Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Free Will

with 59 comments

(The parable of the infatuated young man)

Nathan Bond, June 2004

A young man went to a place of learning and fell in love with a beautiful young woman. He gifted her with flowers and chocolates and airtime. The young woman had many temptations as she had many suitors.1 The captain of the First XV2 wanted her. The rising young professor of physics wanted her. Even the rag queen looked upon her with lust. The young man knew of her temptations and wanted her all to himself, but of her own free will. Therefore he allowed her free reign on campus in the hope of her choosing him above all her other (suitors). And it came to pass that the young woman knew3 the rugby captain and that she did feel regret and that she did find comfort in the arms of the professor of physics. And she went forth and knew first the back line, and then the tight five and then the loose forwards of the rugby team. And she then did turn upon the bench and knew them all. First the replacements and thereafter the impact players. And she did regret her actions and went on to her abode. But as she passed her on the streets, she went in with the rag queen and knew her and then she did flee, as her burden was heavy.

The wrath of the young man flared against his lover and he pursued her for many days and when he did find her, he took her and her child and carried them off to a distant location where he did torture them for many days. And when the young man was apprehended he told his captors that he did love the young woman and that she was the apple of his eye.

Free Will. Yeah. Right.

We despise the young man’s dreadful action, yet when God acts accordingly, people build him cathedrals and sing his praises. Religion… no insult great enough, no greater lie has anyone.

_____

1 Greek peirazo, tempter.

2 Greek theriomacheo, to fight with wild beasts; met. to be exposed to furious hostility, cf. 1 Co. 15.32.

3 Greek porneia, fornication, whoredom.

Written by Nathan Bond

July 23, 2008 at 18:20

59 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. But Hanswors, you’re not saying anything understandable! What does it mean to say, “[something is] real, yet not objectively”?

    There are objective criteria that we use to distinguish between life and non-life. So what’s this nonsense about that one “can not see, touch or place that life in a container”? You need to explain a lot more here!

    What does it mean when you say, “Everything that is from within, is a reality and not necessary objectively real”? Are you saying that every feeling relates to something real that does not need to have an objective reality? Isn’t that self-contradictory?

    What do you mean when you say, “Your fMRI has its limits and is therefore quite irrelevant in regard to spiritual understanding / awareness”? What is “spiritual”, Hanswors? Why can’t you give a proper answer to this simple question, Hanswors? Does “spiritual” (whatever it may be) not produce detectable/measurable brain states? If it does, why is the fMRI limited or “quite irrelevant”?

    As for love, it’s an emotion that produces directly detectable and measurable brain states. Do you think it doesn’t, Hanswors?

    Please answer my questions more properly, Hanswors. They should be a walk in the park 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 chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping…)

    Con-Tester

    December 28, 2011 at 23:14

  2. Con-Tester, the things I mentioned are real, yet not objectively.
    Plants, animals and man have life in them and although you can not see, touch or place that life in a container, it is and always will be.
    Everything that is from within, is a reality and not necessary objectively real.
    Your fMRI has its limits and is therefore quite irrelevant in regard to spiritual understanding / awareness.
    Would you say that love is an object or objectively?

    Hans Matthysen

    December 28, 2011 at 22:52

  3. By fMRI, Hanswors. That’s how one measures brain function/response with respect to an actual stimulus. The problem you’re facing is that auto-generated stimuli have no external referent and cannot reliably be produced. In simple language, illusions produce an fMRI response indistinguishable from flights of the imagination. If you want to call that “spiritual” that’s fine, but do not ascribe to it an objectivity and/or reality outside of your own head that you cannot demonstrate on demand to be properly different. Doing so is just plain delusional or dishonest or deranged. Take your pick.

    Now, one more time I ask you: If something is objectively real and it can be sensed, then it is absurd to say that it cannot be measured. How can one sense a thing that’s objectively real (when one’s senses react to physical stimuli) but not be able to detect and/or measure it? And how does focusing on the physical prevent one sensing something that’s objectively real?

    Please explain!

    Will you answer these questions, Hanswors? They should be totally easy when “[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 chirping and chirping and chirping and chirping…)

    Con-Tester

    December 27, 2011 at 22:24

  4. Con-Tester, I have told you quite a long time ago that I have a life so occasionally I do get a chance to look at this blog. You must have forgotten so be patient and get a life.
    You have a minds eye and you can picture the universe in your mind. What measure do you propose to use and is it real or not? When I read Heb. 12 v 1 of a great cloud of witnesses, I can picture it in my mind and how do you propose to measure it? When one who has passed on appears unto me, how do you propose to measure it or should one just deny all?

    Hans Matthysen

    December 27, 2011 at 22:03

  5. Hanswors, wipe the shite out of your own eyes and look at the dates of the comments. Yes, almost five days’ difference. Takes you quite a while to rest, eh? That’s the period it took your alleged skydaddy to get round to making man allegedly. Oh, wait that’s figurative … or is it?

    You write, “Geestelike dinge is onbeperk, word waargeneem en kan ook nie gemeet word nie. Dit wil voorkom of julle nie die waarnemingsvermoë het nie omdat julle net gefokus is op dit wat fiesies is.”

    You had better explain this strange claim of yours. If something is objectively real and it can be sensed, then it is absurd to say that it cannot be measured. How can one sense a thing that’s objectively real (when one’s senses react to physical stimuli) but not be able to detect and/or measure it? And how does focusing on the physical prevent one sensing something that’s objectively real?

    Please explain!

    Will you answer these questions, Hanswors? They should be a breeze 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 BeeTee (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets chirping and chirping…)

    Con-Tester

    December 27, 2011 at 08:28

  6. Con-Tester en “Mal”herbe, julle raak verniet opgewonde want ek was moeg en het gaan slaap. Vee die kak uit julle oë uit en kyk hoe laat dit was.
    Geestelike dinge is onbeperk, word waargeneem en kan ook nie gemeet word nie. Dit wil voorkom of julle nie die waarnemingsvermoë het nie omdat julle net gefokus is op dit wat fiesies is.
    So terloops, ek het hoop vir julle albei, ja, ashoop.
    Was Jesus en Sy discipels geleerde manne? (Luk 24:45 Toe open Hy hulle verstand om die Skrifte te verstaan.) Dit wil voorkom of jy die pot bietjie mis sit “Mal”herbe.
    “M”, vir jou inligting; ek volg geen dogmatieseleerstelling nie en ook geen Chatismatieseleerstelling.
    Maria was swanger met die Heilige Gees en toe ek die ware evangelie aangeneem het, was ek ook swanger met die Heilige Gees. (Luk 1:46 En Maria het gesê: My siel maak die Here groot,)
    Maria het toe na Josef gegaan en hy het haar as vrou geneem, toe is dit logies dat sy ‘n kind sou baar. LW dat Seun op party plekke met ‘n hoofletter geskryf is en op ander plekke met ‘n klein letter. Die hoofletter verwys na Christus die Seun wat gegee is en die klein letter na die kind (in die geval ‘n seuntjie) wat gebore sou word (Jes. 9 v 5). Emanual; wat beteken “God met ons” (Seun wat gegee is) het in ‘n kind kom woon wat gebore is.
    Gal 4:24 Dit is sinnebeelde, want dié vroue staan vir twee verbonde: een, van die berg Sinai afkomstig, wat vir die slawerny kinders baar—dit is Hagar; “M” daar is baie sinnebeelde en daarom verstaan jy duidelik nie dat God is nie als wat jy sê nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 26, 2011 at 23:45

  7. Your idiotic rant’s been addressed — admittedly very curtly and in broad strokes, as that’s about as much as it deserves — in the selfsame thread you vomited it up in. It’s there for all to see, nogal, but it’s revealing that you keep missing it.

    And you shouldn’t use words/phrases like “honest” and “straight and forward way” [sic] that are clearly beyond your intellectual grasp, see? That would be in consideration of our casual reader who might herniate owing to involuntary laughing fits induced by your comedy show.

      
    

    😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

      
    

    P.S.: Yes or no? (Crickets are chirping…)

    P.P.S.: Let’s see how long you’re able to do your ignoring me “for the largest part” (See? You can’t even commit properly on such a simple task!) shtick this time. Not long, I’ll wager.

    P.P.P.S.: Yes or no? (Crickets are still chirping…)

    Con-Tester

    December 26, 2011 at 21:02

  8. Ooooooo god…!!
    Ou Ballas Troef is doing a Piet Stassen. He obviously has great admiration for the “prof”.

    verifanie

    December 26, 2011 at 20:54

  9. As expected. As you say dear fellow, you whish for me to stop “attacking” your packaging. For our precious…

    casual reader

    … You still fail to converse in an honest, straight and forward way as I said, boil it down old boy or you will be ignored by me, for the most part that is.

    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

    Casual-Tosser

    know where ‘[my] idiotic rant has been addressed’ by you.

    I will not be holding my breath…

    Balanced Truths

    December 26, 2011 at 20:35

  10. “Answer all my questions first.” Or what? You’ll sulk? That’d be a fucking relief from the typical total tedium you offer. Besides, you haven’t put any questions to me, only gormless accusations, that, for the umpteenth time now, have already been addressed. I guess that must’ve slipped through your osmotic conscience.

    Oh, and in the final two paragraphs of your prior ejaculation of drivel, you drop your guard. First, you assert that “[you] won’t be holding [your] breath.” Well, you could’ve fooled me. Judging by your defective cognition, I’d’ve surmised you’ve been doing far too much breath-holding. Second, you ask me whether I think your stunning lyrical cleverness is valid. That’s an odd question to ask, even if rhetorical, when clearly you’ve already decided that your correspondent doesn’t. Then again, I’ve no idea what goes on in the murky minds of mendacious morons, prolly ’cos they can’t explain themselves…

      
    

    😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛

      
    

    P.S.: Yes or no?

    Con-Tester

    December 26, 2011 at 20:15

  11. Answer all my questions first.

    Balanced Truths

    December 26, 2011 at 19:55

  12. Now, now, I know you think I’m totally predictable. If I am, so are you, dear Mr Artless Dodger (here, have a steaming mug of tu quoque). And as the Master of Fallacy, I’ll defer the labelling and misspellings to your fathomless firsthand experience…

    Still, I’m taking my cue for repetition from you, my greatest teacher. Ever. So what’s your answer: “Yay” or “nay”? I’m sure that by now even a dried fruit of your pitlessness knows the question in question. Enquiring minds want to know!

    But I guess it’s something of an incentive to engage in such hilarious avoidance tactics like shouting “Paranoia!” 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 (here, have a steaming mug of argumentum ad populum)…

    
    

    :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

    Con-Tester

    December 26, 2011 at 19:51

  13. As expected. As you say dear fellow, you whish for me to stop “attacking” your packaging. I challenge you to be honest enough to label that fallacy, right there, for our precious…

    casual reader

    … the gist of which you still fail to ask in an honest, straight and forward way as I said, boil it down old boy or you will be ignored by me, for the most part that is.

    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.

    Pick up the spelling mistake and see if you can point it out to verifuktap, I did it again, damn, be sure to tell him what the, and my, real meaning is.

    I unfortunately have to add a few points to the long list of standing question you have refused to answer as I would live [sic] to know witch [sic] point you refer to, and I would beg you to let our

    Casual-Tosser

    know where ‘[my] idiotic rant has been addressed’ by you.

    I will not be holding my breath…

    As for the last point you make, it is a sub-till technique, don’t you think?

    Balanced Truths

    December 26, 2011 at 19:30

  14. Dear BeeTee (😆😳 ),

    Your idiotic rant has been addressed. Twice already. You must’ve missed it, like you’re obviously missing a few screws — or still drunk from too much self-indulgent ego-stroking over the festive season. But just to refresh your fragile, leaky memory, the gist of it is that, except for one minor point, you attack the packaging my arguments come in because you have no other leg of a counterargument to stand on. Nor do you have the intellectual honesty or capacity — and possibly both are lacking — to recognise and admit it. Maybe you’re even pissed of that you wasted your time. See, I can’t really tell what goes on in the mind of a supercilious, self-impressed BS artist, and nor do I much care to find out.

    So, seeing as you yourself raised it, my question to you still stands, since, as ever, you evidently are unable to answer in plain, unambiguous English: Do you affirm or deny knowing my true identity? Yes or no? As I said before, it’s an easy enough question, so why are you dodging it so feverishly?

    Stop evading now, and show us just how exemplary your upstandingness is so that we can all follow your fine example! Maybe you’ll impress me enough to meet your infantile demands.

    Or maybe I’m misreading the situation entirely and this is just your version of how “[I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]”…

      
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    December 26, 2011 at 17:46

  15. 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.

    Balanced Truths

    December 26, 2011 at 16:59

  16. But I told you, Hanswors, that the dictionaries, encyclopaedias and other sources — more than one, please note — that I consulted all give inadequate definitions. So let me ask you again, maybe you can explain properly for us English-impaired readers: What is “spiritually” Hanswors? What does it mean? How does one measure it? Or is it just a vague touchy-feely bullshit notion you pull from your arse every so often to make yourself feel better? Because it sure looks just like that.

    And why are you ignoring the important questions that Malherbe has put to you December 22, 2011 at 09:46? Did your mental acuity cause a registration failure or do you not have any answers for us?

    These should be easy enough questions to answer for a master of biblical knowledge of your imposing eminence who claims that “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20). But why are you evading sharing your wisdom with us here and the world? Doesn’t your storybook order you to tell the world?

    Con-Tester

    December 24, 2011 at 08:34

  17. EricV, jy kon my ook nie verse weerle waarop ek my sienning aan jou verskaf het en hulle waarna jy verwys het sekerlik ook nog nooit verstaan waaroor als gaan nie Luk 24 v 45.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 23, 2011 at 23:37

  18. Con-tester, either you have a dictionary of poor quality or your studies of the English language has been inadequate. You also have never been able to prove me wrong on bible verses I have revealed unto you according to my understanding thereof. You have, it seems, chosen not to even try understand what is written in the Bible because you have no intention for commitment.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 23, 2011 at 23:27

  19. Ja, Con tester, ek het geen illusiese rakende Hansie se reaksie nie. Hy het natuurlik ook die gerieflike opsie om my plasing te ignoreer en dan 30 dae die toekoms in dieselfde kak kwyt te raak. Al in die rondte soos draai-jakkals om sy eie gat.

    Maar nou ja. Dis Krismis en ek het altyd meer hoop rondom krismistyd – seker maar ‘n laaste oorblyfsel van ingeteelde/ge-indoktrineerde Calvinisme waarvan ek sukkel om ontslae te raak. Lg natuurlik ‘n uiters gevaarlike stelling om in Hanswors se teenwoordigheid te maak, want ek loop die gevaar dat dit opgebraak sal word as bewys dat ek nog so bietjie gelowig is. So by voorbaat Hans – ek is nie – ek het zero hoop of geloof dat jy jou varkies ooit sal vind.

    Malherbe

    December 22, 2011 at 14:10

  20. Malherbe, jy maak natuurlik ’n rits goeie punte — punte waarvan baie al talle kere tevore tot ou Hanswors se aandag gebring is. Indien jy ’n behoorlike en voldoende antwoord soek, wag sekerlik net teleurstelling op jou. As vorige ondervindings enigsins ’n indikasie is van dit wat jy kan verwag dan sal jy ’n klomp ontduikings en stompsinnighede kry wat aandui dat daar ’n hewige verstandsgebrek heers. O ja, en bery jouself voor op die verskyning van sprokies oor “vleeslik” en “geestelik” (waddefók dìt ookal mag wees), asook die kostelike “jy kan my nie weerlê nie” grappie.

    Con-Tester

    December 22, 2011 at 12:34

  21. Okay, so that was predictable enough, Balanced Truths (😆😳 ): You yourself dredge it up and then — again — dodge answering a straightforward yes-or-no question. Instead, you prefer to go off on an ignorant, ill-informed, infantile pop psychology rant of epic proportions.

    Very revealing, indeed! Very amusing, too! Thanks for the chuckles.

    So let me ask you once more: Do you or do you not know my true identity? Yes or no?

    It’s an easy enough question that can be answered in just two or three letters. At this point, it’s irrelevant whether I am “the only one who cares about [my] identity” or “[you] don’t give a fuck about [my] identity” (with or without emphasis) or, indeed, 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…

    Con-Tester

    December 22, 2011 at 09:55

  22. Hans, waneer ons versies uit jou heilige handleiding aanhaal wat duidelik toon dat jou gotte wreedaardig, onnosel, selfbehep, jaloers, moordadig, arrogant, liefdeloos, ens is, is jul heel voorspelbare antwoord dat ons nie verstaan nie. Of dat ons “buite konteks” aanhaal. Of dat “hierdie en daardie versie” nie letterlik geinterpreteer moet word nie. Indien jy korrek is, en ouens soos ek en EricV net te onnosel en stompsinnig is om jou hoogs gesofistikeerde handleiding te verstaan, sou ek skat die regte ding om te doen sou wees om te gaan kers opsteek by die manne met doktorsgrade en ellelange akkreditasies in die spookwetenskap van godsdiens. Hulle is tog die ouens wat weet, reg? As ek iets oor genetika wil weet, gaan ek mos nie kers opsteek by EricV (sorry Eric)indien Eric ‘n meganiese ingenieur is nie? Ook nie by Hans nie, al dink Hans hy weet alles van hierdie handleiding. Nog met my Hans?

    Dit is presies wat ek jare gelede gedoen het en die verstommende was dat dogmatiese geleerdes in die algemeen baie nader aan die ateis staan as aan die godsdienstige gepeupel waarvan jy een is. Waarom is dit so Hans? Wie gee jou die reg om te maak asof jy die bybel verstaan, en jy alleen? Wanneer jou gotte verkragting van maagde duidelik as opdrag uitspel, hoe op deeske aarde moet dit “figuurlik” geinterpreteer word? Indien buite konteks aangehaal (nog ‘n lawwe verweer vd christene), hoekom kan niemand my die korrekte konteks verduidelik nie? Die dogmatiese geleerdes se antwoord is eenvoudig: die bybel is nie werklik die woorde van die gode nie. Dis mensgemaakte woorde. Hiermee kan ek saamstem, maar dit beteken natuurlik dat die “goddelike” handleidinkie bitter dun raak, soos die bladsye uitgeskeur word en op die ashoop van onbenulligheid beland. Dit beteken ook dat honderde dominees in die verlede en huidige, onopgesmukte kak praat wanneer hulle die bybel as die “woord van god” voorstel.

    So, Hans, voordat jy weer vir ons vertel dat ons nie kennis van jou handleiding het nie, maak seker dat jy nie die een met die skrapse bybelkennis is nie. Daar bestaan heelwat geleerde teoloë wat nie jou “insigte” deel nie.

    Malherbe

    December 22, 2011 at 09:46

  23. Sorry Hansie, ek het al jou versies jare terug al in die asblik gegooi omdat ek juis verstaan wat dit is en ook dat dit die grootste bedrogspul in menslike heugenis is. Ek kan jou ook inlig dat die meeste mense wat die godsdiens vaarwel toegeroep het, dalk baie meer weet van jou sogenaamde versies as jyself. Ek was ook al jare terug daar gewees waar jy nou is. Maar nou ja, ek hoop dat jy ook eendag die lig sal sien. Kruip net vir ‘n slag uit jou boksie uit.
    Groetnis

    EricV

    December 22, 2011 at 04:31

  24. Con-Tester wrote December 21, 2011 at 21:46 (or there abouts)

    But let’s see how honest and committal, variously hypocritical you really are: Give a categorical “yes” or “no” answer to the posit that you know my true identity. In the past, all you’ve given is a slippery evasion. We’ll proceed from there.

    Oh for Pete’s sake Con-Tester ( with special reference to the posts on Science & Religion, August 31, 2011 at 22:16, October 26, 2009 at 19:31 and September 3, 2011 at 14:36 and subsequent, long winded, replies.) will you get over yourself already, the only one who cares about your identity, titty, is you.

    That’s because Con-Tester ( with special reference to the posts on Science & Religion, August 31, 2011 at 22:16, October 26, 2009 at 19:31 and September 3, 2011 at 14:36 and subsequent, long winded, replies.) is a halwe doos.

    I am, as always, intrigued by one of your favourite clauses, one you often use very strategically in your engagements, as every debate is a battle of wills to you, one in which your opponents, as they all are, almost to exclusion, must obviously, I mean duh, adore and idolise you, the great mentor, and thus would feel compelled to repent some sin or the other related to some or the other selfish, self-centred and self-indulgent question followed by the words “and we’ll take it from there”, or some variation thereof. As if, magically, an honest answer to this bogus question would denote some significant breakthrough, providing some credence to an imaginary argument built-up around Con-Tester’s ( with special reference to the posts on Science & Religion, August 31, 2011 at 22:16, October 26, 2009 at 19:31 and September 3, 2011 at 14:36 and subsequent, long winded, replies) considerable ego.

    I don’t give a fuck about your identity, titty, Con-Tester ( with special reference to the posts on Science & Religion, August 31, 2011 at 22:16, October 26, 2009 at 19:31 and September 3, 2011 at 14:36 and subsequent, long winded, replies).

    Damn! there I go again, all sinking to Con-Tester ( with special reference to the posts on Science & Religion, August 31, 2011 at 22:16, October 26, 2009 at 19:31 and September 3, 2011 at 14:36 and subsequent, long winded, replies) and verifaktup‘s level (that would be [looking down on atheist gays] if ErickV (with special reference to Have your say, December 13, 2011 at 04:54, December 13, 2011 at 20:44 and December 20, 2011 at 09:50)‘s comprehension is to be trusted.)

    Balanced Truths

    December 21, 2011 at 23:45

  25. Evade on, MacHanswors, evade on. Your excuses are thinner than a condom. I asked you a meaningful bunch of specific questions precisely because the dictionary is significantly unclear about the words you use so freely. So, evade on, MacHanswors, evade on.

    That way, as ever, you’re still spouting laughable kak.

    Con-Tester

    December 21, 2011 at 22:39

  26. EricV, dankie en goeie wense vir jou ook. Dit is duidelik dat jou IK ook nie te wat wonders is aangesien jy nie eers ‘n paar Bybelversies kan verstaan of weerlê nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 21, 2011 at 22:35

  27. Con-tester, you are missing a lot because I never said I was away for three years. I was referring to you relishing in mud for three years and that I did take a break from mud slinging. For one so learned in the English language, you are not so wonderful as you thought you were.
    In regard to spiritually, I would suggest you look it up in the dictionary and I really thought you understood the English language.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 21, 2011 at 22:31

  28. … and at all costs, never look at the actual points made. Just rip the packaging apart. That way you can kid yourself and your credulous minions that you win.

    Con-Tester

    December 21, 2011 at 22:02

  29. Uprightness still not in your idiotic, slimy repertoire, eh?

    You think a nod to the Dover/Kitzmiller trial makes you a friend of science? Think again, dupehead.

    But let’s see how honest and committal, variously hypocritical you really are: Give a categorical “yes” or “no” answer to the posit that you know my true identity. In the past, all you’ve given is a slippery evasion. We’ll proceed from there.

    Con-Tester

    December 21, 2011 at 21:46

  30. Clearly Con-Tester ( with special reference to the posts on Science & Religion, August 31, 2011 at 22:16, October 26, 2009 at 19:31 and September 3, 2011 at 14:36 and subsequent, long winded, replies.) did not deign to watch the video, but jumped right to his usual low blow tactics of employing the lowest forms of wit and logical fallacies.

    Balanced Truths

    December 21, 2011 at 21:31

  31. Aaah, recognition at last! How comforting it is.

    Uprightness just not in your ridiculous repertoire, eh?

    Con-Tester

    December 21, 2011 at 20:51

  32. Meanwhile Con-Tester bows left, right and midline thinking it is all about himself again, while the rest of us watch this video. Also taken from one of my favourite creationist websites, as I am, of course, a closet creationist and
    “no friend of science”, so labelled by the finest and most noblest defenders of truth, as proselytised by Con-Tester.

    Balanced Truths

    December 21, 2011 at 20:48

  33. Yeah, yeah. The “New Atheism” is just like a religion centred on secular precepts, its mouthpieces are just like missionaries and evangelists and crusaders, and its followers are uncritical louts, none of whom will grant, aw shucks, that religion has contributed anything of any value whatsoever to secularism. In the eternal human search for truth and meaning, all approaches are equally valid. If only these blind, stupid, raging, repressive atheists could see that!

    Trouble is, they can see the apparent parallels. Yet they carry on anyway. Hmm, I wonder why? Yes, it must be religious zeal and fervour! Can’t be no other explanation, Sah. (And don’t be breaking your head over why religion provokes such reactions, either. Religion is, of course, the poor little victim in all of this.)

    It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion.” So maintains John N Gray in a mantra which, it is curious to note, is unquestioningly adopted by his uncritical disciples. Not without raping reason, evidence and inferential logic, it’s not. Or, only if you take a deeply peculiar view of the meaning of the word “religion”. If it were strictly enforced that religious dogma was withheld from all children under the age of consent, I’d wager we’d have a substantially different take on “hav[ing] no religious beliefs” and “be[ing] friendly to religion”.

    But oooh, on balance, it must be true that it’s more truthful! What a revelation! The master of balance and truth hath spoken!

    *Con-Tester bows left in abject deference to so damning a vastly superior intellect*

    *Con-Tester bows right in abject deference to ultimately-time-will-tell-but-in-the-very-happy-meantime-religiosity-continues-to-decline-except-in-a-few-braindead-spots*

    *Con-Tester bows midline in abject deference to the skilful balancing antics required to remain perched on a rickety fence while pretending you’re comfortable there leaning both ways*

    Con-Tester

    December 21, 2011 at 19:58

  34. John Gray is the author of False Dawn: the Delusions of Global Capitalism, and Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and The Death of Utopia

    http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/The_atheist_delusion

    Perhaps more truthful.

    Balanced Truths

    December 21, 2011 at 16:02

  35. No ideological differences worth mentioning. Many of the arguments remain the same and unsatisfactorily addressed by believers, while new knowledge keeps pushing god into ever-tighter nooks and crannies. All that’s really happened is that atheism has become more vocal and in-the-public-eye, a trend that is continuing, perhaps even accelerating.

    The irony of it is that Martin Luther made it possible for atheists to be heard.

    Con-Tester

    December 21, 2011 at 11:51

  36. Thanks for clearing that up.For a minute there I was afraid I might be missing some idiological subtlety. Knowlege is cumulative but rational reasoning is timeless I guess.

    Shazee

    December 21, 2011 at 10:32

  37. Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins (plus a few less well-known authors) all published widely-read books at around the same time. Their books exposed the absurdities of god-belief and religion from different angles without pulling any punches. The religious lobby views this near-simultaneous publication event — wrongly, of course — as a historical turning point marking an upsurge in atheism, at least as viewed publicly, calling this rise in consciousness the “New Atheism”. The “Old Atheism” consisted of philosophers, socialists, humanists, secularists, critics and, more generally, of musty old intellectuals, none of whom impinged much on the public’s consciousness. That is, “Old Atheism” is a battle fought quietly in obscure journals and the halls of academe without the public knowing very much about it, whereas “New Atheism” is more like a free-for-all scrap in the town square.

    For reasons that are quite obvious, religionists far prefer “Old Atheism”. Those reasons have virtually nothing to do with any professed desire to keep things civilised. If they actually did, those religionists would get civilised simply by dropping their uncivilised beliefs for more up-to-date and appropriate ones.

    Con-Tester

    December 21, 2011 at 09:36

  38. Can somebody explain to me why all this talk about ” new atheists”.
    What is the diffirence between a new and an old atheist?- is there such a thing as an old atheist?

    Shazee

    December 21, 2011 at 08:38

  39. Daan,
    Ek het my seker verbeel dat jy voorheen gese het dat hiedie blog baie daarby bygedra het om jou sienswyse te verander.
    In elk geval. Ek volg jou draad nogal gereeld op “Kletskerk” . So ook die ander bedradings daar.
    Ekself is nog maar te skrikkerig om daar deel te neem. Daar is skerp mense wat daar deelkneem.
    My kop is nog te plat daarvoor!

    EricV

    December 21, 2011 at 06:17

  40. “Even ou Daan van der Merwe shed his christianity because of this blog. Sometimes you will find him on “Kletskerk’s” blog.”

    Hey! I’m not that fuckin’ old!! 😦😦😦

    Erick!!! Weereens dagsê.

    Nee, jou stelling hierbo is nie heeltemal korrek nie. Nathan Bond het van die begin af my fundamentalistiese uitsprake verdra. Hy het altyd waardering gehad vir my eerlikheid en my aangemoedig om net te dink, wat ek ook gedoen het.

    Nee, ‘n man soos Jaco Gericke (Wedergestorwe Christen van Kletskerkfaam) en my twee broers (beide teoloë) het ‘n baie groter bydrae gelewer tot my verwerping van die Christelike geloof.

    Die spreekwoordelike kersie op die koek was die moeder van alle kerklike gevegte in ons plaaslike gemeente waar ek aan die voorpunt van die stryd gestaan het. Sien gerus my draad “Die Koninklike Slag van Pretoria-Noord” op Kletskerk.

    Lekker dag Erick, en stuur asseblief vir DW baie groete.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    December 21, 2011 at 05:36

  41. Hansie Slim,
    Sodra iemand net bybelversies aanhaal om sy punt te bewys, is daardie persoon nie in staat om enige argument te voer nie. Jy het al vantevore oor en oor bewys dat jou IK veel te wense oorlaat.
    Groetnis en geniet jou “heilige” kersfees.

    EricV

    December 21, 2011 at 05:14

  42. Oh, and one more thing, Hanswors. You’re lying to your audience again, Hanswors. Twice nogal, Hanswors: You haven’t been away for three years — more like three months, if even that long, a miscalculation by a factor of 12 — and there’s no mud-slinging in the reply you *ahem* “addressed”…

    You goofy blokes are so funny!

        
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    December 20, 2011 at 23:42

  43. What is “spiritually” Hanswors? What does it mean? How does one measure it? Or is it just a vague touchy-feely bullshit notion you pull from your arse to make yourself feel better? Because it sure looks just like that.

    Meanwhile, you yourself would be regarded as a fumarole, intellectually: Full of hot gas. You goofy blokes are so funny!

        
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    December 20, 2011 at 23:13

  44. Con-tester, I just took a break from mud slinging sessions and after three years you still seem to relish in the mud. Spiritually you would be regarded as a pig.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 20, 2011 at 22:49

  45. Rick, in my lewe het ek oor genoeg bewys van God en het julle reeds daarop gewys, dat dit wat geestelik en ewig is, kan nie met die selfde reëls bewys word, wat op materialistiese dinge van toepassing is. Julle is sekerlik hoogs intellegente mense en tog in sekere opsigte kom julle baie dom voor.

    Rev 19:10 En ek het voor sy voete neergeval om hom te aanbid; maar hy het vir my gesê: Moenie! Ek is ‘n mededienskneg van jou en van jou broeders wat die getuienis van Jesus het. Aanbid God. Want die getuienis van Jesus is die gees van die profesie.
    Die Profeet waarna jy verwys, is nog altyd en is dus nie laat nie. Jou kennis aangaande hierdie Profeet blyk gebreke te wees en ek vermoed jy het moontlik onder onbekwame leermeesters groot geword.

    Rick, wat het Jesus gedoen wat onheilig was? Ander, wat onder Sy naam, onheilige dinge gedoen het, het beslis nie Sy voorbeeld gevolg nie en dit maak nie die geloof wat God deur Jesus daar gestel het, verkeerd of drakonies nie.

    Heb 8:6 Maar nou het Hy ‘n voortrefliker bediening verkry vir sover Hy ook Middelaar is van ‘n beter verbond wat op beter beloftes wettelik gegrond is.
    Die Profeet waarna jy verwys, verwerp nie ander gelowe nie. Jy glo in evolusie en gelowe het dit ook ondergaan tot ‘n beter verbond ens.

    Rick, oorweeg die volgende; dalk is daar ‘n geloof wat meer voortrefliker is as ander.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 20, 2011 at 22:40

  46. Yes Hanswors, aside from showing your inability to follow basic logic, I agree: “the simplicity of God.” Says it all, really. That, and the fact that you took more than three years to respond. Simplicity indeed.

        
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    December 20, 2011 at 22:12

  47. Con-tester, God has done His creation well and it is self centered idiots like you that bugger things up and then you are still incapable of realizing the very fact.
    If one starts dancing around a totem pole, what makes you think that one is part of Gods religion? You really seem to reason like a fool.
    Because you are so self centered, I agree that God gave you that “gift”, via Aristotle, as you are really confused in matters concerning God.
    Atheism is for those who have given up religion because they do not understand the simplicity of God. When one flies too high, one falls very far in confusion.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 20, 2011 at 22:02

  48. EricV, thanks for the welcome.
    I am enjoying this blog immensly, one of the best, and I have seen a few.
    It is refreshing to see views put so straightforward and forcefully- party ouens nie terug nie. Woderfully entertaining.

    Shazee

    December 20, 2011 at 16:30

  49. Shazee,
    Welcome to this forum.
    This is one of the few blogs that you can announce your ideas without being burned on a stake.
    Even ou Daan van der Merwe shed his christianity because of this blog. Sometimes you will find him on “Kletskerk’s” blog. You will also find Meerkat, who is an ateist, on that blog. Previously she also wrote here under the name of “Screw-tin-eyes”.

    EricV

    December 20, 2011 at 11:46

  50. Verivanie, maybe I am mistaken, will let you know if I come across it again, if it wasn’t you,it is still worth the read and you will enjoy it.
    Your other stuff is still very funny and insightfull.
    I understand your frustration.
    I grew up in a concervative Afrkaans family, and although my parents were not particularly religious, the whole silly religious thing was still virtually impossible to get away from (school, church on Sundays,bible periods in school and very dedicated teachers and other adults shoving this irrational shit down your throat at every oppertunity).
    By my early twenties I was beginning to have a nasty hunch that this was all probably hogwash and guiltily started calling myself an agnostic.
    That was when I discovered Richard Dawkins. Now I proudly call myself a radical atheist so as not to be mistaken for an agnostic (ala Douglas Adams)
    It is like one of those weird pictures where you can either see a young lady or an ugly old woman, once you see the other image, it is hard to imagine how you could have missed it in the first place.
    The frustration is in arguing this insight (as far as religion is concerned) to people still caught in this irrational, brainwashed trap.
    They remove themself’s from rational argument by fiat, very frustrating….it is true because the bible say so and because the bible say so it is true, and on and on in a circle untill you want to shake them and say (I almost said “for gods sake”) get a grip.
    Anyway, I am not very hopefull of changing too many devout minds but, for me, the value of forums like these are that I can get myself out of the religious twilight zone for a while and have a rational conversation.

    Shazee

    December 19, 2011 at 23:33

  51. Shazee,
    Thanks, but I don’t think that was my comment, although if I am wrong, perhaps you will let me know on which page it was. There are quite a few very funny contributors to this blog.

    I have been interested in the human condition since the age of 20. I have read widely and started learning that most of us humans are struck down with a serious illness. That illness is called neurosis. Neurotic humans are people who are in pain. People who have suffered pain/trauma from a very young and vulnerable age, because their parents also suffered from this universal and devastating condition. It is all around us. You can see it in the act-outs of people, and the overarching need to believe in some sort of saviour/helper/redeemer who “cares” and who :loves” etc. It is really sad, and people need help, but it seems as if one cannot get through to them by way of reason, hence the ridicule. Who knows, maybe that will effect some changes here and there.

    I cannot help but get so annoyed by the sheer stupidity of anyone clinging to some or other esoteric phenomena, eschewing reality. We sometimes end up calling one another names, or hurling insults, but that is all part of the game.

    verifanie

    December 19, 2011 at 21:56

  52. Thanks for the welcome verfanie. I have been surfing these kinds of blogs for a long time and this is my first posting on any of them.
    It was your Afrikaans posting about kids having no clue what the poes on the pulpit is talking about that inspired this one.
    I almost literally pissed myself laughing and it it made a crappy day a lot better.
    You should seriously consider a compilation of your postings in some kind of bookform, it is brilliantly funny.
    Leave you with the words of (I think) Sam Harris- ” what can be asserted without proof, can be dismnissed without.proof”

    Shazee

    December 19, 2011 at 21:20

  53. Hans, ek vra om verskoning. Jy het na Nathan se bydraes as çrap verwys, nie Con-Tester s’n nie.

    Tester, pardon me!

    rick

    Rick

    November 13, 2008 at 16:36

  54. Hans

    Ek lees die woorde ‘idiot’ en ‘crap’ in jou begonoemde bydrae. Verder reken jy dat Con-Tester se bydraes en argumentering, wat ek oorwegend steun, baie swak is.

    Nogal!

    Is jou argumentering, daarenteen, beter? Onthou, JY is die een wat in die volgende glo:

    1. ‘n god waarvoor daar nie n enkele bewys bestaan nie, en wat ook nie bereid is op sy/haar gesig te kom wys nie.

    2. ‘n ‘Profeet’ wat ongeveer 1900 jaar ‘laat’ is.

    3. Bogenoemde profeet wie ook direkte ooreenkomste met tientalle heidense karakters het. JOU profeet is egter heilig, die ander nie, GEEN TWYFEL!

    4. ‘n Verwerping van duisende ander gelowe, baie waarvan jy nog nie gehoor het nie. Geen probleem, jy het mos die ‘regte’ een.

    Hans, oorweeg asb die volgende: Dalk is nie een geloof ‘reg’ nie…..

    Mvn bogenoemde paar punte, moenie oor swak redenasie skryf nie.

    groete

    rick

    Rick

    November 13, 2008 at 16:34

  55. Hans Matthysen wrote (12 Nov 08 at 9:02 pm):

    If God forced everyone to do as He wishes, you would not wright such crap…

    There’d be no need to force anyone or anything if your god had done his/her job properly to begin with – specifically, dropping his/her own jealousy and the threat of eternal torment for those who do choose freely against him/her. That’s the whole point of Nathan’s parable.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (12 Nov 08 at 9:02 pm):

    … and then you still have fellow idiots, whom think you have proven somthing.

    It’s not about proof. It’s about ongoing demonstrations of the insidious absurdity of religion from all angles. If my support in that task makes me an idiot, I’ll wear that label proudly.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (12 Nov 08 at 9:02 pm):

    You have only proven yourselves highly intellectual idiots.

    Another “gift” to us from your god, this intellectual idiocy, perhaps?

    Hans Matthysen wrote (12 Nov 08 at 9:02 pm):

    I must say, your reasoning is very poor…

    Sorry, not so. Aristotle set forth the basics of both deductive and inductive reasoning that we still use today, among certain other modes. Proper reasoning proceeds from premises to conclusions. Your god is a premise that leads to odious and incongruous conclusions. Atheism is a conclusion drawn from several empirically verifiable premises.

    Hans Matthysen wrote (12 Nov 08 at 9:02 pm):

    … and less intellectuals have better reasoning than you and co.

    Only in their own unreasoning minds.

    Con-Tester

    November 13, 2008 at 12:32

  56. Nathan, If God forced everyone to do as He wishes, you would not wright such crap and then you still have fellow idiots, whom think you have proven somthing. You have only proven yourselves highly intellectual idiots. I must say, your reasoning is very poor and less intellectuals have better reasoning than you and co.

    Hans Matthysen

    November 12, 2008 at 21:02

  57. Excuse me, Johan! If you are omnipotent and omniscient and SOMEONE tortures a child, then YOU tortured the child.
    The all-powerful one keeps ducking responsibility!! (Or at least: His acolytes keep making excuses for him. Why does such a large fella need others to cover for him? Wimp!).

    bewilderbeast

    July 24, 2008 at 15:01

  58. Johan
    You’ve got the time and place of the characters somewhat wrong, but… he knew her address; he knew that she was tortured… and he did NOTHING!?
    Man, what a “God”!

    Nathan Bond

    July 24, 2008 at 09:44

  59. In my mind there is one wrong part in your parable.

    “took her and her child and carried them off to a distant location where he did torture them for many days”

    I don’t think he tortured them, but they got tortured.

    Well, he cept on saying to her that he loves her, and he wrote her love letters, and said that he forgives her unconditionally, and promised her that he will love her forever, but she doesn’t except it. Is it then his fault that she got tortured?

    Johan

    July 24, 2008 at 09:03


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: