‘n blinde geloof nie.
Hans Matthysen
February 1, 2012 at 21:14
Ja Malherbe, daar is blykbaar grade van infeksie met die gotvirus en Hans is terminaal.
Shazee
February 1, 2012 at 21:16
Malherbe, as ek my op ‘n kranksinnige pad bevind, is dit omdat ek julle Atiëste daarvan probeer weg kry.
Hans Matthysen
February 1, 2012 at 21:18
Hans, ek is jammer as ek jou nog deurmekaarder gemaak het as wat jy alreeds is.
Ek dog jy sou verstaan dat ons nie oor n vers in n geskrif kan debatteer as een van ons nie die egtheid van die geskrif erken nie.
Maar oukei, laat ek jou dan se wat ek dink as jy daarop aandring. Ek dink die gebabbel oor “gees” en “vlees” is hokus pokus. Dit maak vir n normale redelike mens geen sin nie. Wat is gees? Ek weet van niemand wat dit al gesien of gemeet het nie. Ek weet van niemand, jy ingesluit, wat dit al bevredigend gedefinieer het nie. Dit is iets wat die bybel skrywer in n pypdroom uitgedink het. Wat wil jy he moet ek daaroor se? Dit is kak soos die res van jou sprokie. Is. Dit nou duidelik wat ek dink?
Shazee
February 1, 2012 at 21:42
Shazee, wat dink jy van die woordeboek se weergawe van gees en van vlees?
Jy het byvoorbeeld nou ‘n kak gees en hoe gaan een dit definieer of meet?
Daardie dat julle nie oor Bybelversies wil gesels nie, is maar julle manier om te ontduik, wat julle nie verstaan nie.
Hans Matthysen
February 2, 2012 at 22:26
Hans, ek is bereid om oor enigiets met jou te redeneer of debatteer.
Wat se jy ons redeneer so n bietjie oor Mickey Mouse, of miskien Rooikkappie.
Jy dink moontlik ek is ligsinnig en kinderagtig om dit voor te stel, maar ek sien nie juis n verskil tussen jou aandrang dat ek bybelsprokies vir jou uitle en my voorstel om ewe denkbeeldige sprokies te bespreek nie.
Sodra jy vir my enige rasionele bewys hoegenaamd gee dat daar n verskil tussen my sprokies en joune is sal ek met graagte die meriete van jou sprokie met jou bespreek.
Dit is natuurlik enige bewys behalwe die stemme in jou kop.
Shazee
February 2, 2012 at 22:49
Hans, het jy al nagedink oor die rede dat jy so onwrikbaar glo dat die bybel die onfeilbare en ware woord van n god is? Ek bedoel nou, het jy al werklik gaan sit en probeer om dit onemosioneel en rasioneel te analiseer? As daar werklik n god bestaan is dit onlogies dat hy jou sal verkwalik dat jy die vestand wat hy jou gegee het gebruik om dit uit te redeneer.
Gestel ek en jy sit om n tafel met n Moslem, n Hindu en n Boeddis. Al drie van julle probeer om my te bekeer.
Die eerste vraag wat ek aan julle sal stel is natuurlik waarom elkeen van julle glo wat julle glo.
Elkeen van julle gaan my presies dieselfde antwoord gee; dit staan in die woord van god.
My volgende vraag gaan wees waarom elkeen van julle glo dat die heilige boek waarin julle glo die woord van god is.
Op hierdie vraag sal nie een van julle vir my n logiese antwoord kan gee nie.
Watse logiese, rasionele antwoord kan n mens op so n vraag gee?
Dit is deur god self aan die profete onthul – hoe weet jy dit? – want die bybel,koran ens se so.
Kan jy sirkel redenasie insien Hans? Dit is waar, en ek weet dit is waar, want die bybel se so.
Ja, maar hoe weet jy dit wat in die bybel staan is waar? – want die bybel se dit is waar, ens,ens.
Dan gaan ek vir julle vra vir wie van julle moet ek nou eintlik glo aangesien julle drie verskillende en onversoenbare weergawes van die “ware” woord van god het.
Dink jy nie dat dit hier is waar die storie heeltemal ontrafel nie?
Elkeen van julle glo n onderling, teenstrydige en weersprekende weergawe van die “ware” woord van god. Elkeen van julle glo dit onwrikbaar en vir presies die selfde redes. Al drie van julle kan tog nie reg wees nie?
Op grond waarvan kan jy vir die Hindu se hy glo vals? – op presies dieselfde basis as wat hy vir jou kan se jy glo vals; sy heilige boek se so, en joune se weer hy is verkeerd.
Hans, dink jy regtig dat jy steeds so n stoere Christen sou wees as jy toevallig in die midde-ooste gebore was en in n streng Moslem huishouding grootgeword het? As jou antwoord ja is, is jy oneerlik en as dit nee is moet dit jou aan die dink sit. Is geloof dan n funksie van waar jy toevallig gebore is en watter geloof jy as kind eerste aan blootgestel is?
Ek kan amper verstaan waarom n mens geloof in n skepper wat in beheer van alles is sal wil he. Dit blyk n universele behoefte van die mens te wees. Dit neem jou verantwoordelikheid vir jou eie lot weg. Dit spreek jou vrees vir die onbekende en vir die dood aan. Dit gee jou n gesag om op te beroep in n onsekere en onvoorspelbare lewe.
Dit is n kierrie om op te leun, maar dit is nie n logiese of rasionele een nie.
Iets is nie waar bloot omdat ek dit graag so wil he nie. Dit is nie waar omdat ek dink dit sal goed wees as dit waar is nie. Dit is nie waar omdat ek,of enigiemand anders, nie aan n ander verduideliking kan dink nie.
Iets is waar omdat dit logies is en omdat daar bewyse voor is. Bewyse wat deur n vervalsbare hipotese of teorie voorafgegaan word en eksperimenteel getoets kan word, en dan aanvaar of verwerp kan word as waar, waarskynlik, moontlik of vals.
Ek en jy kan vir die res van ons lewens oor die bybel en sy moontlike waarheid\onwaarheid redeneer. Ons kan die beweerde teenstrydighede debatteer tot die koeie huistoe kom. Ons kan sarkasme en beledigings oor en weer slinger totdat dit betekenloos word.
Dit alles verander nie een jota of tittel van die feit dat n geloof in n opperwese net dit is nie – geloof – en per definisie blinde geloof, gebore uit lewenslange kondisionering en wensdenkery.
Ek het my geloof verloor toe ek opgehou het om soos “n kind” te glo. Kinderlike geloof is net gepas vir n kleuter wat in kersvader glo, nie vir n volwassene met n gesonde funksionerende verstand nie.
Komaan Hans, begin om vir jouself te dink sonder die “knee jerk” reaksie om die bybel ten alle koste en rede te wil verdedig.
Shazee
February 3, 2012 at 09:47
Ja Shazee, die vertrekpunt lê in jou laaste sin: “…begin om vir jouiself te dink…” Die harde werklikheid is dat daar op hierdie planeet perverse ‘n minderheid homo sapiense rondloop wat vir hulself dink. Indien dit nie so was nie, sou die Holocaust, apartheid, en “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnië nooit plaasgevind het nie.
Malherbe
February 3, 2012 at 10:06
Jy is reg Malherbe, soos Voltaire gese het “…he who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”
Dit verstom my altyd dat mense bereid, en selfs gretig is om mekaar wreedaardig te vermoor vir wat die ander ou glo.
Ek bedoel, wat maak dit saak wat die ander ou glo solank hy dit vir homself hou? As ek reg is in my geloof en hy is verkeerd, gaan hy in elk geval vir ewig braai. Dit behoort mos genoeg te wees, of hoe?
Shazee
February 3, 2012 at 10:45
Shazee, die deurmekaarheid van gelowiges gaan nog ’n treetjie of twee verder as net dat dit vir hulle nie genoeg is om binne hulself vas te glo nie. Hoekom soek hulle altyd om diegene wat of anders glo of glad nie glo nie, te oortuig van hoe “goed” en hoe “reg” hul geloof is? Hoekom bring hulle altyd “bewyse” vorendag wat nou kamstig hul bewerings staaf? Hoekom probeer hulle altyd so ywerig om hul kinderagtige stories te verdedig met ewe kinderagtige “redenasies”? Hoekom kan hulle skaars enige kritiek van hul onnoselheid verdra nie? Hoekom is gelowiges, oor die algeheel, so gou bereid om evangelisties hul geloof te versprei?
Die rede is bloot eenvoudig. Geloof op sy eie is duidelik heeltemaal onvoldoende — en hulle weet dit eintlik. Hulle wil hê dat almal soos hulle glo want dan sal hulle deel van ’n meer homogene en groter groep wees waar hul onderliggende twyfel verminder sal word — dieselfde ding wat leiers en politici beoog. In Engels praat hulle mos so mooi van “safety in numbers”.
Con-Tester
February 3, 2012 at 12:41
Con-Tester, dit laat my dink aan die ou wat gese het – if one person has a delusion we call it insanity, but if many have it we call it religion -
So, apparently there is not only safety in numbers, but also sanity.
Shazee
February 3, 2012 at 13:36
“Safety in numbers” – ek noem dit die tropdier verskynsel. Dit word mooi geillustreer deur bewegings op die effektebeurs. Wanneer die beurs klim, wil almal inklim en koop, wat natuurlik verdere stygings tot gevolg het. Eenvoudige common sense behoort enige mens te laat dink dat ‘n aandeel wat verhandel teen ‘n P/V van 200 totaal irrasioneel is, maar die ouens het in 1998 desnieteenstaande enkele stemme wat teen ‘n “bubble” gewaarsku het, wild en wakker teen hierdie vlakke in IT belê. Hoekom? Want buurman doen dit en ons sal eerder geld verloor saam met buurman as om die risiko te loop om enkelalleen teen die stroom te beweeg. Toe die spulletjie uiteindelik heel voorspelbaar inmekaar tuimel, vind dieselfde verskynsel weer plaas, maar die keer net in die teenoorgestelde rigting.
Soveel gelowiges glo eintlik op die Pascal’s Wager basis en lg is ‘n variasie op die voorbeeld hierbo.
Malherbe
February 3, 2012 at 16:47
Shazee, ek het julle Atiëste nie aangeval nie maar julle het my geloof aangeval, so, my geloof is gegrond op wat in die Bybel staan en daarom praat ons oor die Bybel. Jy sê dit is sprokies en ek sê dit is boodskappe.
Ek het reeds vir jou gesê, ek behoort nie aan een van daardie gelowe wat ‘n ou volg, wat op ‘n heuwel, tussen bome geloop het en ‘n stem gehoor het, dan daarna ‘n geloof gestig het. Persoonlik dink ek daardie ouens het nie hulle medikasie gedrink nie.
Jy het nog nooit die moeite gedoen om te probeer verstaan wat ek vir jou sê en met so ‘n gesindheid, sal jy ook nooit verstaan wat ek sê.
Die drie gelowe wat jy hierbo genoem het, hert nie evangelie (werwings) aksies nie.
Sou jy al hulle boeke gelees het, sou jy sien dat hulle boeke baie natuurlik is. Die Ko’ran het natuurlik twee boeke wat woord vir woord dieselfde is as twee boeke van die Ou Testament.
Jy is natuurlik verkeerd met jou eerste vraag want ek sou jou nie daardie antwoord gegee het nie en ook nie met die tweede vraag nie. (2 Kor. 3:6 wat ons ook bekwaam gemaak het as dienaars van ‘n nuwe testament, nie van die letter nie, maar van die gees; want die letter maak dood, maar die gees maak lewend.)
Waar jy groot geword het, het almal seker dom astrant geglo soos ‘n “kind”. Ons is nie almal so nie en deur geloof het ek baie dinge ervaar en tewete gekom.
Julle het maar net nog nie hard genoeg gesoek vir die verborgrnhede waarna die Bybel verwys.
Hans Matthysen
February 3, 2012 at 22:43
Hanswors kerm pateties (Februarie 3, 2012 om 22:43):
Ampertjies, ampertjies noem ek ou Hanswors ’n “fokken arrogante poes” maar toe besin ek myself en lag eerder vir sy benullooshede. My heroorweging en daarop volgende gesindheidsverandering was nou seker weer die “huilige gees” se liefdadige werkies…
Con-Tester
February 4, 2012 at 00:09
Hans, ek verstaan nou nie mooi nie. Jy se jy sou nie dieselfde antwoord as die ander drie ouens gegee het nie? Verstaan ek reg dat jy dan nou beweer jou geloof het nie sy oorsprong in die bybel nie? Nou se dan asseblief waar jou geloof dan vandaan kom. Jy hou aan se jy glo nie soos ander christenne nie, en as jou unieke insigte nie uit die bybel kom nie moes jy dan seker stemme gehoor het, of wat? Hoor jy stemme Hans? Hoor jy dit laat in die nag of sommer op enige onverwagse tye? Ek kan dink dat dit nogal steurend kan wees as dit gebeur terwyl jy byvoorbeeld bestuur in spitstyd.
Ek moet saamstem dat uiters arrogant van jou is om aan te neem dat jou dat jy die bybel beter ken en dieper bestudeer het as enigiemand anders. Ek self besit verskeie vertalings van die bybel in Engels en Afrikaans sowel as n engelse vertaling van die koran. Desnieteenstaande beskou ek myself nie as n uitsonderlike deskundige met unieke insigte in die geskrifte nie.
Wat ek wel gedoen het, was om minstens te probeer verstaan wat ek kritiseer.
Ek het nie stemme gehoor nie, ek het nie visioene gehad nie, ek het nie vae tekens gekry wat ek moes interpreteer of simbolies verstaan nie. Soos die engelse se; I have applied my mind, en die gevolgtrekking waartoe ek gekom het was dat as daar n god is, hy\sy\dit verseker nie uit een van die twee onsamehangende, primitiewe geskrifte sou kom nie.
Jou aanmerking dat die ander drie gelowe wat ek genoem het nie werwings aksies het nie laat my egter twyfel aan jou insig. Ek het dit nie beweer nie. Kan jy nie n hipotetiese voorbeeld om n punt te illustreer herken as jy dit sien nie?
Voor ek afsluit, laat ek dit nou maar ook reguit stel: as jy beweer jou kinderagtige bygelofies kom nie uit die bybel nie praat jy pleinweg kak, en oneerlike, ontwykende kak daarby.
Shazee
February 4, 2012 at 07:43
Hans, net om te probeer seker maak jy gaan nie weer op n “tangent” af nie, net die volgende opklaring:
My eerste vraag aan julle 4 hipotetiese morone was waarom julle glo soos julle doen.
Die onvermydelike antwoord wat ek aan julle toegedig het was dat julle glo wat julle glo omdat dit in julle onderskeie heilige boeke staan.
Jy beweer nou dit sou nie jou antwoord wees nie,en my eenvoudige en reguit vraag aan jou is dan nou; wat sou jou antwoord dan wees?
Kom ons kyk of jy, hou onwaarskynlik ookal, vir eens n reguit eenvoudige en eerlike antwoord kan gee.
Shazee
February 4, 2012 at 08:39
Hans, jy se waar ek grootgeword het was ons seker almal “dom astrant” om soos kinders te glo?
Verklaar dan n bietjie vir my Luk18:17.
Ons het nou nie almal jou bevoorregte insigte nie en daar is seker n simboliese uitleg wat net tot jou openbaar is.
Shazee
February 4, 2012 at 09:52
Con-Tester, jy ken nie liefdadigheid nie en daarom ken jy nie God nie en terloops, Die Here verwerp nie Gay’s nie; Mat 19:12 Want daar is persone wat onbekwaam is om te trou, wat van die moederskoot af so gebore is, en daar is persone wat deur die mense onbekwaam gemaak is, en daar is persone wat hulleself onbekwaam gemaak het ter wille van die koninkryk van die hemele. Wie dit kan vat, laat hom dit vat.
Hans Matthysen
February 4, 2012 at 22:14
More argument from Hanswors’ personal perceptions, Hanswors? As for not knowing charity, my friends and family are far better judges of that than some faceless Internet godiot/bibliot/crediot/apoligiot. Too bad for you. But you’re right in that I don’t know your god.
So please educate me, Hanswors. Educate me by answering my questions, Hanswors. Explain to me any 40 bible contradictions of your choice from more than 4000, Hanswors. I mean, “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20), so why don’t you demonstrate how you would “rather share [your] understanding”, Hanswors?
Which hypocritical dodging reminds me:…
Con-Tester
February 4, 2012 at 22:31
Ooops, flighty fingers, my mistake. That should read: “…from more than 400, Hanswors.”
Con-Tester
February 4, 2012 at 22:39
Shazee, my atwoord het ek reeds vir jou gegee en dit is, dat die letter is dood en die gees maak lewend. Ek dink nie jy lees regtig wat ek vir jou skry nie. Jy ken die Bybel moontlik beter as myself en tog verstaan ek die Bybel beter as jy en ek is nie arrogant as ek dit sê.
Ek glo wat ek glo omdat ek verstaan wat ek lees en jy het te veel asse hierbo asof jy nie verstaan wat ek skryf nie.
Om die Koninkryk soos ‘n kintjie te ontvang, is nie om dom astrant te glo nie. Waaruit bestaan/waar is die Koninkryk? ‘n Kind sou minstens vrae gevra het en dit is gewoonlik hulle vrae wat so moeilik is om te antwoord.
Terloops, ek is nie al een wat glo soos myself nie omdat daar baie van ons is.
Hans Matthysen
February 4, 2012 at 22:46
Hans, watter deel van “reguit, eenvoudig en eerlik” verstaan jy nie?
Jou antwoord is nie reguit nie, dit is nie eerlik nie en mag moontlik eenvoudig wees, solank jy in ag neem dat “eenvoudig” in Afrikaans meer as een betekenis het.
Wat presies beteken n antwoord soos – “die letter maak dood en die gees maak lewendig”? Miskien doen dit (in jou kop altans), maar wat daarvan?
Hoe beantwoord so n stelling op n eenvoudige en reguit wyse die vraag waar jou geloof vandaan kom?
Watse “letter” praat jy van? As jy daarmee die bybel bedoel is dit n totaal onsinnige antwoord.
Met ander woorde, jy skyn te se dat as jy die bybel lees gaan jou geloof dood (waarmee ek kan saamstem), maar dan maak die “gees” dit weer lewendig – baie vreemd.
Jy moet so af en toe n bietjie nadink oor wat jy se Hans.
Kom ons onthou gou waar die gesprek begin het: ek het gese (in my hipotetiese voorbeeld) dat jy sowel as die ander gelowiges, wat almal verskillend glo, dieselfde antwoord sal gee op die vraag oor waar lulle teenstrydige gelowe vandaan kom, nl uit julle onderskeie en onderling weersprekende heilige boeke.
Jy het toe beweer dat dit nie die antwoord is wat jy sou gee nie.
Ek daarop gevra wat die antwoord is wat jy dan wel sou gee.
Nou, na n paar verwarrende en onwykende antwoorde, se jy hierbo dat jy glo wat jy glo omdat jy verstaan wat jy lees. Waar lees jy die dinge wat jy glo as dit nie in die bybel is nie?
Jou antwoord is dus presies dieselde as die van ander ouens in my voorbeeld; jy glo wat jy glo (presies net soos hulle) omdat dit in jou heilige boek staan.
Jy sien wat ek bedoel Hans? Jy moet nadink oor wat jy van die een pos tot die volgende kwytraak. As n mens ontwykende kak wil praat moet jy kophou broer, anders lyk jy net naderhand net verward en onnosel.
Shazee
February 5, 2012 at 02:02
Shazee, “reguit, eenvoudig en eerlik”, in jou terme, is om antwoorde te gee wat jy graag wil hê ek moet gee en ‘n antwoorde wat jy normaalweg hoor. Ek is eerlik, eenvoudig en reguit met my antwoorde maar omdat die antwoorde vir jou vreemd is, pas dit jou blykbaar nie en dit is nou maar jou probleem.
Die letter is wat jy lees en die gees is die sin agter dit wat geskryf is. As jy die letter nie in die regte sin lees nie, is die boodskap daaragter verlore (dood). Jou geloof is reeds dood omdat jy die letter in die verkeerde sin lees.
My geloof is; Rom 10:17 Die geloof is dus uit die gehoor, en die gehoor is deur die woord van God.
Let wel, nie deur die letter nie.
Ek antwoord jou meer volledig omdat jy algemene aannames maak en almal sommer onder dieselfde kam skeer a.g.v. jou onkunde wat die Bybel betref.
Ander mag dink ek is onnosel en dit is goed so, want dit is tot my voordeel en hulle nadeel.
Hans Matthysen
February 5, 2012 at 21:16
Nee wat, ou Hanswors, jy dink net jou “antwoorde” is “eerlik, eenvoudig en reguit.” In werklikheid is jou antwoorde ’n ontwykende, onnosel, belaglike bol tjol. Boonop is jy nes elke ander gelowige: Jy kan niks bewys nie maar dink nog steeds jy weet iets belangriks.
Be-fokken-laglik.
“It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book.” 
Which intransigence reminds me:…
Con-Tester
February 5, 2012 at 21:34
Daar gaan jy alweer Hans,
Die huidige argument gaan nie daaroor of my geloof dood is of nie.(Maar jy is natuurlik reg daaroor,dit is)
Die argument gaan nie oor wie die regte of verkeerde interpretasie van die bybel het nie.
Die argument gaan daaroor of jou geloof, soos alle ander gelowe, gebasseer is op jou heilige boek.
Of ek mis iets, of dit is n bitter eenvoudige vraag wat bitter eenvoudig met n ja of n nee beantwoord kan word.
Jy het beweer dat jy nie sou antwoord dat jou geloof op jou heilige boek gebasseer is nie (jy onthou mos die hipotetiese situasie?)
Waarom wil jy nie onomwonde se jou geloof is op die bybel gebasseer nie? Dit is mos,is dit nie?
Wat se ontwykende gesanik is dit oor “vlees” en “gees”?
Se net – ja, my geloof is op die bybel gebasseer, of – nee, my geloof is nie op die bybel gebasseer nie.
Ek gee regtig nie vir die huidige gesprek om hoe jy die bybel lees of interpreteer nie, ek wil bloot n eenvoudige vraag beantwoord he.
Oukei, kom ek los dit nou voordat ek uit frustasie begin vloek en dalkies n insident by oom Piet trigger.
Ek wag vir jou antwoord Hans; ja of nee.
Shazee
February 5, 2012 at 21:47
Hans, se vir my; het jy al met jou eie oe persoonlik n wonderwerk sien gebeur?
Ek bedoel nou iets soos byvoorbeeld iemand wie se been geamputeer is en dit groei weer voor jou oe aan en die ou staan op en loop daarmee?
Shazee
February 5, 2012 at 22:13
Shazee, enige iemand wat stront soos,
“Die letter is wat jy lees en die gees is die sin agter dit wat geskryf is. As jy die letter nie in die regte sin lees nie, is die boodskap daaragter verlore (dood). Jou geloof is reeds dood omdat jy die letter in die verkeerde sin lees.”
kan sekerlik nie ernstig opgeneem word nie. Jy kan hierdie kak sweerlik nie opmaak nie. Ouens soos Hans doen ons atties eintlik ‘n moerse guns – ‘n beter bewys vir die gekkeparadys waarin hulle voortstrompel, kan mens beswaarlik kry. Miskien is godsdiens tog nodig vir die mensdom om mal bliksems soos Hans in toom te hou. Wie weet waartoe hy in staat sou wees sonder sy 3-gotte-wat-eintlik-een-is. Maller as ‘n kolhaas op tik.
Malherbe
February 6, 2012 at 15:29
Ja Malherbe, jy is natuurlik reg dat mens Hans nie ernstig kan opneem nie.
Die uitdaging en doel van die oefening is egter om Hans sover te probeer kry om vir eens n reguit fokken antwoord te gee.
Ek begin ernstig vermoed dat dit nie moontlik is nie.
Het al in jou lewe sulke oneerlike en onwykende kak gelees? Veral omdat Hans moet besef (tensy hy swaksinnig is) dat hy homself in die huidige argument vasgepraat en weerspreek het. Steeds sal hy nie n moer erken hy is verkeerd nie.
Shazee
February 6, 2012 at 16:59
Shazee, mens moet onthou dat godsdiens ‘n virus is. Dit infiltreer die brein nes ‘n rekenaarvirus ‘n hardeskyf infiltreer en uiteindelik verwoes. Ek is bevrees Hans se “hard drive” is reeds moertoe. “Unrecoverable”. Nie eens skoonvee en herprogrammeer sal help nie want sekere sektore is permanent beskadig. Hans sal dus ongelukkig moet wag vir die dag wanneer die wetenskap breine suksesvol kan oorplant en dan bid hy kry een met meer kapasiteit as sy huidige apparatuur.
Soos jy al voorheen gevra het: watter data of inligting sal Hansie oortuig dat sy gotte nie bestaan nie? Geen. En hierin lê die sleutel. Ouens soos Hans is onoortuigbaar, maar te oneerlik om dit te erken. So Hans sal aanhou grou aan die gat waarin hy homself bevind, heilig onder die indruk dat dit nie dieper raak nie.
Malherbe
February 6, 2012 at 17:39
Malherbe skryf (Februarie 6, 2012 om 15:29):
Ditsem! Daar’s g’n ander rede om die Hansworse hierso aan te moedig om hul vervelige en breindooie strooi te aanhou verkondig.
Shazee skryf (Februarie 6, 2012 om 16:59):
Dit het nog nooit tevore gebeur nie, en is dus hoogs onwaarskynlik. Laat ons Hanswors maar eerder vir al die lesers van die blog sy onbevoegdheid verkondig — hoe meer n hoe meer dikwels, hoe beter. Ek sal wed dat daar gelowige lesers is wat groot skaamte voel oor die belaglike bóg wat ons te lese kry.
Die beste van als is dat ou Hanswors dit als sal ontken met een of ander biblioot verskoning.
Con-Tester
February 6, 2012 at 18:56
Shazee, my antwoord is ja en voordat jy stupid gevolgtrekkings maak, dink daaraan om te vra hoekom verskil ek dan met so baie ander sogenaamde Christelike gelowe.
Ek het al wonderwerke gesien soos bevoorbeeld ‘n ou wat blind was soos baie van julle, het siende geword. Ook ouens wat doof is soos baie van julle het gehoor gekry en so kan ek aangaan. Ek het al ook dooies sien opstaan.
Hans Matthysen
February 6, 2012 at 22:32
Maar Hanswors, ’n egte, regte wonderwork sou gewees het ’n ou sonder ’n werkende brein wat skielik begin konsekwent en insiggewend te dink. Sò ’n wonderwork het jy duidelik nog nooit gesien nie.
Ek ook nie.
Con-Tester
February 6, 2012 at 22:40
Malherbe, ‘n ware Christen is nie een “virus” nie, want hulle is altyd besig om aan hul naaste goed te doen en dit is die Atiës “virus” omdat hulle niks doen vir hulle medemens want als draai selfsugtig om hulself.
Hans Matthysen
February 6, 2012 at 22:42
Con-Tester, jy is veronderstel om so belese te wees en tog is jy so onnosel, dat jy nie eers Rom. 8 v 5 en 6 verstaan nie. Jy is nie konsekwent nie en kan ook nie insiggewend dink veral as jy die Bybel lees.
Hans Matthysen
February 6, 2012 at 22:48
The beeg, baaad atheist. Beware the self-centred monsters!
Which infantile whining reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? More shtuppie-shtuppie for you, hmm?
Con-Tester
February 6, 2012 at 22:50
Maybe you should explain Rom. 8 v 5 and 6 to me, Hanswors. Then I might learn the secret of your consequent and insightful thinking.
Con-Tester
February 6, 2012 at 22:52
Hans, ek het ook n wonderwerk beleef! Jy het wragtig n reguit antwoord gegee al was dit soos tandetrek.
Jy het nou uiteindelik erken dat jou geloof presies dieselfde basis as n Moslem of n Hindu het, nl n geloof in n heilige boek. Verduidelik dan nou waarom jou boek waar is en hulle s’n vals.
Dit kan immers nie jou geloof wees wat dit waar maak nie aangesien hulle net so toegewyd as jy glo hulle boeke is waar en joune vals.
Sien jy die probleem Hans? Daar moet een of ander bewys behalwe blinde geloof op die tafel gele word voordat ek kan besluit wie se boek, indien enige, die waarheid bevat.
Verder sal ek graag meer besonderhede wil he oor die wonderwerke wat jy gesien het. Dit klink baie interresant.
Was die ou wat uit die dode opgestaan het amptelik deur n onafhangklike geneesheer dood verklaar? Het jy self sy doodsertifikaat gesien? Indien wel, sal ek dit ook graag wil sien en dan met die ou wil gesels. Hoe lank was hy al dood en waaraan het hy gesterf? Is hy byvoorbeeld in n motorongeluk onthoof en sy kop groei toe weer reg voor die CNN kameras aan terwyl iemand vir hom bid? So iets sal die hele wereld bekeer jong! Jy moet dit nie vir jouself hou nie, deel dit asseblief met ons.
Shazee
February 7, 2012 at 06:32
Hans jy se Christene is is altyd besig om goed te doen vir hul medemens?
Wat n patetiese stelling – gaan google “Christian atrocities” – daar is te veel om op te noem en ek is bang ek word naar as ek probeer.
As dit is hoe julle goed doen aan julle medemens, mag die jirre ons bewaar as julle die dag besluit om skade te begin doen.
Ek weet dat die eerste verskoning waarskynlik gaan wees dat die oortreders nie ware christene was nie. Daar was darrem n moerse lot nie- christene deur die jare. Gaan google die “no true Scotsman fallacy”
Shazee
February 7, 2012 at 07:09
Sorry, dit moet lees – “n moerse lot nie – ware christene”
Shazee
February 7, 2012 at 07:13
“…ware Christen is nie een “virus” nie, want hulle is altyd besig om aan hul naaste goed te doen en dit is die Atiës “virus” omdat hulle niks doen vir hulle medemens want als draai selfsugtig om hulself.”
Kyk, ek het lanklaas so ‘n breindood stelling soos hierdie teegekom. Weereens ‘n klinkklare bewys dat dit te laat vir Hans is. Die brein is weggevreet, sat, kaput. Al wat oorbly is om iemand te vind om hom drie maal per week nat te lei. Dit is die onselfsugtige ding om te doen.
Malherbe
February 7, 2012 at 17:30
Al gewonder waar kom Hans se fiksasie met “een” vandaan? N mens is nie een virus nie. Een kan nie dit of dat doen nie.
Shazee
February 7, 2012 at 17:43
Con-Tester, ek het al agter gekom, jy is te dom, want jy sal niks verstaan wat aan jou verduidelik word nie. Die woordeboek is volgens jou verkeerd asook die Bybel.
Hans Matthysen
February 7, 2012 at 21:54
Hanswors, it’s obvious that the comprehensional shortcomings are yours. I repeatedly asked you for a functional definition of “spirit”/“spiritual”, one that would permit distinguishing between its presence and absence. I never said the dictionary was wrong, only inadequate. You repeatedly supplied vague evasions, deflections and bullshit, but I s’pose that me finding your “answers” utterly laughable makes me too daft.
Maybe it’s you who’s too daft to understand anything of any actual substance.
Which self-satisfied incompetence reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
)… well, if you don’t know the refrain by know, I suggest some therapy — not that it’ll really help.
Con-Tester
February 7, 2012 at 22:12
Shazee, ek glo dit wat verklaar kan word en nie blindelings soos Hindo’s en Muslems nie en daarom is jy verkeerd en daar is nie ‘n probleem nie.
Jy is weer verkeerd want ek het gesê; “ware Christenne” en dit is nie ‘n verskoning nie. Die waarna jy verwys op die Google netwerk is in elk geval nie eers 1% van al die Christenne (en ek verwys nie net na die ware Christenne nie) van al die eue. Jy is soos een wat na ‘n wit doek kyk en dan sien jy nie die doek raak nie maar net die kleinste swart kolletjie daarop. Jy probeer dan voorgee of die hele doek swart is. Siestog!
Hans Matthysen
February 7, 2012 at 22:16
Malherbe, Wat doen jy uit jou eie uit vir die samelewing en vir jou medemens?
Hans Matthysen
February 7, 2012 at 22:19
Hans, jy erken jy glo op dieselfde basis as n hindu of n moslem maar hulle geloof is blind en joune nie?
Ek is jammer maar die huilerige gees het my nie betyds besoek soos vir Con – Tester nou die aand nie – jy is n arrogante en dom fokken poes.
Shazee
February 7, 2012 at 22:44
Con-Tester
February 7, 2012 at 23:08
Jy se ek sien net n swart spikkel op n wit doek?
Daardie doek is van bo tot onder bekak ou maat.
Ek is jammer as ek vir jou n bietjie driftig en oordrewe kllnk, maar ek is nou vinnig besig om my toleransie drempel met die arrogante, stiksienige en opdringerige stront te bereik.
Jou argument skyn te wees dat daar wel wandade was maar nie alle christene is so nie en dat die gelowiges in elk geval meer goed as kwaad doen. Ek is lus en vloek weer en lelik.
Het jy die donnerse lys ooit gelees?
Watse arrogante kak is dit dat almal die tos wat julle uitdink en op die res van ons probeer opdwing moet respekteer? Waarom?
Wat de donner gee iemand die reg om onsinnige, onlogiese en onbewysbare nonsens wat julle uit julle benewelde verbeeldings uitsuig op ons te probeer afdwing?
Wat my nog meer die moer in maak is die feit dat julle ( en jy is n prime voorbeeld) so onaantasbaar en onbereikbaar vir rede is in julle asemberowend arrogante onnoselheid.
Shazee
February 7, 2012 at 23:31
For the confused layman: religioconomics explained.
Con-Tester
February 8, 2012 at 11:41
For the confused layman: How religions prosper. (In case it’s not clear, by simply demanding special privileges for themselves. That’s how.)
Con-Tester
February 8, 2012 at 13:30
Wasn’t it L Ron Hubbart who said that if you want to become rich you should start a religion?
I always marvel at the idiots who keep on giving these charletans money they can hardly afford, even after seeinng the Rolex on his wrist.
Shazee
February 8, 2012 at 20:49
Wasn’t it L Ron Hubbart who said that if you want to become rich you should start a religion?
I always marvel at the idiots who keep on giving these charletans money they can hardly afford, even after seeing the Rolex on his wrist.
Shazee
February 8, 2012 at 20:50
L Ron Hubbard is reputed to have said:
However, while the sentiment itself rings true its cynicism notwithstanding, it’s contentious whether Hubbard actually said that. Church of Scientology whackheads refute that their prophet ever did (probably in some misguided hope that it will detract from scientology being a fuck-knuckle cult of epic stupidity). IIRC, Martin Gardner cites the quote (or very similar) in Chapter 22 (Dianetics) of the 1957 edition of his book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.
Con-Tester
February 8, 2012 at 21:27
…A fuck- knuckle cult of epic stupidity… Heh,heh, very funny, I am am envious CT, for a ghastly cunt you do have a way with words.
Shazee
February 8, 2012 at 21:41
Shazee, dankie man, want ‘n poes verskaf baie plesier maar nouja, jy is ‘n drol, want jy is vol kak omdat jy probeer nie eers luister wat ek sê nie.
So terloops, wat Rom. 8 v 5 en 6 betref; wanneer daar van wonderwerke gepraat word, dink jy vleeslik en verwag dat een wie se vleeslike oë blind is, weer moet kan sien, as daar vir hulle gebid word. Sou jy nou geestelike dinge bedink, sou jy besef dat jy, wat geestlik blind is, geestelike dinge sal begin te bedink en so begin sien (verstaan).
Wie is meer arrogant as julle Atiëste? Die Moslems se geloof het ontstaan omdat hulle, die Arebiere, hul nie met die Jode wou versoen en Jesus van Nazareth ‘n Jood was, so daarom het hulle vir hulle ‘n alternatief geskep. Die Hindo is ‘n ou geloof waar Christendom deur evolusie van die ou gelowe tot stand gekom het. Dit is maar soos ons voorvaders wat met osse geploeg het en ons gebruik nou trekkers.
Hans Matthysen
February 8, 2012 at 21:49
Con-Tester, hopefully you can understand what I have written to Shazee above.
Hans Matthysen
February 8, 2012 at 21:53
Hans, gaan lees eers gou weer wat jy daar geskryf het om te sien of dit vir jou sin maak.
Ek het nie n idee waarvan jy praat nie, nie n clue nie.
Probeer gou iets skryf wat klink of dit deur n soogdier wat kan dink geskryf is en ek antwoord jou.
Shazee
February 8, 2012 at 21:57
But Hanswors, a functional definition of “spirit”/“spiritual” is still needed”, one that would permit distinguishing reliably and objectively between its presence and absence.
Why can you not provide such a definition yourself, hmm? Why do you keep relying on unreliable and/or unclear sources, hmm?
On another tack, Hanswors, and all your other fairytales and evasions op ’n stokkie, if Crushtianity evolved from prior religions as you claim (and, for once, you’re probably more correct than you yourself possibly suspect), what makes you think that Crushtianity is the pinnacle of religions? What makes you think there aren’t even better belief systems ahead, waiting to evolve from current ones? In short, why stop where very clearly you have stopped in your beliefs?
Now don’t go evading these important questions like you usually do, see? ’Cos that’s just not in line with your skydaddy’s command not to bear false witness and all of that shit, see?
Which stunted comprehension reminds me:…
Con-Tester
February 8, 2012 at 22:04
Tel my poging om jou op te voed dan glad nie as ‘n goeie daad vir my medemens nie Hans?
Malherbe
February 9, 2012 at 10:41
Hey, it’s just after 22h00. That means it’s almost Hanswors time!
Yaaayyyy!
Con-Tester
February 9, 2012 at 22:03
I see the failed potato farmer (Buchan) have registered the name “Mighty men conference” as a trade mark. Ditto for his own name and that of his TV program “Grass roots”
Can’t let the competition eat into your profits, ne?
Shazee
February 10, 2012 at 11:42
I wonder if he will object if I register “Mighty morons” as a trade mark?
Then I can punt my own brand of misogyny and also become rich, surely there are enough morons to go around?
Shazee
February 10, 2012 at 12:09
Shazee, jammer man, ek het nooit besef jy is gay. Jesus het nie gay’s verwerp nie (Lees Mat. 19 v 12).
Ag, jammer weer. Ek het jou inteligensie oorskat.
Hans Matthysen
February 10, 2012 at 23:03
Con-Tester, the functional definition of “spirit”/“spiritual” is, I function spiritually and you don’t and that is reliably objective from a reliable source.
What makes you think it is better to plow with oxen than with a tractor?
You still don’t accept the fact that I do not believe in a skydaddy. (Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?)
Hans Matthysen
February 10, 2012 at 23:16
Malherbe, jy moet nog opgevoed word aangaande Christus en die Bybel want jy is nog heel onkundig in die opsig.
Hans Matthysen
February 10, 2012 at 23:20
Eish, Hanswors, you too kleva for me! “[You] function spiritually and [I] don’t and that is reliably objective from a reliable source.” Hau, how does that answer anything, M’na? Did an ox or a tractor plough that into your head? Oh, ’twas your skydaddy, for sure!
You’ll have to try a bit harder than that if you don’t want to be laughed at, Hanswors.
Which impenetrable postmodern verbal agglomeration of vaguery reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
)…
Con-Tester
February 10, 2012 at 23:27
Hans, nee jong, ek is nou nie gay nie, ek is baie gelukkig getroud en het kinders om te bewys ek hou baie van daai ding wat ek jou nou die aand genoem het. Soos jy tereg opgemerk het, dit verskaf baie plesier.
Ek neem aan jy probeer my beledig deur my gay te noem na aanleiding van my “Mighty morons” opmerking.
Eerstens beskou ek dit nie as n besonderse belediging nie, as ek wel gay was sou ek nie skaam daaroor gewees het nie; wat in privaatheid tussen twee instemmende volwassenes gebeur het niks met my of enigiemand anders te doen nie.
Tweedens het die oorgrote meerderheid van gay persone wat ek al ontmoet het my veel meer beindruk met hulle medemenslikheid en verdraagsaamheid as Buchan en sy troppie godiote.
Derdens moet jy nie ongegronde afleidings maak as jy n groot woord sien wat jy nie herken nie, gaan soek dit liewer op voor jy (weereens) n krater van jouself maak.
Jy vertel ons altyd so trots dat jy nie glo soos ander christene nie maar nou erken jy by implikasie dat jy ook maar die breinlose troppie “Mighty men” soos die ander onnadenkende skapies volg.
Real men follow jesus, ne? (As daar n sotliker “bumper sticker” is moet iemand my asb laat weet)
Vrouens moet hulle mans onderdanig wees ne? (Ek wens jy kry eendag die geleentheid om dit vir my vrou te vertel, jy sal waarlik uitvind wat die ” wrath of god” beteken)
Die man is die hoof van die huis en got is die hoof van die man – assefokkenblieftog – wat se sinnelose stront is dit tog nie. Dit is sulke middeleeuse nonsens wat al die Buchan se “Mighty morons” agter hom aan pappagaai met knikkende koppies sonder n enkele oorsprongklike gedagte daarin. Dit is die regveriging vir die patriargale geboelie wat in vele huishoudings aangaan.
Dit se veel van iemand se karakter as hy n gediskrediteerde sprokie nodig het om sy vooroordele te regverdig en as n kierrie te dien vir sy onsekerhede.
Shazee
February 11, 2012 at 08:42
Hallo julle. Lanklaas iets hier geskryf. Ek dink die jaar van die ateis was al voor 2012 en sal nog na 2012 aanhou. Dit is juis mos die tekens van die tye wat so raak in die Bybel voorspel is.
“In die laaste dae sal die antichris sy finale aanval met erns voer…” – losweg aangehaal. Iemand het hierbo iewers verwys na gelowiges wat nie-gelowiges kerk toe probeer skrikmaak. Wat kan die Christen deur genoemde metode meer bereik as om dalk ‘n siel te red. Niks anders nie. Maar dit is die antichris se grootste vrees, dat enigiemand dalk vir die Koninkryk gewen kan word, daarom die aanvalle spesifiek op die kerk. Hierbo word breedvoerig verwys na kindermolestering in die RKK, ‘n vieslike daad en natuurlik die regte manier om gelowiges uit die kerk uit te skok, maar die werklike syfers van hoeveel kinders deur nie-gelowiges verkrag word, word nie genoem nie.
Die wat al vroeer my plasings gelees het sal natuurlik weet dat ek persoonlik glo die RKK is daar geplaas deur die antichris juis om die gelowige te mislei, soos wat ook heel tereg in die Bybel beskryf is. Hoekom ‘n kerk stig waar die priester mag drink en rook, maar nie mag trou nie, ‘n goeie manier om die “geestelike leiers” onder versoekinge te plaas. Neem sekere voorregte weg, maar plaas hulle in vertrouensposisies waar slagoffers volop is. Dus is dit die antichris wat kinders molesteer en verkrag in die “kerk” en stil-stil menigtes meer buite die kerk.
Iemand het verwys na Christelike blogs wat antichriste, skuus, ateiste blok om plasings te maak, terwyl ateistiese blogs die gelowige nie blokeer nie. Dit is beslis so, maar vir iemand met ‘n gemiddelde IK tog baie duidelik om te verstaan. Die eienaar van ‘n Christelike blog wil tog Christenskap bevorder en nie die antichris toelaat om verwarring te saai nie, maar andersom wil die antichris graag he dat gelowiges op sy blog bly skryf sodat hy hom kan verkleineer en probeer verwar, hoe anders sal hy dit regkry om “dissipels” te werf as hy net toelaat dat die wat hom reeds dien alleen daar mag deelneem?
Ou Hans, ek sien jy veg nog onverpoos die geveg. Sterkte ou maat.
Groete,
Soois
soois
February 11, 2012 at 09:11
soois prattled incoherently (February 11, 2012 at 09:11)”
What is a “siel”, ou soois? Same question I keep asking your juvenile pêl, Hanswors: Provide a functional definition, one that allows consistent, reliable and objective detection of this “siel” thing. Why? Because the dictionary definition is simply inadequate and we need to have (1) a clear idea of what we are talking about, and (2) knowledge that the thing is real, otherwise it’s not at all possible to talk sensibly about it — in fact, just as you and your intellectual twin keep demonstrating.
And what is the “real number” of children raped by non-believers, ou soois? Come, come, give us the numbers from a credible source, not your fevered imagination.
When you say that atheists are the antichrist and then go on to say that the RCC was put here by the antichrist, your delusional ignorance becomes obvious. As pointed out before, if it wasn’t for the RCC, your faith wouldn’t exist at all. And the brain-dead absurdity of claiming that the RCC was established by atheists is a source of great hilarity, as is your tortuous and convoluted “reasoning” (yeah, right!) concerning how the antichrist manipulates through the RCC and its priests.
And then for die koek oppie tjerrie, you go and make an even stupider doois of yourself about how it’s okay for believers to censor atheists but not vice versa. What about this “turn the other cheek” and this “do unto others…” thing you godiots/religiots/bibliots/crediots so love to proudly cite whenever it suits your idiotic needs, hmm? And what exactly are we atheists gonna do with all these disciples we’re supposedly gathering, hmm? Individuality an alien concept that is too complex for any godiot/religiot/bibliot/crediot to comprehend, hmm?
Now don’t go evading these important questions like your kind typically does, see? Because doing so will do nothing to win over any unbelievers to your side or to spread Crushtianity. Avoidance and/or glib bullshit will do just the opposite.
Con-Tester
February 11, 2012 at 10:10
Ja Soois, verduidelik asseblief waarom jou argument eenkant toe geldig is, maar nie na die anderkant toe nie?
As jy siele wil red moet jy mos met die ouens praat wie se siele redding nodig het, of hoe?
As iemand iets se waarvan ek nie hou nie, of nie mee saamstem nie maak ek hom stil en weier om verder met hom te praat. Ek spreek nie sy argumente aan met n logies beredeneerde redenasie nie, ek verskaf nie geloofwaardige bewyse om sy argumente verkeerd te bewys nie, nee, ek maak hom stil en weier om met hom te praat. Baie volwasse, baie doeltreffende manier om siele te red.
Ek het aan die ander kant nog nie n enkele ateiste blog teegekom wat gelowiges se menings verban of wat nie bereid is om dit te debatteer nie.
Waarvoor is julle bang? Moontlik n dosis realiteit?
Shazee
February 11, 2012 at 11:37
Con-Tester, I have no intention of trying to impress you as you are incapable of understanding, what any child can. Jy is met die maan gepla because you can’t seem to come away from the sky.
Hans Matthysen
February 11, 2012 at 21:18
Soois, ek kan nogal saam stem oor die RRK en ag, ek veg nie eintlik nie maar gee die Atiëste maar net hier en daar iets om oor te dink so tussen alles.
Hans Matthysen
February 11, 2012 at 21:21
Con-Tester, jy wat in jou vleeslike liggaam woon is ‘n siel, ag, skuus man. Dit is te ingewikkeld vir jou.
Hans Matthysen
February 11, 2012 at 21:24
Nee Hans, jy het die kat aan die stert beet soos gewoonlik. As jy ons maar iets gegee het om oor na te dink sou die gesprek veel meer betekenis gehad het, maar al wat ons van jou kry kry is onsamehangende stelliings en hardnekkige ontwykings. Moenie jouself vlei dat jy iets betekenisvol het om te se nie. As jy het, het ek dit nog nie gesien nie.
Wat van daardie teenstrydighede Hans?
Shazee
February 11, 2012 at 22:16
Shazee, watter vrou sal nie uit haar pad uit gaan om haar man gelukkig te maak as hy haar respekteur, lief het en navolgenswaardig is, dat sy op hom trots kan wees? Die man is die hoof (voorloper) m.a.w. hy is voorbeeldig en glad nie die baas nie. Ek vertrou jy is vir jou vrou navolgenswaardig. As jy ‘n goeie baas by die werk het, is ek seker jy sal die ekstra myl vir hom loop maar nie vir ‘n slegte baas nie. Mens moet wat in die Bybel staan, in die regte konteks lees omdat daar baie wysheid daarin opgesluit. Christus is krag en wysheid, nie ‘n mens nie en dit is wat die man behoort te openbaar. Die krag is ondersteunende krag en nie bullebak krag nie. Dit is vir my duidelik dat julle sekerlik nog nooit die Bybel in die regte konteks gelees het nie.
Jy het my probeer beledig of skok deur my ‘n poes te noem en jy maai maar net wat jy saai. Die afleiding het ek gemaak op grond daarvan, dat jy ‘n poes as iets sleg wou voorhou om my sleg te sê.
Ek het niks werklik erken nie, dit is jy wat sotlike afleidings maak.
Ek moet heelhartig met jou saam stem oor Gay’s en het al jare terug myself bekeer ten opsigte van hulle.
Ek dink, jy verkies om nie ‘n idea te hê oor wat ek geskryf het aangaande Rom. 8 v 5 en 6 en dit is natuurlik jou reg.
Jesus het nooit die voorbeeld van ‘n boelie geleef nie so erns het jy die boodskap gemis.
Hans Matthysen
February 11, 2012 at 22:19
En wat is hierdie RRK waaroor jy met Soois saamstem nogal?
Jy bedoel moontlik RKK, maar nou ja, jy skryf klaarblyklik nog altyd makliker as wat jy dink.
Dit is nou as jy die slag dink ne?
Shazee
February 11, 2012 at 22:30
So Hanswors, you can’t actually answer my questions properly, is that it? I never asked you to impress me, but hey, if being laughed at is your thing, who am I to complain? Maybe you should try to explain “what any child can [see].” That way you might look slightly less like an evasive twit. You should probably also try to explain how this “jy wat in jou vleeslike liggaam woon is ‘n siel” hooey of yours actually answers my request for a functional definition. Is any sufficiently self-aware entity a “siel”? Are you trying to resurrect long-dead Cartesian dualism? How can I check if, say, my daughter’s pet rabbit is “siel”? Or must we simply take your hysterically ill-informed word for what is and what isn’t “siel”, hmm?
And Hanswors, your view of women is nauseatingly disgusting. Sadly for her, it looks like Mrs Hanswors is happy to put up with your self-righteous full-of-yourselfness. More “siel” to you, eh?
Which smugly pontifical naïveté reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), is that a “yes” or a “no”? We’re still waiting for your sagacious resolution of this question, you know. It’s not professional to keep your audience waiting too long, you know. Especially when there’s a GC&UPOO&TF at stake.
Con-Tester
February 11, 2012 at 22:52
Nee Hans, ek het jou nie probeer beledig of skok nie.
Al wat ek gedoen het was om my walging in jou ongelooflik dikkoppige arrogansie uit te spreek in n taal wat ondubbelsinig my gevoel weergee.
Jy is die deskundige oor wat letterlik en wat simbolies opgeneem moet word. Ek het aangeneem jy sou besef dat ek dit figuurlik bedoel om n punt te maak.
My fout dat ek jou insig weereens oorskat het.
Se my Hans, het jou skool n dak op gehad?
Moet ook asseblief nie die Mighty moron se filosofie in my keel probeer afdruk nie; waarom moet n man noodwendig die leier en voorbeeld wees. As n vrou toevallig die sterker leier in die verhouding is, as sy die intillegenter een is met die beter insig moet sy volgens jou steeds die man se leierskap en voorbeeld volg net omdat sy sit as sy piepie?
Shazee
February 11, 2012 at 22:53
Con – Tester, please don’t talk to poor Hans about things like “Cartesian dualism”. He clearly already has no clue what you are talking about.
Jy gaan die arme ou net nog deurmekaarder maak as wat hy alreeds is
Shazee
February 11, 2012 at 23:03
Shazee, it’s not my intention to confuse Hanswors. It’s not in any case possible to confuse those who already have all the answers, whatever the question might be. Rather, my intention is simply to learn from the know-it-alls how their “explanations” work. It’s fortunate that they aren’t shy about sharing them with the world at large…
Con-Tester
February 11, 2012 at 23:38
“I see the failed potato farmer (Buchan) have registered the name “Mighty men conference” as a trade mark.”
Yes Shazee, quite remarkable. I cannot help wondering why the new SA Consumer Protection Act does not apply to sharlatans like these. If you or I want to produce afruit juice stating “kin rejuvenation”, it is expected of us to supply proof of efficacy through peer-reviewed scientific studies associated with the ingredients. If not, the product will be removed from the shelf. The reasoning? – we are misleading the consumer. Nobody will argue against this reaoning, specially not the consumer.
Why does the above principles not apply to a moron like Buchan? In fact, why does it not apply to religous advertisement in general? They are making claims that cannot be proved and under current law this is illegal. But these loons are somehow allowed the leniency to advertise their dogma to minors in schools. Truly astonishing.
Malherbe
February 12, 2012 at 09:38
The above should read “skin rejuvenation”. And “Why do the above principles not….”
Malherbe
February 12, 2012 at 09:42
Malherbe asks (February 12, 2012 at 09:38):
Because religion always demands special privileges for itself — and confidently expects to get them, too. Also, they’ll swear on a stack of old fairytale books that religion isn’t a consumer item, one that is a tradable commodity, and therefore outside the scope of the CPA. I mean, how the hell are you going to sell Eternal Life©™ or Eternal Damnation©™ or Absolution for Imaginary Transgressions©™ if suddenly you’re required to supply some actual evidence that what you’re selling is indeed real?
Con-Tester
February 12, 2012 at 12:49
Shazee, ek probeer niks op jou afdruk nie en dit is werklik onduidelik hoekom jy nou so dink? Al is ‘n vrou ‘n sterker leier as haar man is, is dit so dat agter elke suksesvolle man is daar ‘n suksesvolle vrou. Ek wys jou maar net in watter konteks, verse in die Bybel geskryf is en dat jy net alles as drakonies wil sien. Die probleem is die “oog” waarmee jy kyk.
Hans Matthysen
February 12, 2012 at 21:21
Hanswors, in your skydaddy’s Holey Babble, women are chattel property. It says so right there in the backbone of Crushtians’ Supreme Moral Code©™, namely the Ten Commandments. Look up the word “chattel”. Learn something new about your skydaddy’s reverence for individuality.
Con-Tester
February 12, 2012 at 21:36
Con-Tester, “siel” in English is “soul”, shame? Nobody is as blind as those who don’t want to see, so you are the twit and not me. I have a woman alongside me, have you?
Hans Matthysen
February 12, 2012 at 21:41
Yes, Hanswors, there’s a woman with me, whatever the fuck you’re trying to imply with that.
Okay, so what is a “soul”, Hanswors? Functional definition, please, one that allows reliable and objective detection of it. Or are you going to carry on providing non-answers, Hanswors?
Con-Tester
February 12, 2012 at 21:45
Whut niauw, Hanswors? You gonna cum back after 23:30 tonite and post your next load of drivel?
Or are finally going to actually answer my questions?
I can guess which.
Really.
Which simpleminded predictability reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs, there’s a GC&UPOO&TF “yes” or “no” you owe. Shirking a debt is the habit of a moral poltroon. Or a mental midget. You choose.
Con-Tester
February 12, 2012 at 22:10
Hans, die jirre weet, maar ek verstaan selde wat jou punt is. Seker oorlat ek nou nie die bybel so goed verstaan soos jou bevoorregte insigte nie.
Jy se agter elke suksesvolle man staan n suksesvolle vrou?
Miskien, maar wat het dit te doen met wie die hoof van die huis is, en dat mighty moron beweer got is die hoof van die man en die man is die hoof van die vrou?
Shazee
February 12, 2012 at 22:31
Met wat se “oog” moet ek na goed kyk dat ek dit beter kan verstaan, Hans? Is dit weer n geval van interpretasie wat julle godbevanges so lief voor is as iets in julle sprokie nie so lekker sin maak nie, of as julle nodig het om iets wat moreel afstootlik beter te laat klink?
Shazee
February 12, 2012 at 22:53
Hans het nie nou tyd vir antwoorde nie, ek dink hy bid vir ons “siele” wat gaan braai.
Ek ruik al die fire en brimstone.
Shazee
February 12, 2012 at 23:05
Ben du Toit schemes his daughter’s band is kif, ek sê.
Con-Tester
February 13, 2012 at 13:55
Ja CT, het ook die berig gelees. Interessant dat dominees se kinders dikwels in die teenoorgestelde rigting as hul ouers. Ek het geen probleem met ou Yolandi Vi$$er se waardestelsel nie, maar kan nie help om te wonder wat ouens soos Hans van haar dink nie. Hy en sy ilk vertel ons mos gereeld hoe godsdiens die basis van ‘n waardestels vorm. Beide Yolandi en Francois van Coke (van Fokofpolisiekar en Van Coke kartel) se pappas is predikante. Waaruit mens seker sou kon aflei dat dit die waardestelsel is wat Hans in gedagte het? Hanswors is duidelik meer liberaal as waarvoor ons hom krediet gee.
Malherbe
February 13, 2012 at 18:20
Ja, ek ken nou die ouens of hulle “musiek” regtig nie, maar ek hoor hulle vloek lekker.
Wonder wat oom Piet daarvan dink.
Shazee
February 13, 2012 at 19:06
Con-Tester, Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (I think your coffee is cold)
I do not regard woman less than myself even though I am the head of the house.
You, you twit are a soul, you who in confined to your fleshly body and one day you will depart from that body. Don’t you know who you are?
Hans Matthysen
February 13, 2012 at 21:58
But Hanswors, you’re still not answering the question. What is this “me/I” thing you’re gibbering about that supposedly is “confined to [my] fleshly body and one day [I] will depart from that body”? What distinguishes “I/me” from my “fleshly body”? Come now, the functional definition, please!
And citing Holey Babble verses at me is useless, Hanswors. They prove only that you can cite Holey Babble verses, nothing more. Your obvious twittiness won’t see that, of course.
Which obtuse half-bakedness remings me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
) what’s your answer?
Con-Tester
February 13, 2012 at 22:08
Shazee, jy neem sommer aan dat ek julle oordeel en jy is verkeerd. Jou oog het dan nog nie eers oop gegaan nie. (Heb 6:4 Want dit is onmoontlik om die wat eenmaal verlig geword het en die hemelse gawe gesmaak en die Heilige Gees deelagtig geword het,) Jy het nog net bitterheid gesmaak.
Die vrou is in geen opsig minderwaardig net omdat die man die hoof van die huis is.
Aangaande “met watse oog; 1 Kor. 15:34 Wees nugter op die regte manier, en sondig nie; want sommige het geen kennis van God nie. Ek sê dit tot julle beskaming.
Wie wil heel nag met julle klets as ek ‘n mooi vrou het om langs te gaan lê?
Hans Matthysen
February 13, 2012 at 22:18
Malherbe, dank die Vader jy het ‘n verskil agter gekom. Dankie.
Hans Matthysen
February 13, 2012 at 22:20
Hans, C-T het reeds vir jou verduidelik wat jy bewys met die aanhaal van bybelversies, en sal daarby volstaaan
Waarop basseer jy jou stelling dat ek nog net bitterheid gesmaak het – ken ek kou van erens af? Ek het ook n baie mooi, intilligente en baie suksesvolle professionele vrou, en ek het al heelwat geluk gesmaak (veral vandat ek my gotsdienstige verwardheid afgeskud het en begin leef het)
Ek weet ook nie waar jy aan die “minderwaardigheid” storie van jou kom nie – al wat ek gese het is ek glo nie die man is die hoof van die vrou nie. Dit is jy wat die eerste keer in die gesprek die term gebruik het, maar nou ja, wat die hart van vol is loop die mond gewoonlik van oor, ne?
Shazee
February 13, 2012 at 22:47
Looks like Jeeeeebussssst! forgot about John 13:34 when he said (Luke 19:27):
No doubt there’s a “symbolic” rendering that’s truly sick and contrived to “explain” this away.
Nonetheless, it’s a telling reflection of Jeeeeebussssst!’s virgin-raping daddy’s fucked-up version of free will: “Accept me as your ruler. Or die.”
What a fucking joke.
Con-Tester
February 13, 2012 at 23:00
…almost as fucking hilarious as saying that a “new commandment” was given, one that implies that the Decalogue is flawed when it classifies women as chattel property of men. It takes a special kind of intellectual slipperiness to argue that a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful deity made a foundational set of ten Eternal and Immutable Laws, which later turned out to be deficient.
Con-Tester
February 13, 2012 at 23:10
Yes, and the character of jesus himself is not above reproach either. I mean, what should one make of a man who cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, or reacting hysterically when people won’t do exactly as he commands, even condemning them to burn for eternity (and going on and on about this burning)
Shazee
February 13, 2012 at 23:19
Well, the point’s been made that the New Testament is far more cruel and psychopathic than the Old. In the OT, the skydaddy just kills his enemies, end of story. Only in the NT does hell enter the picture: Enemies get killed and then get to spend eternity suffering unimaginable torment. (The word “enemies” is used in the loosest possible sense.)
Con-Tester
February 13, 2012 at 23:26
Hans,
Aangesien jy al die wysheid het, vertel vir hierdie oom waar hierdie ou siel was voor hy my liggaam betree het. Was hy in ‘n spens gehou? Het hy dalk in die buitenste ruimte rond geswerf? Of het hy in my vader se saad sak weggekruip?
Kommaan, julle diep en geestelike wyshere weet mos alles. Die GROOT BOEK het mos vir julle alles vertel!
Ek soek ook graag van julle kennis. Alles wat ek buite die GROOT BOEK geleer het is mos ‘n klomp stront.
Asseblef, moet nou nie weer ‘n fokken versie aanhaal nie!
ErickV
February 14, 2012 at 13:50
Ja, goeie punt ErickV, dit laat my dink aan die ou grappie: what do call a man who believes in reincarnation? – a used karma salesman.
Shazee
February 14, 2012 at 17:35
Hans, ek wil vir n slag vir jou aanhaling gee, maar nie uit die bybel uit nie.Die aanhaling kom uit Carl Sagen se – The demon haunted world-
Ek gee die aanhaling sonder kommentaar, maar ek wil graag jou kommentaar daarop hoor gesien in diie lig daarvan dat jy onwribaar glo jy het die waarheid ontdek, terwyl jy tersefdertyd beweer jy het nie n probleem met die wetenskap nie;
- Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend; as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science – by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans – teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvements in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymtotic approach to the universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us. -
Shazee
February 14, 2012 at 20:57
Con – Tester, I have quote for you too, and from the same source. Forgive my presumption in believing that you will like it better than any answer Hans is likely to give in response to your question; the one that he consistently evades;
- “spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breath”. What we breath is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual” that we are talking about anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. -
Shazee
February 14, 2012 at 21:17
Shazee, yes, I’ve read that before. Carl Sagan’s The Demon-haunted World (Science as a Candle in the Dark) is one of my favourite books describing the humility of science and its methods compared to the bankruptcy of “other ways of knowing.” The words “aspire”, “conspire” and “inspire” share the same etymology as “spirit”, as do several others. Where the whole thing comes adrift is that religiots/godiots/crediots/apologiots implicitly (and I strongly suspect unwittingly, too) assume that the words they use can mean whatever they want them to mean. Among several others, Hanswors is a blinding example of this, though he’s marginally less accomplished than our postmodern magician, Bollocksed Goofs. These people consistently add two and two, and then feel no disquiet at all when presenting, variously, answers ranging from three to twelve digits.
It’s what makes them so fucking funny.
Con-Tester
February 14, 2012 at 21:40
Shazee, in verband met bitterheid, verwys ek na die Bybel en geloof in Christus omdat jy duidelik nie die vreugde ken wat ek al mee gemaak het.
Soos ek ook reeds verduidelik het, dat as jy reken my geloof is ‘n klomp tjol en die Bybel ook, dan behoort jy dit in die Bybel vir my te kan uitwys. Net omdat julle nie die Bybel verstaan nie, het julle daaroor baie te sê maar nee, nou vlug julle eerder vir Bybelverse omdat julle besef julle is nie so flink soos wat julle gedink het.
Daar is niks fout met die term, dat die man die hoof van die vrou is en julle mans en vrouens wat ‘n probleem daarmee het, verdraai die konsep om dit te laat blyk of die man die baas is en die vrou as minderwaardig beskou word.
Jesus did not harm a soul and you are missing the message of the fig tree and yes, taking the burning and slaying lit-rely, you are really falling out of the bus. I thought you lot had some commonsense but hell, it sure don’t appear so.
Jy is lewe omdat jy ‘n siel is en so ook jou vrou. Uit julle is ‘n nuwe lewe, siel gebore. Die lewe vermenigvuldig en die lewe is van God.
We are certain of all things we understand yet with greater understanding, we are more certain of greater things. No man can ever know all as we are led from one truth to another. Dink jy ek het ‘n probleem met die wetenskap? Nee, sommige wetenskaplikes het ‘n probleem met die Bybel omdat hulle dit nie verstaan nie maar ek verstaan die wetenskap asook die Bybel en die twee bots nie en is nie opponente nie.
Hans Matthysen
February 14, 2012 at 22:26
Yes, it is a breathtakingly inspiring book.
Shazee
February 14, 2012 at 22:27
Con-Tester, you are so stupid that you can’t even tell the difference between a parable and reality. Daar is hoop vir jou, ashoop.
Hans Matthysen
February 14, 2012 at 22:30
But Hanswors, you’re not answering any questions, least of all the most important ones. All you’re doing is calling me “stupid”, all the while ignoring your own much greater stupidity that you display with these constant evasive tactics of yours. And don’t think others can’t see it, okay? Just admit that you can’t give proper answers to my questions. Your honesty in that regard would be much more admirable, see?
Come on ouboet, make some kind of effort if for no other reason than to satisfy the curiosity of other readers.
Which dodging and ducking reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), got an answer for us yet? Just a “yes” or a “no”? Or do you need a few more GC&UPOO&TF antics to get your creative juices pumpin’?
Con-Tester
February 14, 2012 at 22:40
Hans, ek het gedink ons kan die standaard van die gesprek n bietjie lig, maar nou ja, die hoop beskaam weereens.
Ek sien jy is nou n deskundige op die bybel en die wetenskap. Is dit ook deur die genade van got dat jy nou die wetenskap ook so goed ken?
As die bybel en die wetenskap nie “opponente” is nie; wat se jy Carl Sagen se stelling dat ons nooit die waarheid met absolute sekerheid kan weet nie?
Dit was die vraag wat ek met aanhaling geimpliseer het ou Hans…….
Shazee
February 14, 2012 at 22:42
Shazee, maar kan jy dan nie sien nie? Hans sal die feit dat die wetenskap nooit by ‘n 100% volledige antwoord kan uitkom nie, neem as bewys van sy gotte. Dit is letterlik soos manna uit die hemele vir hom, want sien, Hans voer onkunde aan as bewys van sy gotte. Die blote feit dat ons nooit volledig sal verstaan nie, is vir hierdie ouens oorgenoeg bewys van hul 3-gotte-wat-eintlik-1-is. Kyk na sy antwoord hierbo (as mens dit ‘n antwoord kan noem)aan CT. Hoe meer wollerige wasighede hul kan aanwend, des te beter. Dis ‘n ou truuk wat my dominee toentertyd al goed bemeester het. Al ooit gewonder hoekom dominees so goed aard in politiek? Hierdie ouens is meesters in ontwyking van reguit, pertinente vrae. Kom ek illsutreer aan die hand van ‘n reguit vraag: Hans, Deuteronomium 22:28 – 29 sê indien ‘n man ‘n maagd verkrag, hy verplig is om met haar te trou en ook haar pa 50 shekels moet betaal vir die ou wandaadjie. Verduidelik asseblief.
Hans se antwoord gaan eenvoudig wees dat ons nie “Die Woord” verstaan nie mdat “Die Gees” dit nie aan ons openbaar het nie. Die feit dat die fokken “gees” oorgenoeg tyd gehad het om my te oortuig ( die beter gedeelte van 27 jaar van my lewe), is skynbaar nie geldig nie. Die feit dat ek op ‘n stadium in my lewe werklik sin probeer vind het in die christendogma, tel ook geen punte nie. Want sien, dis alles my skuld – juis omdat ek deurgaans aangedring het op antwoorde op my vrae. Dit is uiteindelik die aartsonde. Wanneer Hans dus noem dat “Die Woord” nie openbaar is aan ons nie, wat hy eintlik bedoel is dat hy wat Hanswors is, lankal opgegee het om aan te dring op antwoorde. Inteendeel, Hanswors stel glad nie meer vrae nie. Hy het die perfekte lui brein. Toe “Die Gees” hom binnevaar, was die verrottingsproses voltrek.
Malherbe
February 15, 2012 at 17:39
Ja Malherbe, jy is natuurlik heeltemal reg. Ek weet Hans sal dit sien as n argument ten gunste van sy geloof, die “god of the gaps” agterdeur..
Wat ek egter aan hom probeer uitwys, is dat dit onlogies en teenstrydig van hom is om te beweer hy aanvaar die wetenskaplike metode as geldig, maar dat hy dan steeds glo hy het die volledige, ewige en onveranderlike waarheid ontdek.
Op n ander noot; het julle in vandag se Beeld briewe kolom gesien daar is iemand wat sowaar die ID evangelie verkondig. Ek dog dit is net n Amerikaanse sotlikheid.
Shazee
February 15, 2012 at 18:41
Shazee, soos ek al tevore per geleentheid gesê het, ons vriend Hanswors gaan net aanhou en aanhou en aanhou met sy belaglike kak. Hy’s mos besig met sy Jeeeeeebusssst! se werk wanneer hy ons lasterlike heidene en ketters teenstaan, en saak nie maak nie hoe breindood daai teenstand ookal mag wees nie. Duidelik is dit nie genoeg vir hom dat ons in die hel gaan braai nie, hy wil ons “red” seker omdat hy self net so ’n bietjie onseker is en dus voel dat hy die strooi moet verdedig. Die enigste voordeel daaraan om hom aan die praat te hou is om dit al hoe meer duidelik te stel tot watter uiterste mate godsdiens instand is om mense se denkvermoëns op te fok.
In terme van jou ander noot, IDiote is al lank in SA besig. Nie so lank terug het ’n klomp Shofar IDiote op Stellenbosch rusie gemaak deurdat hulle ewolusie klasse ingeval het en hardop onderbreek het sodat die leeraars nie ’n woordjie kon uitkry nie. Natuurlik as daai IDiote wel ’n glowaardige saak op die tafel kon gesit het, sou hulle sulke taktieke glad nie nodig gekry het nie. Hulle enigste wapen is om die wetenskap aan te val waar dit teen hulle bog idees stamp, in plaas daarvan om ’n argument en/of feite en/of bewyse te bied. Dom dose bly maar dom dose.
Con-Tester
February 15, 2012 at 19:12
Con – Tester, as I understand it, the ID movement started as a “wedge” strategy to get creationism through the back door of the American education system, as creationism could not withstand the legal challenges.
I was not aware that this shit has taken root in SA.
I see that they have at least abandoned the fiction that it has nothing to with religion.
This dude in the Beeld today waffles something about how the atheist criticism ignores information theory?
Shazee
February 15, 2012 at 21:28
It’s true that overt creationism falls afoul of the First Amendment in the US and that ID was dreamt up mostly in response to this. It doesn’t change the fact that is obvious to anyone with at least a semi-functional brain, namely that IDiotology is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” There are many people in SA who want religion (more precisely, religious indoctrination) back in schools. The motivation is much the same as Hanswors’s — i.e. to save “lost souls for Jeeeeeebusssst! (whatever the fuck that might mean).
It’s always fascinating to see the straw-clutching that godiots/religiots/crediots/apologiots are capable of pulling from their fundamental orifice. They haven’t the first clue what information theory (as established by Claude Shannon in 1948) is actually all about. Ditto the laws of thermodynamics. So they invent some shit they think is scientific and that they think they can twist to shore up their tatty case. It’s simply conveniently contrived bullshit that information theory supports IDiotology.
Con-Tester
February 15, 2012 at 22:05
… the bottom line being that IDiotology’s front runner for information-theory-proves-god, one Werner Gitt, thinks that Information = Meaning. It isn’t. Information is a statistical measure, whereas meaning is a contextual association between reality and the information as contained in the symbols that represent it. Put in computer terms, the same string of bits (binary digits, 0’s and 1’s) can have different meanings, depending on whether the string occurs in an audio file, an image file, an Excel spreadsheet, a Word document, a SQL record and so on. Since it’s the same binary string, it’s informationally the same, but its meaning depends on the context in which it occurs. Of course, this not-so-subtle-and-rather-obvious distinction is roundly ignored by IDiots.
Con-Tester
February 15, 2012 at 22:36
Shazee, kyk maar na my laaste paragraaf van 14 Feb; 22:26, betreffende Carl Sagen se stelling.
As jy sien ek is ‘n deskundige, onthou net, ek het dit nie gesê nie.
Hans Matthysen
February 15, 2012 at 23:31
Malherbe, Christen “dogma” het eers met die geboorte van Jesus ontstaan en dit wat jy in die Ou Testament lees was nog deel van die Joodse “dogma”, so moontlik moet jy weer daaroor dink.
Die verse waarna jy verwys sê niks van verkragting nie. Jy probeer maar ‘n negatiewe prentjie skulder, so steek maar hand in eie boesem en kry jou gesindheid rein.
Net soos die Bybel ons van een waarheid na ‘n ander neem, so gaan dit in die wetenskap ook en daarom het ek nie die streke van jou gewese dominee nie.
Hans Matthysen
February 15, 2012 at 23:48
Con-Tester, ek het julle nog nooit verdoem nie en dit is nog ‘n rede hoekom ek sê, jy is stupid.
Hans Matthysen
February 15, 2012 at 23:56
And Hanswors, I never claimed that you did such a thing. Go on now, be a good Hanswors and prove this abysmally stupid claim of yours by pointing out where exactly I claimed that you “verdoem” us atheists.
C’mon ouboet, don’t evade the question now, and show us where!
Where, Hanswors, where did I claim such a thing!?
No more evasions, see? Just show us where, okay? Has it sunk in? A simple pointing out of where, Hanswors.
No more. No Less.
Con-Tester
February 16, 2012 at 00:08
Then, Hanswors, you can get down to the equally serious business of answering those many, many, many outstanding questions that you have forever evaded.
Which brainless hopscotch reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), still ignoring this GC&UPOO&TF, eh? C’mon, be a sport and give a dog a bone, what say ol’ Fuzzy?
Con-Tester
February 16, 2012 at 00:09
Hans,
Ek wag nog op jou antwoord!!!!!!!!!!
Fokkit, maar jy is ‘n klipkop.
ErickV
February 16, 2012 at 06:07
Hans,
Ek sien jy daag ons uit om die teenstrydighede in die bybel uit te wys.
Daar is so baie dat ek nie tyd het om almal van hulle te noem nie.
So, ek stel voor jy gaan google by scepticsannotatedbible.com en sien vir jouself
ErickV
February 16, 2012 at 06:18
You just can’t keep an accomplished kakprater down, especially in the US. The question is, why does Hanswors not farm potatoes and think Mighty Mammon-in-chief is a grubbing heretic? Does that make him stupid?
Con-Tester
February 16, 2012 at 10:30
Hans, ek gee op met jou.
Al wat jy in enige argument kan doen is om na die bybel te verwys.
Wat dink jy bewys dit, behalwe dat jy glo wat daarin staan? Jy hoef dit nie meer te bewys nie, almal is teen die tyd hartlik oortuig jy glo vas wat in die bybel staan.
Dit is byna sinneloos om met jou te probeer redeneer aangesien jy enige argument met bybelversies antwoord.
Jy verskaf geen argumente of bewyse om selfs die egtheid van jou bron te probeer staaf nie, jy hou maar net aan en aan om die bron wat in dispuut is aan te haal.
As daar teenstrydighede vir jou uitgewys word se eenvoudig dit is nie n teenstrydigheid nie, en weier om dit verder aan te spreek.
Oortuig my asseblief dat die bybel waar is voordat jy n enkele versie verder aanhaal. Enige bewys hoegenaamd wat nie subjektief is nie: ek wil nie van jou vreugde en geluk hoor nie, dit is subjektief. Ek wil nie van wonderwerke hoor wat jy ervaar het nie, tensy jy dit kan staaf met objetiewe en geloofwaardige bewyse. Enige iets Hans, enige iets wat ookal, solank jy dit kan bewys
Jy kan ook nie wegkom met die redenasie dat jy niks hoef te bewys omdat ek nie kan bewys jou god bestaan nie. Dit is jy wat beweer hy bestaan en daarom rus die bewyslas op jou. My posisie is bloot dat ek nie jou bewering glo nie.
As ek beweer dat dat daar feetjies in my tuin woon hoef jy niks daaromtrent te bewys nie want dit is ek wat die bewering maak en ek moet dit dan bewys. As jy my nie glo nie gaan niemand van jou verwag om te bewys ek lieg nie, en as jy nie kan bewys dat ek lieg nie, dan aanneem hulle bestaan wel nie.
Die argument (met jou spesifiek) gaan nie oor die bestaan van n skepper in die algemeen nie, maar spesifiek oor die bestaan van die god waarin jy persoonlik glo. Niemand kan bewys dat n skepper nie bestaan nie, net so min as wat dit bewysbaar is dat daar nie feetjies in my tuin woon nie.
Die argument met jou is dat jy in n spesifieke god glo, en dat jy dit glo omdat jou bybel se hy bestaan. (Soos jy self erken het) Die bybel is n dokument, soos enige ander, wat ondersoek kan word vir egtheid en geloofwaardigheid op grond van, onder meer, interne teenstrydighede, en geskiedkundige akkuraatheid na aanleiding van eksterne bronne. Die bybel skiet ver kort op beide voorgenoemde gronde, soos al male sonder tal vir jou hier uitgewys is.
Dus, voordat jy eers die probleme met jou heilige boek op n redelike en rasionele wyse aangespreek het, moet asseblief nie vir my versies daaruit aanhaal as bewys van enigiets nie.
Jy kan die probleme ook nie meer bloot ontken nie, jy moet dit daadwerlik aanspreek sonder om die bybel as bewys te gebruik dat die bybel waar is.
Shazee
February 16, 2012 at 14:45
Hans,
Waas jy??
ErickV
February 16, 2012 at 20:09
Kolskoot, Hanswors! Nog ’n atie reg gehelp met jou lawwe kak. Hou so aan, boet. Ek hoop jy kom nooit agter net hoe dwaas, kinderagtig, simpel en fokken belaglik jou idiotiese “redenasies” regtig is. Ons kan nie bekostig om ’n briljante voorbeeld van ’n godioot/religioot/geloofioot/biblioot/apologioot soos jy te verloor nie!
Con-Tester
February 16, 2012 at 20:35
Con-Tester, where did I claim that you said such a thing?
Ask your questions one at a time and I will answer.
Bewys jy my dat die Bybel onwaar is?
Ek het lankal vir jou bewys dat die skepper bestaan, maar jy is te blind om dit te sien.
Hans Matthysen
February 17, 2012 at 00:14
ErickV, Het gedink jy lees my antwoorde aan die ander dus gee ek dit weer. Jy is lewe omdat jy ‘n siel is en so ook jou vrou. Uit julle is ‘n nuwe lewe, siel gebore. Die lewe vermenigvuldig en die lewe is van God.
Vra die teenstrydighede een op ‘n slag en ek sal antwoord.
Hans Matthysen
February 17, 2012 at 00:19
Shazee, wat het in jou lewe ontstaan, sonder die woord?
Hans Matthysen
February 17, 2012 at 00:27
Ek sien Hans, jy sien nie kans om jou BOEK op rasionele gronde te bespreek nie, en as jy nie uit die BOEK kan aanhaal nie het jy niks te se nie.
My redelike versoek dat jy teenstydighede en historiese onakkuraathede in die bybel aanspreek voordat jy verder daaruit aanhaal, beteken noodwendig iets het verkeerd geloop in my lewe??
Sal ook graag wil verneem waar jy die bestaan van god “bewys” het, behalwe deur na persoonlike ervarings of na die bybel te verwys. Dit is nie “bewys” nie Hans, daar is n verskil tussen bewys en persoonlike geloof, rerig, rerig.
Shazee
February 17, 2012 at 07:48
Hanswors, I’m going to do this by numbers because you’re obviously not able to follow even the simplest line of reasoning.
1. On February 15, 2012 at 23:56, you wrote “Con-Tester, ek het julle nog nooit verdoem nie”. Go check. You really did. Honest. Genuine. Have a look.
2. Are you satisfied that you did write that?
3. Good. Now, when you deny that you “verdoem” us and address that denial at me, that implies that you think I said that you do “verdoem” us. Clear enough?
4. Now tell me: Where did I claim that you verdoem us? Give a date and time please where I wrote such a thing. Or suggested it. If you can’t, I suggest you make good for it.
5. I’ve listed many reasons why your Holey Babble is suspect, as has Shazee. In a nutshell, because of historical and factual inaccuracies, philosophical incoherencies, counter-scientific claims, as well as internal inconsistencies and contradictions. Your Holey Babble was put together by an act of vote almost 300 years after some Romans butt-fucked your alleged skydaddy’s son across a couple of planks.
6. Every time you are challenged to give some kind of credible reason, evidence or argument that your Holey Babble is worth more than a book of fables, you dodge the issue with one of a rather limited set of inanities.
7. When you say that you have proven the creator’s existence to me but I’m too blind to see, I must remind you that I have proven to you many, many times that Mickey Mouse is a much better moral teacher than your Jeeeeeebusssst! but you are too dense to see.
8. For example, Mickey Mouse never commanded his followers to kill anyone. In contrast, your Jeeeeeebusssst! does just that in Luke 19:27, so revealing more than a touch of paranoid megalomania.
9. So Hanswors, now that it’s been laid out in simple point-form, what’s your next salvo of silliness going to be?
10. And finally Hanswors, just how dense are you really to think that your non-answers and dodges are not totally transparent?
Which monotonous inept evasiveness reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Do you think maybe that a GC&UPOO&TF will grow tired of the pleasure this auto-shtupping thing gives?
Con-Tester
February 17, 2012 at 08:40
Con-Tester, I never claimed that you said, that I judged you, so what are you making a big fuss about. I stated that I have never judged you. I have never said you are going to Hell, I have said that only those who have known the “truth” and reject it, go to Hell. You have never known the truth as you are still in darkness because you have not seen the light yet. I am satisfied for everything I have said to you, yes!
I have shown you what the Creator is and you carry on with the sky-daddy thing, so you are a moron in your own right.
Luke 19 v 27 is about a parable and Jesus did not command his followers to kill. You are talking a lot of shit and it appears that you have a couple of shitheads with you.
I enjoy Mickey Mouse stories, so don’t try and make Mickey an opponent to Jesus you moron.
You are such a fool as you appear to think that your opinion is the only one that counts. Wake up! Your coffee is cold.
Hans Matthysen
February 17, 2012 at 23:44
b>Hanswors, you’re being blatantly inconsistent and inventing a new batch of excuses that is remarkably similar to the old one.
Either you’re fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick. I’ll let you decide which it is.
If you deny the whole “verdoem” thing, what did you aim to achieve by bringing it up in the first place? More dodging the point, eh?
Your skydaddy’s son clearly commanded slaughter in his name, not that a parable be told to hide his hateful orders. That’s just your piss-poor excuse, just like everything else you vomit up: “It’s true because I, Hanswors, say it’s true. I Can show you an old book.”
In intellectual value, your “proof” of the creator is several notches of stupid below totally idiotic.
In other words, you’re still making up a big, smelly pile of bullshit, instead of answering the questions that have been put to you.
Which puerile goofiness reminds me…
Con-Tester
February 18, 2012 at 00:02
Shazee, as jy vir my kan bewys dat woord nie bestaan nie of liefde nie bestaan nie, ens. dan kan jy sê God bestaan nie, anders is jy nie erkentlik teenoor jouself nie.
Daar is dinge wat jy weet, wat jy nie kan bewys of self bewys het omdat jy dit ervaar of ervaar het. Miskien bestaan dit nie vir my nie en tog bestaan dit vir jou.
Wat ek weet, is deel van my geloof en tog hoef ek dit nie te glo nie omdat ek dit weet.
Hans Matthysen
February 18, 2012 at 00:03
Hanswors, you’re being blatantly inconsistent and inventing a new batch of excuses that is remarkably similar to the old one.
Either you’re fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick. I’ll let you decide which it is.
If you deny the whole “verdoem” thing, what did you aim to achieve by bringing it up in the first place? More dodging the point, eh?
Your skydaddy’s son clearly commanded slaughter in his name, not that a parable be told to hide his hateful orders. That’s just your piss-poor excuse, just like everything else you vomit up: “It’s true because I, Hanswors, say it’s true. I Can show you an old book.”
In intellectual value, your “proof” of the creator is several notches of stupid below totally idiotic.
In other words, you’re still making up a big, smelly pile of bullshit, instead of answering the questions that have been put to you.
Which puerile goofiness reminds me…
Con-Tester
February 18, 2012 at 00:08
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version)
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Hans, hoe de moer wil jy bg interpreteer? Ook ‘n “parable”? Bg vertaling kom uit ‘n godsdiens bron. Of het die ouens weer verkeerd vertaal?
Malherbe
February 18, 2012 at 01:26
Hans, ek weet nie waarom wil jy he ek moet vir jou bewys die woord of die liefde bestaan nie, voordat ek kan beweer jou god bestaan nie. Dit is n non sequitur as ek al ooit van een gehoor het.
Eerstens bestaan die woord wel (ek neem aan jy bedoel die bybel), ek besit self n paar weergawes van die “woord”. Waarom sal ek wil ontken dit bestaan?
Wat ek wel ontken is dat dit die ewige, onveranderlike en ware woord van n god is. Ek ontken dat dit enige iets anders is as die bygelofies van n klompie antieke bokwagters. Bygelofies wat hulle neergepen het om te probeer sin maak van die wereld voordat hulle van beter kon weet, soos wat jy in die 21ste eeu van beter behoort te weet, Hans.
Tweedens, waarom sal ek wil ontken dat liefde bestaan? Ek ontken dit glad nie. As jy egter wil beweer ek het jou god nodig om lief te wees vir my vrou, my kinders, my familie en my vriende, moet jy versigtig wees. Netnou noem ek jou weer iets wat net verhoed kan word as die heilige spook my betyds besoek.
Dit lyk my jou familie moet maar hoop jy verloor nie jou geloof nie, want dan gaan jy ophou om lief te wees vir hulle. Dit is mos by implikasie jou redenasie ne? Hoe fokken pateties.
Shazee
February 18, 2012 at 04:40
Hans, ek begin bekommerd raak oor jou.
Jy se daar is moontlik dinge wat vir jou bestaan maar nie vir my nie?
I reject your reality and substitute my own, tipe van ding?
As jy daai stemme te gereeld begin hoor stel ek voor jy maak so gou moontlik n afspraak meet n sielkundige.
Shazee
February 18, 2012 at 05:17
Con-Tester, you are wrong on both accounts so I have nothing to decide.
Ek het die verdoem saak genoem vir almal wat die blog lees se kennisname en toe gaan jy in ‘n tantrim in. Hoe kinderagtig, siestog.
I have nothing further to say about the parable or the Skydaddy as any explanation is clearly out of your depth.
You wright a lot of crap as you are incapable of asking a meaningful question. What a poor show for an intellect of your status.
Hans Matthysen
February 18, 2012 at 21:13
In other words Hanswors, you are not capable of either following or presenting a coherent line of argument. Denial, obfuscation and flimsy haphazard bullshit more your style, eh?
Figures.
And that would be “write” Hanswors, a skill clearly beyond your abilities. Just like reasoning. Or recognising, let alone answering meaningful questions. Dunning-Kruger is a bitch of a condition. You never know that you have it.
Come now, be a good little evader and explain the supposed “parable” of Luke 19:27 for us. No evasions, see?
Con-Tester
February 18, 2012 at 21:25
Malherbe, dit wil voorkom of jy ‘n horing kry wanneer jy Deut. 22 lees, want jy fokus nie op wat daar geskryf staan. Lees vanaf vers 25, nadat jy jou draad getrek het sodat jy kan fokus op wat werklik daar staan. Lees dan ook die kJV.
Hans Matthysen
February 18, 2012 at 21:30
Shazee, nee ek bedoel nie net die Bybel nie, want dit is die letter. In jou begin tot nou toe, het als deur die woord ontstaan. Die woord het jou geleer dat ‘n boom ‘n boom is ens.
God is woord en liefde, wat bestaan en is nie net by gelowiges nie so my familie het niks te vrees nie. Woord en liefde bring verstaanbaarheid (lig) en God is Lig. Dit wat jy glo as atiës, het ook deur woord ontstaan.
Hans Matthysen
February 18, 2012 at 21:44
Hans, ek het netnou gese ek sal nie vanaand met jou spot nie, en ek sal woord hou.
So, goeie nag, Hans, maar van more af is alle “bets” weer af.
Shazee
February 18, 2012 at 22:26
Hans, ek is welbekend met di eres van Deut 22. Onder sommer die totale storietjie oor hoe ons ons moet laat lei deur jou heilige boekie.
Deuteronomy 22 on Marriage Violations
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Ek vra weer Hans: Stem jy saam met bg? Is dit hoe jy die wetboeke sou herskryf in dien jy die mag gehad het. Jy’s nie lekker nie Hans. Draai vas daai skroewe ou perd.
Malherbe
February 19, 2012 at 09:48
Hanswors, in case any further evidence of your plain dementia is required, when you reply “Con-Tester, you are wrong on both accounts so I have nothing to decide” in reference to the choice between you being “fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick”, it is clearly not true that I am wrong on both counts. In fact, your response is just more evidence that one of the two options must be true.
So Hanswors, how many people need to tell you the same thing about yourself before you even start considering the possibility that they might actually have a point? Because it’s been five in the past few days and you’re still just blundering forward as stupidly, incoherently clumsily, and obstinately plodding as a five-year-old lobotomy patient.
Hanswors, in case any further evidence of you being “fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick” (take your pick) should be necessary, when you write about the “verdoem” thing “Ek het [dit] vir almal wat die blog lees se kennisname en toe gaan jy in ‘n tantrim in”, then you are being either “fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick” (take your pick). Why? Because firstly it’s “tantrum”, not “tantrim”. Secondly, if you see me throwing a tantrum you’re seeing things that simply aren’t there (which is of course the habit of the fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick religiotard/godiotard/bibliotard/crediotard/apologiotard). Thirdly, if your latest “explanation” for mentioning the “verdoem” thing is to be believed, then it means that you mentioned it (this thread, February 15, 2012 at 23:56) purely as a red herring (which too is your kind’s habit, one that is hilarious once one sees through it) because you weren’t able to come up with an adequate response to one of my earlier points. Like I said, more evidence of “fundamentally dishonest or irredeemably thick”.
And now you don’t even want to give an explanation of this alleged parable where something possessed your virgin-raping skydaddy’s delusional megalomaniac son JeeeeeebusssssT! to command the slaughter of those who reject him as their leader (i.e. Luke 19:27). You say that “any explanation is clearly out of [my] depth.” Fine, if you say so. But what about the other blog readers who are wondering about this, Hanswors? Do you think they’re also all too damn stupid to understand? Maybe you should explain for their benefit, if not for mine. Wouldn’t that be the Crushtian thing to do, as commanded by your skydaddy, Hanswors? To spread the gospel? If not, maybe you should explain why, Hanswors. After all, since you “understand more of the Bible than what [I] ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20) and you “have a greater understanding thereof and [you are] not boasting in [yourself], as it is the Gift of Christ”, it should be a walk in the park to explain this. So why the ongoing avoidance and deflection, Hanswors?
Maybe you can even teach a few theologians a thing or two about semantic smarminess.
As for my other questions, which you dodge with a slippery little “you are incapable of asking a meaningful question” and a conceited “poor show for an intellect of your status” (whatever the fuck that ungrammatical snippet is supposed to convey. I thought you said I was too stupid, and now I’m just putting on a poor show.), they also remain unanswered, Hanswors. Again, you might want to consider answering them for the benefit of those other readers who may be wondering about the same or similar things, as well as to spread the word as you are commanded to do, Hanswors. Because lately you are putting up a frightfully poor show, no doubt raising the ire of your skydaddy at your lacklustre performance.
I think you should start by giving a functional definition of “spirit”/”spiritual”, a definition that will allow anyone to distinguish reliably, objectively and consistently between the presence and the absence of this thing. And don’t say you already did, okay? Because that would be a lie. And don’t say things like “check your dictionary” or “any child can see” or “love” or any of that other stuff you think can’t be detected because that’s just dodging the question, something everyone can in any case see that you do regularly and habitually, however ham-handedly. A straight, concise and useful answer will go a long way.
Finally, would anyone care to bet that Hanswors will do what is requested above instead of posting his usual inconsequent and muddled babble (and then later claim that he has already dealt with such-and-such)?
I didn’t think so.
Con-Tester
February 19, 2012 at 11:34
Ek lees netnou YEC aanhanger skryf dat daar geen konflik is tussen al die wetenskaplike bewyse dat die aarde biljoene jare oud is, en die “realiteit” dat die aarde ongeveer 6000 jaar terug in 6 dae van presie 24 uur geskep is nie.
Die redenasie is dat die wetenskap wat wys dat die aarde biljoene jare oud is heeltemal korrek en onontkenbaar is, maar dat god dinge so beplan het dat dit “lyk” asof die aarde so oud is.
Die “realiteit” bly egter dat die aarde 6000 terug geskep is.
Hoekom? Want die bybel se so!
Ek wonder of n mens dieselfde rasionalisering sou kon gebruik om te bewys die son draai in werklikheid om die aarde?
Dit bly verstommend hoe mense wat andersins klaarblyklik by hulle volle positiewe is, alle rede en logika agterlaat as dit by geloof kom.
Kan die behoefte om ten alle koste en teen alle rede in in n god te glo werklik so kompulsief wees?
Shazee
February 19, 2012 at 11:44
Bertrand Russell famously showed that taking a false proposition to be true can be used to prove anything.
That YEC supporter’s claim about there being no conflict is simply wrong. The idea that a god created the universe 6,000 years ago but arranged it to look like it was almost 14 billion years old is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. That is, no evidence can be presented that would show it to be wrong. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is, by its nature, unscientific, and that is exactly where the conflict is. Looked at another way, how does this YEC supporter know that his god didn’t create the universe last Wednesday just after teatime with everything — memories, knowledge, reality — arranged exactly as we think it was then? There is no possible test you can devise to refute or confirm this Last Wednesday Theory of Origin. Moreover, apart from being unscientific, the hypothesis is also barren and fruitless: It explains nothing by “explaining” everything.
Another aspect of science is Occam’s Razor which says that, as a general principle, the simplest explanation is preferable. The ancient Greeks devised an elaborate system of epicycles and deferents that kept the earth at the centre of the universe. This model remained in place until Copernicus showed that a far simpler model of things resulted from the assumption that the sun was at the centre of things.
And yes, the need for god-belief is that dominating. Reason doesn’t stand a chance against the shit children have had drummed into their heads from their earliest years when it isn’t in their natures or their abilities to challenge adult and parental authority. The stuff children learn before the age of about six overwhelmingly stays with them for life because it has been made habit in them. God-belief is a bad habit.
Con-Tester
February 19, 2012 at 12:25
Yes, I believe that the compulsion is that strong because I can see the evidence all around me every day of my life.
What I find hard to credit is the fact that apparently quite intelligent and educated people cannot seem to shake the conditioning later in life.
The mindblowingly illogical nonsense that you are required to swallow as truth in order maintain the believe must start the bells ringing at some stage, surely?
However badly I want to believe something; how can I keep on believing in the teeth of evidence and reason?
I see it happening all the time, but it still does not make any sense to me whatsoever.
Shazee
February 19, 2012 at 13:04
Malherbe, ek lewe onder die nuwe verbond en dit is om God lief te hê bo alle en my naaste soos myself. Kyk maar na die nuwe riglyne ook wat saam met Christendom aanbeveel word; 1 Kor. 7:36 Maar as iemand meen dat hy onwelvoeglik met sy maagd handel as sy oor die jeugdige leeftyd is, en dit so moet wees, laat hom doen wat hy wil. Hy sondig nie. Laat hulle trou.
1 Kor.o 7:37 Maar hy wat in sy hart vasstaan en nie onder dwang verkeer nie, maar mag het oor sy eie wil en dit in sy eie hart besluit het om sy maagd te bewaar, hy doen goed.
Lees maar die hele 1 Kor. 7 en neem kennis, Christendom het weggedoen met die gebruike van die Jode en ander. God moes Jesus stuur omdat die mens, die pad heel byster geraak het, met die wette van Moses.
Die mens is geneig om nie die boodskap van God te sien en dan sy eie wil daar te laat geld.
Hans Matthysen
February 20, 2012 at 11:24
Hans, jou redenasie maak mos nie sin nie.
Hoekan jy se mense het die kluts kwyt geraak met die wette van die ou testament, en toe moes god iemand stuur om hulle reg te help?
Die gedeelte wat Malherbe aangehaal het is omonwonde en duidelik. Daar is geen spasie vir interpretasie nie. Dit staan in die ou testament wat die woord van god is. ‘N maagd wat binne die stad verkrag word moet saam met die verkragter doodgemaak word omdat sy om hulp kon geroep het. Geen interpretasie kan dit beter laat klink nie. Dit is god se opdrag, finish en klaar.
As mense nou die duidelike opdrag van god uitvoer is dit hulle wat die kluts kwyt is?
As jy se jesus het dit kom verander, wat beteken dit – het god intussen van plan verander? Dit was tog in die eerste plek sy opdrag – het hy nou besef hy het n fout gemaak, dat dit darem ‘n bietjie erg is, ‘n bietjie onredelik en onregverdig?
Nou stuur hy sy seun om pappa se glipsie reg te maak?
Shazee
February 20, 2012 at 11:48
Con-Tester, we that are not carnally minded (Rom. 8 v 6), know that the death referred to in Luke 19 v 27, is spiritual, the same as Lot’s wife, who turned into a pillar of salt.
I see you still enjoy righting a lot of crap.
Hans Matthysen
February 20, 2012 at 11:57
Yes Hanswors, I do try righting a lot of crap, mostly that of godiots/religiots/crediots/bibliots/apologiots and assorted other nincompoops and numbskulls who typically are the ones writing a lot of crap and who don’t read properly (apparently owing to a severe cerebral capacity problem)…
You natter something incoherent about “the death referred to … is spiritual” in regards to what Luke 19:27 means. But you still haven’t given a proper functional definition of this “spiritual” thing, and so you’re still not answering anything, Hanswors. And how are your barmy buddy Jeeeeeeebussssst!’s followers going to follow the command he gives in Luke 19:27? I mean, explain to us exactly how you would “slay [his enemies before him spiritually]” if that wannabe-god wanker Jeeeeeeebussssst! commanded you to bring his “enemies, which would not that [he] should reign over them, … hither, and slay them before [him]”? What exactly would you do to follow that command, Hanswors? Be specific, please.
And once again it looks just like you’re happy to eject a stream of idiotic and irrelevant drivel because you are unable to say “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure.” You’d rather say any old thing than admit your ignorance or give a decent account of this strange shit you believe.
Very, um, Crushtian of you. So, once more:
What is “spirit”/”spiritual”, Hanswors? A functional definition, please. A definition that permits anyone to distinguish reliably, objectively and consistently between the presence and the absence of this thing.
What is the meaning of Luke 19:27 where your skydaddy’s otherworldly son shows a wicked megalomaniacal and intolerant streak, Hanswors?
What about those 400+ contradictions in your Holey Babble, Hanswors? Are you going to pick any 40 of them and show us why they aren’t contradictions?
Why do you keep dodging questions, Hanswors? Do you really think your skydaddy would be proud of your feeble efforts? Wouldn’t you rather swap sides to that of Mickey Mouse where you get some real non-violent moral guidance and you don’t have to fear an eternal braaiing?
Which blustery buffoonish baloney reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (
), what’s the what wif you, oke? “Yup” or “uh-uh”? Need more shtuppie-shtuppie, eh? Speak to Hanswors. He’s managed to bottle the stuff.
Con-Tester
February 20, 2012 at 18:54
Ja Shazee, vir my is die ergste dat dit vir jou enigsins nodig is om dit aan Hans uit te wys. Dit is tog voor die handliggend. Woorde kan nie beskryf tot watter mate Hans die kluts kwyt is nie.
Malherbe
February 20, 2012 at 22:23
Concerning how Jeeeeeeebusssssst! viewed the Old Testament, have a look at:
• Matthew 26:54
• Luke 16:17
• John 10:35
From these passages, the OT emerges as reliable, error-free and always applicable. Of course, there’s always Hanswors to correct any such childish and literal readings of the above-named passges…
Con-Tester
February 20, 2012 at 22:54
Shazee, die skeppingsverhaal in die Bybel gaan nie oor die heelal en die aarde nie. Dit is sinnebeelde wat vir ons boodskappe het en dus bots dit nie met die wetenskap nie. Lees maar weer Rom. 8 v 5 en 6.
Hou in gedagte dat die mens in die tyd van die Ou Testament nog baie barbaars was en die wette op hul tyd was goed. Namate die beskawing gevorder het, is meer toepaslike geboeie ingebring nl. om God lief te hê bo alle en jou naaste soos jouself.
Hans Matthysen
February 21, 2012 at 10:58
Ai, die ou sinnebeelde. Hans, jy is ‘n aartspoephol. Ek hoop nie iemand lees my stelling 2000jaar van nou af en vertel ek het dit as “sinnebeeld” bedoel nie. Jy is werklik so mal soos ‘n haas.
Malherbe
February 22, 2012 at 18:01
Hans, ek weet nou ongelukkig nie in antwoord op wattter kommentaar van my jy nou weer by die skeppingsverhaal uitgekom het nie.
Die punt van die gesprek, as ek reg onthou, was die opdrag van god dat die meisie wat verkrag word saam met haar verkragter doodgemaak moet word.
Jou redenasie oor die mense wat barbaars was, en blykbaar daarom barbaarse wette van god ontvang het, maak ook nie veel sin nie.
Beteken dit die mense moes eers, sonder god, beskaafd word voordat hulle beskaafde wette van god af kon ontvang?
Maak vir jou sin, Hans?
Shazee
February 22, 2012 at 21:17
Shazee,
Miskien moet ek maar eers die verskil tussen Ateïsme, Agnosme en Geloof verduidelik.
Agnoste is diegene wat nie in God glo nie, gewoonlik omdat hulle nie voldoende bewyse daarvoor kan vind nie. Hulle is neutral en sal beide gelowiges sowel as ongelowiges se saak openhartig oorweeg en na die bewyse asook argument van beide partye luister, en nie die een-of-ander bevoordeel nie, m.a.w, as die gelowige ‘n sterk argument voer, sal hy dit respekteer en saampraat, so ook indien die ongelowige ‘n sterk saak stel, maar indien die gelowige nonsense praat, sal hy dit uitwys asook indien die ongelowige dit doen. Party sal ‘n agnos as ‘n draadsitter beskou, maar dit is nie so nie. Dit is doodeenvoudig ‘n persoon wat (ongelukkig) nie sonder genoegsame bewyse Christendom ‘n kans gee nie.
Ateïste is nie doodeenvoudig ongelowiges nie, maar persone wat moeite doen om ateïsme te bevorder en Christendom aft e breek. M.a.w hulle is ook dissipels of apostels, van die duiwel, of hulle dit nou wil weet of nie. Satan gebruik sulke mense om sy saak te bevorder en God s’n te verswak. Daarom dat CT en sy bondgenote so hard veg om gelowiges af te breek.
Gelowiges kan opgedeel word in Godsdienstiges ( die wat in wettiese Godsdiens glo, die Ou Testamentiese geloof met wette en reels waarsonder jy blykbaar nie gered kan word nie, die ortodokse Jode, die Moslems ens.), en Christene (die wat Jesus as Redder en Saligmaker aangeneem het).
Noudat ek dit verduidelik het, kan ek jou beter verduidelik waarom ateïste gewoonlik versper sal word op ‘n Christenblog. As ‘n Agnos op ‘n Christenblog skryf, sal hy nie weggewys word nie, want dit is ‘n person wat vrae vra en daar is hoop vir so ‘n persoon, maar ‘n dissipel van Satan kan nie goedsmoeds toegelaat word om op so ‘n blog sy duiwelswerk voort te sit en Christene, en veral gelowiges wat op die pad na Christendom is, weg te probeer rokkel en sodoende siele te laat verlore gaan nie. Dus sal iemand wat op soek is na die waarheid toegelaat word daar, maar die wat geen belangstelling in die Christendom het nie behalwe om die duiwel se verwoesting te saai nie, mag eenvoudig nie daar toegelaat word nie.
Hoe gaan Ateïste dit nou regkry om siele te wen vir Satan? Dood-eenvoudig. Laat die Christene wat op die duiwelsblogs wil skryf toe om daar te skryf. “Net miskien kan ons een of twee van hulle wegrokkel”, is die argument by hulle.
soois
February 23, 2012 at 13:57
soois prattled incoherently (February 23, 2012 at 13:57):
So now, according to soois, the greatest unpublished biologist who ever lived, atheists are tools of his imaginary Satan and enemies of his equally imaginary skydaddy.
Ayy, you do tell a few remarkably funny jokes, even unwittingly…
Con-Tester
February 23, 2012 at 16:09
Soois,
Dankie vir jou verduideliking aangaande agnosme, ateisme en geloof.
Kom ek gee jou my siening daaromtrent;
Ek noem myself n ateis omdat ek, soos Douglas Adams, na die bewyse gekyk het vir geloof en teen geloof, ek het daaroor gedink en tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat nie een van die gelowe waarna ek gekyk het rasioneel geloof regverdig nie.
Ek kon myself net sowel agnosties genoem het, in die sin dat ek nie bewyse kon vind dat ‘n god nie bestaan nie, maar, soos Richard Dawkins se, ek is agnosties oor die bestaan van god op dieselfde wyse, en tot dieselfde mate, as wat ek agnosties is oor feetjies wat in my tuin woon.
Die verskil is dat ek oortuigbaar is dat god wel bestaan, en ek is bereid om my siening te verander sodra daar voldoende bewys daarvoor ontdek en voorgele word. Tot dusver ek ek egter niks teegekom wat my sou noop om my siening te verander nie.
Nie die bybel met sy onsamehangende teenstrydighede nie, nie die die onsinnige redenasies van gelowiges nie, geen wetenskaplike bewyse wat geloof noodsaak nie, niks hoegenaamd nie.
Jy aan die ander kant weet jou god bestaan, en daar is niks wat jou van opinie sal laat verander nie. Geen bewys van interne teenstrydighede in jou heilige boek nie, geen onteensegbare bewys dat jou skeppingsverhaal onakkuraat en onmoontlik is nie, absoluut geen bewys of logiese redenasie sal jou oortuig nie, want jy weet jy is reg. Jy sal geen bewys hoegenaamd oorweeg wat jy nie bereid is om weg te rasionaliseer nie.
Ek kan ook sommer eerlik vertel dat die grootste faktor wat my tot ateisme “bekeer” het was aanvangklik die bybel self.
Soos ek voorheen al vir Hans ook gese het; die argument is hier nie eens of god bestaan of nie, dit is nie ‘n proposisie wat vervalsbaar is nie, en daaroor sal ek agnosties bly tot die selfde mate as oor die feetjies in my tuin.
Wat n feit soos n koei is, is dat die god waarin die christene glo (of die moslems, of die hindus, of die jode, of enigeen waarvan ek al gehoor het) nie bestaan nie. Ek betwis dat die god waarin jy en Hans en ou Vic glo bestaan. Ek weet hy doen nie, hy kan nie, in elk geval nie ogv die “bewyse” wat julle voorle nie.
Ek verstaan ook nie so lekker jou redenasie oor ateiste wat op gelowige forums geblok word om te keer dat hulle verwoesting saai nie. Ateiste glo eerstens net so min aan satan as aan god, so ek weet nou nie eintlik vir wie hulle daar wil siele werf nie. Het jou almagtige god n “site moderator” nodig om hom te beskerm.
Die enigste ding wat daar verwoesting kan saai is rede en logika, maar dit is natuurlik waarvoor julle bang is
Shazee
February 23, 2012 at 16:20
Shazee skryf: “Ateiste glo eerstens net so min aan satan as aan god, so ek weet nou nie eintlik vir wie hulle daar wil siele werf nie…” Die Woord, veral Openbaring, waarsku ons dat Satan die mens selfs in hulle Christenkerke sal mislei, dat mense hom (Satan) sal dien sonder dat hulle dit besef. Dink jy dalk Satansaanbidders glo in Satan? Geen regdenkende mens sal self kies om hel toe te gaan as hulle in die hel geglo het nie. Hulle is net nog ateiste wat met die Christendom spot en “die god wat nie bestaan nie” dus uitdaag, natuurlik vas oortuig dat Hy nie bestaan nie en dus nie toerekenbaar is nie.
“Ateiste glo eerstens net so min aan satan as aan god, so ek weet nou nie eintlik vir wie hulle daar wil siele werf nie” Dus is jy volgens my ‘n agnostiese persoon. Ek self het besluit om “soos ‘n kind te glo” en Hom ‘n kans te gee. Hy het Homself openbaar aan my en nou het ek geen bewyse nodig nie. My broer was agnosties, het die Christendom ‘n kans gegee nadat hy bewus geword het van die mooiheid van die natuur en tereg moes erken dat “intelligent design” ‘n vinger in die “pie” moes he.
Vandag nog pluk hy daagliks die vrugte.
soois
February 23, 2012 at 17:17
Skuus, die tweede deel wat ek aangehaal het mos wees: “Die verskil is dat ek oortuigbaar is dat god wel bestaan, en ek is bereid om my siening te verander sodra daar voldoende bewys daarvoor ontdek en voorgele word”, en my antwoord daarop, “Dus is jy volgens my ‘n agnostiese persoon. Ek self het besluit om “soos ‘n kind te glo” en Hom ‘n kans te gee. Hy het Homself openbaar aan my en nou het ek geen bewyse nodig nie. My broer was agnosties, het die Christendom ‘n kans gegee nadat hy bewus geword het van die mooiheid van die natuur en tereg moes erken dat “intelligent design” ‘n vinger in die “pie” moes he.
Vandag nog pluk hy daagliks die vrugte.”
Groete
soois
February 23, 2012 at 17:22
Ja Soois, noem my agnosties as jy wil, dit maak nie saak nie, solank jy in gedagte hou hoe ek dit gedefinieer het.
Wat jy egter nalaat om te noem, is die deel waar ek spekuleer omtrent wat dit sal vat om jou van opinie te laat verander. Jy weier om agnosties te wees in n situasie waar dit die enigste redelike posisie is.
Shazee
February 23, 2012 at 17:51
Nog iets Soois; enigiemand wat oortuiig is ID moes erens ‘n “hand in die pie” gehad het is bloot onkundig omtrent evolusie.
Ek weet nie wat hom tot daardie oortuiging gebring het nie, laat weet maar, seker die onkundige en oningeligte twak wat op ID sites verkondig word.
Die oorweldigende bewys uit evolusionere biologie is inderdaad dat daar nie ‘n intillegente skepper agter evolusie sit nie.
Shazee
February 23, 2012 at 18:15
How terribly convenient that Satan is such a tricksy, sneaky, undetectable deceiver.
The same, of course, goes for the skydaddy who created him.
That would be the same ridiculous dimwit who sits behind the scenes as the designer envisioned by IDiots. Many “designs” in nature are less than suboptimal and even if we accept that a supreme designer/coordinator of the universe is necessary, it’s still an immensely long stretch from there to the Crushtian “god”.
It’s these huge leaps, no doubt prompted by unawareness, right over pertinent, even crucial questions that makes these believing clowns so hilariously inept.
Con-Tester
February 23, 2012 at 18:45
Shazee, jy lees seker ‘n ander Bybel as myne, want volgens Deut. 22 v 25 en 26, moet die man alleen doodgemaak word.
Wat ek vir jou sê is, die mens het nie altyd vir God geluister nie. Kyk vir Moses, hy moes die rots met sy staf geraak het en toe gaan staan hy en hy slaan die rots. My redenasie bly dus nie onsinnig nie.
Hans Matthysen
February 23, 2012 at 22:09
Hanswors wrote (February 23, 2012 at 22:09):
Con-Tester
February 23, 2012 at 22:16
Con-Tester, see what I mean, you have written a lot of crap again and some fools will believe you because of your titles, shame.
Hans Matthysen
February 23, 2012 at 22:21
Hanswors, one man’s crap is another man’s sustenance. I’d’ve thought that even a godiot/religiot/bibliot/crediot of your impressive calibre would’ve got that by now. As for seeing what you mean, the answer is a resounding “No!” because you are apparently unable to explain yourself. Those “fools” you lament who will believe me are equally a figment of your dull imagination. Those would be the same “fools” who read you like a warning label.
Con-Tester
February 23, 2012 at 22:43