Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

God does not exist: Proof!

with 674 comments

WARNING: This essay contains strong language. Reader discretion is advised.

For many years I flatly refused to be called an atheist. I was not prepared to be identified in theistic terms. “Atheist” implies some “God”* which one can deny. And “atheist” is a “them” term, as in “us and them”. And, also, and perhaps most importantly, atheism is not a scientifically defendable position: One can not pronounce for certain that God does not exist, because there simply is no falsifiable evidence at all.

But I’ve changed my mind. Nowadays I am quite comfortable, and rather proud, to be called an atheist. I am indeed an atheist. And a radical atheist at that. I say radical, because I want people to know that I have, in the words of novelist Douglas Adams, thought long and hard about it. And I am convinced beyond a velleity of doubt that the probability that God exists is vanishingly small.

As a matter of fact, I have recently realised that there is overwhelming evidence that God does not exist: Every time a child cries out in hunger, God’s nullity is confirmed.

Think about it. Would you starve your children? Even if you are appallingly pissed at them for stealing your precious fruit? I know I wouldn’t.

Now, please don’t throw that “Original Sin” and “Divine Justice” bullshit at me. You know, that story about God being so just that the felony of Adam and Eve simply had to be remediated. That bullshit about kids starving because we are “sinful”. And “God”, poor bastard, can’t help it for justice. Yech, I think I’m going to be sick.

Think about this, if you will: If the Gospels are to be believed, there never was a more unjust execution in the history of the universe than that of Jesus, the Christ. For his alleged felonious status, he was inexplicably unknown to the prosecuting authorities who spent 30 pieces of silver to get a confidant to identify the innocent man. He is kangaroo judged by a riotous jury of his foes, condemned by indifference, clapperclawed, excruciated and crucified in what must surely rank as the number one most scandalous injustice in cosmic history.

This is God’s fix for the wanton depravity of pilfering fruit? Of offending His ludicrous idiosyncrasies? This evildoing speaks to God’s justice? It’s all O.K. now? God sees his “only begotten son” tortured and calumniated and in the son’s very moment of utmost despair, before dying, God turns his back on him… and His Omnipotence is divinely just?

G-i-v-e _ m-e _ a _ b-r-e-a-k!

This entire “God and Divine Justice” fallacy is predicated upon supreme injustice. Surely this ridiculous tarradiddle is nothing more but a machination of Bronze Age naiveté and Dark Age ignorance trumping even the ingenuity of the Monty Python Troupe. I exclaim with deference to Horace, risum teneatis, amici? – can you hold back your laughter, friends?

I asked my perspicacious American friend, Mayor of Manhole, Mississippi, Leroy Tecumseh van Buren, for his opinion.

Said Tecumseh, “I’m dumb-fuckin’-struck. Discombobulated. I don’t know whether to scratch my watch or wind my butt. These people must be destabilized by gross quantities of impure corn liquor and generations of profoundly unbiblical sex. In fact, I’s thinkin’ it’s a massive, collective, psychotic chemical flashback of all the drugs smoked, swallowed, shot, and absorbed rectally from 1960 to 1990. Thirty years of street drugs will get you some fucking weird ideas, my friend! Their minds must be aglow with whirling transient nodes of thought careening through a cosmic vapour of invention.”

Wise man, Tecumseh.

God. On a certain level I am disappointed that He does not exist. For I would have loved to poke him in the eye.

If God does exist, he is clearly such a scum bag that he should be avoided at all cost. Children, especially, should never be exposed to this abuser. Just think of what he threatened to do, what he allowed to happen, and what he did, to the children of Abraham and Jephthah and… and to his own “only begotten son”! This guy should not be allowed within a zillion light-years of children!

If God does exist, and if His Omnipotence ever was to show his incandescent visage he should be shot on sight and his stony heart crumbled by laser… just to make sure he stays dead this time.

* To be clarion clear: I am referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Aristotle’s God: immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, indivisible, He of perfect goodness and necessary existence (?)… not some vanilla “straw man” god.

Written by Nathan Bond

February 23, 2008 at 11:24

674 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Whites go back to Europe and Take your stupid atheist with you. This is our Africa!

    Africa IsForGod

    November 7, 2013 at 12:57

  2. Was ek dan weg gewees…..?

    johannes

    February 22, 2013 at 16:08

  3. En op wie spy jy nogal deesdae?

    Shazee

    February 19, 2013 at 10:51

  4. Ek het baie respek vir die Generaal en het baie by hom geleer. Ek sal toegee dat Lothar Neetling miskien die beste deskundige op sy gebied was. Die SAP het alles van almal geweet danksy die strukture wat gewerk het. Huidiglik gebruik ek nog die tegnieke daagliks.

    RAU TEM

    February 19, 2013 at 10:47

  5. Nee, dis Hendrik van den Bergh se gees wat terug gekom het om ons in te lig oor sy BOSS dae, spesifiek dat hy al sy werk in sy god se naam verrig het.

    Con-Tester

    February 15, 2013 at 10:17

  6. Godsk!

    “RAU TEM”!?

    Is dit ‘n dreigement!?

    Jou god; jou probleem ou snaar.

    Nathan Bond

    February 15, 2013 at 09:40

  7. Jehovah is die ware God. As jy dit nie verstaan nie is dit jou probleem.

    RAU TEM

    February 15, 2013 at 09:36

  8. Noek vanBiljon wrote (February 11, 2013 at 21:23):

    … I have come to the conclusion that trying to destroy a devout believers faith is like banging your head against a concrete wall. For what purpose? I have nothing to replace it with.

    Agreed as to the near impossibility of getting a believer to think critically about their beliefs. But why would you want to find any kind of replacement after eradicating a disease?

    Noek vanBiljon wrote (February 11, 2013 at 21:23):

    Can we, at least, have some reasonable, logical, “down to earth” explanation why women are so assiduously excluded from reliious office without recourse being taken to some mythological tale manufactured in the mind of a terrified illiterate lost in some “God-forsaken” desert?

    In a word, no. The RCC holds that only men can be its officials because Jesus, at the moment of consecration, was a man and their god is masculine, and so it is not possible for a woman to represent this adequately. This is all the more so for the pope as “Vicar of Christ.” Also, according to RCC teachings, the pope’s “infallibility” extends only as far as matters of scriptural interpretation and church dogma. He is a fallible man in all other respects.

    Con-Tester

    February 13, 2013 at 08:14

  9. I have not been here for a long time but may I re-enter the fray from another angle. I agree that trying to “prove” that “God’ does or does not “exist” is a futile argument. (Is it not strange how , in discussions within and about religion, scientific jargon and the jargon of logic happily co-exists with religious jargon – the word “proof” right there next to the word “faith”. It is a bit like trying to operate an application for Windows in a Linux system.
    After eighty years I have come to the conclusion that trying to destroy a devout believers faith is like banging your head against a concrete wall. For what purpose? I have nothing to replace it with. In those cases where I had thought that I had bested a Christian believer he responds by rubbing his heart and saying “You can say what you like but I know that here, deep in my heart Jesus lives”. Perhaps one day the geneticist and the neuro scientist will come up with a theory like Darwin’s which may just set off another endless argument.
    But I like to “play” another game . Here on earth, which is , I think, the only “here” I will ever know religious structures real and imaginary are fair game. So lets assume “God” exists in all his mind-boggling finery:
    The Pope is about to retire, “infallibly.” Why has there, in the last two thousand years, never been a female Pope apart from one dubious exception ? When “God ” is addressed in the the third person, “he” is addressed in the masculine form of the pronoun for the third person. Why? Why “Our Father” and not “Our Mother”? Does he have male genitals ? The Pope has to prove that he has? Why? Is it true that a eunuch may not become a Rabbi? If so, why? Can we, at least, have some reasonable, logical, “down to earth” explanation why women are so assiduously excluded from reliious office without recourse being taken to some mythological tale manufactured in the mind of a terrified illiterate lost in some “God-forsaken” desert?
    Every few minutes a poor woman is raped somewhere in the world. Is it because “Our Father in heaven” is for ever screwing Mother Earth?
    Ekskuus indien ek verkeeerd is , ek vra maar net.
    Noek vanBiljon

    Noek vanBiljon

    February 11, 2013 at 21:23

  10. REJOINDER #2

    Just can’t help yourself trying to crawl up your non-existent Skaaaaidêddieee’s arse, eh Constable? Or licking up your Jewish wannabe-god zombie mate Jeeeeeebussssst!’s spittle, hmm? Or inhaling the rank stench of your illusory virgin-raping Heilige Poep, n’est-ce pas? Too fucked in the cranium to dare think things out for yourself, what? Brain too putrid and festering to consider that an old book of fairytales you call your Holey Babble is just that, huh? Head way too full of your own self-righteous, conceited, confected, hypocritical horse manure, yes? Too narcissistic not to see the utterly stupid folly of preaching your plagiarised and juvenile inanities on an atheist blog, or what?

      
      
      
    

    😛😀😆:mrgreen:😆😀😛😀😆:mrgreen:😆😀😛😀😆:mrgreen:😆😀😛

    Con-Tester

    November 5, 2012 at 10:21

  11. REMINDER #5

    With haughty arrogance, the wicked thinks, “God will not seek justice.” He always presumes “There is no God.” Their ways always seem prosperous. Your judgments are on high, far away from them. They scoff at all their enemies. They say to themselves, “We will not be moved throughout all time, and we will not experience adversity.” Their mouth is full of curses, lies, and oppression, their tongues spread trouble and iniquity. (Psalms 10:4-7 ISV, http://www.e-sword.net).

    “You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”
    – William Wilberforce, 1759-1833.

    Piet Stassen

    November 2, 2012 at 23:23

  12. Wie is hierdie Stassen POES……? Hy klink vir my soos die grootste peopol/poes wat nog ooit
    gebore was. selfs ou geDAANte is nie so mal nie, moet ek toegee

    verifanie

    November 2, 2012 at 16:49

  13. The most preposterous notion that Homo sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. — Robert A. Heinlein, 1907–1988

    Con-Tester

    November 1, 2012 at 13:56

  14. You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.
    – William Wilberforce, 1759-1833.

    Piet Stassen

    November 1, 2012 at 12:22

  15. And all of a sudden it strikes me!
    Oompie Piet is busy with his own autobiography!!!!!

    ErickV

    October 31, 2012 at 12:50

  16. REJOINDER #1

    Just can’t bring yourself to hang up the buffoonery, eh Constable? We hear that your friend Jeeeeeebussssst!’s been sticking his dick in your ear again, while Skaaaaidêddieeeand his chum Heilige Poep’ve been making whoopee with you in a frolicsome foursome. Is this your groundwork for your own version of The 120 Days of Sodom? Or are you just trying to entertain us by heaping up ever more daft shit?

      
      
      
    

    😆🙄😛🙄😆🙄😛🙄😆🙄😛🙄😆🙄😛🙄😆🙄😛🙄😆🙄😛🙄

    Con-Tester

    October 30, 2012 at 12:39

  17. REMINDER #4

    Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings out good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings out evil things. Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies; Matthew 15:20 these are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man. Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth the good. And an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth the evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. 1Timothy 1:9 knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, Jude 1:10 But what things they do not know, they speak evil of. And what things they understand naturally, like the animals without reason, they are corrupted by these. (Acknowledgements: Modern King James Version, eSword).

    Piet Stassen

    October 30, 2012 at 10:50

  18. Hey Chief Profanity Police Constable Piet “Profanity” Stassen, d’ya thinks ya Chief Inspector Skaaaaidêddieee is testing ya with all this opposition and profanity and blasphemy? D’ya thinks ya needs ta show him how unshakeable yer faith is?

    Rest assured that testing has precisely fuck-all to do with it. It’s all about your black-hole dense imperviousness to intellectual honesty and reason, though. The consensus is clear: There can no longer be any doubt that you’re a fruitcake of biblical proportions and in dire need of psychiatric treatment.

    You’re welcome of course to continue dropping your asininely vacant turds all over this blog. However, if you decide to so, you can henceforth expect escalating amounts of derision, blasphemy, profanity, ridicule, jeering and general quid pro quo dumping on the whole brain-dead lot consisting of you and your three-in-one-in-three illusion.

    Alternatively, you can attend to those questions that have been asked and start talking some sense for a change.

    You’ve been duly informed.

    Again, this isn’t a test.

    Your choice.

    (Hint: Repeating “I have humungous balls” to yourself ad nauseam won’t make it so.)

    Con-Tester

    October 29, 2012 at 17:55

  19. REMINDER #3

    Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings out good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings out evil things. Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies; Matthew 15:20 these are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man. Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth the good. And an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth the evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. 1Timothy 1:9 knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, Jude 1:10 But what things they do not know, they speak evil of. And what things they understand naturally, like the animals without reason, they are corrupted by these. (Acknowledgements: Modern King James Version, eSword).

    Piet Stassen

    October 29, 2012 at 09:37

  20. Daan, as you likely well know, the factual accuracy of his/her beliefs is something that has never really bothered your typical fundie godiot very much, except to the extent that s/he simply declares it uncritically. In fact, they normally make a career of casually and conveniently distorting and rearranging facts as needed in the service of his/her juvenile and factually erroneous fantasies, which means that I am merely imitating the example they themselves set in this specific context. In addition and as you point out, the orthodoxy is fallacious on many points, not least of which is Jesus’ alleged divinity, but it is the orthodoxy and therefore what is commonly believed.

    But that isn’t even the crux (❗ —😉 ) of the matter. I do what I do for a very good reason which I’m sure you can figure out…

      
      
    

    More unsolicited moralising from an intellectual crook, Chief Profanity Police Constable Piet “Profanity” Stassen? What cheeky chutzpah, what conceited gall, what impudent brio for an officer of the Profanity Police Corps! What would your Chief Inspector Skaaaaidêddieee say about that!? Probably nothing, actually, seeing as you learned it from him.

    Will you obey Shazee’s request? Will you just carry on as always? Or will your conscience suddenly awake from its somnolent reveries and prompt you to answer those looming and long-standing questions? If, as is probable, you’re a bit confused, just see above — the last 350-or-so comments. That should clear it up for you, although it’s not certain…

    Con-Tester

    October 27, 2012 at 10:19

  21. Oom Piet, fok asseblief tog of. Jy begin irriterend raak, en klink lankal onnnosel.

    Shazee

    October 27, 2012 at 09:06

  22. REMINDER

    Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings out good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings out evil things. Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies; Matthew 15:20 these are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man. Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth the good. And an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth the evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. 1Timothy 1:9 knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, Jude 1:10 But what things they do not know, they speak evil of. And what things they understand naturally, like the animals without reason, they are corrupted by these. (Acknowledgements: Modern King James Version, eSword).

    Piet Stassen

    October 27, 2012 at 08:58

  23. Daan, en nog ‘n ding.
    Ek het nie werklik ‘n probleem met christenskap as sulks nie. Ek het nie meer ‘n saak daarmee nie.
    Wat ek wel ‘n ontsetlikke wrewel in het is die donderse mense wat daardie christenskap in my keel wil indruk.
    Om ‘n voorbeeld te noem. Hier by my werk word elke keer voor ‘n vergadering (hoe klein of groot ookal) vir die christen god gebid. Op van die vergaderings is daar tot ongeveer 400 mense aanwesig. Nou hierdie mense bestaan uit elke kleur van die reenboog nasie. Hierdie bliksemse christene het geen, maar GEEN, respek vir die ander gelowe nie. Ek sal myself doodskaam as ek weer as ‘n christen gesien word.
    Daar word byvoorbeeld gebid dat niemand moet seerkry nie. Indien iemand wel in ‘n ongeluk was, woord daar weer vir beterskap gebid. Indien die persoon as gevolg van sy wonde beswyk, word daar weer vir die familie gebid.
    Wat ‘n groot pot stront!!!!!
    Hier gaan dit so erg dat indien my eie siening bekend word, is dit dieselfde as selfmoord. ‘n Mens sal dan soos ‘n melaatse behandel word.
    Wie het al ooit kon dink dat die middel eeue al verby is!?

    ErickV

    October 27, 2012 at 08:01

  24. Hello Daan!

    Nog ‘n vieslike sekte natuurlik is die Blou Rok Bende. Ek kan waaragtig nie glo dat mense hulself so aan die neus laat rondly nie.
    Ek het op “Kletskerk” gelees van die wat uit daardie kloue ontsnap het. Dit laat ‘n mens se hare rys!

    ErickV

    October 27, 2012 at 07:34

  25. Erick!!! Dagsê.

    Nee wat jong, ek ken die Jehovas met hulle “Lig Toring” traktaatjies baie goed. Jy is heeltemal reg. Net nog ‘n sekte.

    En hulle glo die grootste klomp stront denkbaar.🙂 🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    October 27, 2012 at 03:43

  26. 🙂 🙂 Con, ek is nie ‘n Engelsman nie, maar ek moet sê ek geniet jou woordeskat wanneer jy vir arme ou Piet so in Engels uitkak.

    Wat betref jou pos hierbo: “Or how about that Jewish wannabe zombie-god Jeeeeeeebusssssst! who spoke the words of Luke 19:27? Perhaps also the brain-dead vegetables who think that “explaining” Big Mystery with Infinitely Incomprehensible Mystery is any kind of explanation at all?”

    Om na Jesus te verwys as ‘n “wannabe zombie-god” is nie regverdig nie. Jesus het nooit daarop aanspraak gemaak dat hy ook ‘n goddelike natuur het, soos alle ortodokse Christene glo nie.

    Verder het die “Jesus Seminar” lankal tot die slotsom gekom dat heelwat dinge wat Jesus volgens die kanonieke evangelies sou gesê het, inderdaad nooit deur hom gesê is nie. Ek vermoed Lukas 19:27 is ‘n goeie voorbeeld daarvan.

    Onthou, Bybelkunde 1 Les 1: Die 4 evangelies is NIE deur Mattheus, Markus, Lukas en Johannes geskryf NIE.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    October 27, 2012 at 03:37

  27. O shit, oom Piet is ‘n Jehovah. Julle weet, die manne van die “Ligtoring”.
    Net maar nog ‘n fokken sekte!!!

    ErickV

    October 26, 2012 at 08:20

  28. Oh, so now you want to ask questions, Chief Profanity Police Constable Piet “Profanity” Stassen? Without having answered anything yourself? And questions nogal that have been answered umpteen times on this blog? And for the koek oppie tjerrie add some more hollow threats from your Chief Inspector Skaaaaidêddieee?

    You’re a funny man, Constable. Shitfacedly hypocritical. Fuckin’ hilarious. Here, have a vrot raspberry. Pfffrrrt!

    Maybe things would be less taxing for you if you first attended to some more pressing and long-overdue matters. You know, like what your Chief Inspector Skaaaaidêddieee’s illegitimate son meant in Luke 19:27. And what this other psychopath, Martin Luther, had in mind when he took that gianormous runny dump on “reason”. And how this brainfart of “explaining” Big Mystery with Infinitely Incomprehensible Mystery makes any kind of sense to anyone whose cranium isn’t filled with manure.

    Come now, Constable, show us some honesty for a change. A man of your eminence and authority should really lead by example, you know.

      
      
    

    😆😛🙄😀:mrgreen:😀🙄😛😆😛🙄😀:mrgreen:😀🙄😛😆😛🙄😀:mrgreen:😀🙄😛

    Con-Tester

    October 25, 2012 at 10:08

  29. REMINDER

    Why do the nations rage, and the peoples meditate on a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers plot together, against Jehovah and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands in two and cast away their cords from us. He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; Jehovah shall mock at them. Then He shall speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His wrath. Yea, I have set My king on My holy hill, on Zion. I will declare the decree of Jehovah. He has said to Me, You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I shall give the nations for Your inheritance; and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. And now be wise, O kings; be instructed, O judges of the earth. Serve Jehovah with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled in but a little time. Blessed are all who put their trust in Him. (Psalms 2:1-12 MKJV, eSword).

    Piet Stassen

    October 25, 2012 at 08:36

  30. Oom piet skryf “…..the bright and Morning Star”.

    Oompie Piet, ek stel voor jy gaan lees die boek geskryf deur Laurence Gardiner “The Shaddow of Solomon” Dws as jy wel iets anders kan lees behalwe die bybel.
    Daar sal jy lees (agv jare se naslaan werk) dat The Morning Star = Venus = Luxfur = Licifer (Lux = ligmeting).
    Lees dan Joshua 45:7 (KJV)
    Daar sal jy lees dat god ook die bose geskape het.
    Ek het tot die slotsom (wat nie moeilik is nie) gekom dat God = Jesus = Satan = Lucifer!!!!!!!

    ErickV

    October 25, 2012 at 07:30

  31. Good one, Chief Profanity Police Constable Piet “Profanity” Stassen! So bloody original and damned unique, it’s positively frightening.

    But alas, it fails to address those as-yet unanswered questions. You know, about how it makes any kind of sense to “explain” Big Mystery with Infinitely Incomprehensible Mystery. Or what your demented megalomaniacal chum Jeeeeeebussssst! meant when he said what’s reported in Luke 19:27. Or what the fuck you’re trying to prove with this travesty you think of as “reason” in view of your hero Martin Luther’s take on the subject.

    A stuck record? You? Never! At least some parts of a stuck record are usually playable…

      
      
    

    :mrgreen: :D:😆🙄 :P:🙄😆😀:mrgreen: :D:😆🙄 :P:🙄😆😀:mrgreen: :D:😆🙄 :P:🙄😆😀

    Con-Tester

    October 23, 2012 at 14:46

  32. INVITATION [A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL ATHEISTS!].

    1. He who despised Moses’ Law died without mercy on the word of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy of punishment, the one who has trampled the Son of God, and who has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who has said, “Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, says the Lord.” And again, “The Lord shall judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:28-31 MKJV, eSword).\

    2. Come now, and let us reason together, says Jehovah; though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of Jehovah has spoken. (Isaiah 1:18-20 MKJV, eSword).

    3. Because if you confess the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Everyone believing on Him shall not be put to shame.” (Romans 10:9-11 MKJV, e-Sword).

    4. I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify these things to you over the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely. (Revelation 22:16-17 MKJV, eSword).

    [Jesus Christ still saves … today. Tomorrow may be too late].

    Piet Stassen

    October 23, 2012 at 14:23

  33. Dit help nie julle spot oom Piet nie. Hy glo dit is sy god wat hom beproef en dan voel hy goed oor homself as hy volhard met sy breindood stront.

    Shazee

    October 22, 2012 at 16:25

  34. It looks like the Profanity Police Corps has an admission criterion of maximum permissible IQ in the single digits. Tell me Constable, is that true? Did your Chief Inspector Skaaaaidêddieee decree it?

    Because this constant reiteration of bogus banalities, while charmingly amusing in its own way, can start wearing thin — sort of like watching a whole series of Teletubbies in one sitting. Too much of a brainless barrage all at once, see?

    Have these stodgily moronic tactics ever worked for you? Did they ever get you anything besides ridicule and being ignored? (I’m glossing over the doubtlessly fawning adulation heaped upon you by your fellow Profanity Police Corps officers ’cos that doesn’t really count, now does it?)

    Have you ever actually answered a question? Or even just attempted to do so? For example, giving a coherent explanation of what your Jewish hippie wannabe zombie-god who was nailed to a pair of planks meant when he said the words reported in Luke 19:27. Or supplying some kind of argument for how it makes any kind of sense to “explain” Big Mystery with Infinitely Incomprehensible Mystery. But maybe you should confine yourself to simpler things such as what your psychotic, Jew-hating inspiration, ol’ Martin Luther, had to say about reason.

    Could you do that? Just for a change from your mindlessly monotonous masturbation?

    I guess we all know the answer to that one, you funny Constable, you!

      
      
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    October 22, 2012 at 15:31

  35. Invitation declined, Piet. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if no-one believes it. People who say (as the writers you quote do) that a god spoke to them in a dream are saying nothing more than that they dreamt a god spoke to them. God came down from earth to save us from the hell He created? Do you know how protection rackets work?

    Jan Swart

    October 22, 2012 at 15:27

  36. Daan, gooi nog steeds so dan en wan ‘n ogie hier om te kyk of almal hulself darem nog gedra. Stem saam, mis ook die ‘ou geeste’ wat destyds hier kommentaar gelewer het. Mis veral Nathan so bydraes. Nathan, lees jy darem nog en wat het van jou geword?

    Aan die bittereindes, ek respekteer maar beny julle beslis nie. ‘n Mens kan mos nie argumenteer teen ‘n klomp ge-copy en paste plagiaat kak wat tot vervelens toe herhaal word nie.

    Maar verg voort, mense! Hierdie hensopper het ander dinge wat my aandag vereis.

    Beste

    Rick

    October 22, 2012 at 15:20

  37. A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY: AN OPEN INVITATION TO ALL ATHEISTS!

    1. He who despised Moses’ Law died without mercy on the word of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy of punishment, the one who has trampled the Son of God, and who has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who has said, “Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, says the Lord.” And again, “The Lord shall judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:28-31 MKJV, eSword).\

    2. Come now, and let us reason together, says Jehovah; though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of Jehovah has spoken. (Isaiah 1:18-20 MKJV, eSword).

    3. Because if you confess the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Everyone believing on Him shall not be put to shame.” (Romans 10:9-11 MKJV, e-Sword).

    4. I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify these things to you over the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely. (Revelation 22:16-17 MKJV, eSword).

    [Jesus Christ still saves … today. Tomorrow may be too late].

    Piet Stassen

    October 22, 2012 at 14:25

  38. Ho hum, how predictably pedestrian of you, Chief Profanity Police Constable Piet “Profanity” Stassen. Instead of addressing those long-standing questions which you have dodged, avoided and ignored like your typical bumbling godiot, you waste your time issuing invitations fraught with bullshit and unreason that nobody in their right mind would ever accept.

    So tell me Constable, do you really think your incessant repetitions and unoriginal plagiarisms impress anyone other than the aforesaid typical bumbling godiot? Maybe someone like Martin Luther, given what he said about reason? Or how about that Jewish wannabe zombie-god Jeeeeeeebusssssst! who spoke the words of Luke 19:27? Perhaps also the brain-dead vegetables who think that “explaining” Big Mystery with Infinitely Incomprehensible Mystery is any kind of explanation at all?

    D’ya thinks any of those would be impressed with your infantile baloney and your laughable intimidation twaddle? ’Cos I certainly do.

    And if, even more mundanely, it’s your aim to fight a war of attrition against Da Eeeeeebillll Afeist then don’t count on winning, see? You’ll have to come up with considerably more stupid hooey (if that is even possible) than what you keep on vomiting up all over this blog, see?

    Not that anyone can expect any of the above to penetrate such a veteran Chief Profanity Police Constable’s god-addled cranium.

    Con-Tester

    October 22, 2012 at 09:42

  39. THE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY: INVITATION TO ALL ATHEISTS

    1. He who despised Moses’ Law died without mercy on the word of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy of punishment, the one who has trampled the Son of God, and who has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who has said, “Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, says the Lord.” And again, “The Lord shall judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:28-31 MKJV, eSword).

    2. Come now, and let us reason together, says Jehovah; though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of Jehovah has spoken. (Isaiah 1:18-20 MKJV, eSword).

    3. I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify these things to you over the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely. (Revelation 22:16-17 MKJV, eSword).

    [Jesus Christ still saves … today. Tomorrow may be too late].

    Piet Stassen

    October 22, 2012 at 07:51

  40. Ou geDAANte,
    Dit lyk vir my jy gee glad nie om as C-T of enigiemand anders op hierdie blog vloek nie. Wanneer gaan jy jouself bekeer en oorkom na die Nuwedag Kerk van Ateiste, hmmm?

    verifanie

    October 22, 2012 at 07:15

  41. Shit, Constable Piet “Profanity” Stassen of the Profanity Police Corps, you reckon your boss — you know ol’ Chief Inspector Skaaaaidêddieee — would be impressed with your gormless repetition? Is that how you always get your man, eh? You bore them into confession? You get kicked out of court much for being a biased and unreliable witness? Do those magistrates ever slap you on the wrist for not answering questions, or maybe for pretending to answer with juvenile irrelevancies?

    But whatever. Your reports on “explaining” Big Mystery with Infinitely Incomprehensible Mystery, Jeeeeeeebussssssst! and what he said according to Luke 19:27 and Martin Luther?’s description of reason are all still missing. I don’t think your Chief Inspector Skaaaaidêddieee will be very impressed with your tardiness. Then again, given his own constant lethargy, he probably doesn’t give a shit either way, as is his typical manner.

    Con-Tester

    October 21, 2012 at 19:50

  42. He who despised Moses’ Law died without mercy on the word of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy of punishment, the one who has trampled the Son of God, and who has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who has said, “Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, says the Lord.” And again, “The Lord shall judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:28-31 MKJV, eSword).

    Piet Stassen

    October 21, 2012 at 18:02

  43. You are right, Con. This Stassen fellow is not only as crazy as a shithouse rat, he is even more despicable than Veryfanie. And that is saying a lot….

    Daan Van der Merwe

    October 21, 2012 at 17:37

  44. Well fuck me ragged if it isn’t ol’ Chief Profanity Police Constable Piet “Profanity” Stassen! And with an oooh-so-scaaaary message of doom for profane blasphemers such as I. I’m a-quakin’ in my Hush Puppies.

    Tell me Constable, why is your link broken? And are you trying — unsuccessfully — to hide behind your new moniker “evangelisasiersa”? Isn’t that a bit fucking hypocritical of you? Especially when you went to so much trouble accusing the atheists here of hiding behind noms de plume?

    Please explain this glaring fuck-up, Constable!

    Also, while you’re explaining, Constable, you should also explain your futile efforts to frighten blasphemers against the Holey Poep into redemption. After all, that source of Eternal and Immutable Truth™, the Holey Babble, sez quite clearly that this is the one unforgiveable sin!

    Finally, you’re still short a trio of coherent accounts, one of how it makes any sense whatsoever to “explain” Big Mystery with Infinitely Incomprehensible Mystery, the second for exactly what your poseurish Jewish wannabe-god zombie pal Jeeeeeeebussssssst! meant in Luke 19:27, and the third about how you seem to love Martin Luther’s take on how reason gives Satan blowjobs. Hotpoint indeed!

    Come now, Constable. A responsible officer of the Profanity Police Corps must meet his duty squarely. And you’ve been shirking far too long already.

    Con-Tester

    October 21, 2012 at 16:02

  45. “johannes”!!!

    Dagsê. Goed om jou hier raak te lees. Anders as Con weet ek jy is nie ons ou mal maat, Johannes Coezee nie.🙂 Ek hoop dit gaan goed met jou.

    Nee, dis ongelukkig nie die “same old faces” nie.

    Ek mis jou, Nathan, Rick, Savage en McBrollocks. En ja, selfs arme ou Hans het na baie jare die aftog geblaas. Soos Shazee destyds vir hom gesê het: “He is trying to defend the undefendable.”

    Gelukkig maak Erick darem so af en toe ‘n draai hier. (Naand Erick!!! Dankie vir jou kommentaar hierbo.)

    En ja, sedert ek en jy mekaar lank terug, toe ek nog vreeeeeeslik fundamentalisties was, verskriklik sleg gesê het, het hier ‘n enigsins weersinwekkende karakter sy opwagting gemaak. Ek het Doktor Phil in Amerika gebel en hom van hierdie ongure insek vertel. Al wat hy vir my gesê het was: “He needs fuckin’ help!”

    Daan Van der Merwe

    October 19, 2012 at 23:24

  46. He who despised Moses’ Law died without mercy on the word of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy of punishment, the one who has trampled the Son of God, and who has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who has said, “Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, says the Lord.” And again, “The Lord shall judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:28-31 MKJV, eSword).

    evangelisasiersa

    October 19, 2012 at 20:54

  47. Jirre jissis fôk my, dis weereens ou Johannes met sy onnosel fôkken wegraap kak! Same old story…!!!, eh what ol’ boy?

    Sê my Johannes, wanneer gaan ons almal nou weer opgefôk word deur jou gewelddadige skaaidêddie en sy buite-egtelike seun? Sê tog wat is die laatste datum vir die wegraping? En hoekom het jou pêl Harold Camping sy storie nou ten minste twee keer opgefoeter?

    En terwyl jy besig is om jouself te plesierig met jou eie kakstories, sê dan ook vir my hoe mens dit doen om jou naam heeltemaal doos te maak en dan nog steeds jou verminkte gesig te wys? Want fôkkit, daar’t net mooi fôkkôl van die voorspellings gebeur Mei tot Oktober verlede jaar.

    Het jy ’n nuwe datum vir ons, Johannes? Of wil jy nou net voorgee dat jou naam nie eintlik kak is nie?

    Con-Tester

    October 19, 2012 at 17:11

  48. same old faces….!!!

    johannes

    October 19, 2012 at 15:44

  49. veryfanie,
    Hou op om so te fokken vloek. Ek, die groot doos, hou nie daarvan nie!
    By the way, ou Daan is nie so ‘n kak ou nie. Hy is al baie “enlightened” vandat hy hierdie goddelose blog besoek.
    Ek dink hy byt jou net ‘n bietjie kak.

    ErickV

    October 19, 2012 at 09:06

  50. Morsdood…….

    Soos ‘n penis sonder Viagra

    verifanie

    October 18, 2012 at 07:55

  51. Haai ou geDAANte,
    Daar sit jy in jou kakie AWB uniform, en jy onthou goed wat jou mammie vir jou gese het oor die vieslike lelike woorde wat ander “lelike” mense uiter. Was jy goeie seuntjie gewees? Aag sjuim, jy onthou so mooi al die oulike goedjies wat jou mammie en pappie in jou kop ingedruk het, van dag een af. Nou is jy so poesbang vir daardie gottetjies wat jou so vreeslik gaan braai as jy “poep’ gese het.

    Hoe gaan dit met die Oros en die Vaseline? Smeer jy nog gereeld jou poepol elke dag? Maak jy nog deals met die Oros? Vertel vir ons wat jy alles al gekoop het met die Oros.

    Verlang jy nog na jou leier en hero, ou ET? Voel jy nie dalk nou sommer lus om ‘n klomp k………rs
    te gaan skiet nie? Maar vra maar eers vir die (dom) inee of die bybel dit goedkeur…..Julle gomgatte mag mos niks doen as die nie eers goedgekeur is deur die “experts” van daardie kak-boek nie, ne?

    verifanie

    October 14, 2012 at 20:48

  52. Ai Fanie. Dit was so lekker hier sonder jou vieslike “gefok” en “gepoes”. Is jy ‘n pervert? Wil jy nie maar asseblief van hierdie blog af wegbly nie?

    Daan Van der Merwe

    October 14, 2012 at 20:22

  53. Jeeeeeebusssssst! Kraaaissst, you’ve really done it now! Prepare for a lifetime of beratement and rebuke from the one, the only Profanity Police Chief Constable Piet “Profanity” Stassen. He’s the cop, the judge, the jury and the jailer who’ll catch, try and punish you (in the third person, mind) about all this profanity and blasphemy and other godless stuff that has issued from your keyboard.

      
      
    

    😆 But don’t worry: This chop’s condemnation is curiously attractive. It invites more of the same.😆

    Con-Tester

    October 13, 2012 at 23:31

  54. Hi C-T,
    Please enlighten me… Will it be really bad when or if the twisted arm reaches for me? …(Gulp)
    Since I’ve been incommunicado for so long, I wouldn’t know how awful it could be!
    What does he do….??!! How does he do it…??!! Will I survive it..? Oh my lawd! I better start
    praying…

    If he writes a load of SHIT, is one forced to read it? If I say FUCK, will he come for me?
    Is he an ASSHOLE? Or perhaps a big POES, like his GAWD? a DOOS? Will he MOER me?

    Kan hy my dalk goed DONDER of BLIKSEM? Of dalk OPFOK! (Gawd forbid)…..

    Perhaps the holy power of his gawd will give him the strength to do just that?

    I guess you’re right C-T, I should stop this FUCKING profanity. Right FUCKING now.

    verifanie

    October 13, 2012 at 20:07

  55. Careful there, verifanie! You don’t want the long and twisted arm of Profanity Police Chief Constable Piet “Profanity” Stassen reaching for you…

    Con-Tester

    October 13, 2012 at 10:42

  56. Fok,
    Hierdie blog is nou so mak soos ‘n hond met stert tussen die bene. Wat gaan aan? Ek was nou vir ‘n lang ruk stil, en toe ek weer lees toe sien ek dat ou Doffie, ou geDAANte, ou McBrollocks, ou Savage en Doffie skoon verdwyn het? Ek mis die lekker opwindende, lagwekkende, lekker-kak stryery en selfs beledigings van die ou dae……

    Kan ons dit weer laat herleef?

    Ek sit nou die dag en dink: Verbeel jou ‘n gesprek tussen ou arme jesussie en sy pappie, Big G.

    Jesussie: Dad, i believe that I am going to have to die?
    Big G: Yes, my DEAR beloved son, that is true.

    “But dad, is it really necessary?

    “Yes, my DEAREST BELOVED and ONLY son, whom I love more than anything in the universe that I created, you have to die…..

    “But dad……. Why?

    My DEAR BELOVED…..AND ONLY son whom I love more than anything…..It is so that I/we can FIX this horrible world that I have created. You see, people are sinning, and the ONLY way that I can think of that will SAVE them is if you die……

    “Will they then STOP SINNING dad?”

    “No, my son, they won’t, but you see, the logic is quite simple: ” If you die (a most horrible death)
    by being crucified, then at least you would have died FOR THEIR SINS, you see……. Alas, they will still go on sinning as ever……..

    “Does it have to be a horrible and painful death, dad?”

    “Well, my most beloved son…You see, I made a VERY big mistake when I created the earth and all of
    mankind, and i am now trying to fix it, you know, to correct it… you know, to make up for the awful mistake that I made…… And the ONLY WAY that I could have thought of is for you to die a most horrible death. Does that make sense to you , my beloved….

    Well dad….er……

    Sadly, my dear beloved and ONLY son, it has to be a most horrible and painful death, you see……

    verifanie

    October 12, 2012 at 22:10

  57. d’Holbach, in The System of Nature says: The source of man’s unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error.

    Pertinacity, blind opinions, slave of fiction — I don’t believe any of that because these presume a god oriented person is making conscious choices.
    Not true. You can’t expect Piet Stassen to understand anything you say to him. You exist on two different levels of the evolutionary process. His brain cells, like every other religious zealot’s, have not achieved 21st century maturation. If you want to communicate with him, you need a time machine to go back to his level or he needs one to come up to yours.
    Not his fault. He’s not making a choice to not understand. He can’t. According to one estimate, atheists make up less than 3% of the world’s population. Why do you think that’s the case? Because 10,000, 20,000 years or more are woefully insufficient for natural selection or function or adaption to replace, supersede or upgrade brain cells which are working perfectly fine for survival and reproduction of the species.
    Good grief, there are still plenty of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals among us. Give this guy a break.

    delqt

    October 9, 2012 at 00:53

  58. Heh-heh, ou I thi-i-i-i-ink but I could be wrong that Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen is trying to tell us that we can’t take back the “profanity” we post here. If so, it’s utterly hilarious that the boytjie would sink to the abysmal level of using the words of a guy who lived in the Muslim tradition and who may even have been a religious sceptic — a donnerse heretic, a blerrie pagan towel head’s words, would you believe!? — to bring this message. (That’s quite besides missing Omar Khayyám’s metaphor and using a dodgy rendition translation, nogal.)

    Hey Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen, you still haven’t even attempted to address my point about “explaining” Big Mystery with Infinitely Incomprehensible Mystery. Besides of course with your stock-in-trade, namely transparent BS and endless, mindless, gormless repetition. Reason still failing you as ever, eh? Must I remind you of what Martin Luther enabled for you and what he said about “reason”? How would that sit with you? Still not well at all, eh?

    Oh, and while you’re consulting your Holey Babble, have a gander what ol’ Jeeeeeebusssssst! commands in Luke 19:27. I’m sure you’ve got no end of special pleading to explain that one away…

    Con-Tester

    October 6, 2012 at 21:30

  59. The moving finger writes,
    And, having writ, moves on;
    Not all your piety nor wit,
    Shall lure it back to cancel half a line …
    Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.

    Piet Stassen

    October 6, 2012 at 13:52

  60. Die arrogansie bly verstommend. Wat laat die idiote dink ‘n skepper wat (volgens hulle) hierdie ondenkbare groot en wonderlike heelal geskep het, stel belang wat volwassenes met mekaar doen as hulle saam kaal in ‘n kamer is?
    Het hy nie iets fokken groter of belangriker om homself mee besig te hou nie?

    Shazee

    October 6, 2012 at 11:21

  61. Chalk up one more for religion on an immensely long list: Love, charity and tolerance, sparkplug church style.

    Con-Tester

    October 6, 2012 at 09:35

  62. High All Mighty,

    Ok, maybe I exaggerated a bit. That is no reason for you to call me petty.
    Sorry I forgot, being a godiot gives you the right to insult.
    Then you say that I have hatred? You are talking bull again, my friend. Actual fact, I have more compasion now for my fellow men after I lost my “faith” exept for people like you who sit on a high horse being just another dilusional godiot.
    I think that YOU have hatred for people who do not agree with your view

    ErickV

    October 5, 2012 at 06:16

  63. No, he can’t. If he could, he’d never have raised this tiredly dim-witted line of attack (and keep on raising it despite the rebuttals). And, as I have pointed out, his own beliefs are also vulnerable to the same criticisms — perhaps more so because they do not rest on anything more than superficially reasonable speculations.

    Physics may yet one day furnish compelling reasons (based on how nature fundamentally is) for why certain things must always happen the way they do, and thus also for why the Induction Problem is merely imaginary. Should that happen, any claims that all beliefs ultimately rest on faith fly straight out the window and onto the rubbish heap — except in the minds of certain brainless cavillers.

    Con-Tester

    October 3, 2012 at 12:30

  64. High Roller, what exactly is the point that you are trying to make?

    It seems to me that there is a hell of a difference between faith based on wishful thinking and rational “faith”.

    If I am a passenger on a commercial flight and I have “faith” that there is a better than average chance that I will arrive safely at my destination, that “faith” is based on a nodding acquaintance with the laws of physics. That is a rational believe of which the reasonableness has been tested repeatedly in a very practical way.

    Blind faith in a creator god, based on ancient myths, preserved in a discredited document written by ignorant goat-herds, cannot make any such claim.

    Can you see the difference?

    Shazee

    October 3, 2012 at 11:26

  65. Well, your “completely different world” is not so different. Or at all clever. As is typical with this kind of brain-dead argument, the crucial questions of evidence, of fact, of what is reasonable, of what is justified, of what can legitimately be inferred is just swept under the the-foundations-of-all-belief-rest-on-faith rug. Very, um, well thought through, I must say. Very, um, persuasive. Plus, the same is true of your own baloney, so it’s more than a little smug to raise this idea as if it didn’t apply to you also (or, indeed, as if they were anything besides rehashed postmodern hooey, besides being a favourite gambit of the cornered godiot).

    As for your blinded-by-hatred and being-offended jokes (and they are a lukewarm joke), it’s becoming ever more clear that you are blinded by deficient cogitation and more than just a streak of egomaniacal self-righteousness.

    BTW, it’s [i]ad hominem[/i]. And I’m relieved to read that “until [we] figure it out, [you] have no time for [us].” Maybe you can be consistent with your word for a change and keep it that way until you have figured out that we have you all figured out. All you have done so far is grapple with a straw man of what you think the atheism here is all about. And despite being repeatedly corrected, you are not able to see what’s really there and adapt your infantile, whiny views accordingly — just like a godiot, in fact.

    Con-Tester

    October 3, 2012 at 08:18

  66. Do you not know that all people have faith? One cannot speak to one who is (or at least truly believes that they are) standing on a chair and say that the chair does not exist. Whether it is a Christian refuting your claims or you refuting a Christian claim, you are both telling the other person that the ground on which they stand is either faulty or non-existant. That is the completely different world I speak of.
    I am, by the way, aware of many statistics concerning your petty exaggeration ErickV.
    A blind man cannot strike their foe except for a random and wild swinging; but they will never defeat them. You, my friends, are blinded by hatred. You also forget that I challenged the Christians too, yet you took it as an offence to yourself because you assume that anyone that is not as raving mad as you is against you. You take every challenge personally to the extent of ad-hominum hatred.
    I once heard a proverb saying that hatred is fear’s greatest mask.
    Perhaps you are simply angry and I am way off base, but until you figure it out, I have no time for you.
    I added my bit to see how deep in your hatred you were, and it seems that I guessed right.
    For when you finally hit your rope’s end, I offer this advice which you will innevitably reject for the time being:
    all people have faith; the question is, where does your faith take you?

    High Roller

    October 3, 2012 at 03:04

  67. High Roller,

    Just a thought.
    According to me 90% of Atheists became Atheist from being Godiots and about 10% only of Godiots became Godiots from being Atheists (if it is even so many). Do you understand what I am saying?
    So stop bulshitting yourself.

    ErickV

    September 28, 2012 at 08:14

  68. You haven’t understood very much of what I wrote, eh? Or read any further like I suggested, hmm?

    Trolling aside, that would explain why your inferences and conclusions are such a gormless shambles.

    The alternative explanation for your Clever Dick antics is too depressing to contemplate…

      
      
    

    😛:mrgreen:🙄:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:🙄:mrgreen:🙄:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:🙄:mrgreen:🙄:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:🙄😛

    Con-Tester

    September 28, 2012 at 08:12

  69. Gotcha !

    Shazee

    September 28, 2012 at 04:45

  70. Jip, definitely a troll.

    Shazee

    September 28, 2012 at 04:38

  71. If you are not interested in understanding, I can go elsewhere. I do warn you that there is more going on here than you expect. I’d suggest putting aside the ignorant hatred though, it isn’t helping anyone and you are giving Atheists a bad name. This being said, I can understand why you are upset; you are so convinced that your way is that of societal salvation that you have to preach your gospel of truth to all in hopes of saving people from the kingdom of darkness in religion. This post is great for class material though, keep up the good work!🙂

    High Roller

    September 28, 2012 at 04:28

  72. Do I smell a troll?

    Shazee

    September 28, 2012 at 04:18

  73. That’s fine. A lot of people I talk to aren’t up for the challenge. That is nothing to be ashamed of.

    High Roller

    September 27, 2012 at 23:17

  74. Typical stuffed-shirt deflection and babble. Challenge rejected. There are orders-of-magnitude more comments of mine on this blog than of yours, see? You can read them yourself. Or not. I won’t be trading ego-shots or doing your homework for you or any other indolent pontifical gasbag. Clear?

    And you’re free to make of it whatever tickles your tits for ya.

    Con-Tester

    September 27, 2012 at 21:47

  75. I am talking to Christians and Atheists btw.🙂

    High Roller

    September 27, 2012 at 21:16

  76. Instead of refuting your flaws of logic or interacting with your statements, I will do what I ask people to do from time to time: pro et contra–see the good and bad of an argument from both sides. I want you to use your, obviously, god-like… Sorry, bad term. For if it were god-like from your perspective then it would be non-existant😉 We’ll say, superior intellect, to contradict yourself or at least point out where others would. Point out your own flaws and fight another side (note, ‘another’ not ‘the other’).
    I want you to prove me wrong in my assumption of apples and stars. Form a decent pro et contra and get back to me. I’ve seen a few people do it, and I want to see if you can; if you can then I commend you, but if you can’t then you have no longer a right to speak as you just have.
    You must represent both sides equally, so don’t allow your bias to come in.
    Prove your point through an actual (and I do mean actual) effort to disprove it. This may take some research time though.
    Have fun!🙂

    High Roller

    September 27, 2012 at 21:15

  77. Oh dearie me, what utter self-serving kak you confect! The majority of atheists come directly from exactly the world of the godiot! It’s laughable to assert “different worlds” when the atheist is almost always, through direct and personal involvement, familiar with the precepts of the godiot but the godiot has only a straw man conception of the atheist stance (as you manage so very thoroughly to demonstrate above). The atheist simply demands considerably more rigorous intellectual standards. There is much research in cognitive science and psychology to support this too, one glaring example being a sizeable difference in the extent to which believers and non-believers are disturbed by instances of cognitive dissonance.

    Further to your self-important, touchy-feely, I’m-so-profoundly-and humanely-insightful-while-the-rest-of-you-are-so-blind accommodationist bullshit, there wouldn’t be much of a problem on two broad provisos. First, philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote the sage dictum, “Whereof thou cannot’st speak, thereof must thou pass over in silence.” Godiots are unable to state their tenets clearly and precisely and yet pretend to present “logical arguments” and “reasons” for belief. They regularly shift meanings and special-plead as necessary when challenged, so their notions are always shrouded in a thick cloak of murk. They cannot get their story straight to begin with, nor can they stick with it and they are never able to say, “I don’t know” on questions of their beliefs. They talk about “faith” as a virtue but can nonetheless rarely, if ever, help themselves from defending their bunkum with contrived “logic”. If instead they had the intellectual balls to admit that there may be at least some doubt and that they believe because, well, it is a comfort to them (and for no actually objective reason), things would be fine, great, hunky-dory, cool, etc.

    Second, they cannot help themselves at one point or another but to try at all costs to impose their bullshit on the rest of the world (as you manage so very thoroughly to demonstrate above). They’re actually so insecure about their beliefs that they need to vocally convincethe rest of the world of their truth (by any means, regardless how ridiculous) in the hope that if they get that right, it’ll cement their gumph in reality. It’s a well-known psychological phenomenon that consensus is comforting.

    The short of it is that things would be dandy if godiots and their bog-brained kin kept their shit to themselves instead of incessantly attacking that which doesn’t fit their juvenile worldview. To substantiate by way of an example, this blog goes very quiet, even somnolent, when there isn’t some puffed-up self-appointed cretin here on a mission trying (and failing abysmally) to defend the alleged merits of belief.

    Con-Tester

    September 27, 2012 at 20:45

  78. High Roller, you sound like you are an “I am an atheist but” kind.

    Your pseudo philosophical bulllshit is infantile to say the least.

    Being an atheist is not an “us” or “them” term. It simply refer to a person who is not prepared to shut down his mind to blindly and irrationally accept the world view of ancient, ignorant goat herds.

    Shazee

    September 27, 2012 at 20:39

  79. I believe you have used illogical hatred to blind yourself to my point. The knife cuts both ways my friend.

    I, for one, respect Christians for much of their work and actions in the past and do not condemn them simply because there have been people who claim their name while doing evil things; nor do I condemn them for faith. It is true that logical arguments cannot argue them out of their faith, but that does not mean that they are illogical; it just means they have a different presupposition. Atheists and Christians come from two completely different worlds. The basic fundamentals of logical discourse state that there must be a common ground, or else you are talking “apples and oranges” or as this case may be, Atheists and Christians (please don’t fight over who gets which fruit to represent them, although I know you would love to). It is true that there is evil in the world, and they have a reason for that. If you don’t accept it, fine; they don’t accept the eternality of matter that came from a big random explosion (or whatever theory you hold to)–get over it. They, however, have the presupposition of limitations where they cannot comprehend God as finite humans. Atheists often take the presupposition of ignorance to everything yet the ability to find it given enough time and research. In a sense, Atheists claim to be God(s) themselves, or at least a self-actualizing God similar to open-theism. There are exceptions to this of course, but the fact remains that you are arguing against the Christian view from an Atheist view, and the Christians are arguing against the Atheist view from a Christian view. Yes, you do use the Bible to refute them, and Christians are using some logic and science, etc. but you are arguing from your view because you cannot do anything else than argue from your view. In a sense, Atheists have just as much faith (some would say more) as Christians; they just place it elsewhere.

    What did the apple say to the star? Nothing. For one, an apple does not have a mouth, for two the star doesn’t have ears, and for three the distance between them is so massive that even if one and two were true they would have no chance of communicating.
    So how did the star respond? In ignorance. For one, a star does not have a mouth, for two, the apple does have ears, and for three the distance is so great between them that even if one and two were true they would still have no chance of communicating.

    This is why Atheists state that Christianity is illogical and why Christians (especially in the Reformed tradition) state that only God can draw people (only God can reveal God is one way of stating it). In a sense, you are both arguing the same thing from different places. The star and the apple are trying to converse, and what a surprise, there is a ‘slight’ disturbance in communication.

    What is the solution? Well simple: if you want to understand the Christian point of view you must be a Christian, if you want to understand the Atheists point of view you must become an Atheist. Any brave souls want to try this social experiment? Just a warning, you must fully believe that either God does, or doesn’t, exist respectively; you can’t go half way; you must have faith (or basic presupposition of belief for any Atheist scared of the term ‘faith’)

    High Roller

    September 27, 2012 at 19:36

  80. Man is a credulous animal, and must believe in something, in the absence of good grounds for believe, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
    (Bertrand Russel)

    Shazee

    September 27, 2012 at 09:24

  81. There, you see? Like I said: “No end of special pleading.” How much more plainly must Martin Luther’s anti-reason rant and Luke 19:27 be worded so that their meaning can penetrate the impervious skulls of the committed godiot? It’s just too funny for words.

      
      
    

    It’s an ironclad, documented fact that Crushtians typically don’t agree about very much, which is why there are about 39,000 recognised flavours of this nonsense globally. Some of them even differ on the fundamentals. Each labels the others as heretical. Wars and persecutions have ensued over this hooey. So much for these bullshit stories unifying humanity, and promoting harmony and goodwill. It’s a totally ridiculous charade.

      
      
    

    You’re also correct that it’s not possible to argue any religiot out of their beliefs. Their skill at slotting at all costs anything and everything into that juvenile framework is jaw-droppingly stunning in its ham-fistedness.

      
      
    

    All that remains is to ridicule the unutterable dullness and sterility of those beliefs.

      
      
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    September 27, 2012 at 09:01

  82. So this entire “Christian” thing is illogical?

    I’ve been saying it for years!

    Thanks for the confirmation, High Roller!

    Nathan Bond

    September 27, 2012 at 07:45

  83. What language are you reading Luke 19:27 in? The one I am reading seems pretty straight forward… It seems to imply that God’s enemies are screwed… Just saying… I know that isn’t a very logical answer, but that’s what it seems to mean from my perspective.
    Martin Luther stated that reason is a whore, from what I understand, because human logic can be used to prove a multitude of things and is flawed in its bias to things like the eloquence of the speaker. Whether you believe what Luther said or not, I think that’s what he meant. He was also coming from the perspective of a Christian speaking to Christians about how Christians used philosophy to solve Christian concerns. I don’t think he was too concerned about what a bunch of athiests a few hundred years later would think of his rejection of logic and philosophy. I don’t think all Christians agree about everything either. From what I have seen, while there is some (notice some) unity, there is quite a bit of fighting over ideas. Justin Martyr used logic quite a bit and was one of the first apologists. From speaking to them, Christians aren’t defined by what they believe, but by who they put their faith in. Some put their faith in science, some in logic, some in an alien overlord with a pink hat (or if not then it would be funny, but mostly sad, if they did), some in a divine being(s). I say this to point out the foolishness of this entire conversation. Non-Christians can bash Christians all they want, they have been doing it for a couple thousand years now so they have a lot of practice (yet not much creativity), but the fact will remain that Christians cannot be logically argued out of faith any more than someone can be logically argued into it. You can be given a logical argument that a chair will (or will not) hold you up when you sit down, but only faith (or lack there of) will determine your movement. Many people have been given a good explanation of why planes are safe, yet they still refuse to enter one. Many people have been logically refuted that there is no reason to be scared of spiders, yet they still are arachnaphobic. Many people have been given logical reason to accept or reject God(s) yet there are still two sides.
    I believe that this is some of what Luther was getting at, but correct me if I’m wrong… From the looks of it you guys are so addicted to fighting you’ll correct me if I’m right too… lol😛

    High Roller

    September 27, 2012 at 07:39

  84. BACK TO SCHOOL FOR GODIOTS: THE IRONY OF ALLEGED PROFANITY

    Both professional and recreational godiots exhibit an irrepressible desire to point out “profanity” whenever it suits their lamebrain agenda to do so. They do this as if it somehow bolstered their (wholly imaginary) moral superiority and gave their position some kind of factual substance.

    However, the godiot is typically oblivious to his/her own juvenile profanity that they commit without a moment’s hesitation or reflection. When pointed out to them, the invariable response is denial, denial, denial cloaked in piss-poor excusery, ruses, dodges, evasions and other contemptible gambits drawn from a veritable arsenal of intellectual dishonesty. The profanity of the godiot is to think it a fine thing to present the most childish of nonsense with a full expectation of being taken seriously, and in doing so paint his/her audience as a bunch of morons.

    Specifically, the professional and recreational godiot is so blithely vain and ludicrously conceited as to think he can simply dismiss the dedicated and rigorous work of many tens of thousands of scientists over fifteen-plus decades from a wide range of disciplines — and do so with nothing more than an incredulous swat using indefensible twaddle gleaned from an old fairytale book, nogal. What’s more, the godiot is so asininely arrogant, so petulantly puerile, as to expect — nay, implicitly demand — that such inane ignorance and idiotic impostures should be taken seriously and accorded any respect.

    In brief, the godiot is simply incapable of recognising his/her own profanity whenever s/he waxes effusive on matters s/he hasn’t the first fucking clue about.

      
      
    

    LIFE IS ABOUT CHOICES!

    1. By reason alone, choose not to believe a fucking word of it. It’s all touchy-feely bullshit that hasn’t the faintest hope of standing up under critical scrutiny.

    2. Readers who are interested in FREE ACCESS to online HOLEY BABBLE are advised simply to refer to the godiots’ asinine contributions on this site.

      
      
    

    Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen, you still haven’t even attempted to address my point about “explaining” Big Mystery with Infinitely Incomprehensible Mystery. Besides of course with your stock-in-trade, namely transparent BS and endless, mindless, gormless repetition. Reason still failing you as ever, eh? Must I remind you of what Martin Luther enabled for you and what he said about “reason”? How would that sit with you? Still not well at all, eh?

    Oh, and while you’re consulting your Holey Babble, have a gander what ol’ Jeeeeeebusssssst! commands in Luke 19:27. I’m sure you’ve got no end of special pleading to explain that one away…🙄

    Con-Tester

    September 21, 2012 at 17:46

  85. BACK TO SCHOOL FOR THE ATHEISTS: THE ANATOMY OF PROFANITY

    ‘Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language.’ [Acknowledgements: Wikipedia].

    LIFE IS ABOUT CHOICES!

    1. Dear unbiased reader … life is about CHOICES, and by the grace of God and the promises of the Holy Scriptures we must choose: (i) Either we listen to the gross yap-yapping of the diabolical hounds of hell and face eternal disillusionment; or (ii) we learn to trust the kind voice of the Gentle Shepherd from Nazareth (Jesus Christ) advising us to confess (admit) that we are sinners badly in need of a Saviour, and that we need to repent to find Eternal Peace. It is as easy as ABC … it’s a choice between DARKNESS (the obsolete religious-cult of ‘atheism-evolutionism’) and LIGHT (the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ).

    2. Readers who are interested in FREE ACCESS to online BIBLES (dozens of TRANSLATIONS!) + the downloadable SOFTWARE (optional) are advised to visit the website: http://www.e-sword.net.

    3. Readers who are interested in seeing the long LIST of SCIENTISTS DISSENTING FROM DARWINISM may visit the Web at: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

    Kind regards,
    Piet Stassen.

    NO COST INVITATION!

    “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify these things to you over the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely!” [Revelation 22:16-17 MKJV, eSword].

    ACCEPTANCE OF INVITATION (A PERSONAL PLEDGE).

    Dear Lord Jesus Christ, I herewith renounce the religious-cult of atheism-evolutionism and unbelief today publicly, and accept You as my personal Lord and Saviour. Like so many millions had done before me, I confess my sins and human fallibility, and ask You today to cover me with the righteousness of Christ. I do not trust in my own merit or in any personal righteousness, but trust in the power of the Almighty God (i.e. YHVH) to save me through the blood and sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary and grant me the forgiveness of sins and the peace of mind only the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can ever give.

    [Signed] [Date]

    (Copy, paste ans sign this pledge today).

    Piet Stassen

    September 14, 2012 at 23:23

  86. MYSTERIES EXPLAINED (CONTINUED).

    SOLUTION #23: Because expert godiots are so drenched in their own god-sauce that they are blinded to the fact of the abysmal standard that they set, and so unremittingly hypocritical as to then bleat and whine indecently about it when the only fitting response to their delusional bullshit is issued. Moreover, because expert godiots’ hollow bluster about eternal post-mortem punishment for assorted imaginary and victimless crimes is too fucking hilarious for words.

    SOLUTION #24: Because expert godiots are unable of thinking in anything but the most basic literal terms and so they cannot help but infer bitterness, cynicism, profanity, blasphemy and vulgarity where in fact there is no more than ridicule.

      
      
    

    LIFE IS ABOUT CHOICES!

    1. By reason alone, choose not to believe a fucking word of it. It’s all touchy-feely bullshit that hasn’t the faintest hope of standing up under critical scrutiny.

    2. Readers who are interested in FREE ACCESS to online HOLEY BABBLE are advised simply to refer to the godiots’ contributions on this site.

      
      
    

    Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen, you still haven’t even attempted to address my point about “explaining” Big Mystery with Infinitely Incomprehensible Mystery. Besides of course with your stock-in-trade, namely transparent BS and endless, mindless, gormless repetition. Reason still failing you as ever, eh? Must I remind you of what Martin Luther enabled for you and what he said about “reason”? How would that sit with you? Still not well at all, eh?

    Oh, and while you’re consulting your Holey Babble, have a gander what ol’ Jeeeeeebusssssst! commands in Luke 19:27. I’m sure you’ve got no end of special pleading to explain that one away…🙄

    Con-Tester

    September 14, 2012 at 22:38

  87. Het julle al opgemerk hoe Oom Piet nooit ‘n argument met ‘n teen- argument van sy eie antwoord nie?

    Hy verander keer op keer eerder die onderwerp as om ‘n korreksie of uitdaging aan te spreek.

    Shazee

    September 14, 2012 at 21:13

  88. 23. MYSTERY #23. The mystery discussed here is the apparent inability of amateur-atheists to write a decent paragraph in this blog without eventually ‘devolving’ into the lowest degree of vulgarity, profanity and blasphemy. Many readers may not know it yet, but this mystery has actually been cleared up, for it is now a well-known fact that a foul, bitter spring cannot produce sweet and clean (drinkable) water; and a rotten root cannot produce sweet (edible) fruit. “By their fruits ye shall know them!” Jesus had warned. Or, as I have mentioned before, it may simply be as the result of a severely limited vocabulary and lack of a rudimentary education.

    It is anyway nothing new … we were introduced to this kind of thing already during the 1960’s when we had to suffer the vitriolic verbal abuse of our apartheid-masters and their lackeys, i.e. our drill-instructors in the army. Furthermore, this kind of heavily-spiced language is no stranger to anarchy, despotism, fascism, Nazi-ism, communism and, of course, the now-obsolete religious-cult of atheism-evolutionism. (It comes with the territory). The million-rouble question: How will the atheist-evolutionists in the future, on Judgment Day, erase or withdraw their cruel insults of God and Jesus Christ? The hard, concrete evidence will be here for everybody in the Universe to peruse, chiseled FOREVER into the relentless and unforgiving GRANITE of this blog .. unless they make an about-turn, repent and accept Jesus as Saviour and Master of the Universe. The window of opportunity is not necessarily already shut. Even a wise old sage such as the Persian, Omar Khayyam, had warned centuries ago:

    “The moving finger writes,
    And, having writ, moves on;
    Not all your piety or wit shall lure it back
    to cancel half a line;
    Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.”

    The writing may never be erased … but the Bible teaches that blessed is the man whose sin will not be reckoned to him! Grab that opportunity for forgiveness still today … tomorrow may be too late. So the mystery remains: What do atheist-evolutionists use as a NORM or a MORAL STANDARD? In the total absence of a MORAL COMPASS, why would murder, robbery, theft, stealing and house-breaking be wrong for them? And why do they so spinelessly submit to the ‘idiot’ [sic] Christians’ demand for them to wear clothes … why don’t they walk around naked like real ‘primates’. Why are they scared of the Christians’ enforcement of the Biblical norms and rules of public decency (i.e. the mandatory wearing of clothes)? If the atheist-evolutionists are correct, why won’t the ‘fittest’ take charge of their own lives and take their power back?

    24. MYSTERY #24. The atheist-evolutionists I have met on this blog and on the Net in general are so bitter, cynical, profane, blasphemous and vulgar that it testifies only of one major and sad thing: Lots and lots of frustration, hidden hostilities, trapped anger and unresolved psychological issues and hangups that had by now rendered them socially completely dysfunctional. In fact, I have come to the final conclusion that it must be hell-on-earth to be married to an atheist-evolutionist, that is to say, if they indeed ever get married. In conversation, most atheist-evolutionists also claim that they have “no sin” and that they “don’t stand in need of a forgiving Saviour”. They are, in other words, for all practical purposes, claiming ‘absolute sinlessness’ i.e. ‘ABSOLUTE PERFECTION’. Now how do they reconcile that paradoxical position with the atheist-teaching of ‘moral relativism’ i.e. that there are no such things as any cosmic ABSOLUTES?

    Dear reader, the invitation still stands for you to escape the wasted years of atheism and unbelief:

    Wasted years, wasted years … Oh how foolish!
    As you walk down the pathway of life.
    Turn around, turn around … God is calling;
    He’s calling you from a life of wasted years!

    LIFE IS ABOUT CHOICES!

    1. Dear unbiased reader … life is about CHOICES, and by the grace of God and the promises of the Holy Scriptures we must choose: (i) Either we listen to the gross yap-yapping of the diabolical hounds of hell and face eternal disillusionment; or (ii) we learn to trust the kind voice of the Gentle Shepherd from Nazareth (Jesus Christ) advising us to confess (admit) that we are sinners badly in need of a Saviour, and that we need to repent to find Eternal Peace. It is as easy as ABC … it’s a choice between DARKNESS (the obsolete religious-cult of ‘atheism-evolutionism’) and LIGHT (the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ).

    2. Readers who are interested in FREE ACCESS to online BIBLES (dozens of translations) + the downloadable SOFTWARE (optional) are advised to visit the website: http://www.e-sword.net.

    Kind regards,
    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    September 14, 2012 at 20:55

  89. MYSTERIES EXPLAINED (CONTINUED).

    SOLUTION #22: Because it is far beyond even expert godiots’ capabilities to grasp fairly simple concepts such as reductio ad absurdum and the perfectly reasonable tactic of pointing out the infantile absurdities and brain-dead bunkum expert godiots so love to spout.

      
      
    

    DEBRIEFING: Expert godiots so love to spout infantile absurdities and brain-dead bunkum because they are neither able nor prepared to recognise it as such, preferring to promote wilful ignorance and deliberate stupidity as among the greatest of virtues.

      
      
    

    LIFE IS ABOUT CHOICES!

    1. Choose not to believe a fucking word of it. It’s all touchy-feely bullshit that hasn’t the faintest hope of standing up under critical scrutiny.

    2. Readers who are interested in FREE ACCESS to online HOLEY BABBLE are advised simply to refer to the godiots’ contributions on this site.

      
      
    

    Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen, you still haven’t even attempted to address my point about “explaining” Big Mystery with Infinitely Incomprehensible Mystery. Besides of course your stock-in-trade, namely transparent BS. Reason still failing you as ever, eh? Must I remind you of what Martin Luther enabled for you and what he said about “reason”? How would that sit with you? Still not well at all, eh?

    Oh, and while you’re consulting your Holey Babble, have a gander what ol’ Jeeeeeebusssssst! commands in Luke 19:27. I’m sure you’ve got no end of special pleading to explain that one away…🙄

    Con-Tester

    September 14, 2012 at 16:45

  90. Oom piet, wat is ‘n amateur ateis? Is dit nou iemand wat amper nie aan jou primitiewe bygelofies glo nie, of iemand wat onlangs begin twyfel het, of wat?

    Ek sien ook jy weet net so min van die reg af as wat jy van die wetenskap van ewolusie af weet.

    Die westerse gemene reg het sy oorsprong in die Romeinse gemene reg ( jy mag nie sonder ‘n regverdiginngs grond ‘n mens doodmaak nie, jy mag nie steel nie, jy mag nie ongeregverdig verryk word ens)

    Dieselfde geld vir die delikte reg (aanranding, naamskending ens)

    Die Romeinse reg is tydens die renaicance in Europa geresepteer omdat daar met die opbloei van die ekenomie ‘n behoefte ontstaan het na ‘n meer gesofistikeerde regstelsel as die kanonieke reg wat tydens die middel eeue in Europa gegeld het.
    Hierdie reg is na die hele westerse wereld uitgevoer, en ook later na die nuwe wereld.
    Na suid Afrika via Holland, dus die Romeins-Hollandse gemene reg.

    Die punt is, Oom piet, dat die Romeine hulle reg oor eeue ontwikkel het, lank voor Konstantyn sy pypdroom gehad het en die christelike geloof as amptelike godsdiens van die Romeinse ryk verklaar het.
    Hierdie reg is ontwikkel deur goddelose heidene wat Jupiter en Mars aanbid het.

    Die tien gebooie, inderdaad!

    Shazee

    September 14, 2012 at 16:14

  91. MYSTERIES OF THE UNEXPLAINED (CONTINUED).

    22. MYSTERY #22. The unbiased reader will probably find this also a very puzzling mystery: Why do young, amateur-atheists so persistently and enthusiastically quote people like (i) Martin Luther (a Believer) as well as (ii) The Holy Scriptures (God’s Word) in their arguments? Isn’t that a serious philosophical anomaly? How can one quote Martin Luther with the same mouth and breath that had, in principle, rejected the credentials of Martin Luther as a Believer in the first place? How dare one quote The Holy Scriptures (Bible) when one had just rejected the authority and credentials of the Holy Scriptures in principle just a few minutes earlier? The philosophical inconsistencies of the atheists are simply amazing. My advice to the amateur-atheists: Guys, you are suppose to quote from your own ‘authorities’ and ‘scriptures’, not from ours. You cannot use the Bible as the instrument-of-choice to prove that the same Bible is unreliable … it is a philosophical paradox. Besides, a kingdom divided against itself will not stand.

    DEBRIEFING: Amateur-atheists do this because they actually silently, deep down in their hearts, know that Believers like that (Luther) are probably worth quoting, i.e. they have quotable credibility. Likewise do they quote The Holy Scriptures because they subconsciously wish to concede the authority of the Bible as the Word of God, i.e. they’ve known, since childhood, that the Bible has (Universal) quotable credibility. It is not surprising at all, for in their confessed absence and rejection of ‘intelligent design’ as a Cosmic Principle in the first place, amateur-atheists have no other recourse (as I have mentioned before) to piggy-back on the momentum of people and historical documents with actual quotable vector-qualities, i.e. people and historical documents with (i) actual measureable direction and (ii) actual measureable velocity (speed). At least the amateur-atheists are displaying the remarkable courtesy of not slapping us and wasting our time with quotes from zero-credibility persons like Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, Lamarck & Goldberg. The amateur-atheists have obviously discovered that, for real effect, they’d probably need quotes with actual clout, e.g. quotes from Luther and the Bible.

    LIFE IS ABOUT CHOICES!

    1. Dear unbiased reader … life is about CHOICES, and by the grace of God and the promises of the Holy Scriptures we must choose: (i) Either we listen to the gross yap-yapping of the diabolical hounds of hell and face eternal disillusionment; or (ii) we learn to trust the kind voice of the Gentle Shepherd from Nazareth (Jesus Christ) advising us to confess (admit) that we are sinners badly in need of a Saviour, and that we need to repent to find Eternal Peace. It is as easy as ABC … it’s a choice between DARKNESS (the obsolete religious-cult of ‘atheism-evolutionism’) and LIGHT (the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ).

    2. Readers who are interested in FREE ACCESS to online BIBLES (dozens of translations) + the downloadable SOFTWARE (optional) are advised to visit the website: http://www.e-sword.net.

    Kind regards,
    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    September 14, 2012 at 15:18

  92. Oompie Piet,

    Gaan lees dan Isaia 45:7 (KJV).

    Op die ou einde van die dag kom ‘n mens tot die slotsom dat die seun van god lucifer is.
    God het mos boosheid ook geskape.
    Maar nou ja, julle is so deurmekaar dat julle nie weet wat om te glo nie. Dit is hoekom daar 39,000 geregistreerde christelike denominasies (of sal ek se demonasies) is!

    ErickV

    September 14, 2012 at 12:40

  93. Oompie Piet,

    Lees aub my kommetaar oor Openbaring 22:16 in die “God” onderwerp.

    ErickV

    September 14, 2012 at 12:29

  94. LIFE IS ABOUT CHOICES!

    1. Dear unbiased reader … life is about CHOICES, and by the grace of God and the promises of the Holy Scriptures we must choose: (i) Either we listen to the gross yap-yapping of the diabolical hounds of hell and face eternal disillusionment; or (ii) we learn to trust the kind voice of the Gentle Shepherd from Nazareth (Jesus Christ) advising us to confess (admit) that we are sinners badly in need of a Saviour, and that we need to repent to find Eternal Peace. It is as easy as ABC … it’s a choice between DARKNESS (the obsolete religious-cult of ‘atheism-evolutionism’) and LIGHT (the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ).

    2. Readers who are interested in FREE ACCESS to online BIBLES (dozens of translations) + the downloadable SOFTWARE (optional) are advised to visit the website: http://www.e-sword.net.

    Kind regards,
    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    September 14, 2012 at 11:12

  95. Dit lyk my Oompie piet is ‘n Dissipel van Kent Hovind!

    ErickV

    September 14, 2012 at 09:29

  96. behaviourists in the field of primate behaviour today is the most fascinating, non-conformist phenomenon where no ape, baboon or monkey changes into a human being after only 6 beers … strange.

    19. MYSTERY #19. Dear reader, have you ever seen or observed the atheist-evolutionists’ so-called ‘Geologic Column’ with your own eyes? Don’t worry, I haven’t either. Next time you meet an atheist-evolutionist, ask him or her to accompany you to a mine, an excavation-site or a hole in the ground where they will help you observe the so-called ‘Geologic Column’ as depicted in their textbooks, encyclopae17. MYSTERY #17. Another mystery is that many readers may still be living under the impression that all scientists believe in ‘Evolution’. Why they do so I don’t understand, for few things could be further from the truth. There are many scientists who do not believe in ‘Evolution’ … in fact, they seem to find ‘Evolutionary Theory’ an acute embarrassment for their profession (join the club!). Question: What does the religious-cult of Darwinism (‘Evolutionism’) and a white elephant have in common? Well, both are BIG, completely USELESS and are WORSHIPPED with religious fervour; with WITS University as the theological seminary, ‘Evolutionism’ as the religious doctrine and Charles Darwin as the ‘guru’. The name of the latest fossil found at Sterkfontein? (‘Ridiculipithecus conjecturalensis’).

    Darwin-worship in the religious-cult of ‘Atheism-Evolutionism’ has now escalated to the preposterous level where, for instance, in China, one may question Darwin, but never the emperor; in the West, one may question the emperor (and even drag him to Court) but never Darwin. It’s absolutely pathetic how the lay ‘evolutionists’ (including those commenting on this blog) have been brainwashed by the academic elite. Readers who may be interested in thus seeing a list of all the dissenting scientists in the World (who reject the religious-cult of ‘Evolutionism’ outright) may click on the website http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org for an exhaustive list of names (please download, copy and distribute).

    18. MYSTERY #18. Apparently the cost of living has gone up … for no ape, baboon or monkey can be seen ‘evolving’ any longer today. Maybe they are the dropouts of society, the failures of life who didn’t make the grade. Nor can any hippo’s (Southern Hemisphere) or brown bears (Northern Hemisphere) be seen changing into ‘whales’ today. ‘Evolution’ only seem to ‘happen’ in textbooks and encyclopaedias, or on wall-charts and of course, on TV (National Geographic), but I have yet to meet a person, who has seen ‘Evolution’ actually happening before his very own eyes. Another peculiar trait apparently being studied by dias and on their wall-charts. If they do, please let me know where that spot is (please send me the GPS-coordinates). It probably will be the 8th Wonder of the World. The ‘Geologic Column’ probably only exists (in the format taught by the atheist-evolutionists) in their imagination. The atheist-evolutionists appear to have some trouble distinguishing between true science and science-fiction.

    20. MYSTERY #20. How does a children’s fairy tale begin? “Long, long ago … !” How does the atheist-evolutionists’ fairy tale begin? “Millions, millions of years ago … !” (The mystery is that the public cannot see the connection here). Nevertheless, the atheist-evolutionists teach that “life on planet Earth evolved from a primordial, oxygen-free atmosphere long ago after it had been raining on the Earth for millions of years.” Now, how can the primordial atmosphere on Earth at the time have been ‘oxygen-free’ if it indeed had been raining on the Earth for ‘millions of years’? Isn’t water composed of H2O (hydrogen + oxygen)?

    21. MYSTERY #21. Dear reader, please forgive those on this blog who persist with their nauseating profanity and blasphemy … as Jesus has said long ago: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” But He has also forewarned: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” I also used to be an atheist in my twenties when I was still ‘evolving’, but fortunately that humble Carpenter-Rabbi from Nazareth made me see the Light. Why they cannot see their folly of rejecting Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the World boggles the mind, but that’s essentially there problem, not mine.

    even God’s mercy is as wide as the proverbial ocean, but God will not necessarily plead forever … the Bible teaches that even His patience may eventually run out, and what then? How does one erase the harsh words spoken against Him and so irresponsibly accumulated on this blog on the Day of Judgment? Then the atheist-evolutionists will run around befuddled, confused and haphazardly like the so-called ‘brave’, ‘disciplined’ and ‘organised’ Nazis had done when the Americans, British and Russians entered their concentration camps during WWII and started collecting their deadly documentary evidence and Court-exhibits for the Nuremburg Trials … it will be so FINAL, FINAL, FINAL. (“Houston … help, we’ve got a problem!”).

    INVITATION:
    FREE ACCESS TO ONLINE BIBLES & FREE DOWNLOADABLE eLITERATURE.

    1. Readers who are interested in free access to online Bibles (dozens of translations) may do so at the website: http://www.e-sword.net
    2. For free, downloadable eLiterature: www:scribd.com/PietStassen.
    3. Website: http://www.evangelismrsa.blogspot.com

    Kind regards,
    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    September 13, 2012 at 22:54

  97. Oom piet, ek sien jy weet net so min van die reg af as wat jy van ewolusie weet. Die tien gebooie nogal!
    Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone powered by Virgin Mobile

    jopperman33@gmail.com

    September 13, 2012 at 20:47

  98. The “Higgs Boson”? Sounds fuckin’ bizzare. Sounds like an euforism for a certain part of the male anatomy. As in “He made her quite mad, so she kicked him squarely in the higgs boson.”

    Piet, ek sien jy is weer op jou stukke. ‘n Stukkie goedbedoelde advies: So lank jy bly vaskleef aan jou fundamentalistiese Christelike oortuigings, bly hier weg!!!! Hierdie goddelose klomp vabonde gan jou eet soos ‘n fokken mielie!!!

    Vra maar vir arme ou Hans.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 13, 2012 at 20:10

  99. MYSTERIES EXPLAINED (CONTINUED).

    SOLUTION #14: Because, once again, the pretences and ironies in this question are immeasurably thicker than all the world’s godiots stacked end-to-end and because godiots’ infantile infatuation with atrocious analogies and pathetic parallels is simply unrivalled.

    SOLUTION #15: Because godiots are unable to follow even the most straightforward of ideas and hence miss the wood for all the misshapen trees.

    SOLUTION #16: Because godiots are always keen on Ye Olde Unwarranted Inference, or YOUI, and have a deep and abiding love for bald ex recto assertions that have no basis in fact (or “ZILCH, ZERO” as they would have it).

      
      
    

    Million-dollar question 1: Will godiots ever comprehend the elementary notion that morality is a social phenomenon, the emergence of which in social animals is readily explicable in terms of evolutionary benefits it confers? That, in fact, a certain minimum morality in the shape of rules of conduct inevitably and naturally arises for all social animals?

    Million-dollar question 2: Will godiots ever comprehend the elementary notion that morality doesn’t derive from a fairytale, but rather that their childish ideas about morality’s origin and purpose are what prompt the construction of hilarious fairytales around it?

      
      
    

    THE IRONY OF A GODIOT’S SUPPOSED LOVE EVEN FOR A NON-GODIOT

    The committed godiot is intent on lecturing the world about all manner of things, including free will. Yet, said godiot fervently seeks to abolish selfsame free will where it clashes with his immature and ultimately selfish vision for the world, which is in direct conflict with the godiot’s supreme hero’s edicts. And the godiot will still insist that s/he’s doing it out of love…

      
      
    

    INVITATION

    Reason says:

    Don’t believe a fucking word of it. It’s all touchy-feely bullshit that hasn’t a hope of standing up under critical scrutiny.

      
      
    

    FREE ACCESS TO ONLINE HOLEY BABBLE

    Just read the godiots’ contributions on this site.

      
      
    

    Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen, you still haven’t even attempted to address my point with anything besides transparent BS. Reason still failing you as ever, eh? Must I remind you of what Martin Luther enabled for you and what he said about “reason”? How would that sit with you? Not well, eh?

    Con-Tester

    September 13, 2012 at 17:48

  100. MYSTERIES OF THE UNEXPLAINED (CONTINUED)

    14. MYSTERY #14. Why do atheist-evolutionists invariably plagiarize (or rather, cannibalize) the inputs of Christians on blogs? Where I come from it is considered unethical. But, I am not surprised … what would atheist-evolutionists know about ethics? When they persist in renouncing the concept and facility of ‘intelligent design’ as a Cosmic Reality in the first place to begin with, what other recourse do they have? They simply have to ride on the momentum on those individuals with actual vector-characteristics, i.e. on those people with (i) actual measurable direction and (ii) actual measureable velocity. May I also remind the atheist-evolutionists, who had obviously opted for the ‘attractive’ (convenient) kingdom of ignorance and darkness, that the velocity of light (in a vacuum) is approx. 300 000 kms. per second. The velocity of darkness, however is ZILCH, ZERO. Life is about choices. My advice to the atheist-evolutionists: Choose LIGHT (Jesus Christ, the LIGHT of the World) and live.

    15. MYSTERY #15. Why do atheist-evolutionists quote traditional Christian leaders on blogs? One participant on this blog persists, against all atheist-logic, on quoting Martin Luther, ad infinitum. This said participant doesn’t believe in God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, the Gospel or the Church … but Martin Luther is actually his hero? Isn’t that a philosophical anomaly? One would think that he would have preferred to quote Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, Goldsmith, or Tobias … but Luther? Incredible! But, if Luther is worth following and quoting, why does’t this participant follow Luther’s advice to repent and believe? After all, it was the great Luther who had said: “The just shall live by faith!” But this participant probably only quotes what is relevant for him, and their it ends. The rest is discarded (We call that ‘hypocrisy’). Look on the upside: This way, he could, just like a broken clock, even fool some by being correct at least twice a day.

    16. MYSTERY #16. If atheist-evolutionists were to have their way and had free reign to rule this World, what would atheist-evolutionists then use as NORMS? How would they distinguish wrong from right? Keep in mind that modern jurisprudence has been founded on, among others, Judeo-Christian Law; Roman-Dutch Law; English-Scots Law etc. Were the atheist-evolutionists to take over the government, they would, of necessity, have to destroy our proud judiciary with its well-developed contemporary jurisprudence and start all over again, because most of it is founded on principles from the BIBLE (“Thou shalt not kill’, etc.). They will have to remove GOD and Theism completely from the Justice System, and invent their own from scratch.

    Million-dollar question 1: What (or WHO) would they use as a NORM? Atilla the Hun? Rasputin the Monk? Saddam Hussein? Idi Amin? Josef Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Pol Pot? Osama Bin Laden? Bluebeard? Jack The Ripper? What would they use as a NORM? Please note the question: What would real atheist-evolutionists use as a norm; not what would superficial, chameleon-type atheist-evolutionists (who quote Martin Luther) use as a norm. Where would there system of ethics come from? What would they use as a MORAL STANDARD? Mao’s ‘Red Book’? The ‘Communist Manifesto’?

    Million-dollar question 2. In the absence of a MORAL STANDARD or NORM, what do atheist-evolutionists then (and even today) use as a MORAL STANDARD or NORM? For atheist-evolutionists, what makes MURDER wrong? For them, and their system of ideology, what makes hijacking, rape, serial-killings, robbery, housebreaking, corruption, stealing, embezzling etc. wrong? What will they then (or even today) use to maintain law and order in society? In fact, it is the very fact and reality of our Judeo-Christian ethical legacy that today guarantees the atheist-evolutionists’ freedom of speech and the opportunity to comment without fear or favour on this blog. What did Hitler, Stalin, Pot etc. all have in common? They all believed in ‘Evolution’). And where are they today?

    THE IRONY OF GOD’S LOVE EVEN FOR ATHEIST-EVOLUTIONISTS

    Jesus made the tree on which He was crucified; He made the mouths and lips that cursed Him; He made the rocks with which they pelted Him; He made the hands that plucked the beard from His face and wielded the cruel cat o’ nine tails whip; He made the water they so freely enjoyed but denied Him in the day of His greatest thirst. The atheist-evolutionists of today do the same: God made the lips of those atheist-evolutionists that curse Him and renounce Him on atheist-blogs; God made the brain and fingers with which they operate their pathetic little laptops; God made the tongues with which they curse Jesus Christ; God made the digestive systems with which they enjoy God’s merciful bounty … and this is what they give back to Him? Profanity? Vulgarity? Blasphemy? (“The moving finger writes …”).

    INVITATION

    Jesus says:

    “All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.” (Matthew 11:27-30, MKJV eSword).

    FREE ACCESS TO ONLINE BIBLES

    1. Readers who are interested in free access to online Bibles (dozens of translations) may do so at the website: http://www.e-sword.net
    2. Free, downloadable eLiterature is available at the Scribd-site www:scribd.com/PietStassen

    Kind regards,
    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    September 13, 2012 at 15:29

  101. MYSTERIES EXPLAINED (CONTINUED).

    DEBRIEFING: Dear honest, sincere and open-minded reader, by now you must surely have noticed that, in the absence of the godiots’ overtly obvious antipathy toward and absence of anything that could rightly be labelled “reasoning”, it is invariably difficult for them to make any sense at all, and they probably have no other recourse but to ritualise into onanistic mantra-like laments of “poor abused me” and “how rude you are” gibberish. This is doubtlessly due to ever-present god-spectacles coupled with the inability to exercise even the most basic of critical faculties where their faith is concerned.

    SOLUTION #11: Because godiots are ever keen to distort and trivialise a position that they are unable to assess fairly, and because what the godiots offer as meaningful is a pack of ridiculous, incoherent and unsustainable fairytales.

    SOLUTION #12: Because godiots are not equipped to understand that their ideas of what constitutes meaning and morality are utterly laughable and therefore they feel compelled to meddle in and to pontificate about the choice of others.

    INVITATION: Please feel free to take your godiot invitations to “a better life” and stuff ’em up your nose (or whichever other bodily orifice of yours is big enough to embrace all the bullshit they come wrapped in).

    Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen, you still haven’t addressed my point in any way. Reason failing you as ever, eh? Must I remind you of what Martin Luther enabled for you and what he said about “reason”? Would you like that?

    Con-Tester

    September 13, 2012 at 08:32

  102. Oom piet, waarom vra jy nie vir jou god om vir jou “n “crash-proof space car” te gee nie?
    As hy jou gebede beantwoord sal ek dadelik tot bekering kom, ek wou nog altyd my eie “space car” gehad het.

    Shazee

    September 13, 2012 at 03:57

  103. MYSTERIES OF THE UNEXPLAINED (CONTINUED).

    DEBRIEFING. Dear honest, sincere and open-minded reader, by now you must surely have noticed that, in the absence of the atheist-evolutionist’s self-confessed antipathy toward and absence of ‘intelligent design’ in his/her theoretical constructs, it is sometimes difficult for them to make any sense at all, and they probably have no other recourse but to ‘devolve’ into coarse insults, name-calling and all kinds of sickening profanity and blasphemy etc. As mentioned before, it may also result because of a lack of rudimentary education, or perhaps a perverted sense of good, old-fashioned social protocol and etiquette. It’s not necessarily all their fault, however … they will probably anyway blame ‘Evolution’ for their conspicuous lack of social finesse and breeding. It all depends where they currently are riding on their particular anthropological ‘evolving-curve’. Not to worry … I cannot offer them perfection, so I don’t expect it from them either.

    11. MYSTERY #11: Let’s be ruthlessly honest: What have the atheist-evolutionists to offer but NOTHING? If the atheist-evolutionists’ religious-cult of ‘Evolution’ were correct, and there is no such ‘things’ as a GOD, a Heaven, a Gospel, Salvation, Forgiveness of sins, Everlasting Life and a universal Saviour (Jesus Christ, Master of the Universe) but only the prospect of death and the biological recycling of our bodies back into the compost heaps of Nature, then what do the atheist-evolutionists really have to offer mankind? Woody Allen once remarked that he would never join a club that would accept him as a member. Likewise, who in his or her right mind would thus join an organisation (the ‘Evolution’ crowd) with nothing to offer but dead men’s bones, dirty yellow skulls, an exhibition-table with a wheelbarrowful of insanitary fossils, a mythical, non-existent ‘Geologic Column’ and eternal death? (TIP: Next time when you speak with a confessing atheist-evolutionist, dare him/her to go and point out the ‘Geologic Column’ to you as depicted on their wall-charts and in their textbooks. They probably cannot do it, because the so-called ‘Geologic Column’ does not exist in the way they depict it and in the way they say it does).

    If this (‘Evolution’) were all nevertheless true, why would anyone be anyway interested in listening to their story at all? Without a message of hope and the prospects of Eternal Life, why would anyone be interested in anything more but just surviving another day? Their ideology, in other words, is not practicable. They are just wasting their own and everybody else’s time. If they were correct in certain aspects of their elaborate ‘theory’ (with the emphasis on ‘theory’, the opposite of ‘fact’) then I would anyway rather spend my precious day smelling the flowers, walking through the aromatic woods on a rainy day and listening to beautiful music, than to waste my time with an organisation and a message promising absolutely NOTHING but death.

    12. MYSTERY #12. What has gone wrong with so-called ‘Evolution’? According to the religious-cult of atheism-evolutionism, ‘Evolution’ is supposed to improve (‘evolve’) the ‘species’ over time progressively, yet humans have degenerated over time instead, and have not improved as promised by the evolutionists. In fact, even today’s primates are better behaved than humans (‘homo sapiens sapiens’): Apes,baboons and monkeys do not use cheap, disgusting perfume, hijack cars, sell their daughters as slaves to wealthy moguls, or murder old people on lonely farms for a lousy, cheap-rate, worn-out cellphone and a few miserable pennies. And, to further add insult to injury, the religious-cult of atheism-evolutionism is sponsored by the ignorant taxpayer, the only religious-cult in the Word to exercise this exclusive privilege (weird).

    Years ago people used to drool over a certain Tibetan mystic and read his books by the dozen on all kinds of oriental topics such as astral projection, transcendental meditation, etc. He was eventually exposed as an Englishman living in London just posing as a mystic (it is not his fault if the public is gullible and he’s got five-star PR!). But what a disappointment to his adherents and fans nevertheless! Maybe the time has arrived for ‘Evolutionary Theory’ also to come out of the closet and confess that it is not a legitimate natural science, but a Government-sponsored religious-cult posing as a science. Had ‘Evolutionary Theory’ never taken on 150 years ago, prompting Governments and Universities to waste precious budget-allocations on fairy tale ‘Evolution’ research and field trips, technology would probably have been so advanced today that we could have been dashing around in colourful, crash-proof space-cars (navigated by holographic, 3D traffic-signs and GPS) by now. Makes one think, doesn’t it?

    INVITATION

    For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but have Everlasting Life (John 3:16).

    Kind regards,
    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    September 13, 2012 at 00:48

  104. SOLUTION #1: Because godiots have slyly contrived it so that professing atheism is like shitting on the dinner table. The tide is turning, though.

    SOLUTION #2: Because it offends godiots who are otherwise immune to reason, facts, evidence and/or logic concerning their beliefs.

    SOLUTION #3: Because the pretence and irony in this question is thicker than all the world’s godiots stacked end-to-end and because godiots can’t distinguish reasoned argument from self-serving drivel.

    SOLUTION #4: Because godiots’ understanding of the scientific method is so deficient and so extensively interspersed with straw men as to defy rectification.

    SOLUTION #5: Because godiots are blatant liars (variously acutely ignorant) about what evolution says.

    SOLUTION #6: Because godiots are so extremely fond of ill-informed, even asinine, and false analogies.

    SOLUTION #7: Because godiots so love to torture convenient meaning from their detractors’ words.

    DEBRIEFING: Jeeeeeeebussssst! Crutch, so by godiots’ contorted and laughable evidentiary standards, atheists’ blasphemy substantiates the godiots’ beliefs. Holy shit, Batman! What’s next?

    SOLUTION #8: Because godiots just can’t get their heads around the fact that the overwhelming consensus among relevant experts from a whole spectrum of disciplines is that IDiocy is not science, that IDiocy answers exactly nothing, that it only defers questions and that it is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”.

    SOLUTION #9: Because godiots are unable to fathom any explanation that doesn’t involve sin (“original” or otherwise) for this human trait.

    SOLUTION #10: Because godiots are incapable of understanding that their moral judgements and condemnations of others’ choices are juvenile, unjustifiable and devoid of any merit.

    So Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen, still can’t address my point there, eh? Reason is such bitch, eh? Your no-doubt hilarious ex post facto contextual “explanations” notwithstanding, even the bloke who not only made it possible for you to air your lightweight pseudo-intellectual musings but who also made it possible for you to be a lightweight pseudo-intellectual in the first place, one Martin Luther, spake thus about reason (appropriate emphasis added):

    But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil’s greatest whore.

    Con-Tester

    September 12, 2012 at 19:48

  105. MYSTERIES OF THE UNEXPLAINED (CONTINUED).

    DEBRIEFING. I report back on MYSTERY #2 (‘Why do atheists always insist on such crude, vulgar, profane and blasphemous language?’). This mystery has been partially solved. Research by behaviour scientists has shown that people, when they curse or swear, always swear and curse by invoking the ‘gods’ (deity). Few people have been found to curse or swear by the names of Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse or Woody Woodpecker. When people curse, they use ‘real names’ of ‘real entities’, and specifically, the names of deity. It would for instance make no psychological or theological sense to swear by fictional names and figures, such as those of Santa Claus, Little Red Riding Hood or the Tooth Fairy. Atheists, in other words, invariably swear by or curse ‘Jesus Christ’ … a dead give-away therein that they actually concede His existence and authority as a Deity. To make cursing and swearing valid, the name sworn or cursed by must be Deity, otherwise it would not be ‘legit’. Dear reader, check it out for yourself … people do not swear and curse by the names of Batman, Superman or Spiderman. It invariably is ‘Jesus Christ’. (Conceded, it is totally possible that some speak like that probably due to a lack of rudimentary education).

    8. MYSTERY #8: What do atheist-evolutionists propose to do with their sin when Jesus Christ, the gentle Shepherd they had trampled underfoot and rejected in life, returns and the Great White Throne Judgment commences? Are they just going to stand there and try and argue with the Master of the Universe (Jesus Christ) about ‘creationism versus evolutionism’? Are they going to plead ‘ignorance’, or submit a ‘temporary insanity’ plea? The Bible teaches that the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanseth from all sin. What does one do when one stands in Eternity facing the very person whose sacrificing blood and vicarious sacrifice one earlier had so vehemently rejected; or stand facing the only one whose signature can effect an absolute universal amnesty for common sinners like us? (Or do atheists never sin? Amazing!).

    Message to atheists: Guys, I realise that, in terms of your particular brand of faith (the religious cult of ‘Atheism-Evolutionism’) you reject the principle of Intelligent Design (it is obvious in your profane and blasphemous comments), but how about a temporary moratorium on your ‘corporate’ policy so that your members can actually apply intelligent design for a while and rationally try and sort out their precarious position (without Christ) without the burden of academic interference by their confused and irresponsible leadership?

    9. MYSTERY #9: Why do the atheist-evolutionists wear clothes to cover their nakedness? Who forced them to wear clothes? Clothes are expensive … why wear clothes at all? Remember, Christians wear clothes because of (i) the influence of Bible doctrine and (ii) the phenomenon of embarrassment, both culminating from the Genesis-theology and -history about the Fall of Man in Eden. But, why do atheist-evolutionists submit themselves to this humiliating doctrine and culture; why on Earth do they not walk around naked? Are they actually telling the Christians that they (the Christians) are correct? Are they (the atheist-evolutionists) by wearing clothes actually authenticating and validating the Genesis-story of Creation and the fall of man in Eden? Why can’t they change the municipal-regulations and by-laws to allow them to walk around naked? Have they no academic clout at city councils at all?

    By the way, what has in the meantime happened to the ‘survival of the fittest?’ By wearing clothes, are the atheist-evolutionists not then submitting to the social rules of the ‘competing species’ (the Christians)? How come the atheist-evolutionists have been coerced into wearing clothes … are they (the atheist-evolutionists) actually admitting to be the weaker, inferior species? They certainly will not survive as the fittest in this way, so why not stand on their rights and refuse to wear clothes? Walk around naked for all I care. But, let’s be honest: They simply could not, even if they had the right and permission to do so; they would be hopelessly too embarrassed to do that, thus validating the Bible-history about the fall of man in Eden and his subsequent nagging ‘primordial’ hangup over his nakedness, especially in public. Ask any regular citizen in the land … his or her worst dream at night is usually turning up stark naked at work or at school … WHY?

    10. MYSTERY #10. If life is all about CHOICES, why do the atheist-evolutionists always choose the bad and the ugly? Why do they invariably (during debates etc.) lapse into crude language and those brutal social interpersonal styles that so obnoxiously alienate the very people who want to help them? Do they have a death wish or something? Were they abused as children or what? Is it perhaps due to the debilitating influence of peer pressure (the desire to conform to the opinions of the dumb, ignorant masses just to be popular in the group)? What is the psychology of their strange and aberrant behaviour? Why the proverbial chip on the shoulder … is it because of some hidden hostility or unvented anger? Furthermore, if GOD does not exist, why do they hate Him so much? Why swear at Him and insult Him in the media, on the Net and in their books … have they gone completely berserk? Do they not realise that by insulting GOD that they are actually confirming His Deity and underwriting His existence? Perhaps the greatest of all mysteries: If He doesn’t exist, why does GOD upset them so much? And why do atheists probably talk more about GOD than any other category of ‘homo sapiens sapiens’ on Earth?

    INVITATION

    There is a place of quiet rest, near to the heart of God;
    A place where sin cannot molest, near to the heart of God
    Jesus, blessed Redeemer, sent from the heart of God;
    Hold us who wait before Thee, near to the heart of God!

    Kind regards,
    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    September 12, 2012 at 18:22

  106. Oom Piet, ek sien jy het nog steeds nie gaan oplees oor ewolusie nie.
    Wat het Lamarckisme met ewolusie te doen?
    Sal graag wil weet watse “advanced degree” jy gaan kry met al die onkundige stront wat jy al hier kwytgeraak het.

    Daar is geen “mystery” omtrent die skuilname wat ateiste gebruik nie : as my werkgewer uitvind ek is ‘n goddelose ongelowige is ek my werk kwyt. Hy is net so ‘n opregte, “wedergebore” godioot soos jy, oom Piet.

    Shazee

    September 12, 2012 at 15:39

  107. MYSTERIES OF THE UNEXPLAINED

    There are so many I do not even know where to begin first:

    1. MYSTERY #1. Why do atheists use aliases on the Internet? Are they perhaps ashamed of their arguments, ideology and worldview? No wonder … in their fragile intellectual moccasins I would have been embarrassed too, and severely so. Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens were some of the few who had actually displayed the moral nerve to come out of the atheist-closet and acknowledge their outright rejection of the Rock of Ages, Jesus Christ. But, alas, Hitchens got such a thorough hiding from William Lane Craig that poor Dawkins is still reeling … he has now jumped back into the closet, too scared stiff to debate Craig. He should have taken a hint from some of the guys on this blog and used an alias (but we can’t all be geniuses, can we?).

    2. MYSTERY #2. Why do atheists always insist on such crude, vulgar, profane and blasphemous language? What is psychologically wrong with them? Where were they raised, and by whom? In fact, one does not even have to actually listen to their arguments … only a cursory glance at the type of vocabulary they use in their text is more than enough to reveal the author as a virulent atheist. Without the crude parts to hold it up the text would probably collapse completely into pure gibberish. For instance, I recently decided to read a book written by an atheist that he had been advertising widely on the Web. I thought … let’s give the man a sporting chance, let’s listen what he has to say. About 45 minutes and 60 pages later I had to give it up for a bad job. The text was so saturated with boring and disgusting expletives, profanity, vulgarity and blasphemy that I later couldn’t take it anymore. It was like trying to eat pizza from a dung-heap (I was battling too much to distinguish the one from the other).

    3. MYSTERY #3. Why do atheists always expect the theists (believers) to reply to their (meaningless) statements, arguments and questions, but they rarely if ever actually reply to ours? I have written enough material on these blogs to almost constitute an academic dissertation for an advanced degree, and all they can do is to lapse into insults, vitriolic verbal abuse and meaningless pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-scientific rhetoric about some mysterious man with a dog. But, no wonder … Jesus Christ has warned: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

    4. MYSTERY #4. Why do the atheists invariably push back the goalposts and adjust the ‘truth’ continually as they go along? Ptolemy’s ‘scientific truth’ (that the Sun is a disk only 30 centimetres in diameter) is totally obsolete today. Today’s ‘scientific truth’ (‘Evolution’) will probably be totally obsolete by the year 3012, if it indeed will take that long. The palaeontologists tell us that Mogale City in South Africa is the ‘cradle of humankind’, while respectable archaeologists tell us that the ‘Fertile Crescent’ in old Mesopotamia is the true cradle of humankind. Which one of these two ‘absolute scientific truths’ is the correct one? The evolutionists tell us that there are four different schools in ‘Evolutionary Theory’: (i) Darwinism (‘Natural Selection’); (ii) Neo-Darwinism (Natural Selection + Beneficial Mutations’); Hopeful Monster Theory (‘Punctuated Equilibrium’) and Lamarckism (‘Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics’). Which one of the four ‘absolute scientific truths’ is the correct one?

    5. MYSTERY #5: How can Neo-Darwinism (‘Natural Selection’ + ‘Beneficial Mutations’) be true when most respectable scientists (in biogenetics) tell us that there are no such things as ‘beneficial mutations’? How can ‘Natural Selection’ be part of the ‘Evolution’ recipe when evolutionists tell us that Intelligent Design did not feature in Creation? (What else is ‘Natural Selection’ than intelligent design in action?). How can ‘Lamarckism’ be true when every busy mother will tell you that, after ‘4,6 billion years’, her gender still only has two hands? How on Earth can ‘Punctuated Equilibrium’ be true … goodness gracious, it is outdated 19th Century science-fiction on steroids (i.e. “A crocodile lays an egg but a bird hatches out.”).

    6. MYSTERY #6: Why do atheist-evolutionists object to ‘Intelligent Design’ (in Creationist-arguments) while they use the very ‘intelligent design’ that they object to in their planning of museums, universities, textbooks, debates, symposiums; education in public schools (at the expense of the poor taxpayer); in fossil-catalogues; and with the development of their fictional, mythical, non-existent so-called ‘Geologic Column’? They even have the audacity to try to employ ‘intelligent design’ on this very blog. Next time, following this comment, just notice with what fervour they endeavour to employ ‘intelligent design’ in their (futile) refutations of my FAITH (in Jesus Christ as the undisputed Creator of the Universe).

    7. MYSTERY #7: Why do atheist-evolutionists always say: “I BELIEVE in ‘Evolution!’ ? Isn’t that religious terminology? But, if they have the facts (’empirical proof’) as they claim, then why use religious terminology? They use religious terminology because ‘Atheism-Evolutionism’ is a full-blown religious cult. Some of the miracles that atheist-evolutionists believe in are so incredible that no wonder it has to be taken religiously by faith. As I have mentioned before, the famous Goethe, a man with a reputed estimated IQ of 210, has said: “Evolutionary Theory is knowledge not worth knowing.” Another atheist once said: “There is no such thing as Absolute Truth.” (meaning a GOD). Well, come to think of it, if he is correct, then he is lying (‘There is no such thing as Absolute Truth’, remember?). And, if he is lying, there is such a thing as Absolute Truth (GOD) after all.

    But here is Absolute Truth worth knowing, and is it no mystery any longer:

    What a friend we have in Jesus,
    All our sins and griefs to bear.
    What a privilege to carry,
    Everything to GOD in prayer.
    Oh, what peace we often forfeit;
    Oh, what needless pain we bear!
    All because we do not carry,
    Everything to GOD in prayer!

    Kind regards,
    Piet Stassen. .

    Piet Stassen

    September 12, 2012 at 11:39

  108. Bullshit, Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen.

    Still can’t address my point there, eh? Evasion the only viable tactic, eh?

    Figures.

    Con-Tester

    September 12, 2012 at 08:01

  109. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord [Romans 6:23].

    Piet Stassen

    September 12, 2012 at 07:28

  110. Can’t address my point there, Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen?

    Not surprising, really. Reason can be such bitch, eh? Even that guy to whom you owe not only your pseudointellectual ruminations, but also the freedom to be a pseudointellectual, one Martin Luther, had this to say about reason:

    Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.

    Con-Tester

    September 11, 2012 at 20:47

  111. Al van “Pascal’s wager” gehoor prof?

    Jou god sal redelik onnosel moet wees om my in die hemel toe te laat bloot omdat ek voorgegee het ek glo, net vir die wis of die onwis.

    Hy sal verseker nie alwetend kan wees nie.

    Shazee

    September 11, 2012 at 20:30

  112. Your Pet Atheism: Just Remember, It Could Be For Keeps!

    1. Scenario A: What If The Christians Were Wrong? What if the Christians were wrong and the Atheist-Evolutionists were right? What if there were no such entities as a God, the Bible, Jesus Christ or a Messiah; no Salvation; no Forgiveness of Sins; no Reconciliation with God, no Absolute Morality or no Eternal Life? Would it really have mattered? What if there were no such things as a Heavenly Judge, a Heavenly Court and a Great White Throne Judgment? Would it indeed then really have mattered? The religious cult of Atheism-Evolutionism does not demand retribution, restitution or eternal punishment for renegade unbelievers, so would it really have mattered? Will anybody be the worse off for having been a Believer and a Christian? Of course not, for in terms of the Atheism-Evolutionism worldview, the bodies and corpses of the bio-degradable human race would probably only be reabsorbed back into the soil and into Nature, and finally ecologically recycled with the rest of the bio-degradable [organic] material on Earth. The upside will be that Believers and Christians will at least have led relatively decent, clean, healthy and exemplary lives built on a sound doctrine of social ethics and morality, albeit eventually [according to the atheist-evolutionists] to no ‘eternal’ avail.

    2. Scenario B: What If The Atheist-Evolutionists Were Wrong? If the Atheist-Evolutionists were wrong then all hell will probably one day break loose, and will this irresponsible gamble with the concept of Atheism-Evolutionism really have been worth your while? Suddenly, overnight, a holy God will demand moral accountability from us all; the Great White Throne Judgment will suddenly become a hard physical reality and the Bible will have finally proved absolutely valid and true. What a ghastly scenario to contemplate! Remember, the contract will have had no escape-clause or any special provision for a last minute reprieve for renegade unbelievers … the die will have been cast. Is that what Atheist-Evolutionists really want? What has happened to the old adage of ‘discretion is the better part of valour’? Wouldn’t it then make sense to today make our peace with God, concede to our incorrigible personal moral depravity and try and negotiate one’s precarious moral position with Him while there is still time and hope? God is not unreasonable … maybe He is now waiting just for that move from you. The Bible says:

    ‘Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you.’ [James 4:8a MKJV, eSword].

    3. The Great Fire Escape. The good news is that where there is still life, there is still hope. Ideally, one should submit to the Lordship of Christ out of love and admiration, and not out of fear. It would appear, however, as if some people are only driven by unpleasant ultimatums and some hard choices. The point is … the die has not yet been cast yet and the Great White Throne Judgment is still in the ‘distant’ future with, to top it all, a priceless invitation from the humblest Person in the Universe … Jesus of Nazareth:

    “All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.” [Matthew 11:27-30 MKJV, eSword].
    “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify these things to you over the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely.” [Revelation 22:16-17 MKJV, eSword].

    Reminder: Jesus saves today … tomorrow may be too late.

    R.S.V.P. [Take The WATER of LIFE Freely!]

    Heavenly Father, I herewith accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour. Please forgive my sins and write my name in the Lamb’s Book Of Life. I put my trust in the righteousness and sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary.

    Signed Date

    Your Pet Atheism: Just Remember, It’s For Keeps!
    Scenario A: What If The Christians Were Wrong? What if the Christians were wrong and the Atheist-Evolutionists were right? What if there were no such entities as a God, the Bible, Jesus Christ or a Messiah; no Salvation; no Forgiveness of Sins; no Reconciliation with God, no Absolute Morality or no Eternal Life? Would it really have mattered? What if there were no such things as a Heavenly Judge, a Heavenly Court and a Great White Throne Judgment? Would it indeed then really have mattered? The religious cult of Atheism-Evolutionism does not demand retribution, restitution or eternal punishment for renegade unbelievers, so would it really have mattered? Will anybody be the worse off for having been a Believer and a Christian? Of course not, for in terms of the Atheism-Evolutionism worldview, the bodies and corpses of the bio-degradable human race would probably only be reabsorbed back into the soil and into Nature, and finally ecologically recycled with the rest of the bio-degradable [organic] material on Earth. The upside will be that Believers and Christians will at least have led relatively decent, clean, healthy and exemplary lives built on a sound doctrine of social ethics and morality, albeit eventually [according to the atheist-evolutionists] to no ‘eternal’ avail.
    Scenario B: What If The Atheist-Evolutionists Were Wrong? If the Atheist-Evolutionists were wrong then all hell will probably one day break loose, and will this irresponsible gamble with the concept of Atheism-Evolutionism really have been worth your while? Suddenly, overnight, a holy God will demand moral accountability from us all; the Great White Throne Judgment will suddenly become a hard physical reality and the Bible will have finally proved absolutely valid and true. What a ghastly scenario to contemplate! Remember, the contract will have had no escape-clause or any special provision for a last minute reprieve for renegade unbelievers … the die will have been cast. Is that what Atheist-Evolutionists really want? What has happened to the old adage of ‘discretion is the better part of valour’? Wouldn’t it then make sense to today make our peace with God, concede to our incorrigible personal moral depravity and try and negotiate one’s precarious moral position with Him while there is still time and hope? God is not unreasonable … maybe He is now waiting just for that move from you. The Bible says:

    Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. [James 4:8a MKJV, eSword].

    The Great Fire Escape. The good news is that where there is still life, there is still hope. Ideally, one should submit to the Lordship of Christ out of love and admiration, and not out of fear. It would appear, however, as if some people are only driven by unpleasant ultimatums and some hard choices. The point is … the die has not yet been cast yet and the Great White Throne Judgment is still in the ‘distant’ future with, to top it all, a priceless invitation from the humblest Person in the Universe … Jesus of Nazareth:

    All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light. [Matthew 11:27-30 MKJV, eSword].
    I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify these things to you over the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely. [Revelation 22:16-17 MKJV, eSword].

    R.S.V.P. [Take The WATER of LIFE Freely!]

    Heavenly Father, I herewith accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour. Please forgive my sins and write my name in the Lamb’s Book Of Life. I put my trust in the righteousness and sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary.

    Signed Date

    Scenario A: What If The Christians Were Wrong? What if the Christians were wrong and the Atheist-Evolutionists were right? What if there were no such entities as a God, the Bible, Jesus Christ or a Messiah; no Salvation; no Forgiveness of Sins; no Reconciliation with God, no Absolute Morality or no Eternal Life? Would it really have mattered? What if there were no such things as a Heavenly Judge, a Heavenly Court and a Great White Throne Judgment? Would it indeed then really have mattered? The religious cult of Atheism-Evolutionism does not demand retribution, restitution or eternal punishment for renegade unbelievers, so would it really have mattered? Will anybody be the worse off for having been a Believer and a Christian? Of course not, for in terms of the Atheism-Evolutionism worldview, the bodies and corpses of the bio-degradable human race would probably only be reabsorbed back into the soil and into Nature, and finally ecologically recycled with the rest of the bio-degradable [organic] material on Earth. The upside will be that Believers and Christians will at least have led relatively decent, clean, healthy and exemplary lives built on a sound doctrine of social ethics and morality, albeit eventually [according to the atheist-evolutionists] to no ‘eternal’ avail.
    Scenario B: What If The Atheist-Evolutionists Were Wrong? If the Atheist-Evolutionists were wrong then all hell will probably one day break loose, and will this irresponsible gamble with the concept of Atheism-Evolutionism really have been worth your while? Suddenly, overnight, a holy God will demand moral accountability from us all; the Great White Throne Judgment will suddenly become a hard physical reality and the Bible will have finally proved absolutely valid and true. What a ghastly scenario to contemplate! Remember, the contract will have had no escape-clause or any special provision for a last minute reprieve for renegade unbelievers … the die will have been cast. Is that what Atheist-Evolutionists really want? What has happened to the old adage of ‘discretion is the better part of valour’? Wouldn’t it then make sense to today make our peace with God, concede to our incorrigible personal moral depravity and try and negotiate one’s precarious moral position with Him while there is still time and hope? God is not unreasonable … maybe He is now waiting just for that move from you. The Bible says:

    Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. [James 4:8a MKJV, eSword].

    The Great Fire Escape. The good news is that where there is still life, there is still hope. Ideally, one should submit to the Lordship of Christ out of love and admiration, and not out of fear. It would appear, however, as if some people are only driven by unpleasant ultimatums and some hard choices. The point is … the die has not yet been cast yet and the Great White Throne Judgment is still in the ‘distant’ future with, to top it all, a priceless invitation from the humblest Person in the Universe … Jesus of Nazareth:

    All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him. Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light. [Matthew 11:27-30 MKJV, eSword].
    I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify these things to you over the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one hearing say, Come! And let the one who is thirsty come. And he willing, let him take of the Water of Life freely. [Revelation 22:16-17 MKJV, eSword].

    R.S.V.P. [Take The WATER of LIFE Freely!]

    Heavenly Father, I herewith accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour. Please forgive my sins and write my name in the Lamb’s Book Of Life. I put my trust in the righteousness and sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary.

    Signed Date

    [Download, print and sign this pledge today … tomorrow may be too late]

    [

    Piet Stassen

    September 11, 2012 at 19:52

  113. One minor correction there, ou Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen: Mathematics doesn’t recognise any “mathematics of infinity”. There is an algebra of transfinite numbers, though. But there you’ll seek in vain for any skydaddy. I’m not Einstein, but you’re welcome to test my understanding of the topic of transfinite numbers if you like, see?

    And your claim about your skydaddy in this context is shallow: To you, reality is explicable by referencing said skydaddy, who, in your own words, “cannot be explained by physical physics and finite mathematics.” In other words, you’re happy to say that Big Mystery is explained by Infinite Monumental Mystery and leave it at that.

    Very compelling, Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen. Hilariously so.

    Con-Tester

    September 11, 2012 at 19:37

  114. Come now, Prof Piet “Profanity” Stassen, this concoction of “Oooh, you naughty atheists can’t explain this!” drenched in god-sauce is well below your habitually abysmal standard.

    Surely you can do better and dredge even more preposterously confected fundie twaddle from your fundamental orifice.

    Please amaze us with your stunning ontological insights, as derived from your astonishing grasp of your Holey Babble and Mr Skydaddy, it’s ostensible three-for-the-price-of-one author. Coming from you, they’re always a right treat.

    Con-Tester

    September 11, 2012 at 19:14

  115. 1. The ‘infinite regress’ objection mentioned by one participant does nevertheless not nullify the fact that God has created the Universe. (GOD does not believe in atheists, so atheists do not exist? Ridiculous … in other words, GOD is not going to go away just because atheists do not believe in Him). In the Cosmic Contract, it is GOD who dictates the terms, not humans.

    2. God was never ‘created’. The Bible explicitly teaches that JESUS CHRIST is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, meaning that GOD, the uncreated Creator, has no beginning and no end. GOD was never ‘created’ … He simply IS. He exists beyond the constraints of ordinary, three-dimensional time and space. People who cite the ‘infinite regress’ objection and then naively roll out the problem of the question: “Then who created GOD?” probably does not understand the mathematics of infinity. No born-again Christian will ever ask such an impertinent question.

    3. GOD cannot be explained by physical physics and finite mathematics. GOD, if He is could be explained at all, would have to be explained by metaphysical physics and the mathematics of infinity, i.e. the physics and mathematics that existed long before this Universe with its ordinary physical physics and finite mathematics were revealed to us mortals in the way we know it today. Now, if even Albert Einstein did not understand the mathematics of infinity, how do the participants on this blog, myself included, propose to understand it? Let’s not be daft.

    4. Infinite physics and infinite mathematics cannot be explained by finite physics and finite mathematics, just as the Infinite Mind of the uncreated Creator cannot be explained by the finite mind of the created creature. Any ‘god’ who could anyway be explained by an ordinary finite mind would not be a GOD at all, but probably an imposter. There is no way in which the ‘mathematical blueprint’ for a GOD the size of YHVH is going to fit into or be comprehended by a 1300 gram brain.

    5. That is also probably the single most important reason people like me cannot persuade atheists to believe in GOD. Faith in GOD is a gift, and rarely if ever follows after rational explanations by believers like me. The Gift of Faith is imparted by a merciful GOD and a loving Heavenly Father, and He would probably bestow that gift on any sincere, humble and honest enquirer. However, the BIBLE also teaches that GOD resists the proud, the haughty and the ‘ungodly’, making the Gift of Faith for such a person virtually impossible to be received.

    6. The gospel of Jesus Christ is, however, idiot-proof, so any honest, sincere and humble enquirer could probably accept it and receive the Gift of Faith in order to believe in Jesus Christ as the Saviour. People choose not to believe, choose so willingly, because they simply resent the disruption of their very convenient, atheistic lifestyles. Atheism does not teach theological accountability or moral retribution in Eternity … it is, in fact, such a convenient worldview to adhere to that few can resist its attractive, albeit deadly, tenets and teachings.

    7. I used to be an atheist as a young adult during the 1970’s, but became a devout Believer after GOD so mercifully saved and restored my life to normality. There is thus no way that I will ever renege and go back on my commitment to trust in JESUS CHRIST as my Saviour. So, my friend the atheist, accept JESUS CHRIST still today. Do not postpone your decision: JESUS still saves today, but tomorrow may be too late! The Bible promises: The wages of sin is death, but the gift of GOD is everlasting life through JESUS CHRIST our Lord. [Romans 6:23].

    8. Here is what the famous Goethe had to say about ‘Evolution’: “Evolution’ is knowledge not worth knowing.” Colin Patterson, an evolutionist-scientist at the British Museum, has slated ‘Evolutionary Theory’ as ‘anti-knowledge’. So why would we waste our time with a pseudo-science that is not worth knowing and that is described by evolutionists themselves as ‘anti-knowledge’?

    9. Perhaps it may be possible for some people to live without CHRIST, but how do they plan to die without Him? What a ghastly thought to contemplate! Without CHRIST, what will we, in Eternity, do with our unforgiven sin … argue with GOD and JESUS CHRIST over atheism-evolutionism versus creationism? How are we going to face GOD without the precious blood and righteousness of CHRIST to cover us judicially? Or, on the other hand, do you honestly believe that atheists never sin … are you guys superhuman or something? My urgent message thus to atheists:

    Jesus loves you, this I know,
    For the Bible tells me so;
    Little ones to Him belong,
    They are weak but He is strong!

    Yes, Jesus loves you!
    Yes, Jesus loves you!
    Yes, Jesus loves you …
    the Bible tells me so!

    [Stuart Hamblen, 1908-1989].

    Kind regards,

    PietStassen
    http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen

    Piet Stassen

    September 11, 2012 at 18:10

  116. Oom Piet,

    Jy het seker nog nie gehoor van die probleem van “infinite regress” nie.

    Dit is te oulik om vir ons te kom vertel van al die goed wat ‘n oorspronglike oorsaak of skepper moes gehad het (die sogenaamde “first cause” of “unmoved mover” argumente).
    Die probleem is natuurlik dat die vraag wat hierdie argumente onmiddelik stel is: wie het dan die skepper gemaak, en wie het dan die super skepper gemaak ensovoorts ad infinitum – die probleem van “infinite regress.
    Jou argument antwoord dus geen vraag nie, dit verskuif die antwoord telkens tot in ewigheid.

    Ewolusie natuurlik ook niemand geloof of godsdiens nie, dit is ‘n onbetwisbare wetenskaplike feit, maar ek kan die trant van jou pos aflei dat jy so min daarvan weet of verstaan soos die gemiddelde godioot.
    Doen gerus die moeite om iets daaroor op te lees wat jy nie op ‘n “creationist” blog gekry het nie.

    shazee

    September 11, 2012 at 14:29

  117. Whatever the so-called ‘Higgs Boson’ is, surely SOMEBODY must first have made it. Experts in physics tell us that there are between 18 to 20 ‘Universal Constants’ that never change. These ‘Universal Constants’, the scientific prerequisite for the perfect fine-tuning of the Universe, are all apparently constant to 32 positions after the decimal point. Any tampering with these ‘Constants’ [if it were possible at all] would disrupt this fine-tuning of the Universe. If everything in the Universe is, according to the atheist-evolutionists, in continuous ‘flux’, i.e. always busy ‘evolving’, then why do these 18 to 20 ‘Universal Constants’ never change? [Debriefing: A ‘constant’ is something that never changes].
    Furthermore, even if ‘Evolution’ were true [which it of course isn’t] then the question would still remain … then [i] who first made ‘Evolution’? [the atheist-evolutionist’s Catch22-dilemma]. Or did ‘Evolution’ also first make ‘Evolution’? [a double-miracle!]. [ii] And who made the original building blocks [‘raw materials’, like the atoms in the Periodic Table, light/electro-magnetism etc.] without which ‘Evolution’ would never have been able to first make ‘Evolution’ … did ‘Evolution’ first make that too? [a triple miracle!]. [iii] And who invented the two mirror-like genders of male and female to facilitate procreation of the species … did ‘Evolution’ invent that too? [a quadruple miracle in perfect conjunction!].
    The assertion by atheists then that ‘Evolution’ [the atheist’s religion-of-choice] was responsible for all this exquisite scientific fine-tuning by random biological accident is so preposterous that no rational human being could ever accept it as valid. Furthermore, the atheist-evolutionists’ so-called ‘Cradle Of Humankind’ in South Africa performed so poorly as a potential candidate for the ‘Modern Seven Wonders Of The World Competition’ that it never even featured in the race. So, while the atheist-evolutionists’ theological seminary [WITS University in Johannesburg] is billing the ‘Cradle Of Humankind’ in South Africa [you actually mean Mogale City?] as the spot where all humans originally originated, most respectable archaeologists still tell us that the true cradle of humankind, in all probability, was in an area somewhere in the ‘Fertile Crescent’ in the Middle East. How come we now have two ‘scientific truths’ both simultaneously parading as the ‘Truth’? And isn’t it interesting how the atheists are constantly revising and updating the ‘truth’ all the time … today’s ‘truth’ [according to them] will probably be totally obsolete in 3012. In the meantime, the BIBLE remains the same … the only reliable and trustworthy ‘Constant’ amidst a sea of boring atheist-conjecture, -speculation, -blasphemy and -profanity.
    So, let’s stop beating around the bush and waste people’s time with all and diverse kinds of ridiculous conjecture* and accept the fact that GOD created the Universe … finish and klaar. Anything less than that does not and will never make sense. In other words, in the final analysis, every knee shall bow and every tongue will simply have no choice but to confess that Jesus Christ is LORD.

    INVITATION TO ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS SAVIOUR

    There is a FOUNTAIN filled with blood
    Drawn from IMMANUEL’S [Jesus Christ’s] veins;
    And sinners plunged beneath that flood,
    Lose all their guilty stains!

    [William Cowper 1731-1800].

    *Ridiculipithecus conjecturalensis’: Name of the ideological fossil of ‘atheism-evolutionism’.

    Piet Stassen

    September 11, 2012 at 10:39

  118. Daan, ek dink nie ek is die persoon wat dit aan jou behoort te verduidelik nie, maar dankie vir die kompliment dat jy dink ek verstaan dit self genoegsaam. Ek vermoed CT is veel beter as ek gekwalifiseer om dit te verduidelik.

    Soos ek dit verstaan, is daar twee hooftipes sub-atomiese deeltjies, naamlik Fermions en Bosons.
    Bosons dra kragte, soos elektrisiteit en swaartekrag, wat hulle aan sekere ander sub-atomiese deeltjies oordra.
    Die Higgs Boson, waarvan die bestaan meer as 40 jaar gelede deur Peter Higgs, en andere, voorspel is, dra massa.
    Daar is ‘n Higgs “veld” waarvan die Higgs Boson die” boodskapper” is.
    As dit in werklikheid die Higgs is wat ontdek is (en dit moet nog onafhangklik bevestig word), sal dit ver gaan om te verduidelik waarom daar iets, eerder as niks is nie. Dit sal die fisiese realiteit wat ons om ons ervaar verklaar.

    Dit is in elk geval in ‘n neutedop soos ek dit verstaan, en dit sal interresant wees as CT vir ons kan se hoe ver ek van die merk af is.

    shazee

    July 15, 2012 at 07:25

  119. Shazee!!! Dagsê.

    Ek was self verbaas dat daar so min ophef gemaak is nadat Stephen Hawking toegegee het dat hy sy weddenskap van $100 met ‘n mede-wetenskaplike (wie se naam ek vergeet het) verloor het.

    Ek is bevrees ek verstaan glad nie die Higgs Boson besigheid nie, en nog minder die “God particle” en wat dit met Higgs Boson te doen het.

    Kan jy dit vir my in eenvoudige Afrikaans verduidelik?

    Daan Van der Merwe

    July 15, 2012 at 06:14

  120. Sorry if you have missed our remarks. I personally don’t have much free time right now, but if you truly want to hear what I have to say then I will make time for you. I am keeping up on reading the posts; I was just enjoying the change of pace of conversation. The conversation with Jessica was going so well I didn’t want to interupt. It seems that things get very offensive when believers speak up as you argue with us, so I was simply observing. Again, if you want our opinions I’m sure there are a few of us who would be willing to join in with you.

    Chaos Poet

    July 12, 2012 at 06:23

  121. They’re waiting for one of their intellectual giants like Kent Hovind, Jonathan Wells or Ray Comfort to find the necessary inspiration that will allow them to twist this into another lame “proof” for god and/or “proof” of atheism’s alleged sterility. They’re not quite sure what to make of the fact that the Higgs boson’s nickname is, perhaps overambitiously, the “god particle”. But you can rest assured that the stupidity will flow thick and fast just as soon as some religiotard thinks up a way of distorting the facts in the right way.

    (We’ll just ignore for now that the discovery needs to be confirmed and independently replicated.)

    Con-Tester

    July 9, 2012 at 17:44

  122. Why the silence from the religious community regarding the possible detection of the Higgs Boson?
    NOMA, I suppose….very covenient.

    shazee

    July 9, 2012 at 08:20

  123. Shazee/C-T,

    Thanks for your input. I agree with you both and that is how I see it myself.
    Why I mentioned evolusion and the Big Bang is because the godiots are concentrating on them mostly and they think that disproving evolution and the Big Bang prove the existance of their god. The same as when a person being hipnotised is concentrating on the pendullum in front of them with a dumb expression on his face.

    ErickV

    June 28, 2012 at 06:06

  124. ErickV, as Shazee points out, scientific theories and findings aren’t necessary to disprove the existence of any gods. However, they can provide potent substantiation to atheistic arguments by showing plausible naturalistic/materialistic accounts of observable phenomena for which others invoke deities. Another point to realise is that gods are astonishingly slippery things in the hands of believers. Gods are like Superman, only always more so. Believers are never willing to furnish a testable functional definition of their god (or perhaps they are always incapable of doing so), which makes any god in question a non-falsifiable hypothesis. As such, it falls outside the scope of science because it refuses to play by science’s rules. In turn, this means that science cannot even in principle properly begin to address the question of a hypothetical god’s existence or non-existence.

    Believers typically view the above attribute not only as a virtue but also somehow as powerfully compelling. But if you can’t adequately define what you are talking about to begin with, you and your audience cannot consequently be adequately clear on the subject either, and the blanks can be filled in any way that they please. As the philosopher Wittgenstein said, “Whereof you cannot speak, thereof must you pass over in silence.” The committed godiot obviously fails to grasp the profundity of this admonition.

    Con-Tester

    June 27, 2012 at 14:13

  125. Erick, in my humble opinion, we don’t need evolution or any other science to disprove the existence of god.
    The burden of proof rests with those who assert his existence.

    Shazee

    June 27, 2012 at 12:21

  126. C-T,

    A big question for you:

    Do we really need evolution and the BB to disprove the existence of any god?
    Arn’t the other natural sciences enough?

    Just a thought.

    ErickV

    June 27, 2012 at 11:44

  127. I have read Alan Guth’s comment about the free lunch before, but I have never understood it properly. It is mind blowing to think about it, that the universe might actually have come into existence from literally nothing.
    The sad and perplexing thing is that anybody would rather believe mind rotting nonsense than contemplate such a gob smacking possibility.

    Thanks for the instructive answer.

    Shazee

    June 26, 2012 at 17:34

  128. It’s my pleasure, Jessica. Please do read up on these things and also consult independent sources to verify what I have written.

      
      
      
    

    ____________________

    Shazee, in a word, no, there are no known scientific phenomena that absolutely require a non-material creator/interlocutor. As you point out, positing a creator explains nothing useful because the ultimate ontological problem is merely shifted, not solved. We do not even know properly what it means to say of something that it exists because all of our (philosophical) existence theories are either incomplete or defective in certain circumstances, or both, and so it is at the very least premature to claim as fact the existence of an entity that is itself fundamentally incomprehensible.

    Anyone who wishes to put forward a supernatural explanation as a scientific account of some phenomenon faces at least four enormous obstacles. First, they must convincingly demonstrate scientifically that the supernatural really exists. Second, they must prove that the supernatural can exert directed and/or purposeful influence on ordinary reality. Third, they need to show that the supernatural account really does explain the phenomenon in question and that it adds usefully to human knowledge. Finally, they need to show that their explanation is better than any other ones that we may have for the phenomenon. Some so-called “thinkers” have attempted to argue the necessary existence of the supernatural from their armchairs. Needless to say, their arguments are unconvincing.

    As you probably know, at the moment most attempts to smuggle a (divine or supernatural) creator into science are centred on origins questions. This is why cretinists and IDiots focus almost exclusively on (hominid) evolution and Big Bang theory. When asked where their creator came from, the answer is usually something along the lines that s/he is supernatural, exists “outside” of time and space and has therefore always existed, and existed necessarily (in contrast to our reality, the existence of which is allegedly contingent). More technically, this joke of an argument is known as “pulling god from your arse” for all the fanciful and rank speculation it is based on, which is nothing less than a brazen assault on science’s core epistemology. Ironically, these are normally the same brainy buffoons who will tell you that they support real science when actually the proper scientific thing to do would be to say that you don’t know but you’re going to carry on trying to find an answer, instead of being satisfied with juvenile hooey.

    There is, as yet, not a single phenomenon that has fruitfully been explained scientifically by invoking the supernatural. Not one. That’s not to say that there aren’t any, only that the outlook for any is increasingly bleak, not least because the existence of the supernatural is a long way from having been established in the first place. In view of our current understanding of many of the human brain’s peculiarities, it seems to me far more plausible that our brains are prone to seeing stuff that simply isn’t there, and rather than suspend judgement about things we don’t understand, we construct “explanations” that satisfy us emotionally, rather than intellectually.

    More specifically with regard to evolution and Big Bang cosmogony, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that evolution is guided by anything other than the natural laws that constrain it and the materials it has to work with. Research in abiogenesis proceeds apace and our understanding thereof is considerably deeper than what it was at the time of the Miller-Urey experiment, which is where most cretinists and IDiots are still stuck. Meanwhile, there is reason to believe that the total energy content of the universe, including the energy locked up as mass, is zero (which means that the universe could have sprung into existence literally from nothing, at least nothing physical). While the question has hardly been settled definitively, the possibility that the universe has a zero in the bottom line of its energy balance sheet has prompted physicist Alan Guth to remark that the universe could be “the ultimate free lunch.” The conditions that gave rise to the universe are presently almost completely opaque to us. It’s not even clear whether our usual notions of causation are valid in those circumstances, or indeed what the circumstances were. The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems may yet provide a way of penetrating those questions, so there are still no good grounds to suppose that “god did it.”

    In a nutshell, “god” is still, as it ever was, just a word for the place where you got tired of thinking and investigating, and where you threw your intellectual integrity away instead of simply admitting ignorance.

    Con-Tester

    June 25, 2012 at 12:04

  129. Thank you!

    That is a lot to read up on and think about.

    Jessica

    June 25, 2012 at 10:55

  130. Con-Tester, in your opinion; does any of the current unknowns in science tend to point towards the necessary existence of a creator?

    I do not mean whether it tends to prove the veracity of any existing religious believe (I know it doesn’t), I mean the ultimate necessity of a creator.

    My strictly amateur understanding of philosophy leads me to believe that the problem of infinite regress makes the existence of an ultimate, personal creator, untenable?

    Shazee

    June 25, 2012 at 10:03

  131. Further to quantum mechanics and randomness, after rereading some earlier posts, it’s clear to me that you haven’t grasped what you term the “Schrödinger evolution”. What you seem to mean is the time evolution of the Schrödinger equation. In its most general form, the Schrödinger equation describes the superposition of all possible quantum states of a given quantum system. This is also known as the system’s wave function. (Nobody knows exactly what aspect of physical reality it actually describes.) The equation itself is exact and deterministic — that is, the wave function evolves completely predictably over time without any uncertainty whatsoever. However, because it describes a superposition of all possible quantum states of the system under study (i.e. all of its possible states simultaneously), the unpredictability enters when one of those possible states must be selected by an act of observation or measurement.

    Another result in this context that you may find interesting is Bell’s theorem in conjunction with the painstaking work of Alain Aspect. In brief, Bell’s theorem states that subject to certain constraints (the presence or absence of which are experimentally determinable), uncertainty (randomness) in QM is not explicable by any so-called “local” gauge theory. This means that if those constraints exist in reality then there is no explanation for uncertainty (and other QM weirdnesses like non-locality) by local hidden variables, which would mean that uncertainty is either an intrinsic property of nature or there are one or more universal variables currently unknown to science that would account for those QM features. In 1981 Alain Aspect and his colleagues demonstrated convincingly that the local hidden variable option won’t fly because the necessary constraints are met in nature. So QM weirdness is either inescapable or there’s some really deep stuff waiting to be discovered about the fundamentals of the universe we inhabit.

    Con-Tester

    June 24, 2012 at 19:20

  132. Jessica wrote (June 24, 2012 at 09:30):

    … things are never that simple, nothing is ever easy, we meet our destinies on the paths we take to avoid them and millions of millions of other mysterious ways that are all observable one way or the other, these are all things that make it easier to believe in a creator…

    Or, what is vastly more probable in light of the findings by the cognitive sciences, it’s an artefact of the human brain’s predilection for seeing patterns and order everywhere, and where it finds none, it imposes them. There’s a good evolutionary reason for this habit: Where there is order and pattern, there is predictability and regularity, which in turn feed into an increased sense of security. Your very question whether there are “truly random” phenomena (whatever that might mean) already reveals that human obsession with regularity. The haphazard is probably dangerous, even if only to our sense of comfort.

      
      
    

    Jessica wrote (June 24, 2012 at 09:30):

    … than to be atheist, which is not a scientifically defendable position.

    Sorry, no. There isn’t a single scientific theory or finding that requires a creator, supernatural or otherwise. (Cf. Occam’s Razor and Pierre-Simon Laplace to Napoleon: “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là,” apocryphal though it may be.) It is precisely because science has been (and continues to be) so spectacularly successful not only in revealing reality to and manipulating it for us, but also that it is now fruitfully investigating origins, existential and moral questions (all of these roles being previously reserved for supernatural entities, including assorted gods) that atheism is increasingly coming to the fore. That correlation is hardly spurious. Sure, science doesn’t deal in unassailable answers (unlike religions claim they do) and nor is it complete (unlike religions claim they are), otherwise it’d stop.

      
      
    

    Jessica wrote (June 24, 2012 at 09:30):

    … I don’t see the difference between random and chaos?

    Mathematically, “random” means that a phenomenon is unpredictable (either in principle, or in the absence of certain deeper knowledge), whereas “chaos” is an attribute of certain dynamical systems that have the property of evolving along significantly different paths in phase space depending on the tiniest of variations in their initial conditions. A chaotic dynamical system is not random and its evolution is adequately predictable, provided its initial conditions are known with sufficient accuracy. Your example of dice is one of a chaotic dynamical system that is to all practical purposes unpredictable owing to a lack of sufficient knowledge, and so it appears to behave randomly. However, there is still a minuscule element of “true” randomness in the process of tossing a die in the form of quantum interactions between the die, the hand that throws it, the space and air it moves through, and the surface it lands on. And note that it’s possible, depending principally on the material properties of the die and the surface it lands on, for these quantum effects to be large enough so as to push the chaotic dynamical system into true unpredictability by disallowing sufficient knowledge of the governing conditions. That is, keeping in mind that a chaotic system can produce very different outcomes with the tiniest of variations in its starting and/or governing conditions, the uncertainty in those conditions may be sufficient to make the outcome of a toss of a die truly unpredictable.

      
      
    

    Jessica wrote (June 24, 2012 at 09:30):

    What I’m wondering is how random and chaos factor into things, from the micro to the macro, from predicting where an electron would be to the formation of a solar system. Are they both factors or is one a subset of the other or is this distinction purely academic?

    Words like random and chaos are used to describe activity in a limited system, like the decay of a few radioactive atoms, but in larger aggregates these random actions apparently become predictable.

    You need to understand that all of our physical laws describing and/or governing macroscopic events are without exception statistical aggregates and that their accuracy/precision depends on the spread of the underlying drivers’ variabilities. No single particle or atom can rightly be said to have the properties of temperature or pressure, or can experience mechanical stress or strain, or be viscous or elastic. It has certain quantum properties, plus energy and momentum and the exchange of these quantities in a sufficiently large collection of particles results in the emergent properties of temperature and pressure. The process of diffusion is another emergent phenomenon that is possibly easier to understand. Each of the diffusing substance’s particles moves along a completely random path, yet there is still a net movement from higher to lower concentrations. Why? Because there are more particles in the high concentration than in the low concentration region so that on average there are more particles moving away from the high concentration region towards the lower concentration than vice versa. Thus, an underlying randomness at the microscopic scale does not mean that order on the macroscopic scale is impossible. All that’s needed is a statistical bias, however slight, towards a subset of the possible outcomes. Monte Carlo simulations fruitfully exploit this surprising fact all the time. On the other hand, chaos is typically a property of macroscopic systems. It can therefore be said that randomness may produce chaotic behaviour but that it’s not guaranteed to do so.

      
      
    

    Jessica wrote (June 24, 2012 at 09:30):

    … in comparison we can treat the entire solar system on the macro scale as very stable and predictable.

    Because it’s an aggregate of an enormous number of constituents that all behave in much the same way — but not all of them. An analogy is to be found in biological evolution. You can’t reliably predict which of a population of organisms will meet its undoing by a given environmental factor. Even if a given individual of that population is obviously better equipped to deal with that factor than any other individual, you cannot guarantee that it will survive that factor. All you can say is that on the whole, the better-equipped individuals are more likely to survive. Note again the occurrence of a statistical bias on the individual level that, once it is quantified, results in a useful law describing a collective property of the population.

      
      
    

    Jessica wrote (June 24, 2012 at 09:30):

    The chaos theory complicates things further because this is not about the behaviour of random activities but the recognition that there are more sophisticated predictable patterns that we thought to be random.

    So you do understand the distinction between mathematical “randomness” and “chaos”. Except that chaos theory actually simplifies things by studying the conditions that are necessary and/or sufficient for a dynamical system to exhibit chaotic behaviour.

      
      
    

    Jessica wrote (June 24, 2012 at 09:30):

    The comparison of classical and quantum chaos would be easier if the quantum dynamics, like the classical, were itself responsible for randomness, but from what I read it is put in by hand, in a rather mysterious way at that.

    If you mean something like the Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QM or Hugh Everett’s Many-worlds hypothesis (MWI), then it does appear mysterious because CI suggests that a conscious act is required to collapse a quantum system’s wave function to a definite observable state, while MWI suggests that an interaction with another quantum system that produces sufficient entanglement will result in all states manifesting but each in a different universe that is created when the wave function is forced to collapse. The short answer is that we simply don’t know where the randomness comes from but most quantum physicists are convinced that it is an inherent property of nature. It is sometimes said that the uncertainty is the result of perturbing the thing that is measured, requiring another measurement to gauge the perturbation which perturbs the thing again, and so requiring an infinite regress of measurements to establish the sought quantity precisely, which is clearly not feasible. But this is mistaken and doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is the limiting residual uncertainty that remains after performing a theoretically infinite number of measurements of the same thing. There have been several unsuccessful attempts to show that the randomness and uncertainty are only apparent and that there is a hidden deeper order to the universe (perhaps the best-known being David Bohm’s work but which is not widely accepted due to several grave conceptual difficulties with it). We simply don’t like the thought that nature could be unpredictable at its most basic level, and so the search continues (as it should). At the same time, the search continues for an answer in the opposite direction, i.e. if it is random, where does it come from? But, as said, at this point nobody knows one way or the other.

      
      
    

    Jessica wrote (June 24, 2012 at 09:30):

    Please give me the examples you have that you answer yes to…

    Any large collection of numbers that passes a series of statistical randomness tests is de facto random because it meets the functional definition of “randomness”. There are “true” random number generators making use of atmospheric disturbances and others making use of quantum effects. Weather systems are typically chaotic (which is why weather forecasts get it wrong so often), and there is good reason to suppose that economics is chaotic (which would explain why economists rarely get it right). There are many other examples of either that Google will find for you.

      
      
    

    Jessica wrote (June 24, 2012 at 09:30):

    … please explain what you mean when you say transcendental numbers are bad examples?

    I didn’t mean to imply that they were good or bad examples. My point was that transcendental numbers that are named constants like π, e or γ, as well as algebraic numbers like √2 may show randomness in the succession of digits in their decimal expansions (or whichever other integer radix you like), and this randomness will pass every statistical test thrown at it with flying colours. However, because these numbers are well defined, there is for each one a definition that allows you to generate that decimal expansion algorithmically, which defeats any claim that it is “truly” random. If it is repeatable, it’s not properly random because there is a recipe that constrains it. But there’s an uncountable infinity of unnamed transcendental numbers (plus a countable infinity of unspecified algebraic numbers) any of which would similarly become non-random as soon as it is rigorously defined — none of which prevents them being used as sources of pseudorandomness.

    Con-Tester

    June 24, 2012 at 14:11

  133. You are right, I don’t understand a lot of what I read, things are never that simple, nothing is ever easy, we meet our destinies on the paths we take to avoid them and millions of millions of other mysterious ways that are all observable one way or the other, these are all things that make it easier to believe in a creator than to be atheist, which is not a scientifically defendable position. It seems to be more likely that there is a cruel creator god that deserves to be feared.

    I understand what I read but my comprehension of the big picture is limited, I don’t see the difference between random and chaos?
    I understand that random is a number of possible outcomes which is not supposed to be predicted beforehand, like rolling a dice, but if we knew the initial and the constant force vectors and weight distribution and friction values then we would be able to. That’s not really what I’m wondering about.

    What I’m wondering is how random and chaos factor into things, from the micro to the macro, from predicting where an electron would be to the formation of a solar system. Are they both factors or is one a subset of the other or is this distinction purely academic? Is there another word or concept that would be better suited to something so large and complex?

    Words like random and chaos are used to describe activity in a limited system, like the decay of a few radioactive atoms, but in larger aggregates these random actions apparently become predictable.

    The micro vs. macro brings my question to mind, while there are many dimensions of random actions like random particle temperatures and motion on the micro scale in comparison we can treat the entire solar system on the macro scale as very stable and predictable.

    The chaos theory complicates things further because this is not about the behaviour of random activities but the recognition that there are more sophisticated predictable patterns that we thought to be random.

    The comparison of classical and quantum chaos would be easier if the quantum dynamics, like the classical, were itself responsible for randomness, but from what I read it is put in by hand, in a rather mysterious way at that.

    Please give me the examples you have that you answer yes to, and please explain what you mean when you say transcendental numbers are bad examples?

    Jessica

    June 24, 2012 at 09:30

  134. “[R]emains unanswered”? Then I’m afraid you don’t understand what you have read, both here and elsewhere. And singular? I count three questions.

    Here are your answers: Yes, infinitely many; yes, infinitely many; and no, it’s just as good (or bad) as infinitely many others.

    Con-Tester

    June 23, 2012 at 21:20

  135. Yes, trancendental numbers like π, e, Euler’s, Catalan’s (Not proven) and Chaitin’s constant. Liouville’s, Chapernowne’s, Morse-Thue’s and Hilbert’s numbers and all the others.

    I have been reading up on the chaos theory and fractals with their sensitive dependence on initial conditions, the hallmark of classical chaos.

    The Schrödinger evolution is quite interesting – randomness and unpredictability, characteristic features of quantum phenomena but apparently not of quantum dynamics.

    I continue to read when I have the time but my question remains unanswered.

    Jessica

    June 23, 2012 at 19:31

  136. As always, things aren’t that simple. While the decimal expansion of π follows no discernible pattern, that does not mean that π is chaotic or random. After all, there are several algorithms for calculating π to an arbitrary level of accuracy. It just means that π’s decimal expansion exhibits no known repetitions, predictable patterns or sequences. This is also true of an infinitude of other algebraic and transcendental numbers.

    I suggest you look at the Wikepedia entries for “Statistical randomness” and “Chaos theory” to start with. They are technical but worth the effort and they include links to related and illustrative matter.

    Con-Tester

    June 23, 2012 at 17:06

  137. I am curious, is there a definitive example of random or chaos? Is π the best we have?

    Jessica

    June 23, 2012 at 16:20

  138. Sorry, I won’t be taking that bet.😛😀

      
      
    

    To me, the interesting question is whether Chaos Poet (1) has taken my earlier point about Crushtianity being all about comfort to heart and has now changed his/her mind in the opposite direction, or (2) is merely being casually self-contradictory in keeping with godiots’ amazing ability to be entirely unperturbed by glaring inconsistencies, or (3) is trying to draw attention away from the present issue, or (4) is busy setting up some other as-yet obscure manoeuvre.

    Con-Tester

    June 23, 2012 at 13:58

  139. Well spotted CT. Oom Chaos finds himself deep inside the hole he dug for himself. Always interesting how, instead of requesting a rope to climb out, godiots will persist by digging away. Lets see if Oom Chaos is any different. Any bets?

    Malherbe

    June 23, 2012 at 12:47

  140. Chaos Poet, my answer to your questions about comfort is that it depends on the circumstances. It could be a good armchair or a decent bed or the company of good friends or a nice meal or an interesting book or something else altogether, depending, as said, on the circumstances.

    The direct implication of those questions you ask and the context you ask them in is of course that your own beliefs give you comfort which stands in stark opposition to your earlier emphatic assertion that your beliefs are not about being comfortable. So, which one is it?

    Con-Tester

    June 22, 2012 at 21:57

  141. So Oom Chaos, please explain to me your “comfort” question. Lets asume I agree with you and state that I miss the comfort that religion brings. What does this prove? The mere fact that we have a need proves nothing. I seek the comfort of Uma Thurman in my bed tonight. If my name was Oom Chaos, that would be proof enough that me and Uma will be comforting each other tonight. Paradise indeed. A fool’s one though…

    Malherbe

    June 22, 2012 at 20:01

  142. You know what makes me comfortable? To know that we are all created by NATURE! Not by your so-called SKY DADDY!
    Can you tell me what is the cause of all the NATURAL disasters that kill so many people?
    Is it your sky daddy that once and a while save one of the souls from those disasters but plead innocence for the disasters itself?

    ErickV

    June 22, 2012 at 11:54

  143. Certainly not in fairy tales, like a child believing in Father Christmas because his mummy told him so.

    Shazee

    June 22, 2012 at 06:55

  144. What makes you comfortable? Where do you find your comfort?

    Chaos Poet

    June 22, 2012 at 05:35

  145. Chaos Poet wrote (June 21, 2012 at 03:47):

    Comfortable? No my friend, Christianity is not about being comfortable.

    But comfortable? No my friend, Christianity is not about being comfortable.

    Nonsense. Of course it is! How else is it possible that godiots are comfortable with the fundamental incomprehensibility of the nonsense they hold to be Eternal Truth™? How do you explain that they’re perfectly at ease with all the internal inconsistencies, all the self-contradictions and all the incoherencies in their beliefs? What other purpose than general comfort through forced conformity is being served by the infantile carrot-and-stick morality of Crushtianity? The only thing that seems to make you lot uncomfortable is being faced with other people who show good reason to doubt the truth of your fairytales, as evidenced by your rallying to its defence. So don’t be spreading such blatant lies about your beliefs when in truth you’ve become so inured to all the problems with them that you’re entirely comfortable with them.

      
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 21, 2012 at 03:47):

    Logic can be used for preaching the Gospel

    Yes, the world-renowned logician Lee Strobel strikes again…🙄

    Must I really repeat myself about false premises and logic without evidence being insufficient to establish a given contention? Or is that another point you’re just going to comfortably ignore?

    Con-Tester

    June 21, 2012 at 08:49

  146. Comfortable? No my friend, Christianity is not about being comfortable.
    http://www.persecution.ca
    Logic can be used for preaching the Gospel
    http://www.leestrobel.com/
    But comfortable? No my friend, Christianity is not about being comfortable.

    Chaos Poet

    June 21, 2012 at 03:47

  147. Chaos Poet,

    On the 18th you wrote:
    “but my pastor is wiser than I”

    You see my friend, that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
    All the pastors, priests, dominees, popes, bishops, etc MUST be wiser than their flock and I admire your pastor for bullshitting an intelligent guy like you.
    Do you for once think they will admit that there is no god? If they do, they will not have a job and no income. That is what it is all about. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY.
    If your pastor was not so wise, you would have seen right through him. But on the other hand, you are comfortable in your religion and will never query that.
    So yes, keep your pastor as your idol and roll model, it is you choice but stop pushing your bullshit down our throats. Just remember, BULLSHIT BAFFLES BRAINS!

    ErickV

    June 19, 2012 at 09:41

  148. That should have been, “… concerned primarily with the supposed afterlife always…”

    Meanwhile, more:

    Con-Tester

    June 18, 2012 at 20:46

  149. Funny how an institution like the RCC that is ostensibly concerned primarily with the supposed always gets caught up in sordid squabbles about money. It must be those pesky secular busybodies impeding the vastly more important progress of spiritual matters…🙄

    Con-Tester

    June 18, 2012 at 20:39

  150. Good plan. I’ll get cracking on the title deeds right away. If they ask to be shown the tower, we’ll just say that it’s right in front of them spiritually (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean) and that it clearly goes from the ground up all the way to heaven (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to be)…

    Con-Tester

    June 18, 2012 at 17:55

  151. About that tower: how about we get together with Soois, Hans, Prof.profanity and a few others; we should be able to raise the funds. Sounds like a bargain.

    Shazee

    June 18, 2012 at 15:28

  152. Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    Been thinking about what has been said.

    Judging by your response, it was more a case of thinking about ways to avoid engaging properly with the issues that have been raised.

     
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    I am simply stating this post to encourage you to enjoy life and not get caught up in trying to prove each other wrong.

    Right, so you’re saying that it’s unimportant whether a belief is true or false as long as we all get along and nobody gets upset, eh? And who says the task of pointing out the brain-dead absurdity of religious belief isn’t enjoyable? Who says it’s all about “prov[ing] each other wrong,” rather than, say, acknowledging who exactly has the burden of proof and who consistently shirks that duty, or about repeatedly failing to meet valid objections with anything meaningful?

     
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    If you are right, and this is all there is; why spend so much time yelling at each other?

    Could it be so that the godiots might catch a wake-up and understand that their epistemological approach endangers everyone’s future because Bronze Age myths pretending to be Eternal and Immutable Truths™ have no place in the 21st century? Could it be that religion always works out as exclusionary and divisive because it is intolerant of any criticism and uncompromisingly hostile towards more productive views of reality? Could it be that the amount of brain power that is wasted in manufacturing bullshit to prop up bankrupt and incomprehensible idiotologies would be far more usefully spent on real-world problems?

     
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    Logic can argue that you are a figment of your own imagination, or that all reality is an illusion.

    Sure, but so what? It is a well-known result from logic that any false statement that is taken to be true can be used as a premiss to prove anything. (Hint: D’ya think this maybe ties in with the question of whether truth is important or not?)

     
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    Is logic truly the way to prove whether God exists or not?

    Yeah, we should decide the answer to any given existential or important question with coin tosses instead. That way we can always get the answer we want by tossing the coin often enough…

     
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    If I am right, then our limited and tainted minds cannot comprehend God…

    It’s funny how godiots always think that this actually answers anything. It’s another sneaky way of saying “mysterious ways” again. If this skydaddy is truly incomprehensible then don’t try using that property as a shield, see? Be at least a little bit intellectually honest about it by following it to its necessary conclusion, namely that any and all claims (including all of these here) about this ineffable skydaddy must be counted as undecidable at best, and as almost certainly false on a balance of probabilities.

     
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    … –i.e. total depravity (although I’m not a huge fan of Calvinist teachings all the time personally).

    I agree that your imaginary skydaddy is totally incomprehensible due to the attributes godiots insist on ascribing to him. But you very urgently need to explain how our inability to comprehend your imaginary skydaddy leads to “total depravity.” Or is your deficient sentence construction supposed to suggest that we cannot be good without belief in your skydaddy? If so, you should inform yourself about current thinking on the evolutionary and game-theoretic origins of human morality. And why do you not support Calvinist teachings when they derive from exactly the same source that informs your views? Do you think those teachings are wrong? If so, on what objective basis do you call those teachings wrong and your own views correct?

     
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    I am a follower of Christ, and I am not ashamed of it.

    Well, you should be. He’s been dead for a good long while already. And if you mean his teachings, what’s wrong with Buddha or Socrates, among several others? Do you agree with your Jeeeeeebusssst! when he unequivocally commands the slaughter of those who do not accept him as their king? When he says that he comes as a sower of conflict and enmity, not peace and love? D’ya think he’d be cosmically peeved if you worshipped Buddha or Socrates instead of him?

     
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    If you believe I am sick in need of help, then may I be addicted to God.

    Yes, ×2, but the addict must first recognise the addiction and that it’s a problem before there’s any chance of successful treatment, and addicts are notoriously denialist about their addictions, even in the face of overwhelming evidence…

     
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    My pastor actually spoke on if God is for real. I don’t have any arguments to present, but … sermon of Father’s Day today wasn’t too bad either.

    Okay, so when reasoning abandons you, touchy-feely is your weapon of choice. It’s such a great pity that I’m pretty much immune to emotional appeals, and far prefer well-constructed arguments wrapped in sound reasoning that are carted around on a sturdy trolley of evidence. That’s about as much as you need to understand about me for the purposes of interacting on this website.

     
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    Going back to my pastor’s sermon on the 20th, relationship is proof of his existence.

    Huh!? What’s that supposed to mean? There is some relationship and therefore your skydaddy exists? (I’m assuming here that “his existence” refers to your skydaddy’s, rather than your pastor’s, although the latter wouldn’t be too bizarre…) Tautology and warped reasoning aside, in addition to a relationship, you also have independent and prior evidence of various things’ and people’s existence, which evidence you manifestly lack for your skydaddy. Also, you can have an imaginary relationship with an imaginary friend, like some children do. And would your skydaddy cease to exist if there was no relationship?

     
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    I love my Father, and He can defend Himself.

    Really? It’s funny then how he always wimps out when push comes to shove.

     
    

    Chaos Poet wrote (June 18, 2012 at 06:07):

    I’m officially inviting you to church (electronically). If you want to join us, you are always welcome.

    So despite an abysmal failure to supply any good reason for joining your group, you would still like people to join it, presumably in the hope that they’ll stick around for the company or the cookies or something else not involving intellectual stimulation. Here’s my counteroffer: There’s this iron tower in downtown Paris, France, that I have for sale. It’s a real tourist magnet. You can have it for just €6,666,666.66, a genuine bargain. It’ll more than pay for itself within a year. Guaranteed.

    Con-Tester

    June 18, 2012 at 14:47

  153. Very sad.
    Why am I necessarily depraved?
    And what tool must employ to determine the likelihood of god’s existence, if not logic, reason and evidence?

    Shazee

    June 18, 2012 at 10:18

  154. And all of the above, as riddled with errors and fallacies as it is, illustrates yet again why religion is a bad habit and why it’s impossible to have a coherent discussion with a godiot: They just stuff their fingers in their ears and shout, “Nah-nah-nah, I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!”

    I guess it shows how much people really are rational creatures. Sad.

    Con-Tester

    June 18, 2012 at 08:34

  155. I haven’t posted in awhile. Been thinking about what has been said. I realize that often the logical arguments of the atheists posting here far outdoes many off the religious people who attempt to defend God. So I congratulate you, you are smarter than I.
    I am simply stating this post to encourage you to enjoy life and not get caught up in trying to prove each other wrong. If you are right, and this is all there is; why spend so much time yelling at each other?

    Logic can argue that you are a figment of your own imagination, or that all reality is an illusion. Is logic truly the way to prove whether God exists or not? If I am right, then our limited and tainted minds cannot comprehend God–i.e. total depravity (although I’m not a huge fan of Calvinist teachings all the time personally).

    I am a follower of Christ, and I am not ashamed of it. I proudly claim to follow Jesus. If you believe that I am a fool, then may I be a fool for the gospel. If you believe I am sick in need of help, then may I be addicted to God. My pastor actually spoke on if God is for real. I don’t have any arguments to present, but my pastor is wiser than I; so I encourage you to listen to what he has to say. It may have flaws in his logic at times, but just listen to what he is trying to say. May 20th is the sermon I am talking about, so I encourage you to listen to it. This is not to convince you, but just to let you know where some of us are coming from. Let us at least understand each other if we cannot agree with each other.
    If you want to listen to any others sermon, I encourage you to do so. The sermon of Father’s Day today wasn’t too bad either. Going back to my pastor’s sermon on the 20th, relationship is proof of his existence. I love my Father, and He can defend Himself.

    I’m officially inviting you to church (electronically). If you want to join us, you are always welcome. Wish I could take you for lunch or a coffee, but I’m guessing the airfare would be a little much for some.🙂
    http://www.zemc.org/pages/listen-to-a-sermon.php

    Chaos Poet

    June 18, 2012 at 06:07

  156. Quite true regarding the habitual nature of religion. Interesting that in drug rehab clinics, the emphasis is put on replacing the habit-forming drug with religion (look up the religious undertones in the AA mantra).

    Consider people praying before eating – how many of them actually thank the gotte? Habit-forming indeed.

    Malherbe

    June 16, 2012 at 19:44

  157. Or, in a nutshell, these twits keep trying to bullshit everyone else, but succeeding only with themselves, about faith alone being enough.

    Religion and blind belief for most people has much less to do with any thinking and reasoning than with bad habits such as consuming addictive mind-altering chemicals. The habit must be fed regularly, you simply cannot reason with a lifelong addict, and withdrawal (or just the threat thereof) is accompanied by horrible anguish and other side effects. Religious belief is a routine that is learned starting from infancy, not something that is voluntary or susceptible to rationality. What’s needed is a kind of detox centre for religiots where the treatment consists mainly of ridiculing their drugs to break their dependency thereon.

    Con-Tester

    June 16, 2012 at 14:16

  158. Ja Malherbe, ek hoor wat jy se. Ek het vir ‘n lang tyd geglo dat sulke blinde en onlogiese geloof iets te doen moet he met ‘n intillegensie probleem.
    Die probleem is dat ek al heelparty mense ontmoet het wat andersins skynbaar hoogs intillegent is, maar toeslaan soos ‘n kluit as dit by geloof kom.
    Ek weet dat dit te doen het met indoktrinasie en kondisionering wat van kleins af plaasvind, maar ek kan steeds nie die kloutjie by die oor bring nie.
    Daar moet tog sekerlik ‘n tyd kom waar ‘n redelike mens kan insien dat dit wat hy kleintyd vertel is eenvoudig nie waar is nie, en eenvoudig nie waar kan wees nie.
    Daar moet erens ‘n kortsluiting van rede plaasvind.
    Ek het al met gelowiges die redenasie gevolg vanaf die teenstrydige gelowe tot by evolusie. Die meeste volg die redenasie tot op ‘n punt waar sy geloof onhoudbaar word met logika en wetenskaplike bewyse, en slaan dan eenvoudig toe. Van daardie punt af is hulle doodgewoon onbereikbaar vir rede.
    Slaan my dood, maar ek kan dit nie verstaan nie.

    Shazee

    June 16, 2012 at 13:45

  159. ….”Should they not merely feel sorry for me? Why this hatred and the need to punish me in this life?”

    Good point Shazee. The answer could possibly be found in their own insecurity regarding the existence of their gotte. They dislike the idea of being wrong about the self-invented sugarcoating for inevitable death, called “afterlife”. They feel comforatble and safe in their cottonwool bubble and abhors it when atheists come along disturbing this comfort. It is especially frightening to them when they witness atheists living normal, moral lives with no observable difference in the outcome. We have success, laughter, sadness and failure just like them. The only difference is that we accept death for what it is – the end of a life – and this scares the shit out of them.

    Safety in numbers possibly also plays a role. Today most christians have no problem doing their shopping on a Sunday, simply because evereybody (even the dominee) does it. Two to three decades ago this was unheard of and dominee would reprimand you if you bought the Rapport on Sunday after church at the Greek Cafe on the corner. As a 5-year old child, I can remember how angry I was when a friend told me that Farther Xmas did not exist. I wanted my friend to be wrong and I wanted him to believe in Farther Xmas like I did. I suspect christians have the same emotion when confronted with the possibility of it all being a fairytale.

    Malherbe

    June 16, 2012 at 12:30

  160. What I battle to understand is why religious people are so intolerant of anybody and everybody who do not believe as they do.

    If they are correct, and I am deluded, I will be punished in the afterlife. Should that not be enough? Should they not merely feel sorry for me? Why this hatred and the need to punish me in this life?

    I would not be willing to bet against a very swift revertion to literal biblical punishments for transgressions of “god’s laws”, should the fundies ever have the power to reinstate them.

    Shazee

    June 10, 2012 at 09:58

  161. While the RCC distinguishes between heresy and apostasy, apostasy is of course a rather more serious form of heresy. (The RCC also draws several finer, very much contrived gradations, which shows just how much hot air it consists of, having nothing better to do than invent assorted ‘crimes.’) The last-known execution of a heretic by order of the RCC occurred in the mid-1820s, at which time most of the rest of the world had been Enlightened for about 150 years. Before that, various inquisitions did away permanently with all sorts of heretics, apostates and schismatics.

    Formal RCC doctrine requires that apostates be stripped of their civil rights and that they be regarded as outcasts. Curiously, incitement to apostasy was punishable by death, making such incitement a more serious offence than apostasy itself. Think for a moment about the crafty slyness of this terror-inducing juxtaposition where encouraging a crime is viewed as more severe than the crime itself. It’s a testament to the fucked-up scheming that these psychopaths are capable of: Don’t be too hard (relatively speaking) on those who dissent from us, but woe betide those who would draw others away from us.

    In other words, the RCC hardly has historically clean hands when it comes to punishing people violently for independent thinking. In fact, this goes for most of Crushtianity. Protestants are equally guilty of persecuting Roman Catholics and Jews in particular. The touchy-feely variety of Crushtianity that gets pumped these days is a relatively recent spin-doctored reinvention of a traditionally bloodthirsty and intolerant creed.

    Con-Tester

    June 9, 2012 at 11:45

  162. Yes tolerance and religion in general are not concepts that go together.
    Have a look at the fundies of the American bible belt, or even the happy clappies in South Africa.
    They all preach love and tolerance, but only if you believe the exact bullshit that they do, and if you don’t you are going to be tortured for eternity.

    Shazee

    June 9, 2012 at 10:37

  163. Emotional blackmail indeed by the RCC.

    In Islam it is of course even worse as apostasy is punishable by death. Yet somehow I seem to be missing the point, because silly me refuses to believe that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.

    rick

    June 9, 2012 at 09:28

  164. C-T

    Spot on!

    ErickV

    June 7, 2012 at 14:50

  165. Here’s another case in point. While I admire Farley’s courage for challenging RC doctrine, I frown on the fact that she, like many others, isn’t consequent enough with her reasoning, stopping more or less where she feels she might be stepping on certain sacred cows’ hooves a little too hard.

    Yes, I grew up a RC. I’m not just lapsed; I’m a full-blown apostate, having formally renounced my faith a little more than two decades ago. According to RC doctrine, there are many sins one can commit for which absolution is relatively easy to come by. However, failure to submit to the RCC’s authority and apostasy are so grievous that no priest, no bishop, no cardinal, no ordinary cassock-widdler can grant absolution for them. Only the Pope himself has the power to forgive those ‘sins.’ That’s a bit like being employed by Microsoft, and if you resign, only Bill Gates himself can approve your being rehired. Actually, it’s much worse: Microsoft doesn’t have more than a billion employees worldwide…

    And this, together with the long, arduous and trying process of leaving it, is how the RCC retains its numbers. Basically, it blackmails people emotionally with bullshit.

    Con-Tester

    June 5, 2012 at 15:56

  166. Yes. I can.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    June 4, 2012 at 19:17

  167. Daan, I sympathise with the academic/social fates of Crossan and Borg after their work became public knowledge. The reason I sympathise is because it illustrates once more how easily and readily religion, even the thoughtful kind (if such is even possible) at a seminary, will actively ostracise and victimise those, including its own, who would offer a different or unorthodox perspective. And this has been among my main points all along, that religion is harmful because religion is almost ubiquitously exclusionary, besides instituting unwarranted and unshakeable belief in the incomprehensible.

    I can understand why from your standpoint you would respect those guys. Can you understand why from mine I don’t?

    Con-Tester

    June 4, 2012 at 08:27

  168. Con!!! Naandsê.

    Nee, ek het nooit vir een oomblik gedink dat Crossan jou gaan beindruk nie. Maar oor die afgelope jaar of so beindruk hy die hel uit my uit. Kom ek sê jou hoekom.

    Hy het grootgeword in Ierland in die Katolieke Kerk (soos jy, as ek reg onthou). Toe hy 16 jaar oud was het hy ‘n monnik in ‘n Katolieke orde geword. Sy naam is John Crossan, maar na sy induksie as ‘n monnik, het hy die naam Dominic gekry. Hy is 6 jaar later as ‘n priester georden.

    Hy is ‘n uiters intelligente man en is later Amerika toe waar hy teologie bestudeer het. Hy het op daardie stadium by die Vatikaan aansoek gedoen om van sy priesterskap losgemaak te word vir 2 redes:

    1. Hy was verlief op ‘n vrou en wou graag met haar trou, wat ek kan verstaan, en

    2. Hy wou ‘n botsing van belange tussen priesterlike lojaliteit en akademiese eerlikheid vermy, waarvoor ek hom loof.

    Nadat hy sy doktorsgraad in teologie verwerf het, is hy aangestel as ‘n professor in teologie aan ‘n universiteit in Illinois. (Ek het vergeet watter een).

    Sy eerste boek, “Jesus: The Life of a Mediteranean Jewish Peasant” (waarna ek jou op ‘n ander draad na verwys het), was in die 1990’s ‘n blitsverkoper en het ‘n storm in die Christengemeenskap ontketen. Hy is deur ‘n groot aantal Christene uitgeskel as ‘n valse profeet en selfs die verpersoonliking van Satan. 🙂

    Hy is reeds met pensioen en hy sê self dat hy destyds gelukkig was om nie sy dosentepos aan die universiteit te verloor as gevolg van sy akadeniese eerlikheid nie. Sy vriend en mede “fellow” van die “Jesus Seminar”, Marcus Borg, was minder gelukkig. Borg is inderdaad deur die universiteit waar hy ‘n teologiese dosent was, gefire as gevolg van sy akademiese eerlikheid.

    Dit is waarom ek vir hierdie manne die hoogste respek het, en dit is teoloë soos hulle wat my laat afsien het van my ortodokse (fundamentalistiese) Christelike geloof.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    June 3, 2012 at 23:35

  169. Thank you, Shazee. It’s always good to be appreciated. It would be even better if the appreciation (or at least acknowledgement) came from the opposing quarter. That at least would be a sign that they are open to rationality and sense, even if only slightly so.

    Crossan (@0:43):

    “I distinguish a literalist from a fundamentalist in that a fundamentalist says, ‘And if you don’t take it literally, you’re not a Christian. And if you say it shouldn’t be taken literally, you’re an Antichristian.’

    So what? At best, it’s an artificial distinction since a literalist typically will still condemn you as a heretic if you disagree with his/her interpretation. Is the difference then merely that a fundamentalist speaks his/her mind freely while a literalist is a bit more circumspect or restrained?

    The only danger that Crossan outlines is the one that is well-known, namely that the fundamentalist believes s/he has a clear mandate from their imaginary skyfairy to change the world — by force and violence if necessary. There’s nothing new in it, so again Crossan fails to impress.

    To me, the most curious part is that Crossan seems to miss the obvious, which is that staunch belief in the absence of reason/evidence/coherent argument is what enables fundamentalism in the first place. If people had a constant niggle that all of their beliefs are always subject to question and revision, there’d be little room for fundamentalism. Or blind literalism.

    Con-Tester

    June 3, 2012 at 22:37

  170. One of the comments on the site of the YouTube video of Borg and Crossan was as follows:

    “Mumbo jumbo rhubarb rhubarb. There is no God. These guys know it. But we still need to celebrate God. Otherwise, where is the wonder?”

    Certainly not as eloquently as Con’s comment, but equally clear.🙂 🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    June 3, 2012 at 20:29

  171. CT, I envy your eloquence and clarity of reasoning.

    Shazee

    June 3, 2012 at 18:07

  172. 🙂🙂🙂

    Okay, Con. Check this one out. I’m sure you will enjoy it more, Crossan on the dangers of fundamentalism. Please note, fundamentalism. Not faith or religeon.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    June 3, 2012 at 16:48

  173. Crossan (@3:00):

    [Atheists] actively don’t have a positive vision of anything, to put it very bluntly.

    Besides committing a whole brace of logical fallacies in those few words, how fucking arrogant of the eminent doctor, a charge he will surely deny and thereby aggravate his conceit.

    Borg (@3:45):

    The word ‘God’ not only points to what is or ‘isness,’ but the very notion of using the word ‘God’ is grounded in the experience of wonder, of radical amazement, of those moments in our lives when we see differently from how we commonly see, and we experience reality as wondrous and it’s calling forth gratitude, and when you do the sequence from wonder to gratitude, the next element in the sequence is very naturally praise and thanksgiving, so if one uses the word ‘God’ to refer to a reality who may or may not exist, I don’t think one is talking about ‘God’ or the ‘sacred’ or the ‘spirit’, terms that I use synonymously or interchangeably.

    It has been accurately said that “Theology is elaborate verbal disguises for non-ideas.” Borg’s rambling monologue above exemplifies the sentiment brilliantly. Why not say, simply, that ‘God’ is another word for the occasional experience we have of a deep, numinous and wonderful feeling of meaning and connectedness with the universe, of something much greater than we? Why not speak clearly? And why not do the intellectually honest thing and say that psychologists must first establish that this feeling isn’t a brain trick before we’re entitled to ascribe any objective reality to it?

    Then Crossan spews forth some unsustainable gumph about ‘God’ directing evolution because it’s not static and it arrives at workable solutions. What Crossandoes not say is that those solutions are never perfect or even optimal in any persistent sense. This is all bullshit, of course. There is no scientific reason whatsoever to support the idea that evolution is guided by anything besides the blind natural laws to which it is subject, or even to suppose such a thing to begin with. Moreover, it contradicts their earlier assertion about them rejecting the supernatural theistic god who intervenes in the world. Crossan again shoots himself in his conceited foot by suggesting that the world is thus teleological befeore repeating that atheists have no sense of wonder if there is no directed purpose to the world, a point Borg to his discredit lauds.

    Borg (@6:35):

    … but rather ‘God’ is a non-material reality that is also present in everything that is material, so that for panentheism the universe and all there is is shot through with the sacred, with the presence of spirit, with the presence of ‘God’ if you will.

    More elaborate verbal disguising of non-ideas. Borg reveals his dualism here. Again, he supplies nothing beyond flat assertion in defence of his ideas, and so they are as much a matter of unsupported (and indeed unsupportable) faith as any bible-thumper’s. Just because they appear superficially to be somewhat more sophisticated doesn’t magically imbue them with any more credibility, and clearly they derive from the same source of feeling.

    So far, Crossan and Borg are singularly unimpressive, what with all the special pleading they do.

    Con-Tester

    June 3, 2012 at 12:01

  174. Daan Van der Merwe

    June 3, 2012 at 09:36

  175. En intussen bestaan god net in hulle koppe!

    ErickV

    May 31, 2012 at 09:31

  176. Ek volg hierdie blog so dan en wan. Dis insiggewend, maar die vermaak is tops!

    Die Antichris wat kinders verkrag. Genoeg is reeds geskryf oor die verkragtings, en elke regdenkende mens sal stem dat dit sif verby is. Soois is vinnig om die ‘slegte’ met die antichris te vergelyk, maar wat de fok is die AC nou eintlik? Ek’s so gatvol vir die lot gelowiges wat aldag rondloop en die res van die wereld vertel hoe hulle God nodig het vir moraliteit. Feit is, om in die Antichris te glo, moet jy in God glo!

    Soos ek al vantevore op die blog geskryf het, die gelowiges kan net nie verloor nie. Want sien

    Goed: Prys die Here!

    Sleg: Fokken antichris/ateis/ander gelowige…

    Godsk!!

    ns, gepraat van ‘godsk’, waar is Nathan Bond deesdae?

    rick

    May 30, 2012 at 16:44

  177. En daar kom Soois se alter-ego nou uiteindelik deur. Ek het nogal gewonder hoe lank gaan dit nog wees.
    Hy is ook maar nog ‘n klip christen wat op ‘n troontjie sit en almal wat nie met hom saamstem nie te oordeel Ek het nou net alle respek wat ek vir hom gehad het verloor.
    Soois, hoe kan jy se dat die kinder verkragters anti christene is? Wat van die godiote wat priesters genoem word. Hulle mollesteer en verkrag jong kinders en is al oor en oor bewys.
    Maar nou ja, alle mense wat nie jou (en ander fundies) se siening deel nie is mos sataniste.
    Kyk maar vir die veroordeling van daardie goth meisie wat ook in die “bediening” wil staan.
    Julle is almal fokken siek!

    ErickV

    May 29, 2012 at 05:42

  178. Soois, woede oor kinders wat verkrag en vermoor word is verstaanbaar en ek deel dit met jou.

    Het een van die deelnemers aan hierdie blog iets daarmee te doen sover jy weet? Het iemand hier al te kenne gegee dat hulle so iets sou goedkeur?

    Vlieg jy ook in jou moer in met jou ongegronde insinuasies.

    Shazee

    May 28, 2012 at 19:38

  179. He-he-he, but soois your “antichrist raping children” are self-proclaimed godiots — just like you, in fact — so your arrogant and self-righteous fuck-yous are a little bit misplaced, my dimwitted little ranting hater. Where’s your Jeeeeebusssst! with that other cheek now, hmm? Or do you, just like most of your godiot kindred out there, follow those teachings only when it suits you? In any case, your skydaddy will take care of these offenders, now won’t he? And if you want to pin child rape on atheists, you should go straight to your nearest police station and give yourself up, see?

    On top of all of which, you’ve claimed to be “finished with this blog” before, so your consistency leaves a bit to be desired. You’ll be back, my mendacious sheep pilot.

    Con-Tester

    May 28, 2012 at 19:35

  180. Just watched the news.

    Main story; child week. Stories of the antichrist raping children, putting them into a freezers etc. Fuck you CT, fuck you Nathan Bond and fuck you every part of the antichrist. I am finished with this blog, one of satan’s sites. Enjoy your satanic lives. God forgive me, but I will not pray for these child raping bastards.

    soois

    May 28, 2012 at 19:14

  181. Oh, so suddenly you’re talking to me again after your intellectual cowardice and dishonesty are in danger of being exposed once more? What a fine upstanding fellow you are!

    soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):

    A sad situation when a person who are supposed to be much more versed in the English language than myself, apparently has not a clue to the meaning of the word “impartial”.

    Language errors aside, sad indeed — that you think you know what “impartial” means. Your every word reeks rankly of partiality towards a Bronze Age fairytale and against all reason, facts, evidence and logic.

    soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):

    You don know me and have no idea about my life, therefore your comment is laughable…

    Whatever you say, sport. Since it’s you saying it, it simply must be true, mustn’t it? But if you stopped to look at and think about it for half a second — assuming of course against all indications that you have that capacity — you would have found that I know all the bullshit and lies and evasions and brainless crap and ignorant fundie nonsense that you have spewed all over this blog. It also means that I know you a lot better than you think.

    soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):

    I cannot think of one thing I have “fucked up” in my life (a fringe benefit for being a Christian )…

    That’s because you’re an unrepentantly arrogant doos with delusions of adequacy.

    soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):

    … and I cannot think of a wrong-doing against me.

    No? You got Alzheimer’s too along with all your other mental deficiencies?

    soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):

    … I also know there is a life hereafter full of beautifull, loving and IMPARTIAL people.

    (Emphasis added.) You “know”, eh? Knowledge is defined as “true, justified belief”. That means you can prove what you claim to know. So prove this little gem you claim above. Or stop talking such pathetic kak.

    soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):

    The sad thing is that us Christians are the only ones with proof.

    Go on, produce it then, you funny joker, you! Prove the world of atheism wrong, I challenge you.

    soois wrote (May 28, 2012 at 16:23):

    Not like the idiots who believe in all kinds of THEORIES.

    What, like special and general relativity? Like germs and pathogens causing disease? Like quantum mechanics? Like plate tectonics? Like thermodynamics? Like electromagnetism? Like aerodynamics? Oh, you mean like evolution! Well, I’m not surprised, seeing as you’re the world’s foremost unpublished expert in biology, railing against all those hundreds of thousands of lesser experts who disagree with you.

    Con-Tester

    May 28, 2012 at 17:17

  182. Twee aanhalings Soois, en ek het dit nie aangebied as bewys van enigiets nie. Dit is ‘n fundie truuk daardie, nie myne nie.

    Shazee

    May 28, 2012 at 17:02

  183. Con-Tester wrote:

    “Fuck, you can cut the irony with a rubber mallet. See, you brainless godiots/religiots/crediots/apologiots/bibliots just keep on fabricating new “facts” to cover up all the bullshit and lies you’ve vomited up before. If only you had the cranial capacity to see yourselves through impartial eyes, you’d get an inkling of how ridiculous you are.” A sad situation when a person who are supposed to be much more versed in the English language than myself, apparently has not a clue to the meaning of the word “impartial”.

    “Yes, we can all see the example you set, the inspiration you give, how you want to hobble your children’s critical faculties, and what a deluded moron you are, hoping for another chance so that you can make good for all the things you fucked up in this life and get a lollypop for all the wrongs done against you.” You don know me and have no idea about my life, therefore your comment is laughable and I wonder whan an “impartial” person will think of that. I cannot think of one thing I have “fucked up” in my life (a fringe benefit for being a Christian ), and I cannot think of a wrong-doing against me. No, I love this life and it can go on as long as possible, but I also know there is a life hereafter full of beautifull, loving and IMPARTIAL people.

    “And it is this piece of wishful fiction that makes you fuckers simultaneously so dangerous and so laughable. You accept it without a shred of proof and try to sell it to everyone else as Eternal Truth” The sad thing is that us Christians are the only ones with proof. Not like the idiots who believe in all kinds of THEORIES.

    soois

    May 28, 2012 at 16:23

  184. Ek wonder wie is dit wat net kan aanhaal?! Wie het die volgende geplaas? ““I regard the brain as a computer which will break down when its components fail; there is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers, it is a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark”
    (Stephen Hawking)

    “It is time that humanity wake up from the long nightmare of religion”
    (Steven Weinberg)”

    Ja-nee, hoef niks meer te se nie. Staan agter die deur, tipies ateis. Sterkte.

    soois

    May 28, 2012 at 16:02

  185. Dit is die gees Soois, as jou argument as onsinnig uitgewys word, weier om verder aan die gesprek deel te neem.
    As iemand bewyse vra, haal die bybel aan.
    Hoe voorspelbaar.

    Shazee

    May 28, 2012 at 15:03

  186. soois wrote (May 27, 2012 at 20:57):

    Ware woorde, want maak nie saak hoe ek of Hans of enige gelowige antwoord nie, die goddelose sal dit verdraai en verstaan net soos hy wil. Dus ‘n sinnelose mors van asem en tyd.

    Fuck, you can cut the irony with a rubber mallet. See, you brainless godiots/religiots/crediots/apologiots/bibliots just keep on fabricating new “facts” to cover up all the bullshit and lies you’ve vomited up before. If only you had the cranial capacity to see yourselves through impartial eyes, you’d get an inkling of how ridiculous you are.

    soois wrote (May 27, 2012 at 20:57):

    Om deur my lewe ‘n voorbeeld aan ander te stel, om hulle te inspireer, my kinders en kleinkinders die Blye Boodskap te gee, en om myself, my eggenote en my volgelinge voor te berei op die ewige lewe wat na hierdie kort tydelike lewe sal plaasvind.

    Yes, we can all see the example you set, the inspiration you give, how you want to hobble your children’s critical faculties, and what a deluded moron you are, hoping for another chance so that you can make good for all the things you fucked up in this life and get a lollypop for all the wrongs done against you.

    soois wrote (May 27, 2012 at 20:57):

    [S]o is die aardse lewe net die voorbereiding op die ewigeid.

    And it is this piece of wishful fiction that makes you fuckers simultaneously so dangerous and so laughable. You accept it without a shred of proof and try to sell it to everyone else as Eternal Truth™.

    soois wrote (May 27, 2012 at 20:57):

    Toeval??

    No, just some idiot with delusions of mathematical adequacy.

    Con-Tester

    May 28, 2012 at 08:49

  187. Shazee, die Bybel praat nie van Nelson Mandela nie, maar van Sy volk (Juda) wat Hom sou vergeet en dus (tydelik) in verderf sou verval. Ek gaan die dinge nie verder vir jou probeer uitspel nie. Soos 2 Tim 2:16-17 se, “Maar die onheilige en sinlose praatjies moet jy vermy, want dié wat dit versprei, sal nog verder in goddeloosheid verval, en hulle woorde sal voortvreet soos kanker. Onder hulle is daar Himeneus en Filetus,” en vers 23 “Moet jou nie met dwase en sinlose strydvrae inlaat nie, want jy weet tog dat dit net rusies veroorsaak.” Ware woorde, want maak nie saak hoe ek of Hans of enige gelowige antwoord nie, die goddelose sal dit verdraai en verstaan net soos hy wil. Dus ‘n sinnelose mors van asem en tyd.

    ErickV, my doel in die lewe is om ter ere van Hom te leef, Sy geskenk aan my (die plaas wat eintlik Syne is, maar deur Hom aan my geleen word) ten volle te benut en ten volle te leef. Om deur my lewe ‘n voorbeeld aan ander te stel, om hulle te inspireer, my kinders en kleinkinders die Blye Boodskap te gee, en om myself, my eggenote en my volgelinge voor te berei op die ewige lewe wat na hierdie kort tydelike lewe sal plaasvind. Net soos wat ons ons kinderdae deurbring en leer en voorberei vir die volwasse lewe, net so is die aardse lewe net die voorbereiding op die ewigeid. Ons kinderdae is wonderlik, maar tydelik. Net so is ons lewe op aarde wonderlik, maar ook tydelik.

    Die langste boek in die Bybel is Psalms 119, die kortste boek in die Bybel is Psalms 117, die middelste boek in die Bybel is Psalms 118 en die middelste vers in die Bybel is Psalms 118:8. Daar is 594 verse voor Psalm 118:8 en daar is 594 verse na Psalm 118:8. Tel hulle bymekaar en jy kry 1188. Toeval?? Raai net wat staan daarin? “Om by die Here te skuil, is beter as om op mense te vertrou.” ‘n Samevatting van waaroor die hele Bybel gaan.

    soois

    May 27, 2012 at 20:57

  188. Shazee, dankie vir jou eerlike antwoord en ja dit doen my hart goed om te weet, dat jy ook liefdadigheid teenoor ander bewys, al is hulle net die wat jou pad kruis. So waardeer ek alle instansies wat hulle medemens liefdadigheid bewys, al is hulle een of ander gelowiges of nie. Ek kam nie alle gelowiges onder dieselfde kam nie en ek haat ook die gewetenlose “predikers” wat goedgelowige en desperate mense vir eie gewin uitbuit.
    Die “profetiese gees” is ‘n gees van stigting en bewaring. Dit is nie ‘n gees van verwarring of fantasie nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 26, 2012 at 21:56

  189. Soois,

    Kan jy vir my aub se wat jou doel op aarde is?

    ErickV

    May 26, 2012 at 06:07

  190. “I regard the brain as a computer which will break down when its components fail; there is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers, it is a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark”
    (Stephen Hawking)

    “It is time that humanity wake up from the long nightmare of religion”
    (Steven Weinberg)

    Shazee

    May 26, 2012 at 05:58

  191. Soois, jy dink ek het my vermoe om te lees verloor?
    Ek reken jy het jou vermoe om te dink verloor.
    Hoe kom jy daarby uit dat Esegiel duisende jare terug voorspel dat Nelson Mandela president van Suid Afrika sou word?
    Waar staan Mandela se naam in die bybel, of is dit weer ‘n interpretasie?
    Jou kop raas man, en as jy ‘n greintjie objektiewe eerlikheid gehad het sou jy dit besef het en gaan hulp kry het.
    Het jy weer ‘n slag na die die kinderagtige stront gaan kyk wat jy skryf?
    Dit hou nooit op om my te verstom dat julle ouens so skaamteloos julle naam kan gat maak nie, oor en oor.
    Die begin van wysheid is eerder om die verstand wat jy (na bewering) gekry het begin gebruik om ‘n slag vir jouself te begin dink. Soos ‘n grootmens Soois, nie soos ‘n wensdenkende kind nie.

    Shazee

    May 25, 2012 at 21:24

  192. Shazee, dit lyk my jy is so gereed om tee te stribbel dat jy die vermoeë om te lees verloor het.

    “So, Soois, jy vind dit wel indrukwekkend dat iemand kon voorspel hou die inhuldiging seremonie sou lyk, met vliegtuie en so meer? Dit vat duidelik nie veel om jou te beindruk nie.” — Die punt was eintlik dat Eségiël dit duisende jare terug al gesien het.

    “Jy reken dat astrologie ‘n betroubare metode is om die toekoms te voorspel? Die bewegings van sterre en konstelasies het ‘n invloed op gebeure in die toekoms en die gebeure kan voorspel word as jy dit net reg kan lees?” — Nee, ek het gesê dat Nostradamus daarvan gehou het om die sterre te bestudeer, dus het God Sy openbarings aan Nostradamus gegee deur drome oor sterre, net so het Hy drome van beeste en perde gebruik omdat Siener ‘n boer was.

    “Die kak wat mense tog kan glo.” — The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

    soois

    May 25, 2012 at 17:18

  193. Great site, great idea.

    Shazee

    May 24, 2012 at 20:44

  194. I’m going to start collating and posting the shit these nanowits write here on the FSTDT site. At least there it will serve to amuse the much larger rational audience that it deserves.

      
      
      
    

    😀😆😆😆😥😥😥😆😆😆😥😥😥😆😆😆😥😥😥😆😆😆😀

    Con-Tester

    May 24, 2012 at 19:59

  195. Once again we see how readily the godiots/apologiots/bibliots/crediots/religiots lie according to their needs and wants. Nostradamus was of Jewish descent on his father’s side but was Roman Catholic by virtue of his father’s father having converted (some sources claim it was under duress, which is possible given the RCC’s long and bloody history of Anti-Semitism). Nostradamus was an astrologer by which trade he made a living.

    According to these godiots’/apologiots’/bibliots’/crediots’/religiots’ own assertions, Roman Catholics are not True Crushtians™. Moreover, Pope Sixtus V and later Pope Urban VIII explicitly condemned astrology as superstitious and heretical based on Holy Babble gumph. And remember that Papal Bulls concerning scriptural matters are infallible.

    Now this clown before us will have us believe that Nostradamus was actully a True Crushtian™ and so his methods are A-OK with his skydaddy even though the Holey Babble explicitly censures fortune tellers. There are so many different contradictions in this little Nostradamus/RCC/Holey Babble/fortune-telling scenario that it belongs in a novel by Kafka.

    But it won’t worry the godiots’/apologiots’/bibliots’/crediots’/religiots’ minds in the least. They’ve got it all figured out by a simple rule: “If warping logic, bending facts, fabricating stuff and/or raping reason is what’s needed to support my point, then that’s just what I’ll do.”

    Con-Tester

    May 24, 2012 at 17:50

  196. So, Soois, jy vind dit wel indrukwekkend dat iemand kon voorspel hou die inhuldiging seremonie sou lyk, met vliegtuie en so meer? Dit vat duidelik nie veel om jou te beindruk nie.

    Jy reken dat astrologie ‘n betroubare metode is om die toekoms te voorspel? Die bewegings van sterre en konstelasies het ‘n invloed op gebeure in die toekoms en die gebeure kan voorspel word as jy dit net reg kan lees?
    Die kak wat mense tog kan glo.

    Shazee

    May 24, 2012 at 17:01

  197. Shazee

    “Soois, jy maak seker ‘n grap.
    Vind jy dit indrukwekkend dat iemand in 1993 kon voorspel dat Suid Afrika in 1994 ‘n nuwe regering sou he???” …nee, obviously nie, maar die res wat nou wel aan die gebeur is, asook hoe die inhuldigings-seremonie sou lyk, en as ek na Oom Siener verwys, wat ‘n baie groot Christen was, het dit al in 1918 voorspel as my datum reg is. Ook visies van God.

    “By the way,Soois, het jy geweet dat Nostradamus okkultiese metodes gebruik het vir sy “voorspellings”?
    Word sulke voorspellings nie erens in die bybel verbied nie?
    Behoort jy die goed te lees jong?” …net soos daar mense is wat Siener valslik as ‘n vrymesselaar wou uitmaak, is jou inligting oor Nostradamus ook foutief. Hy was ‘n Christen wat bv op een geleentheid voor een van twee monnike neergeval het en gese het hy moet eer aan sy ekselensie betoon. Daardie monnik het eers na Nostradamus se dood die volgende pous geword. Nostradamus het van sterrekunde en sterrebeelde gebruik gemaak, so het Oom Siener van beeste en perde gebruik gemaak, want God gee Sy beelde dmv iets wat die betrokke profeet ken. Siener was ‘n boer en Nostradamus het graag die sterre bestudeer. Jesus het voor Sy hemelvaart gese dat daar mense sal wees wat talente ontvang, party sal dodelike gif kan drink en leef, party sal kan tale uitle, party sal kan genees en party sal profete wees wat die toekoms sal kan sien. Almal daar om Sy boodskap te bevorder. Hy het net gewaarsku dat daar ook baie valse profete sal wees, maar hulle word gou uitgesnuffel.

    soois

    May 24, 2012 at 16:19

  198. Hans, die bybel se mos die likerhand moet nie weet wat die regterhand doen, wat betref welsyn skenkings nie.
    Ek glo nie dat dit werklik relevant is tot die gesprek presies watter skenkings ek aan wie doen nie. Die punt van die argument was dat gewetenlose “predikers” goedgelowige en desperate mense vir eie gewin uitbuit.

    Nietemin, jy het my ‘n reguit vraag gevra, en ek sal jou ‘n reguit antwoord gee: daar is heelwat hawelose mense in my omgewing vir wie ek op ‘n gereelde basis komberse, kos en klere gee. Ek het al dikwels vir doktersbesoeke en medisyne betaal. Ek praat nie van nou en dan nie Hans, die mense ken my en klop gereeld vir hulp aan. Ek reken hierdie ad hoc hulp wat ek verleen beloop veel meer as my “tiende”
    Ek vra nie vir die ouens wat hulle glo of nie glo nie, ek vra nie aan watter etniese groep hulle behoort nie, ek help as ek kan sonder aansien van die persoon.
    Ek hoop dit is reguit genoeg vir jou, en as jy my woord in twyfel trek is ek heeltemal bereid om jou aan my “gemeentelede” te gaan voorstel. Se maar.

    Verder sal ek graag wil weet hoe jy onderskei tussen ‘n “profetiese gees” en iemand wat gewoonweg kak uit sy duim uit suig?

    Shazee

    May 24, 2012 at 10:20

  199. Very interesting, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ongelloflik arrogante ou liegbek pêl. Truly fascinating. Got any proof for the reality of your fantasies? I mean something more meaty than “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book”?

    No, I didn’t think so.

    And you still haven’t furnished a functional definition of this word “spirit” that you use so freely, so how the fuck is anyone supposed to know what the fuck you’re gibbering about. And what do you mean by “not confined to the psychical”?

    Come, come now. A genius of your earth-shattering importance must surely be able to answer these simple questions for us lesser intellects.

    Con-Tester

    May 24, 2012 at 10:07

  200. Soois, ja profetiese gawes wys somtyds dinge wat mense nie wil glo nie. Pred. 1:9 Wat gewees het, dit sal daar weer wees; en wat gebeur het, dit sal weer gebeur, en daar is glad niks nuuts onder die son nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 24, 2012 at 09:55

  201. Con-Tester, eternal life is not a place but rather a condition, as spirit is not confined to the psychical.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 24, 2012 at 09:36

  202. Shazee, die waarheid maak seer en welsyn instansies en aksies ontstaan hoofsaaklik deur gelowiges en word deur gelowiges bedryf. Julle het al duidelik gedemonstreer in julle skrywes, dat julle neerkyk op gelowiges anders sou julle minstens hulle goeie werke en noodsaaklike rol wat hulle vervul, erken het. Aan watse organisasie dra jy by tot die welsyn van ander?
    So ter loops, die Bybel is nie teen die profetiese gees waarmee Nostradamus en ander mee begaafd was of is. Die waarsêers is ‘n probleem, want hulle lieg vir die mense en somtyds raak mense so oortuig, dat hulle, hulleself daarna toe dryf aan wat die waarsêer voorspel het.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 24, 2012 at 09:29

  203. ErickV, as jy ‘n skrywe tot my rig sal ek jou antwoord en verder gee ek geleentheid dat Soois jou self antwoord as jy ‘n skrywe aan hom rig.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 24, 2012 at 09:02

  204. Con-Tester, there is a very interesting posting today on -richarddawkins.net- regarding the these failed predictions.

    Shazee

    May 24, 2012 at 08:58

  205. By the way,Soois, het jy geweet dat Nostradamus okkultiese metodes gebruik het vir sy “voorspellings”?
    Word sulke voorspellings nie erens in die bybel verbied nie?
    Behoort jy die goed te lees jong?

    Shazee

    May 24, 2012 at 08:47

  206. Well Shazee, we learn that those words are “die woordeskat van iemand wat eenvoudig nie die teendeel kan bewys nie”. And having learned that, we also learn (as if the lesson was really necessary) that godiots/religiots/apologiots/crediots/bibliots haven’t the first clue about any burden-of-proof concept. We furthermore learn that these morons are happy with their ham-fisted retrofittings of Holey Babble gumph to whatever events they would like them to fit. Additionally, we learn that at different times and places, the same Holey Babble gumph has been retrofitted to different events by different dimwits. Then, towards the end of our instructive lesson, we learn that these idiots are never able to predict the future from their fairytale book with any kind of reliability, precision and/or accuracy. Whenever they try to, as in Camping’s case, they fail abominably and then start vomiting up pisspoor evasions, bullshit, and excuses for why their predictions fail but they never see what’s obvious to any impartial observer, namely that their premises, source and methods are all profoundly flawed. Therefore and in conclusion, we learn that these asinine twits are incapable of comprehending the term “compelling, reliable evidence.”

    Con-Tester

    May 24, 2012 at 08:46

  207. Soois, jy maak seker ‘n grap.
    Vind jy dit indrukwekkend dat iemand in 1993 kon voorspel dat Suid Afrika in 1994 ‘n nuwe regering sou he???

    Shazee

    May 24, 2012 at 08:33

  208. Shazee, jip ou maat, die woordeskat van iemand wat eenvoudig nie die teendeel kan bewys nie.

    ErickV, die waarheid is dat ‘n Britse dametjie eintlik my bogenoemde “visie” al in 1993 gehad het. Toe was dit nog die toekoms. Ek het haar “visie” net aangepas in die verlede tyd omdat die dinge intussen al gebeur het. Sy het voor 1994 ook al uit ander dele van Esegiel voorspel dat Sy volk (Juda – Suid Afrika) deur ‘n nuwe regering oorgeneem sal word omdat hulle (SA), God vergeet en verlaat het, en dat hulle (ANC) ons sou verdruk, vertrap en stelselmatig uitmoor . Daar is een plaasmoord elke tweede dag in SA en 60 aanvalle op blankes elke dag op plase en in stede waar diefstal nie eers plaasvind nie. Slegs gevalle waar ‘n verdagte betrokke is mag in die media genoem word (blykbaar “public relations” I beg u). En sy het die dinge uit die boek Esegiel gehaal voor 1994.
    Terloops, van Oom Niklaas (Siener) van Rensburg gepraat. Hy het soortgelyke voorspellings gemaak en ene Nostradamus het eeue gelede geskryf van die “groot verleier” wat in ‘n tronk in Suid Afrika gaan wees en deur ene “Le Clerc” vrygelaat gaan word om SA en die wereld te mislei. In elk geval raak ek nou polities hier en dit gaan eintlik oor die waarheid van die Woord van God.

    Nee wat ouens, julle kan spot, stry, mooi geleerde woorde uiter, vloek, skree, lag noem dit maar op, maar stadig maar seker gaan hierdie dinge voor julle oopvou en as dit te laat is, is my gebede met julle.

    My gebede is in elk geval met julle.

    soois

    May 24, 2012 at 08:22

  209. Soois, ek het so pas my woordeskat met twee nuwe woorde uitgebrei: “apophenia” en “fuckwiittery”.
    Skryf asseblief nog, miskien leer ons nog iets interresant.

    Shazee

    May 24, 2012 at 07:01

  210. Nee Soois, hy het aliens gesien!!
    Party mense dink mos die piramides is deur aliens gebou.
    Maar elk geval, jy klink net soos Siener van Rensburg.

    ErickV

    May 23, 2012 at 14:22

  211. (Apophenia + Confirmation bias) × Cherry-picking = Failsafe fuckwittery

    Con-Tester

    May 23, 2012 at 13:44

  212. Hans, ek hoor wat jy sê ou maat.

    Kom ek gee ‘n voorbeeld of twee van die waarheid van die Bybel, waarin jy nie net duidelike profesiëe kan sien nie, maar selfs vêrdere verwysing na Suid Afrika as sulks. Of ten minste, indien die ouens op die blog te verstrooid is om dit raak te sien, ten minste stof tot na-denke, of dood gewoon “toeval”, ‘n woord waarvoor nie-gelowiges baie lief is.

    Kom ek neem ‘n visie van Eségiël as voorbeeld. Eségiël het graag visies van diere gebruik. Ons moet onthou dat hy duisende jare gelede geleef het en dus nie ‘n ander manier geken om dinge van die toekoms te beskryf nie. Hy was ook die hekwag vir die volk van Israel wat bemoeid was met hulle welstand en toekoms. Ek gaan Eségiël 1 as voorbeeld gebruik. Sy eerste visie.

    1:4-7 “ Ek het ‘n gesig gesien. Daar het ‘n storm uit die noorde gekom, ‘n groot wolk. Vlamme het heen en weer geflits en daar was ‘n helder skynsel om die wolk. Van binne uit, uit die vuur uit, het dit geblink soos gloeiende wit metaal.
    Daaruit het vier wesens te voorskyn gekom. Hulle het ‘n mensvormige voorkoms gehad,
    maar elkeen het vier gesigte en vier vlerke gehad.
    Hulle bene was reguit en hulle voete was soos beeskloue en het geblink soos koper wat opgevryf is.” …by die inhuldigingseremonie van Nelson Mandela het die parade begin met 4 Impala vliegtuie wat in formasie gevlieg het, van “blink metaal”, met 4 gesigte (kentekens) en 4 vlerke. Hulle onderstelle (bene) is blink en van vooraf gesien lyk die wiele soos die gesplete hoef van ‘n “bees”.
    1:8 “Onder hulle vlerke aan elk van die vier kante van elkeen was daar menshande. Al vier wesens het gesigte en vlerke gehad.” …mensehande verwys daarna dat die wesens deur mense gemaak is en ook moontlik die “kasteel” (SA Lugmag se wapen daardie tyd) met 5 punte (vingers) wat soos ‘n hand kan lyk.
    1:9 “Die een se vlerke het aan die een langs hom s’n geraak. Die wesens het nie van koers verander wanneer hulle beweeg nie. Elkeen het reg vooruit beweeg.” …het in formasie gevlieg.
    1:10 “Elkeen het vier gesigte gehad. Die vorms van hulle gesigte was so: voor dié van ‘n mens, regs dié van ‘n leeu, links dié van ‘n bul, en agter dié van ‘n arend. Elke wese het dus vier gesigte gehad.” …vooraansig die van ‘n mens (vliëenier), links die van ‘n bul (16 eskader embleem), regs die van ‘n leeu (19 eskader embleem), agter die van ‘n arend (SALM embleem).
    1:11-14 “Sy twee boonste vlerke was oopgesprei en het aan dié van die wesens weerskante geraak; met die twee ander vlerke het hy sy lyf bedek.
    Die wesens het reg vooruit beweeg in die rigting waarin die Gees dit wou, en hulle het nie van koers verander wanneer hulle beweeg nie.
    Die vorm van die wesens, hulle voorkoms, was soos dié van gloeiende kole vuur; hulle was net soos die vlamme wat heen en weer tussen hulle beweeg het. Die vuur het helder geskyn en blitse het uit die vuur geskiet.” …verdere beskrywing van stralers in formasie.
    1:15-17 “Terwyl ek so na die wesens kyk, sien ek ‘n wiel op die grond langs elke wese met sy vier gesigte.
    Die voorkoms van die wiele en hulle afwerking was soos dié van edelstene. Hulle het eenders gelyk en al vier was so gemaak dat daar ‘n wiel dwars binne ‘n wiel was;
    hulle kon in die rigting van enige van hulle vier kante beweeg, maar hulle het nie van koers verander as hulle beweeg nie.” …helikopters, met hulle rotors.
    1:18-21 “Die wiele was groot en indrukwekkend en al vier se vellings was rondom vol oë.
    Wanneer die wesens beweeg het, het die wiele saam met hulle beweeg, en wanneer die wesens van die grond af opgestyg het, het die wiele ook opgestyg.
    Waarheen die Gees ook al wou, het hulle beweeg, en die wiele het saam opgestyg, want die wesens se gees was in die wiele.
    Wanneer die wesens beweeg, beweeg die wiele; wanneer die wesens staan, staan die wiele; wanneer die wesens van die grond af opstyg, styg die wiele saam op, want die wesens se gees was in die wiele.” …nogsteeds verwysings na helikopters.
    1:22 “Bokant die wesens se koppe was iets wat gelyk het soos ‘n gewelf, blink en skrikwekkend soos ‘n ysberg. Die gewelf was bokant hulle koppe oopgespan.” …die blink “canopies” van die vegvliegtuie.
    1:23-25 “Onderkant die gewelf het hulle vlerke gestrek, die een teen die ander, en elkeen het met twee vlerke sy lyf bedek.
    Ek het die geruis van hulle vlerke gehoor. Wanneer hulle beweeg, was dit soos die geruis van ‘n sterk waterstroom, soos die stem van die Almagtige, soos die gedruis van ‘n menigte mense bymekaar, soos die gedreun van ‘n leërmag. Wanneer hulle tot stilstand kom, het hulle hulle vlerke laat sak.
    Daar het ‘n stem gekom van bokant die gewelf bo die wesens se koppe af. Hulle het hulle vlerke laat sak wanneer hulle tot stilstand kom.” …weereens die stralers met ‘n gesuis soos ‘n sterk waterstroom of die gedruis van baie mense ens.
    1:26 “Bokant die gewelf bo hulle koppe was daar iets soos saffier met die vorm van ‘n troon, en daarop was ‘n gestalte met die voorkoms van ‘n mens, hoog daarbo.” …die uitskietstoel met die vlieënier daarop.
    1:27 “Van wat gelyk het na sy heupe, daarvandaan boontoe, het dit vir my gelyk na die glans van gloeiende wit metaal, na iets soos vuur met ‘n rand rondom, en van wat gelyk het na sy heupe, daarvandaan ondertoe, het dit vir my gelyk na vuur met ‘n helder glans rondom.” …die uitlaat van vuur.
    1:28 “Die glans rondom was soos dié van die reënboog in ‘n wolk na die reën. Dit was soos die magtige verskyning van die Here. Toe ek dit sien, val ek plat en ek hoor ‘n stem praat.” …die hittegolwe rondom die stralers.

    Julle sien dit!?, of dalk nie.

    “ Verdere “toeval” is dat Eségiël in sy tweede visie gesien het hoedat ons (SA) vertrap word en hy beskryf weer die wesens, behalwe dat die bul-embleem uitgelaat word, maar vervang word met ‘n “vliegtuig”-embleem en dit is so dat 16 Eskader toegemaak is na die inhuldiging van Mandela en dat die vliegtuie na FTS oorgeplaas is met die emblem van ‘n Impala vliegtuig as hulle wapen of embleem.

    soois

    May 23, 2012 at 12:48

  213. Hans, jy moet nou nie so “onerkentelik” wees nie man. Ek het minstens die moeite gaan doen om die skrifgedeelte waarna jy my verwys het te lees, ek het dus nie “onkundig” gebly nie.
    Dit is meer as wat jy gewoonlik kan se omtrent die literatuur waarna ons jou verwys.
    Daardie hoofstuk gaan letterlik oor die tempel wat vervalle geraak het as gevolg van verwaarlosing, dus my simpatie met jou vervalle kerkgebou.

    Wanneer gaan jy eendag ophou om wilde en ongegronde stellings te maak omtrent mense wie se persoonlike omstandighede en gewoontes jy hoegenaamd niks weet, of kan weet nie?
    Ons debatteer hier omtrent die geldigheid van ons onderskeie lewensbeskouings, en jy maak aannames oor ons persoonlike gewoontes en moraliteit wat op geen feite hoegenaamd gebasseer is nie.
    Het jy my al ontmoet? Of vir CT, of vir Erick, of enige van die ander? Jy het seker nie nodig om ons te ontmoet nie, want jy “ken” mos ons “tipe”
    Het god aan jou openbaar wie ons nou eintlik is en hoe ons optree?
    Jy moet verstaan, Hans, dit skeel my min wat jy van my dink, ek is net nuuskierig om te weet hoe jy aan die kennis gekom het waarop jy jou stelllings basseer.

    Verder het alle goeie dade van ongelowiges natuurlik ‘n kommersiele motief. Dit is seker hoekom Billl Gates en Warren Buffett besig is om feitlik al hulle geld weg te gee. Hulle “seed” seker om tienvoudig terug te kry. Ek het gedog dit is eintlik die christenne se racket.

    Shazee

    May 23, 2012 at 10:40

  214. Hansie,

    Ek sien ou Soois moet namens jou antwoord. Wat is fout? Weet jy nie wat om my te antwoord op my stellings nie?
    Ek sal nie verbaas wees indien jy dalk ook jou geloof gaan verloor en tot ander insigte gaan kom nie.

    ErickV

    May 23, 2012 at 05:37

  215. Shit, but you see right through everything, eh Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl? So when wealthy atheists do something generous for their fellow man, they do it for the sake of their businesses’ continued wellbeing. In contrast, a crushtian like you does it to get a place in some imaginary place of eternal bliss after you die. And you know fuck-all about what any atheist posting here does or does not do for his/her fellow man, see? Or does your skydaddy tell you, hmm?

    You really are a fucking arrogant little arsehole, you funny deceitful man, you.

    Con-Tester

    May 22, 2012 at 21:54

  216. Shazee, in vandag se tyd noem ons dit onderhoud of instandhouding en dit is niks om oor jammer te wees nie.
    Dit is nou jammer dat julle nie onder daardie mense tel waarna C T verwys het nie.
    Daardie skenkings was goed vir hulle besigheid en is ook deel van reklama. Hulle is maar die enkele voorbeelde waarna jy kon verwys het en ja daar is ook goeie mense onder ateiste so sorg minstens dat jy ook een is.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 22, 2012 at 21:43

  217. Soois,

    Eerstens se jy “En so sou nie-gelowiges gewees het sonder die riglyne van die Bybel”.
    Nou sal ek graag wil weet. Wat van die ander lewende wesens op hierdie ou aarde van ons wat nog nooit van die bybel gehoor het nie? Het hulle geen morele waardes nie?

    En tweedens seg jy. “God het definitief nie ons geld nodig nie.
    Die kerke en ander soortgelyke instansies het “God” geskape en moet “God’ onderhou sodat die kerke en hulself kan voortbestaan.
    Ek stem daar met jou saam dat jou “God” nie die geld nodig het nie want jou “God” soos jy hom ken bestaan nie.

    Ek moet om verskoning vra dat ek nie so gereeld kommetaar lewer nie. Ek “hit and run” hier so af en toe as ek die kans kry. Ek is ongelukkig nie ‘n skaap boer van die Karoo nie.🙂

    ErickV

    May 22, 2012 at 12:33

  218. Interesting and thought provoking article Con-Tester.
    I will not pretend to have grasped all of it on the first reading, but as I read it, it negates the religious claim that knowledge can be acquired by pure thought, and furthermore that a believe can only qualify as knowledge if it is both true and justified?

    It seems that it is pointless to try and get a philosophical handle on the truth, or otherwise, of religious believe. It should just be admitted that it is a believe without attempts to justify it.

    Shazee

    May 22, 2012 at 11:13

  219. Shazee, I posted a link to the article you refer to on May 14 in the Christopher Hitchens dead at 62 thread. Not that Hanswors, my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, will bother to locate and read it because, well, he has all the answers already anyway.

    On a related note that cuts right to the heart of the godiot’s pervasive intellectual dishonesty and conceit, here’s a well-crafted article by a philosophically savvy individual enumerating several grave problems that face those who want to prove that their skydaddy exists. A taste:

    I think that religious people ought to be more honest and simply admit that they believe what they believe on faith. There is no need to invoke erroneous and inaccessible (and old and boring) philosophical arguments; for none can be valid. Faith is what drives belief in gods, and faith remains a great problem in the world.

    I’ll put money on it that no godiot will understand, let alone address the issues raised in any meaningful way. Bets are now open.

    Con-Tester

    May 22, 2012 at 10:01

  220. Hans, kon nie jou stelling dat ateiste net vir hulle self leef net daar laat nie.
    Ek het na drie van die rykste mense wat ooit op die aarde rondgeloop het se profiele gaan kyk.

    Hulle is: George Soros, Warren Buffet en Bill Gates.

    Hierdie drie het saam biljoene dollers vir liefdadigheiswerk en die bevegting, en navorsing oor, gevreesde siektes geskenk.
    Bill Gates het so baie geld geskenk dat dit hom laat afsak het op die lys van rykste individue in die wereld, en hy beplan om uiteindelik prakties sy hele fortuin vir die doel te skenk.

    Raai wat Hans? Al drie die menere is self-erkende ateiste (google gerus hulle onderskeie onderhoude met David Frost).

    Nie sleg vir ouens wat net vir hulself leef nie, of hoe? Moet asseblief nie weer jou oningeligte stront oor ateiste se selfsugtige en doellose lewens hier verkondig nie.

    Shazee

    May 22, 2012 at 09:13

  221. Ateiste leef net vir hulself Hans?
    Het jy die moeite gedoen om die artikel te gaan lees waarna Con-Tester nou die dag verwys het, of het jy “onkundig” gebly?
    Hierdie mense is seker nie “ware” ateiste nie, ne Hans?

    Shazee

    May 22, 2012 at 04:41

  222. Jammer om te hoor jou kerkgebou val uitmekaar uit Hans. Dit is mos waar voor jou tiendes gebruik word ne? Om ‘n vervalle kerkgebou te herstel, volgens die skrifgedeelte wat jy aanhaal.
    Wat is die weddenskap jy kom vertel my ek moet iets simbolies daarin lees.
    Ek het ‘n goeie idee wat die simboliek volgens jou gaan wees, maar ek wag maar vir jou antwoord.

    Shazee

    May 22, 2012 at 04:29

  223. So what do you think about when you read your Holey Babble, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl?

    Con-Tester

    May 21, 2012 at 22:18

  224. Soois, wanneer ek die Bybel lees, bedink ek nie vleeslike dinge nie; Rom. 8 v 4 tot 6.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 21, 2012 at 22:11

  225. My, my, what a pile of self-serving bullshit you are able to confabulate, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl. You clearly know nothing whatsoever about atheists’ lives, nor could you be bothered to find out before sticking both your hands and both your feet into your mouth all at the same time.

    Con-Tester

    May 21, 2012 at 22:10

  226. ErickV, ateiste lewe net vir hulself, waar Christenne vir ander lewe en dit is die verskil van, om ‘n goeie lewe te lei of net te lewe. Vertrou jy sal hierdie paar eenvoudige woorde kan verstaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 21, 2012 at 22:02

  227. Shazee, sekerlik ja en dit gaan nie na huurlinge of “Simon die Towenaars” nie. Lees 2 Konings 12, en kyk waarvoor word die tiendes gebruik. LW, sou jy nie die verse lees nie, sal jy onkundig bly.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 21, 2012 at 21:55

  228. What a fine puddle of incoherent babble you have rendered for our amusement, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl! Your inability to follow a few simple points comes through brilliantly once more.

    And, on top of it all, you still can’t prove me wrong.

    Con-Tester

    May 21, 2012 at 21:54

  229. Con-Tester, you are the one who is poor; Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
    In what other things was Jesus a bad example?
    You are not very bright, if you think, we don’t know, that others before Jesus also preach certain things, yet they they were not as successful as Jesus was and is. The denseness therefore appears to be with you.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 21, 2012 at 21:47

  230. More of this crushtian courage and integrity, please! That’s where you point out and explain the utter stupidity of the godiot’s claims and he then disappears for a while before returning with exactly the same drivel a short time later.

      
      
      
    

    😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    May 21, 2012 at 17:33

  231. Soois, ek het, soos jy seker opgemerk het, per ongeluk my antwoord op die verkeerde geselslyn gepos – gaan kyk maar op “warts and all”

    Jy mis in elk geval die punt met jou volgende pos ook: ek weet god (selfs al het hy bestaan) het niemand se geld nodig nie. Dit sou bitter onlogies gewees het as ‘n almagtige wese kontant nodig gehad het.
    Die punt is dat daar desperate sotte is wat dit glo, en daar is gewetenlose dose wat dit uitbuit.

    Shazee

    May 21, 2012 at 11:15

  232. Oh, and besides all the other problems with your fairytale, it’s not any “false crushtians” that cement my disbelief. It’s actually idiots like you with your singular inability to give any kind of meaningful answer that are at fault.

    Con-Tester

    May 21, 2012 at 11:09

  233. Your Holey Babble? An objective criterion!? Even a dimwit of your superlative insight must surely see the joke. No? Let me explain: If your fairytale book was in any way objective we wouldn’t have as many different interpretations of it as there are dimwits reading it. Capisce?

    No, probably not.

    So yet again you can’t actually answer my question with anything approaching precision or clarity. Nor do you have the intellectual honesty or balls to admit your ignorance on this matter, and so you fabricate a stream of self-serving lies and bullshit to try and cover it up while extending your proud tradition of raping reason, logic and evidence.

    Well done, you just don’t disappoint.

     
     
     
    

    😆😳:mrgreen:😳😆😳:mrgreen:😳😆😳:mrgreen:😳😆😳:mrgreen:😳😆😳:mrgreen:😳😆😳:mrgreen:😳

    Con-Tester

    May 21, 2012 at 11:04

  234. ErickV,
    “Gelowiges sou heel moontlik kriminele gewees het indien daar nie boeke soos die bybel was om vir hulle riglyne te gee nie.”
    Heeltemal korrek. En so sou nie-gelowiges gewees het sonder die morele riglyne van die Bybel.

    Shazee,
    “Jy is reg Eric, het hierdie mense nog nooit gewonder waarom god so naarstigtelik hulle geld nodig het nie?
    Wat wil hy daarmee koop? Hy kan mos net enigiets wat hy wil he optoor, en siedaar!
    Gebruik hulle Rande of miskien Euro’s in die hemel?
    En wat van sy “dienaars” hier op aarde? Hy kan mos self aan hulle behoetes voorsien sonder om van hulle skaamtelose bedelaars te maak, of hoe?
    As ek nog een keer moet hoor “it is not your money, it is god’s money”, beskyt ek myself.”
    Jy is ook reg, God het definitief nie ons geld nodig nie, maar die gesindheid van die Christen om te gee, dus om te gee vir ander. Sy hele behoefte is dat Sy kinders mekaar moet liefhe en ondersteun, daarom dat ons moet gee en nie net Hy nie.

    So op die onderwerp van geld. Ek merk op dat daar verwys word na die predikers wat skatryk is en ek moet saamstem. Een van die redes hoekom ek my satellietskottel laat opsit het, was vir die baie sogenaamde Christenkanale daarop. Ongelukkig het dit in ‘n geldmaaksirkus ontaard en vind ek maar min Christene op die uitsendings. Deesdae hoor ek net hoe ek my geld moet “seed” en dan sal ek soveel meer terug ontvang. Hierdie ouens bid dan dat die 100, 200 of 300 ouens wat hulle swaar verdiende geld ge-“seed” het in veelvoude terug sal ontvang. Dit is nie God wat hier werk nie, maar Mammon, want hierdie ouens soek ons geld, en die ouens wat “seed”, doen dit nie vir die goeie nie, maar om self terug te ontvang. Terloops, ek ken vir Oom Angus, en laat ek julle maar vertel, hy is nie ‘n ryk ou nie. Om die waareid te se, sy seuns boer nou op sy grond wat swaar belas is met skuld. As hy so lekker geld gemaak het, was dit anders. Doen moeite, gaan kyk wat kos dit jou om sy MCC’s by te woon, kyk wat gee hy alles in ruil vir daardie geld, media soos oa CD’s en DVD’s, skryfbehoeftes, aandenkings en kampeerplek, om van die organisasie nie eens te praat nie, dan wed ek jou jy sal vind dat hy waarskynlik self moet geld in-betaal.

    Groete aan julle

    soois

    May 21, 2012 at 10:45

  235. Like I said, many will operate under the word “christian”, but does that make him/her one!? Let me also repeat, that just to believe in God and creation does also not make you a Christian, it makes you only religious. Only if you accept Jesus Christ as your ONLY Saviour, you can call yourself one, but then you have the resposibility to live like one, not to “deserve” His Salvation, but BECAUSE OF His Salvation.

    Objective criteria? The Holy Bible my friend.

    Shazee, die blanke is verdeel in die Alpynse (Celtic) oftewel Homo Alpinus en die Teutoniese of Homo Europaeus. Dan word daar ook verwys na die Mediterieense blanke wat bes moontlik nie heeltemal blank is nie. In elk geval, net ‘n interessante opmerking en julle is welkom om tussen mekaar daaroor te debatteer. Eintlik het ek net vir Hansman daarop gewys dat die RCC en die protestante ongelukkig valse christene onder hulle het wat ongelukkig een van die redes is hoekom ouens soos jy en ou Connie nie glo nie.

    soois

    May 21, 2012 at 10:21

  236. So soois, seeing as you’re not only one of your skydaddy’s descendants and among his chosen, not only the world’s greatest unpublished biologist, not only evidently now also the world’s greatest unpublished anthropologist-cum-ethnic-historian, but also an exegetical expert to rival Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, perhaps you’ll answer this: Which one(s) of the ±39,000 recognised crushtian sects, divisions and denominations is/are The True One(s)™? And what objective criteria do you use to decide this?

    Con-Tester

    May 21, 2012 at 09:44

  237. Soois, jy reken dat die blanke in Suid Afrika anatomies verskil van ‘n blanke in europa?
    Kan jy dalk ‘n wetenskaplike bron vir daardie juweel aanhaal?

    Shazee

    May 21, 2012 at 09:43

  238. En ja Erick, jy is ook korrek dat ateiste nie die bybel nodig het vir ‘n morele kompas nie. Inderwaarheid het niemand die bybel nodig vir morele riglyne nie, nie eens die christenne nie.
    As jy vandag jou lewe moet lei volgens die bybel se voorskrifte sal jy vinnig in ‘n tronk beland of as oorlogsmisdadiger vervolg word.
    Ek dink nie hierdie mense weet regtig wat in die bybel geskryf is nie, of hulle lees net die dele wat hulle pas, en ignoreer die res.

    Shazee

    May 21, 2012 at 09:34

  239. Hallo Hans,
    Ek sien jy veg nog die geveg onverpoost.
    “Shazee, dit is die RCC en die wat van hulle afgestg het oor die jare, waarna jy verwys. Ek het ook ‘n probleem daarmee soos julle. Dit is nie ‘n rede om die goeie voorbeeld van Jesus af te maak as iets wat sleg is en daarom sê ek weer, laat hy wat dan onkundig is, onkundig bly. Die wat vervolg is, is nie die wat afdwing op ander nie.”
    Ou Hans, lank lank gelede was daar die 12 stamme van Israel. Tien van hulle het later weggetrek en in Europa gaan woon, die tien lande wat onder die Romeinnse ryk geval het, en uit die tien het later die RCC onstaan. Twee stamme, naamlik Juda en Benjamin het eers in Israel agter gebly. Levi is ook ‘n stam, maar die het nie ‘n eie landstreek ontvang nie. Uiteindellik het die stamme, Juda en Benjamin ook na Europa gegaan en daar verstrooid geraak, maar hulle was die protestante wat later na Suid Afrika en Rhodesie gevlug het. Ons boere Suid Afrikaners is die afstammelinge van Juda en Benjamin se nageslag is na Rhodesie. Gaan lees gerus mooi in Jesaja en veral in Sagaria waar God verwys na Sy “verstrooide en verdrukte volk anderkant die riviere van Kus (Ethiopie) wat met papirusbote daar aangekom het en wat weer sal opstaan”, m.a.w Suidelike Afrika. Ons voorouers het met skepe hier aangekom en nie direk per land nie. Die slim wetenskaplikes kan maar gaan opsoek en sal vind dat antropoloe ook bevind het dat die blanke in SA se skedel verskil van die in Europa, wat beteken dat al stam ons af van Engelse, Franse, Hollandere, Duitsers ens., ons eintlik nie heeltemal dieselfde is nie. Ek prtaat natuurlik nie van die wat later hiernatoe ge-emigreer het nie.
    Mense dink dat die Jode Sy verkose volk is, maar die woord JEW is afgelei van “baster”. Selfs by die skepping waar die mens volgens SY beeld geskape is, is die woord “man” afgelei van die wat kan bloos, naamlik wit mense. Jakob se “vrugte” (nakomelinge) was aanneemlik vir God, maar Esau s’n was onaanneemlik (kinders van ‘n nie-blanke vrou). Ek probeer nie ‘n rasse ding hier se nie, want God het ook kinders onder die Heidene, ek probeer net se dat ons die nakomelinge van God is, en as ek se ons, bedoel ek die nageslag van die wat per skip hier aangekom het.
    Dus is die RCC ook nakomelinge van God en ook deel van Sy 12 stamme. Die probleem is dat daar diegene onder die RCC sowel as die onder die protestante is wat met hulle gedrag Christene in die verleentheid stel, maar die Bybel en veral Openbaring het gewaarsku dat die Satan ons in ons eie kerke sal mislei.
    Dus, nie almal wat se hy is christen is noodwendig ‘n Cristen nie. Ek wil net herhaal, God het kinders vanuit alle volke, maar ons maak deel uit van die 12 oorspronklike stamme van Israel.

    soois

    May 21, 2012 at 09:23

  240. Jy is reg Eric, het hierdie mense nog nooit gewonder waarom god so naarstigtelik hulle geld nodig het nie?
    Wat wil hy daarmee koop? Hy kan mos net enigiets wat hy wil he optoor, en siedaar!
    Gebruik hulle Rande of miskien Euro’s in die hemel?
    En wat van sy “dienaars” hier op aarde? Hy kan mos self aan hulle behoetes voorsien sonder om van hulle skaamtelose bedelaars te maak, of hoe?
    As ek nog een keer moet hoor “it is not your money, it is god’s money”, beskyt ek myself.

    Shazee

    May 21, 2012 at 09:12

  241. Hansie,

    Ek wil graag ‘n paar feite vir jou noem.
    Die ateiste het nie ‘n bybel nodig om ‘n goeie lewe te ly nie.
    Gelowiges sou heel moontlik kriminele gewees het indien daar nie boeke soos die bybel was om vir hulle riglyne te gee nie.
    Sonder skenkings van lidmate sou geen kerk bestaan het nie (kertjieng).
    Sonder kerke sou daar nie ‘n godsdiens gewees het nie.

    ErickV

    May 21, 2012 at 05:31

  242. Hans, is jy in ‘n gemeente waar jy ‘n tiende betaal?

    Shazee

    May 20, 2012 at 23:49

  243. Oh dear, poor Hanswors is still being persecuted by da eeebil aytists!

    Nobody is disputing that your Jeeeeeeebussssst! made a good role model for certain things, you funny deceitful man, you. But you fuckwits simply won’t accept that he was also a very bad example of certain other things, just as you won’t accept that he wasn’t the first one to preach the stuff most people accept as good. Equally, you godiots can’t get it through you dense skulls that good behaviour isn’t any proof of divinity or some fanciful non-material realm. Even less are you able to absorb the idea that your own sense of morality doesn’t need examples to follow if your parents did their job right with you.

    So Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, you’re still just spraying around bullshit and lies and made-up nonsense, while raping logic, reason and evidence.

    Con-Tester

    May 20, 2012 at 21:59

  244. Shazee, dit is die RCC en die wat van hulle afgestg het oor die jare, waarna jy verwys. Ek het ook ‘n probleem daarmee soos julle. Dit is nie ‘n rede om die goeie voorbeeld van Jesus af te maak as iets wat sleg is en daarom sê ek weer, laat hy wat dan onkundig is, onkundig bly. Die wat vervolg is, is nie die wat afdwing op ander nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 20, 2012 at 21:32

  245. Jamen.

      
      
      
    

    😉

    Con-Tester

    May 20, 2012 at 08:42

  246. Hans, ek sal jou vertel waarteen ons te velde trek: jy moet verstaan dat niemand regtig omgee wat jy en jou mede godiote glo nie. Wat ‘n sot se persoonlike bygeloof is, is nie op sig self vreeslik belangrik nie.
    Waarteen ons te velde trek is die irritasie wat julle veroorsaak as julle daarop aandring om dit in ons kele af te druk.
    Ons maak beswaar daarteen dat julle so arrogant is om ons kinders in die skole te wil besmet met julle verstand-verrotende virus.
    Ek persoonlik het ‘n broertjie dood aan die siek en siniese wyse waarop desperate mense afgepers en mislei word om geld, wat hulle dikwels kwalik kan bekostig, te oorhandig aan ouens wat in persoonlike helikopters en stralers rondvlieg. Dit, terwyl van hulle gemeentelede skaars kos het om te eet.
    Ons het ‘n probleem daarmee as julle daarop aandring dat julle persoonlike bygelowe openbare beleid moet rig.
    Jy sien Hans,dit behoort nie so moeilik te wees om te verstaan wat ons probleem is nie. Dit is nie dat julle primitiewe bygelofies op ‘n persoonlike vlak baie belangrik is nie, dit is dat julle dit so arrogant op almal probeer afdwing.

    Shazee

    May 20, 2012 at 07:23

  247. Thanks Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, but really, it’s only a compliment if one reads it by the same rules as one must read The Gospel According to Hanswors.

    Hoerdie”, Hanswors? Really? You really are quite a joker, especially with your constant foot-in-gob disease.

    And of course it’s another one of those read-as-you-would-The-Gospel-According-to-Hanswors that you say this blog has no value and yet you show up here regular as clockwork, you funny deceitful man, you. As for throwing mud, you started it when you decided to throw around your lies and bullshit. You reap what you sow, ou! I’d’ve thought you knew that already from The Gospel According to Hanswors.

      
      
    

    😛

    Con-Tester

    May 19, 2012 at 22:22

  248. Shazee, julle adiote kan nie bewys dat Jesus nie vir die goeie gestaan het nie en dan trek julle so tevelde teen wat weet geen mens nie. Alles wat julle my graag toesnou is maar wel hoe en wat julle is. Siestog, en dan is dit veronderstel om seker van julle helde te maak. Hoerdie blog van ou Nathan het geen waarde om aan ander te bied nie want om mekaar met modder te gooi is maar swaksinnig.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 19, 2012 at 21:57

  249. Con-Tester, I must compliment your compliment.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 19, 2012 at 21:42

  250. Towenaars en geeste Hans? Waarom vertel jy my nie sommer ook van die tokelossie nie?
    Daar is geen toorkuns of geeste betrokke nie, net glibberige liegbekke wat dom donnners soos jy van hulle geld verlos.

    Shazee

    May 18, 2012 at 05:18

  251. Always the greatest of pleasure to promote such utter brilliance as yours Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl!

    Still, the correct word would be “compliment”…

      
    

    🙄😳😥😳🙄😳😥😳🙄😳😥😳🙄😳😥😳🙄😳😥😳🙄

    Con-Tester

    May 17, 2012 at 21:34

  252. Once more Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, what is a “siel”? What is “gees”? You have yet to supply a functional definition of this word you use so freely. Come now, for a genius of your magnificent prominence it should hardly be difficult.

    Con-Tester

    May 17, 2012 at 21:25

  253. Con-Tester, sorry man as I forgot to thank you for the “genius” complement you gave me on the 15th.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 17, 2012 at 21:25

  254. Shazee, Jesus waarsku ons teen die huurlinge en in Handelinge agt word ons teen die “Simon die Towenaars” van hierdie wêreld ook gewaarsku.
    Aangesien een siel meer werd as al die skatte van hierdie aarde is, is die opbrengs dit oor en oor werd.
    Shazee, gees is onbeperk en van verskillende hoeke gesien, is verskillende boodskappe wat nie mekaar weerspreek nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 17, 2012 at 21:18

  255. Well, that’s where the two aforesaid rules come in handy:

    1. Hanswors is always right.

    If in doubt, see Rule 1.

    So we’ll just have to take Hanswors’ word for it, won’t we now? After all, it’s true because my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl Hanswors says it’s true and he can show us an old book.

      
    
      
    
      
    

    Con-Tester

    May 17, 2012 at 20:17

  256. But is so hard to follow the gospel according to Hans. He seems to change it on a daily basis as the situation requires.

    Shazee

    May 17, 2012 at 19:44

  257. But Shazee, none of those godiots are the TrueVine™! At least that’s what Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl would have you believe. If you don’t follow The Gospel According to Hanswors , no matter how incoherent, haphazard and ad– or post hocit might be, then you’re automatically wrong.

    In short, there are two simple rules for settling any and all Holey Babble and skydaddy questions. They go as follows:

         

    1. Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl is always right.

         

    2. If in doubt, see Rule 1.

    There, that should settle any lingering doubts.

    Con-Tester

    May 17, 2012 at 09:51

  258. Hans, as die doel van jesus se kruisdood was om ons te leer jy kan nie jou pad hemel-toe koop nie, was dit maar ‘n redelik onsuksesvolle oefening.

    Het jy al uitgewerk hoeveel geld die Mighty Moron maak met die vroue-onderdrukkende stront wat hy kwytraak? Het jy al gesien hoe lyk die Moreleta NG se nuwe kerkgebou? Van die senior Dominees daar het jagplase ou maat.
    Ek was by een geleentheid deur my “wedergebore” werkgewer gedwing om ‘n seminaar oor “besigheidsbeginsels” by te woon waar al drie dae uitsluitlik gegaan het oor hoe jou tiende alleen nie genoeg is nie, nee, as jy ryk wil word moet jy behalwe jou tiende nog ook “extravagant” offers gee.
    Was jy al in die Vatikaan? Kan jy jou indink hoeveel rykdom daar bymekaar is?
    Het jy al gesien hoe lyk die liggaamsbouer van Rhema se huis?
    At Boshoff van CRC het sy eie helikopter wat hom lughawe toe vlieg.

    Ja, ek weet Hans, hulle is nie die ware wynstok nie, dit is net jy wat die ware boodskap ontvang het.
    Die punt is nog steeds dat dit maar ‘n skrale opbrengs vir so ‘n wrede dood is as net jy die boodskap gekry het.

    Shazee

    May 17, 2012 at 08:25

  259. Shazee, Jesus sterf sodat ons kan besef, dat ons sondes kan nie met geld of met aardse rykdom afgekoop word nie. Daar is dinge of gesindhede wat ons moet Pry sgee.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 16, 2012 at 22:11

  260. So, jy moet jouself net “diensbaar stel” tot goeie werke, dan is jy fine?
    Waarom moes jesus dan aan die kruis sterf?
    Het hy, of het hy nie gesterf sodat ons sondes vergewe kan word nie?

    Shazee

    May 16, 2012 at 00:42

  261. So Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, according to The Gospel According to Hanswors, your stupid beliefs would have been sustained in the absence of the RCC “by all means”.

    Fuck me, but you’re a genius! Your pithy clarity and penetrating analyses are breathtaking in their explanatory power. Still, it’s a pity you invent and talk so much transparent kak, though…

      
    

    😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

    Con-Tester

    May 15, 2012 at 23:18

  262. Con-Tester, by all means.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 15, 2012 at 23:11

  263. Shit, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl, there you go with the lying, evasion, avoidance and bullshitting again. What a funny deceitful deluded man you are.

    Con-Tester

    May 15, 2012 at 23:09

  264. ErickV, ja, om jou tot beter insigte te kry het ek seker profesionele hulp nodig.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 15, 2012 at 23:05

  265. Shazee, Voor Jesus, het hul lamme ens. geoffer vir hul sondes en hul lewe het nie juis verbeter nie.
    Rom 12:1 Ek vermaan julle dan, broeders, by die ontferminge van God, dat julle jul liggame stel as ‘n lewende, heilige en aan God welgevallige offer dit is julle redelike godsdiens.
    Ons moet dus diensbaar wees tot goeie werke en dan sal ons nie in boosheid (sonde) vasgevang word nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 15, 2012 at 23:03

  266. Project Reason – dis die een

    Noek vanBiljon

    May 15, 2012 at 22:17

  267. Hansie, ek dink regtig jy het profesionele hulp nodig.

    ErickV

    May 15, 2012 at 04:58

  268. Ek het mos al genoem dat ou Hansie ‘n moerse geestes probleem het. Glo jul my nou?

    ErickV

    May 15, 2012 at 04:57

  269. Met alle respek Hans, wat de fok praat jy van?
    Het jesus aan die kruis gesterf vir jou sondes, of het hy nie?
    As hy het, wat gorrel jy van jouself offer?
    As hy nie het nie, waarom noem jy jouself ‘n christen?
    Ek raak al hoe meer oortuig jy is aan die bol gepik.

    Shazee

    May 14, 2012 at 22:28

  270. That would be “tell”, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl. But you’re dodging questions again, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl. And you could be regarded as a lump of fungus and you also talk. Well, “talk” is a bit of a stretch, really. More like “preach”, “sermonise” and “fabricate crap.”

    By what means would your idiotic beliefs have been sustained if not for the RCC, hmm? And what exactly did the RCC steal, Hanswors my onerkentlike ontduikende ou liegbek pêl? Is that a fairytale that is told of in The Gospel According to Hanswors.

    Con-Tester

    May 14, 2012 at 22:13

  271. Shazee, mens kannie net iets offer vir een se sondes nie en Jesus het gewys, dat ons moet ons self offer om te bekeer van sonde.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 14, 2012 at 22:11

  272. Con-Tester, to tel you the truth, you can also be regarded as a serpent and of course you talk.
    The RCC only sustained what they had stolen, that would have been sustained in any case.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 14, 2012 at 22:03

  273. So Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl, in The Gospel According to Hanswors, it wasn’t a talking serpent that tempted Eve to take the fruit, eh?

    What was it that did the tempting then, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl? Or are you saying that the whole Adam and Eve thing is all a big fairytale? Explain how this spiel goes in The Gospel According to Hanswors!

    And did Abraham really hear your skydaddy’s voice commanding him to sacrifice his son, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl? Explain how this pile of bollocks goes in The Gospel According to Hanswors!

    Con-Tester

    May 13, 2012 at 21:32

  274. O ja, ek het vergeet, dit is een van die dele wat simbolies gelees moet word. Die slang het net simbolies gepraat en adam het net simbolies die appel gevreet. Jesus het toe gesterf vir ‘n sonde wat nooit plaasgevind het nie, dit was mos net simbolies ne?
    Lekker logies Hans, dankie vir die insig.

    Shazee

    May 13, 2012 at 21:12

  275. That would be “… would have happened…” Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl. Goddit?

    What would have happened, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl, is speculation and not really relevant, but I suspect without the RCC, your stupid beliefs would be very different in content and would very probably be those of a crazy fringe cult today.

    What matters is what did happen, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl, and that is that the RCC sustained your stupid beliefs for the better part of 1,600 years before the bullshit pressure got the better of a social rebel.

    Now be a good little godiot and be “erkentlik” about the undeniable history of your stupid beliefs, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl.

      
    

    😛

    Con-Tester

    May 13, 2012 at 21:10

  276. Shazee, ek het nog nooit geglo,dat ‘n slang kan praat en daarom is dit duidelik, dat jy ook maar baie strond uit jou duim uit suig. Hoe sal jy ooit verskille kan onderskei as jy so baie strond uit jou duim kan uit suig?
    Ek het vir jou uitgewys, dat daar geen weersprekings in die Bybel is nie en jy kon nie die teendeel bewys nie. Jy verkies om eerder leeuns aan te neem omdat dit julle Adiote geval.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 13, 2012 at 21:04

  277. Con-Tester, what would you imagine, would of happened, if the persecution did not take place?

    Hans Matthysen

    May 13, 2012 at 20:53

  278. Further intense prayer directed at Googledaddy followed by extensive prostration before same has persuaded His Awesome Searchiness to reveal that it was, allegedly, coined by one Guthrie Devine.

      
    

    😉

    Con-Tester

    May 13, 2012 at 19:03

  279. Er, Googledaddy strikes. about 352,000 hits

    Con-Tester

    May 13, 2012 at 18:50

  280. With about 352,000 hits, who can really say?

    Con-Tester

    May 13, 2012 at 18:48

  281. Julle ouens laat my darem te lekker lag. Ek weet nie wie se woord ‘Skydaddy’ is nie maar ek hou daarvan. Ek dink daaraan om nou al my E-mails te beeindig met: “May Skydaddy and the Force be with you’ in plaas van ‘Vriendelike Groete’

    Noek vanBiljon

    May 13, 2012 at 12:28

  282. We owe Hans an apology; it has been scientifically proven that god exists.

    Check out “WHAT IS THE TEMPERATURE OF HELL” on the – atheistnexus- posted by David Curry.

    Shazee

    May 13, 2012 at 08:12

  283. Nee wat Hans, jy is nie so vreeslik anders as as ander christenne nie, julle is maar almal “a peculiar people”. Dit is nogal snaaks ( nie peculiar nie, maar lagwekkend snaaks) hoe graag jy spesiaal en anders wil wees.
    Dit is nogal ironies dat ‘n ou wat aan pratende slange glo ander mense dom of onkundig noem, of hoe Hansie?
    En ja, jy verwag natuurlik ‘n ander standaard van Moslems as wat jy van jouself verwag, jy mag lieg, maar hulle mag nie. Wat het jy al vir ons uitgewys wat onafhanglik bevestigbaar is, wat nie ‘n blote verwysing na jou gediskrediteerde heilige sprokiesverhaal is nie?
    Gee ‘n paar voorbeelde, dan hou ek dalk op om jou ‘n arrogante liegbek te noem.

    Shazee

    May 13, 2012 at 00:27

  284. Shazee, verskoon maar, maar jy kom vir my baie dom voor en ek het nogal op ‘n stadium gedink, dat jy nogal insig het. Waar het ek verwag dat Moslems beter standaarde as Christenne moet hê?
    Ek is nog nie een keer uitgevang nie, want ek steek niks weg nie en julle verkies om baie wat ek aan julle uitgewys het, te ignoreer. Soos ek al voorheen gesê het, ” niemand is so blind soos hy wat nie wil sien nie”.

    1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

    Ek moet erken, ek is anders as baie ander sogenaamde Christenne.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 12, 2012 at 22:10

  285. Blah blah blah, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl. “true Christians” shmoo pisstians. You’re avoiding the facts by making up new bullshit and lies to cover up all your old bullshit and lies, ou. The RCC is directly responsible for your beliefs surviving up to the Reformation, you funny ignoramus. Ring any bells? Church bells, maybe? No? Like I said, you’re just too full of your own ignorant bullshit — and you can’t even smell it, you funny deceitful man, you.

    And your ignorant take on “ill doings under the cloak of Christianity” doesn’t hold for Protestants, eh? They being the True Vine™, eh? Oh wait, you’re a speshull crushtian, Hanswors my onerkentlike ou liegbek pêl. You know some universal and eternal truths that billions of others don’t.

    Fuck, but you’re even more delusional than anyone has any right to think.

      
    

    😆🙄😆🙄😆🙄😆🙄😆🙄😆🙄😆🙄😆🙄😆🙄😆🙄😆🙄😆

    Con-Tester

    May 12, 2012 at 22:02

  286. Con-Tester, should the true Christians have not been subjected to persecution by the Romans and co. then my belief would perhaps even have been more prominent in present times. You are not so bright if you think that the RCC accounts for four fifths of my belief. They do account for many ill doings under the cloak of Christianity, yes.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 12, 2012 at 21:51

  287. Yes CT, I suspect that you are correct, Hansie is not quite normal on many levels.
    His general bullshitting is typical of godiots, however.

    Shazee

    May 12, 2012 at 09:27

  288. But Shazee, don’t you see? My ou liegbek pêl Hanswors isn’t a normal crushtian. In fact, he keeps reminding us just how abnormal he is because he keeps saying how not normal he is, and so it must be true because he says so and he can show us an old book…

    Con-Tester

    May 12, 2012 at 08:10

  289. Waarom verwag jy ‘n beter standaard van die Moslems as wat julle christenne aan julle self stel Hans? Julle handel net so min as hulle volgens sy woord. Beteken dit julle aanvaar hom ook nie?
    Jyself is al verskeie kere hier uitgevang dat jy blatant lieg as dit jou pas. Is dit hoe jy volgens “sy woord” optree?

    Wat jou ander verduideliking betref; los maar. Ek vermoed dat geen verduideliking omtrent jou drie-in-een-god sal sin maak nie.

    Shazee

    May 12, 2012 at 07:47

  290. Shazee, as Muslims Jesus as ‘n profeet aanvaar het, sou hulle handel volgens Sy woord.
    God die Vader is die “Woord” (1.), volgens Joh. 1. Wanneer die “woord” vlees word, m.a.w. ek lewe dit, dan is die (2).”seun” Christus sigbaar. Daarna kom daar goeie resultate wat vertroosting, Heilige Gees, is en bring.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 11, 2012 at 23:04

  291. Ha-ha-ha Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, so now you’re changing the subject again instead of being “erkentlik” about the plain fact that you fucked up.

    Nice brain-dead move, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, you funny deceitful man, you!

    And your own beliefs wouldn’t exist at all if it wasn’t for the RCC. They account fully for four-fifths of your idiotic beliefs’ history. But you aren’t “erkentlik” or honest about that plain fact either, you funny deceitful man, you.

    Con-Tester

    May 11, 2012 at 22:51

  292. Con-Tester, I have already pointed out to you that the RCC hi-jacked Christianity.and are not the true vine.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 11, 2012 at 22:39

  293. Hans, ek het ‘n vraag vir jou: hoe verstaan jy die drie-enigheid van god?
    Was die vader, die seun en die heilige gees nog altyd deel van dieselfde wese, onafskeidbaar van mekaar?

    Shazee

    May 11, 2012 at 06:47

  294. Ja nee Hans, waarvan praat jy? Ontken jy nou dat die Moslems vir jesus as ‘n profeet beskou?
    Waarom sal hulle dit wil doen bloot om die christenne te mislei? Wat sou hulle daardeur wou bereik?
    Jy besluit nou sommer ook vir die Moslems ook wat hulle nou eintlik glo,
    Ek is regtig jammer Hans, maar jy bly maar ‘n onnosele en arrogante poepol wat te dom is om die sotlikheid van sy “argumente” in te sien.

    Shazee

    May 10, 2012 at 22:39

  295. Yes, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, but your agreement isn’t necessary, you funny, deceitful man, you. See, you keep telling us and so it must be true since you say it’s true and you can show us an old book.

    Plus, I didn’t say anything about Muslims and your virgin-raping skydaddy’s bastard son Jeeeeeeebussssst!. Someone else did, but in your typically arrogant brain-dead way, you missed the obvious and react to what you think the situation is, not what it actually is, you funny, deceitful man, you.

      
    

    😛😛😛😆😆😆😛😛😛😆😆😆😛😛😛😆😆😆😛😛😛

    Con-Tester

    May 10, 2012 at 22:30

  296. Con-Tester, I do agree with you about your inferior intellect.
    The Muslims don’t respect Jesus as a Prophet and just say so to mislead Christians.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 10, 2012 at 22:21

  297. It’ll never happen. The fact is that the reason the RCC doesn’t ordain women is that a RC priest represents Jeeeeeebusssst! at the point of consecration and it is RC doctrine that only a man can fulfil that role, just as it would be impossible for a man to represent the Virgin Mary (cf. the RCC’s similarly kooky notion of “Transubstantiation”) That besides, those cassock-pissers with their funny hats and sticks have far too much self-interest vested in their seedy scheme ever to allow their “infallible” dogma to be challenged by anyone who is not part of their inner circle. You must remember that religion in all its multifarious guises is always conservative and never a force for substantial change. After all, since change usually upsets people, the so-called “security” that religions offer derives directly from that anal stodginess. They just throw in a few rituals and cloak the whole package in mysticism so that its asininity isn’t quite so obvious.

    And this is also why it’s so important to laugh at those brain-dead arseholes at every opportunity.

    Con-Tester

    May 9, 2012 at 10:50

  298. Die Patriargale stelsel is so oud soos God en dit is en was nog altyd universeel. God is die opperste Patriarg en hy maak en breek net soos hy wil. So ook maak sy ‘eers-geskapene’, die man, net soos hy wil en al wat vir die arme vrou oor bly is om te kla en gesteek te word. EK wonder of die spesie homo sapiens sapiens op hierdie grondslag Darwin se elegante voorskrifte gaan oorleef. Ek twyfel. Daar is te veel woedende ambisie tot bereiking. Steven Goldberg meen dit kan nie anders wees nie maar gee nie te kenne dat dit so hoort te wees nie. Ek vestg my hoop op die genetikusse maar wil in die tussen tyd ‘n voorstel maak.
    Die vrou in die vorm van feministe spartel nou al, bitterlik, dekades lank om haar self in die politiek, handelswereld en die leermag te handhaaf waar die patriarg gedy. Ek wil voorstel dat sy taktiek moet verander en haarself op die godsdiens moet toespits waar sy gruwelik om die mees onverskoonbare en onverstaanbare? redes misken word. Ek het niks teen die Katolieke nie maar ek wil die Katolieke stelsel as ‘n voorbeeld gebruik om aan te dui wat ek in gedagte het omdat die die Pous so ‘n opsigtelike figuur is.
    Katolieke vroue moet daarop aandring dat die volgende Pous ‘n vrou moet wees en dat die kardinale, stelsematig by afsterwe, deur vroue vervang moet word en dat die ganse priesterskap uiteindelik deur vroue beman? bevrou? moet word. Tot die tuiniers moet vroue wees.
    Wat besiel die die katolieke stelsel om ‘selibate’?, wat tot by hulle ore belaai is met semen, aan te stel om oor kinders toesig te hou? Die vrou is van wee haar endokronologiese geaardheid baie minder geneig daar toe om kinders te molesteer en om in die naam van God oorlog te voer terwyl die Macho man in die naam van God alles wat hom frustreer met sy vuiste wil reg donder.
    Al die ‘westerse’ godsdienste moet so verander word en daar na moet die ander godsdienste bearbei word, veral die Taliban.
    Dan sal ons met oorgawe en met ‘n lied in ons hart kan bid:
    ‘Onse Moeder, van die hemel en van die aarde, u wil geskied’

    Noek vanBiljon

    May 9, 2012 at 10:11

  299. Hans, my ou mater, jy is darem ‘n kakprater sonder weerga, ek moet jou dit toegee.
    As die Arabiere so gekant is teen jesus omdat hy ‘n Jood is, waarom beskou die Moslems hom as ‘n hoogs gerespekteerde profeet? Hy is mos immers ‘n gehate Jood, dan nie?
    Hulle beskou hom bloot nie as die laaste prrofeet of messias nie.
    Soos ek gese het, dieselfde stront, net die geur verskil.
    Lees jy nou die Moslems se heilige boek ook om jou bygeloof te pas, net soos jy met jou eie bybel maak Hansie?

    Shazee

    May 8, 2012 at 23:35

  300. Ha-ha-ha Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, your grasp of the history of Jew/Arab animosity is as broken as your ideas about reality. And you’re too arrogant to go and inform yourself properly because you already know all the answers, you funny, dishonest man, you!

      
    

    :mrgreen:😛:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😛:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😛:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😛:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😛:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😛:mrgreen:

    Con-Tester

    May 8, 2012 at 22:40

  301. Shazee, vir jou inligting, ek is in besit van beide die engelse en afrikaanse weergawes van die Kor’an. Ek het hulle lanklaas gelees en tog het ek nog ‘n goeie idea wat daarin staan, onder andere dat twee van die boeke is identies, woord vir woord, dieselfde as twee van die Ou Testament se boeke.
    Omdat Jesus van Nazaret ‘n Jood was, kon die Arabiere Hom nie aanvaar nie en hulle het maar vir hulle self ‘n alternatief daar gestel, wat nooit die ware en egte gelyk kan wees nie.
    Jy moet maar oplet wat ek skryf, want ek het nooit gesê jy “glo” en wel jy “ken”. Ek is nie arrogant nie, dit is jy wat nie oplet wat ek skryf omdat jy met vooroordeel lees daarom kom jy “dom voor”.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 8, 2012 at 22:31

  302. Oh Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, I’m just so-o-o-o-o sorry that with respect to your Holey Babble, I confused knowledge and understanding, thoug what the difference is in practical terms eludes my obviously inferior intellect. After all, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, aren’t you godiots just too fond of reminding us dommetjies that through understanding comes knowledge or something equally hackneyed?

    That besides, your claims of infallible wisdom regarding your skydaddy is about as fucking arrogant as a thing can be. You cannot prove anything you say about it. All you can do is say, in effect, “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book.” In this regard, your insight into the vastness of your arrogance is nil, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl
    :mrgreen:😛:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😛:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😛:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😛:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😛:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😛:mrgreen:

    Con-Tester

    May 8, 2012 at 22:13

  303. Con-Tester, to me there is no maybe but to you, it is a maybe that I have found the Truth. I have never said, I “know” more but I did say I “understand” the Bible more?better than most. I should think you would know the difference and it is not a question of arrogance because arrogance does not give one insight.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 8, 2012 at 22:02

  304. OK, let’s try that again. After watching this, it’s obvious that Floyd Shivambu learned all his skill for explanation from none other than my ou liegbek pêl, Hanswors.

    Con-Tester

    May 8, 2012 at 11:35

  305. Hans, nou weet jy sommer dat ek ook glo daar is ‘n groot verskil tussen die chistelike geloof en Islam? Is jy nou by al jou talente heldersiende ook?
    Ek vra weer, waarop basseer jy jou oordeel van Islam? Het jy al die koran gelees? (Voor jy vra, ja ek het)
    Die kern van byde gelowe is ‘n skepper wat jou gaan oordeel op grond van wat jy gedoen het, of geglo het terwyl jy gelewe het, en jou dan gaan straf of beloon na gelang van daardie oordeel.
    Julle verskil bloot oor die detail, maar glo basies dieselfde bygelowige kak. En beide bygelowe is ewe onlogies, primitief en skadelik.

    Waar val jy uit met christenne wat glo dat jesus op ‘n wolk gaan kom? Daar is bes moontlik van julle sotte wat dit ook glo, maar waar het ek gese dit is wat ek glo ‘n “ware christen” is?
    Jy maak ongegronde afleidings en jy is moer arrogant in jou onkunde.

    Logika pas my goed Hans, maar miskien moet jy jou nie uitspreek oor iets waarvan jy kennelik bitter min begrip het nie. Dit laat jou “dom voorkom”

    Shazee

    May 8, 2012 at 02:22

  306. There’s no “maybe” about it, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl. Your grasp on reality and The Truth™ is as impressive as your skydaddy. Plus, you’ve made it abundantly clear — several times, nogal — that next to your incandescent genius, my intellect is a spluttering birthday candle, that you can’t be wrong and that you know more than anyone else about your Holey Babble, it must be true! I mean, it must be true because you say so and you can show us an old book, right? And not even your skydaddy can take that from you, can he you funny, arrogant, dishonest man, you?

    Con-Tester

    May 7, 2012 at 22:58

  307. Con-Tester, I agree that I am only making a noise as it appears that, that you enjoy noise as that is all you have ever made. You don’t appear to know what it is to live for others as you appear to only live for yourself (the big I am).
    You should look up the meaning of an equation as it would appear that you don’t know what it is.
    You still do not understand how God, the Word, made us, including, the Taliban and you are supposed to be an intellectual.
    Ek moet nou sê. jy kom nie meer dom voor nie, jy is blykbaar dom.
    Maybe I have found the truth, but of course you will never know.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 7, 2012 at 22:45

  308. And Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, you speak so glibly about “logiese gevoltrekking” and “logika”. Didn’t your skydaddy ever tell you it’s bad manners to use terms you have no clue about? And language like “Adiote”! Tut-tut, wouldn’t your skydaddy be a bit “die moer in” when you judge others like that? Especially when you’ve wailed so much about people being “afbrekend”?

    You really want to add hypocrisy to your list of stupidities, eh?

    Con-Tester

    May 7, 2012 at 22:27

  309. But where did you “lê [jou] lewe neer om vir ander te leweHanswors my ou liegbek pêl? For me or anyone else, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl? And what the fuck have you ever done to prove that you are a “ware Christenne” (whatever the fuck that might be), you funny, arrogant, deceitful man, you?

      
    

    😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆

    Con-Tester

    May 7, 2012 at 22:20

  310. Shazee, dit is vir jou gerieflik om te dwaal, want ware Christenne lê hul lewe neer om vir ander te lewe en jy wil jou dus nie daaraan verbind nie.
    Jy weet, op grond waarvan sê ek, dat die Islam geloof primitief is, want jy dink ook so en jy weet daar is ‘n hemels breë verskil tussen Islam geloof en Christendom.
    Christenne wat glo dat Jesus Christus een dag op ‘n fisiese wolk gaan kom, is nie ware Christenne en dit is hoe jy Christendom ken, dus is ek nie arogant nie, maar jy is die een wat sukkel om by te kom.
    Ek het maar net die logiese gevoltrekking uitgespreek op daardie een se gesêgde en julle Adiote roem nogal daarop dat julle op logika staat maak. In hierdie geval blyk dit dat logika jou nie pas nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 7, 2012 at 22:11

  311. Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 4, 2012 at 21:42):

    Con-Tester, you have not crossed my path, you have tried to delete my path.

    No, no, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, your “answer” shows clearly that you totally missed the point and are just making a noise for the sake of making a noise. You made the idiotic statement that you live, among others, for everyone whose path you may cross. But you’re talking kak because I crossed your path but you’re not living for me. If you think you are, you’re wrong, and you can stop it any time the mood strikes you…😛

      
    

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 5, 2012 at 23:05):

    God is soos goeie saad waarvoor ons aanvanklik behoort te wees tot goeie vrug en daarom in patriagale vorm voorgestel.

    But Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, you said earlier that your skydaddy is “Word, Love, Wisdom, Spirit, Truth, Power”. Now you’re saying you skydaddy is like a good seed. You really should try to make up your mind, as feeble as it may be.

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 5, 2012 at 23:05):

    Die Taliban en hul wette is in geen opsig van Goddelike aard en sou jy die voorbeeld van Jesus se lewe aanskou, sal jy die karakter van God ken.

    Good joke, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl! So why did your skydaddy make those Taliban okes then?

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 5, 2012 at 23:05):

    ‘n Siel is meer werd as al die skatte van hierdie aarde…

    What is a “siel”? Functional definition, please Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl.

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 5, 2012 at 23:05):

    Ek stem saam, dat … die wat nie wil glo nie, ook goed so.

    Oh Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, you’re such a joker! That’s another blatant lie you’re telling. It is entirely obvious that it’s anything but “goed so” with you that there are unbelievers. Why else would you invent so much kak in trying to rescue your skydaddy?

      
    

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 20:02):

    [J]ulle lees goed wat nie daar staan nie omdat julle graag wil hê dit moet so wees sodat julle die God waarin ek glo wil diskrediteur.

    Ai toggie, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, what nonsense you pull from your arse. Your skydaddy himself together with his dof followers is doing a much better job of discrediting himself that any atheist ever could.

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 20:02):

    Jesus het duidelik die karakter van God bekend gestel…

    Yes indeed, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl! Most of it when your virgin-raping skydaddy’s psychotic son started trying to scare people into submission with eternal damnation and hell. That’s when he really showed your skydaddy’s true character.

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 20:02):

    … anders kom jy baie dom voor.

    Another excellent gag you made there, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl! You could nail someone to the irony, that’s how thick it is.

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 20:02):

    Ek stem saam dat die Islam geloof primitief is en jy kan nie dieselfde sê van die Christen geloof nie…

    C’mon, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, admit you ate a big handful of funny-pills this morning! How else can it be that you’re so full of good jokes!?

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 20:02):

    … omdat jy in die eerste plek die ware Christen geloof nie ken of verstaan nie.

    Shit, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl, your jokes just get better, although this one has an air of superiority about it that probably won’t sit well with some people. Maybe you should tone down the crudeness a little.

      
    

    Hanswors blathers incoherently (May 6, 2012 at 20:06):

    [I]t is thus logically clear, that the one who said that, is never going to find the truth together with those who believe that somebody.

    Those who believe that somebody what, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl? And have you found “the truth”, Hanswors my ou liegbek pêl? Come, tell us quickly now.

    Con-Tester

    May 7, 2012 at 18:18

  312. Noek, I don’t know who said that, but it sounds about right, especially if the truth that is claimed is an evidence free, revealed truth.

    By the way, don’t worry too much about Hans’ incomprehensible remarks, that is just the way he is. God made him that way.

    Shazee

    May 6, 2012 at 21:46

  313. En nog ‘n punt Hans; dit is effens dom van jou om te beweer dat ek nie die “ware christen geloof” ken nie, bloot omdat ek nie daarmee saamstem nie.
    Die een volg regtig nie noodwendig op die ander nie.

    Natuurlik verstaan ek dit seker maar nie omdat ek nie jou weergalose insig het nie ne?
    Hoe fokken arrogant.

    Shazee

    May 6, 2012 at 21:13

  314. Nee Hans, inteendeel, ek lees presies wat in die verse staan, en ek lees dit in konteks.
    Dit is jy wat dit “geestelik” en “simbolies” lees, onthou jy nou weer?

    Ek sal ook graag wil verneem op grond waarvan jy die Moslem geloof primitief noem? Hulle glo wat hulle glo op presies dieselfde gronde, en met presies ewe veel regverdiging, as wat die christenne glo wat hulle glo – onthulde “waarheid” wat in ‘n ou boek staan.

    Wed jou jy kan my nie verkeerd bewys nie.

    Shazee

    May 6, 2012 at 21:02

  315. Noek, it is thus logically clear, that the one who said that, is never going to find the truth together with those who believe that somebody.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 6, 2012 at 20:06

  316. Shazee, ons het daardie verse bespreek waarna jy nou weer verwys en julle lees goed wat nie daar staan nie omdat julle graag wil hê dit moet so wees sodat julle die God waarin ek glo wil diskrediteur. Jesus het duidelik die karakter van God bekend gestel so kom by asseblief want anders kom jy baie dom voor. Ek stem saam dat die Islam geloof primitief is en jy kan nie dieselfde sê van die Christen geloof nie omdat jy in die eerste plek die ware Christen geloof nie ken of verstaan nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 6, 2012 at 20:02

  317. Somebody who died recently said something like this: ‘If you should come across a man who tells you that he is looking for the truth, grapple him to your heart with hoops of steel; but if you should come across a man who tells you that he has found the truth, run away from him as fast as you can’. Who said that?

    Noek vanBiljon

    May 6, 2012 at 17:49

  318. Hans, jy sal ook die karakter van god kan sien in die volksmoorde wat sy volk in sy direkte opdrag uitvoer.
    Jy sal sy karakter kan sien in die wyse waarop hy opdrag gee hoe daar opgetree moet word teenoor die vrouens (hou die maagde as seks slawe en maak die ander dood) en die kinders (maak die laaste een dood) van ‘n verslane vyand.
    Jy sien dit baie mooi in die opdrag wat hy gee dat ‘n pa sy seun moet offer (of dit nou simbolies is of nie)
    Jy sien hoe regverdig (om nie van logies te praat nie) jesus is as hy ‘n vyeboom vervloek omdat dit nie vrugte dra nie, alhoewel dit nie die regte seisoen is nie.

    Die punt is natuurlik dat hierdie alles geen refleksie is op die karakter van god nie, maar wel op die lewensbeskouing van die primitiewe bokwagters wat die sprokie in die eerste plek uitgedink het. Dit is net ongelooflik dat enigiemand dit vandag nog kan ernstig opneem, wat nog te se om dit te beskou as die onfeilbare woord van god wat my gedrag en my denke moet rig.

    Die wyse waarop die Taliban (en oom Angus, as hy sy sin kry) vrouens behandel, is net een voorbeeld van hoe skadelik die primitiewe bygeloof is, en waarom redelike mense so heftig daarteen gekant is.

    Shazee

    May 6, 2012 at 03:43

  319. Noek, die manlike en vroulike geslag is nie net fisies verskillend om sodoende verskillende rolle in ons natuurlike of aardse bestaan te vervul nie, maar ook psigies en mens behoort dit te erken en te aanvaar. God is soos goeie saad waarvoor ons aanvanklik behoort te wees tot goeie vrug en daarom in patriagale vorm voorgestel. Die Taliban en hul wette is in geen opsig van Goddelike aard en sou jy die voorbeeld van Jesus se lewe aanskou, sal jy die karakter van God ken. ‘n Siel is meer werd as al die skatte van hierdie aarde en daarom is ‘n vrou nie minderwaardig as ‘n man. Ek stem saam, dat die wat wil glo, laat dit so wees en die wat nie wil glo nie, ook goed so.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 5, 2012 at 23:05

  320. Ek dink (met onsekerheid) dat gegewe die huidige model van die mens wat, so hoor ek, meer as ‘n miljoen jaar oud is die woedende, rasende, tierende gesprek oor God en die godsdiens sal onbeperk voort gaan soos dit miskien alreeds plaas gevind het sedert die eerste mens. Dit is soos die patriargie (wat ook altyd daar was en ook altyd daar sal wees) geanker in ons fisio-endokronologies-genetiese samessellling. Die ge- en die ongelowige sit aan weerskante van dieselfde genetiese muur hulle koppe en stukkend stamp. Ons enigste uitkoms is genetiese modfikasie(soos met die sojaboon) maar die ‘Here’ alleen weet waar dit gaan eindig. Ek verneem maar net of ons nie, as ‘n vrede-barende toegewing aan die ‘barbaarse’, ‘goddelose’ ‘tydelike’, ‘aardse’ logiese denkwyse van die mens, kan kyk na die tekortkominge van die taal in die Bybel nie?
    By voorbeeld: God wat, soos ek verstaan, onnaspeurlik, ondeurgrondelik is word in die Bybel in die manlike derde persoon aangespreek as ‘Hy’, Hom’, ‘Sy’. Wat sou dit beteken? Waarom nie: ‘Onse Moeder, of onse Dit, wat in die hemel is’? Of miskien, meer sinvol,: ‘Onse Onnaspeurlike wat in die hemel is’? Is dit noodsaaklik dat God patriargaal moet wees? Indien ek (soos met die Pous – en ‘n Joodse Rabyn mag ook nie ‘n eunig wees nie) onder God se ‘rok’? sou wou inloer om te sien of hy manlike genitale het sal die gelowiges my van laster beskuldig. Ek verstaan ook dat daar wel in die verre verlede, ‘onwettiglik’, met die met die Bybel gepeuter is deur die ‘heiliges’. Kan ons nie die Bybel, met al sy voortreflikhede, letterkundig deur trek na die moderne lewe nie sodat ons “twyfelaars’ en die arme godsdienstelik-tweederangse-bykomende mens – die vrou- wat deur die Godvresende Taliban, volgens hull Goddelike wette as ‘n saad bed en ‘n kospot behandel word ook met ‘n lied in die hart dit kan lees nie? Die wat wil glo kan glo en die wat dit met ‘n knippie sout wil lees kan so maak. Is dit nie hoe ons alle boeke behoort te lees nie? Ek vra maar net – of stamp ek nou ook my kop teen daai genetiese muur?

    Noek vanBiljon

    May 5, 2012 at 13:59

  321. Malherbe, jy sal nie ‘n goeie bokser uitmaak nie aangesien dit wil voorkom of jy nie eers sal weet of jou teenstander raak getref is of nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 4, 2012 at 21:52

  322. ErickV, jy sal alleen weet of jy net vir jouself lewe en of jy vir ander lewe.
    Hoekom moet ek versigtig wees? Het jy een of ander onsigbare ghuru wat my met ‘n weerligstraal gaan tref.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 4, 2012 at 21:48

  323. Con-Tester, you have not crossed my path, you have tried to delete my path.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 4, 2012 at 21:42

  324. Hansie,

    So, jy wil beweer ek “lewe” nie ook vir ander nie? Net jy kan?
    Ou boet, jy moet nou versigtig wees wat jy my antwoord. Jy kan dalk reaksie kry wat jy nie sal verwag nie. So, wees baie, baie versigtig!!!!

    ErickV

    May 4, 2012 at 14:25

  325. Bullshit and lies, Hanswors. Bullshit and lies. I’ve crossed your path. You’re making your skydaddy really proud, my ou liegbek pêl

    Now, I’ll be away from here for a few days. Don’t miss me too much, see?

      
    

    😆🙂:mrgreen:😀😛😳😛😀:mrgreen:🙂😆

    Con-Tester

    May 3, 2012 at 22:54

  326. ErickV, ek lewe vir my gesin, ons gemeentelede asook almal wat my pad mag kruis.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 3, 2012 at 22:50

  327. Hansie,

    Hoor hier drolkop, vir watter mense het jy al “gelewe”?
    Kom vertel ons ‘n bietjie meer daaroor. Jy is blykbaar die enigste wat dit kan doen.

    ErickV

    May 3, 2012 at 05:00

  328. Yes, we can all see how you lift your arse, Hanswors, and live for your fellow man, defending rationality…😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    May 2, 2012 at 21:36

  329. ErickV, wanneer jy moontlik Lig sal sien, sal jy jou gat lig en vir jou medemens lewe, want dit bring vrede, vreugde en blydskap.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 2, 2012 at 21:31

  330. Miskien, GROOT miskien, gaan ou Hansie eendag groot word en volwasse begin dink. Maar nou ja, ek twyfel of dit moontlik is. Lig sal jy sien ou Hansie, lig sal jy eendag sien.

    ErickV

    May 2, 2012 at 05:22

  331. Hanswors, even if it’s true that you have only “daarna gaan, LW, loer”, you’re still trying to bullshit and lie to everyone (but only succeeding in bullshitting and lying yourself). You obviously feel qualified simply to dismiss Russell’s arguments with your uninformed bullshit and lies, based purely on a superficial “gaan, LW, loer”. You who want people to take your Holey Babble bullshit and lies seriously, you just couldn’t be bothered to make a proper effort to absorb a very serious challenge to your bullshit and lies. Then, to top it off, you spin a pile of bullshit and lies about how Russell has a wrong perception of your Holey Babble and your skydaddy and how he misunderstands your Holey Babble, which you would know is total bullshit and lies had you only actually read the thing, and which demonstrates that, at best, you’ve looked at the shape of the words without any understanding whatsoever of what they mean. And still you feel confidently knowledgeable enough to pass your ridiculous judgements. What a funny and deceitful man you are, Hanswors.

    But it’s exactly as I predicted: You’ll be “onerkentlik” and full of transparent bullshit excuses, laughable lies and pisspoor evasions. No doubt you will continue in this exact vein because the Great Hanswors simply can’t be wrong.

    Besides all of which, you’re still dodging an assortment of questions put to you in the last few days right here in this thread. They’re right in front of your nose, ou drolkop.

    So, in short, you remain a laughable bullshitter and a liar, you funny deceitful man, you. Moreover, I expect that you’ll read the above with the same diligence as you read Russell, you funny deceitful man, you.

    Con-Tester

    May 1, 2012 at 21:49

  332. Con-Tester, you are not very bright as I have told you that I just had a look. Wake up!!!! Your coffee has already gone cold.

    Hans Matthysen

    May 1, 2012 at 21:45

  333. And I call bullshit on you again, Hanswors. You’re either lying through your teeth or entirely delusional. You pick. You cannot tell me that you sourced and read and absorbed a 200-plus-page book by one of the leading 20th century philosophers in 34 minutes. Or, for that matter, a 20-page essay by that author. Nor was Russell a crushtian as you imply. His objections are philosophical, not from your Holey Babble, as you imply.

    So once again, you are a liar or delusional or too dof to understand what is put before you, or possibly some combination of these. You choose, you funny, deceitful man, you.

    Con-Tester

    April 30, 2012 at 23:05

  334. Shazee, Con-Tester en Malherbe, glo dit of nie, ek het daarna gaan, LW, loer en lieg nie vir julle nie. My reaksie is werklik want sy persepsie van wat God is, is die skydaddy ding waarin ek nie glo nie. Hy bedink ook alles wat hy in die Bybel lees op ‘n vleeslike wyse net soos julle.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 30, 2012 at 22:54

  335. Daan, ek was wel Sondag in die kerk – ‘n goeie vriend se begrafnis. Ek was tot laatnag wakker om sy gesin by te staan, daarom my laat skrywe. En ja, die NG dominee’s se boodskappe is nog net so flou en vervelig soos in die dae toe ek gereeld die kerk besoek het. Ek vind meer inspirasie in my Duitse herdershond se oë as in die kerke se gottediens.

    Malherbe

    April 30, 2012 at 14:36

  336. Hans, dat jy met soveel eiergeel op jou bakkies elke keer terugkom vir meer, laat my dink aan die bokser wat pap geslaan word en elke keer deur sy afrigter vertel word dat hy eintlik wen. Ek wil voorstel jy probeer skaduboks, en spaar sodoende jouself die aanhoudende vernedering.

    Malherbe

    April 30, 2012 at 14:28

  337. De moer alleen weet. As ek moet raai sou ek sê dat hy daardeur die illusie kan behou dat hy iets wonderbaars en waardevols beet het. Kyk net hoe gee hy aanhoudend voor hoe ons dommetjies sy onnosel praatjies nie kan volg of verstaan nie. Kyk net hoe is hy aanhoudend besig om die tjol te probeer verdedig en te versprei. Kyk net hoe duidelik ontevrede is hy as hy die kak vir homself moet hou.

    Sonder dit is sy lewe maar seker heeltemaal leeg en betekenisloos.

    Con-Tester

    April 30, 2012 at 13:21

  338. Ja, dit is nou duidelik dat Hans nie werklik in ‘n debat belangstel nie.
    Daar is geen rede of logika wat tot hom sal deurdring nie.
    Hy stel nie belang in bewyse nie, hy stel nie belang in ‘n logiese redenasie nie. Hy stel nie daarin belang om uit te vind dat iemand vir hom gelieg het nie.
    Ek kan nie insien wat sy motivering is om so desperaat en ten alle koste vas te klou aan iets wat enige sot kan sien eenvoudig nie waar is nie.
    Wat kry hy daaruit?

    Shazee

    April 30, 2012 at 12:42

  339. Kom ek wed jou ou Hanswors sal, uhm, onerkentlik wees oor die feit dat hy blatant hierso gelieg het. Hy sal vanaand of môre aand net weer optree met ’n mandjievol uiters kak verskonings. Sy hemelpappa sal dan baie trots op hom wees oor sy manmoedige gedrag…🙄😆😳😆🙄

    Con-Tester

    April 30, 2012 at 08:21

  340. Hans, doen tog maar die moeite om die stuk te gaan lees waarna ek jou verwys het.
    As jy dit doen sal jy verstaan waarom Con-Tester jou ‘n leunaar noem.

    Shazee

    April 30, 2012 at 00:50

  341. Now you have proven yourself to be a barefaced liar, Hanswors. You have done no such thing as read Bertrand Russell’s Why I am not a Christian.

    You really are a funny, deceitful man, Hanswors. You are now provably a liar.

      
    

    😀😀😀😛😛😛😀😀😀

    Con-Tester

    April 29, 2012 at 22:43

  342. Shazee, ek het gaan loer na Bertrant Russel se skrywe waarna jy verwys en eerstens, sy persepsie van God is verkeerd, soos meeste sogenaamde Christenne. Hy noem verse en dit is duidelik, dat hy nie verstaan wat daar geskrywe is omdat hy die vleeslike bedink.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 29, 2012 at 22:37

  343. Ooops, HTML is kookier than you, Hanswors.

    You’re a fine one to talk like that, Hanswors. Have you smelled the shit you write lately? Or ever, for that matter? No, you haven’t you funny, deceitful man, you.

    And you’re still dodging furiously, you funny, deceitful man, you. I ask you to explain what you wrote, and your answer is to accuse me of writing a lot of shit without saying anything. No doubt, you believe your own shit, Hanswors, you funny, deceitful man, you.

      
    

    😆😆😆😛😛😛😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    April 29, 2012 at 22:11

  344. You’re a fine one to talk like that, Hans</b.wors. Have you smelled the shit you write lately? Or ever, for that matter? No, you haven’t you funny, deceitful man, you.

    And you’re still dodging furiously, you funny, deceitful man, you. I ask you to explain what you wrote, and your answer is to accuse me of writing a lot of shit without saying anything. No doubt, you believe your own shit, Hans</b.wors, you funny, deceitful man, you.

      
    

    😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    April 29, 2012 at 22:08

  345. Malherbe, aangesien jy glo dat God nie bestaan nie, oorskry jy alle perke van idiotisme omdat jy jou so besig hou met niks (dit wat nie bestaan nie).
    God is liefde en ek het geen twyfel dat liefde bestaan.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 29, 2012 at 22:03

  346. Con-Tester, you are good at convincing yourself as you appear to really believe the shit you write.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 29, 2012 at 21:57

  347. Malherbe!!!! Jy moet fokken vroeër gaan slaap!!!! Dan kan jy ten minste Sondae oggende kerk toe gaan.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    April 29, 2012 at 09:47

  348. Nee Hans.
    “Kwaad (stront)” is nie in die oog wat dit sien nie. Stront is stront, wie ookal daarna kyk.
    Dit is net jy en jou mede bygelowiges wat in stront kan trap en dan wil redeneer dat dit eintlik malvalekkers is.
    Dit is nou terwyl julle die stank van julle argumente wegredeneer deur dit arbitrer as metafories of simbolies te verklaar, of soos jyself, totaal weerstandig te wees vir logika of bewyse.

    Ek nooi jou uit om Bertrant Russel se “Why I am not a Christian” te gaan Google.
    Ek sal graag wil sien hoe jy die logika van sy argumente weerspreek.

    Shazee

    April 29, 2012 at 06:30

  349. Volgens Hans is die vlg argument geldig: Malherbe maak die stelling dat die aarde plat is (sonder enige bewyse). ‘n Magdom rasionele denkers takel hom toe en vra vir bewyse. Hans maak nou die gevolgtrekking dat ‘n plat aarde wel bestaan. Hoekom? Eenvoudig – die “aanslag” teen die plat aarde is groot genoeg dat dit dien as voldoende bewys dat ‘n plat aarde ‘n werklikheid is.

    Komaan Hans, erken ten minste dat jy dronk was toe jy bg stukkie “redevoering” uitgedink het. Of dat dit nie jy was nie maar jou 6-jarige nefie wat op jou laptop kom speel het…., of watddefokookal. Dink net aan ‘n verskoning, want selfs ek voel verleë vir jou part.

    Malherbe

    April 29, 2012 at 03:33

  350. Ek moet erken Hans, jou laaste stelling oorskry alle perke van idiotisme. Jy het dit reggekry om ‘n nuwe laagtepunt te bereik. Ek het nie gedink dis moontlik nie, maar jy het my verkeerd bewys. Baie geluk.

    Malherbe

    April 29, 2012 at 03:22

  351. Hanswors, the absurdity of your last “argument” (April 28, 2012 at 22:46) illustrates the fathomless depth of your delusions. It is the best joke you’ve ever told on this blog. By far.

      
    

    :mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:😆:mrgreen:

    Con-Tester

    April 28, 2012 at 22:55

  352. Malherbe, as God nie bestaan nie, het julle nie so groot aanslag teen God en die Bybel gemaak nie. Julle bewys dus dat God bestaan of is julle nou soos ‘n bokser wat skadubox doen?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 28, 2012 at 22:46

  353. ErickV, jy het dan so baie oor die Bybel te sê en nou sit jy met ‘n bek vol tande?

    Hans Matthysen

    April 28, 2012 at 22:41

  354. But Hanswors, I don’t write half as much shit, and I still manage to say twice as much as you do. And you know what the best part of it is? It’s that I don’t even have to try in order to succeed in that regard.

    See, you just dodge whenever things get a bit tight. I asked you to explain what you meant and your answer is to accuse me of writing a lot of shit without saying anything. That’s what you always do, you funny, dishonest man you.

    Con-Tester

    April 28, 2012 at 22:40

  355. Shazee, Kwaad (stront) is in die oog wat dit sien.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 28, 2012 at 22:38

  356. Con-Tester, you seem to write a lot of shit, yet you say nothing.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 28, 2012 at 22:31

  357. Ja Erick, soos Hitchens dit so mooi gestel het: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Hans het nog nooit enige bewys gebring nie, so geen rede hoekom ons vir bewyse moet gaan soek om sy stront te weelê nie.

    Malherbe

    April 28, 2012 at 18:41

  358. Vir wat moet ek ‘n klomp kak uitle en weerle?

    ErickV

    April 28, 2012 at 05:21

  359. Jy het nie my verwagting “geblus” nie Hans, die tipe onsinnige stront is presies wat ek van jou verwag.

    Shazee

    April 28, 2012 at 00:22

  360. Then again Hanswors, if you bothered to read further than just your eyebrows, you’d know how I understand those verses. It’s on this very page, but you bibliots just can’t be bothered to find anything out before shooting your mouths off.

    It’s all just too comical for words.

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2012 at 22:41

  361. Kak dodge there, Hanswors. I’ll pass. The verses are self-explanatory in my view — that is, not wearing those special Hanswors glasses.

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2012 at 22:32

  362. Hanswors gorrel (April 27, 2012 at 22:17):

    [E]k weet dit kwel julle omdat julle nie die vers uit daardie hoek kon sien.

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

      
    

    Jy’s só ’n lekker ou grapjassie, Hanswors! Te fokken kostelik vir woorde.

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2012 at 22:29

  363. Con-Tester, why don’t you tell me how you would understand the verses you mentioned and I will let you know if I agree with you or not.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 27, 2012 at 22:26

  364. ErickV, jy skryf nou net ‘n klomp twak omdat jy nie kan weerlê wat ek geskryf het. Siestog!

    Hans Matthysen

    April 27, 2012 at 22:24

  365. Shazee, jammer om jou verwagting te blus en ek weet dit kwel julle omdat julle nie die vers uit daardie hoek kon sien.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 27, 2012 at 22:17

  366. You had better clarify that gibberish you just wrote, Hanswors, because it’s totally inscrutable. What’s it supposed to mean? In fact, it looks like you do ‘believe in “words” coming out of the sky’ from your skydaddy, so I won’t be scrapping that idea quite yet.

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2012 at 22:15

  367. Con-Tester, you still do not realize that God is the “Word” that we speak therefore a man like Churchill spoke and said I declare war. What evil came out of that. I don’t believe in “words” coming out of the sky, so you can scrap the idea of a skydaddy. Only man speaks words and God is with man (Emmanuel).

    Hans Matthysen

    April 27, 2012 at 22:08

  368. ErickV, according to Hebrews 6:4-6 and Mark 3:29, it wouldn’t do you any good anyway. Now let’s see how Hanswors distorts those verses to manufacture new meaning.

    Con-Tester

    April 27, 2012 at 08:05

  369. Hansie,

    Dit is hoekom ek genoem het dat ek twyfel dat jy ‘n reguit antwoord kan gee. Jy het dit waaragtig bewys.
    Sorry ou seun, jy yl.
    Wat julle godiote net nie sal doen om julle kak in die bybel te verdraai nie.
    Ek ooit weer ‘n kruisten gaan word? Never in my life!

    ErickV

    April 27, 2012 at 06:16

  370. Hans, dit is so waar as fok net jy wat sal sin maak van so ‘n antwoord.
    Jy rook jou kouse man. Waarom is jy so desperaat om sulke kak te verdedig?

    Shazee

    April 26, 2012 at 22:57

  371. Very convenient, Hanswors. But it says very clearly and explicitly, “I … create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” It doesn’t say, “I do all my good stuff and people fuck it up so it all turns to shit.” It says, “I create evil.” How do you explain that? Or does your skydaddy just babble as much kak as you do?

    Con-Tester

    April 26, 2012 at 22:55

  372. ErickV, Jes. 45 v 7, verwys; die “Waarheid” (God) wat vrede moet bewerkstellig, stig nie altyd nie en veroorsaak soms kwaad. Die waarheid/lig, bring soms vrede in een se gemoed en ook soms jalosie en verwarring, wat lei soms na onkunde of dade van ongeregtigheid.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 26, 2012 at 22:48

  373. Hansie,

    Kom ons kyk of jy hierdie keer ‘n reguit verduideliking kan gee (wat ek sterk betwyfel) op die volgende versie.

    Isaiah 45:7

    “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

    So, kan jy dit vir ons verduidelik? Volgens my is jou “LORD” fokken wreed om al die jare miljoene mense deur plae en natuur rampe te vermoor. Volgens die versie is hy sommer Satan ook.
    Moet ons nou nie kom vertel dit is “geestelik” of “allegories” of “simbolies” nie.
    Vir my is dit duidelik soos daglig.

    ErickV

    April 26, 2012 at 15:00

  374. Yes, and my pet hate is the bumper sticker: “Real men follow Jesus”

    Every time I see that idiotic comment pasted on the back of some moron’s vehicle, I immediately have a good handle on his IQ.

    Shazee

    April 26, 2012 at 10:35

  375. For all the bibliot/religiot/apologiot/crediot/godiot fundies: A “Dear Christians” letter. For all the difference it’ll make to the moron squad’s behaviour, though, the effort is wasted.

    The money quote? Here it is:

    To be fair, you [Christians] should be glad that your turn [to have your beliefs sidelined] came around so late in the day. Things used to be a lot less civil.

    Con-Tester

    April 26, 2012 at 10:09

  376. There, you see, Hanswors? Another one who sees right through you. Ooops, sorry, I meant to say, “Another misguided atheist who can’t prove you wrong.”

      
    

    😳

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2012 at 22:29

  377. Hans, as ek ‘n debat voer het ‘n standpunt wat ek bereid is om met logika en bewyse te regverdig.
    Ek is verder bereid om my opinie aan te pas as ek verkeerd bewys word.
    Jy, aan die ander kant “weet” dat dit onmoontlik vir jou is om verkeerd te wees. Jy het dit al omomwonde erken.
    Jy is totaal en al bestand teen logika en weersprekende argumente of bewyse.

    Wie van ons twee se se uitgangspunt is dan irrasioneel?

    Shazee

    April 25, 2012 at 22:20

  378. There, you see? Like I said: “According to the Matthysenological canon of Hansworsian imperatives, what you’re preaching is heresy. Or blasphemy. Or profanity. Or something.”

    Quite obviously, I forgot about simple delusional bullshit.

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2012 at 22:12

  379. Chaos Poet, I have not judged because I have not condemned and I have only said what attitude I seem to have detected.
    Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (It would appear that Jesus also detected an unwanted spirit/ attitude.)

    Hans Matthysen

    April 25, 2012 at 22:06

  380. Don’t try to rationalise away your constant evasion, avoidance, dodging and general bullshitting, see Hanswors? You’re no good at it and you’re not fooling anyone other than yourself, see? As for others needing to prove you wrong, you’re as absurd on this point as ever, you funny illogician you. And no, you’re decidedly not just explaining anything, you funny sermonising preacher you. The irrationality is all yours, too.

    So once again, you’ve spewed forth nothing but your usual self-serving and delusional tosh and piffle, Hanswors.

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2012 at 22:02

  381. Shazee, wanneer jy debat voer, gaan jy ook uit die veronderstelling uit, dat jy reg is. ‘n Ja of nee antwoord is nie noodwendig opklarend nie en ek is seker jy verstaan dit. Ek verduidelik maar net hoe ek die betrokke verse verstaan en jy kon nie bewys dat ek verkeerd is nie of vir my opklaring gee, sou jy met my verskil. Net omdat dit vir jou vreemd is, is dit nie nodig om irrationeel daarop te reageer nie.
    Mens moet toegewyd wees anders gebeur die volgende; Jes. 5:13 Daarom gaan my volk in ballingskap weens gebrek aan kennis, en hulle aansienlikes word hongerlyers en hulle menigte versmag van dors.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 25, 2012 at 21:52

  382. No Hanswors, I throw mud (not “mud”) at preachy, sermonising, puffed-up drolkoppe who have over a lengthy period repeatedly and consistently shown themselves incapable of conducting anything that could be called debate. This is in response to those selfsame preachy, sermonising, self-important drolkoppe who claim they can’t be wrong and who shit their runny poo all over whatever countermanding stuff is put before them because their understanding is barely sufficient to comprehend that it is countermanding stuff.

    You, on the other hand, … Well, I’ll leave it to your florid imagination to guess where you fit in here, except to ask whether you even have the first clue as to what I’ve just written. Com now Hanswors, be honest for a change and answer me.

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2012 at 21:42

  383. Con-Tester, I share my understanding of the Bible but I don’t preach. You do not debate, you just throw “mud”.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 25, 2012 at 21:34

  384. Careful there, Chaos Poet. According to the Matthysenological canon of Hansworsian imperatives, what you’re preaching is heresy. Or blasphemy. Or profanity. Or something.

    Con-Tester

    April 25, 2012 at 08:11

  385. I don’t accept your argument for the goodness of god either.
    God is omnipotent, remember? He created me exactly as he wanted. Why should I be grateful to him for forgiving the weaknesses and faults that he “designed” into me?

    Shazee

    April 25, 2012 at 08:01

  386. Chaos Poet, I have never come across a godiot who does not in fact judge, yourself included.

    If I don’t accept your delusion I am dammed, and all the “saved” should feel sorry for me (or kill me, as circumstances require).

    What a pathetic outlook on life: “I am sooo unworthy, I can never deserve anything, I keep on stumbling, but thank you god for saving me, despite making me so fucked-up in the first place”

    No amount of praying is going to make Hans honest, or make him sound less like a retard.

    Shazee

    April 25, 2012 at 05:29

  387. Hans, we cannot judge those outside the Church; Paul states that clearly. Yet you hold to the title of a believers so I say this to you: Please take a few days and pray about what to say before you say it. Your earlier defense was not needed or done well. Please stop judging them, that is God’s job. Please re-read Paul’s epistles before you respond. I care about ya bro, but you need to slow down a bit.

    Due to the public nature of the discussion, I must also say this: while I do not claim perfection or even near goodness, we as Christians are to keep each other accountable. We are to love everyone, even those we don’t agree with. I recognize that we have not done this perfectly (and I apologize on the behalf of all Christians from bad missionaries to the crusades and on) but Christianity is not about Christians, it is about Christ–the only one who is perfect.

    Let this be an argument for the goodness of God: He accepts those of us who are imperfect and loves us, no matter what we have done. The greatest argument for God’s goodness and existence should be our lives, unfortunately we (including, and especially me) do not show this; and I am deeply sorry.

    Chaos Poet

    April 25, 2012 at 00:18

  388. Hans, watse debat kan ‘n mens met jou voer? Jy weet dan jy is reg voor die debat nog begin.
    As ‘n mens jou ‘n reguit vraag vra, weier jy volstrek om dit te antwoord.
    Jy aanvaar enige vers in die bybel as die finale arbiter van die argument, of dit logies sin maak, of nie.
    As die bybelverse wat jy aanhaal onlogies is, of as dit nie jou argument ondersteun nie, interpreteer jy dit op die vreemdste maniere, tot dit beteken wat jy wil he dit moet.
    As jy nie so toegewyd was in die kak wat jy kwytraak nie, sou ek geglo het jy probeer gekskeer.
    Ek het al gedink dat niemand regtig so klip onnosel kan wees nie, maar blykbaar is ek verkeerd.

    Shazee

    April 24, 2012 at 23:17

  389. Hanswors, what a funny little joker you are! All you do is shit your runny poo over whatever is put before you and then you go all huffy and self-righteous with your, “Julle val net aan in plaas daarvan dat debat gevoer word.” You aren’t capable of debate, ou. You just preach your sermons and expect that everyone must bow before your delusions of great and infallible wisdom.

    It’s what you get for being such a Holey Babble expert for whom it is impossible to be wrong.

    What a funny little joker you are, Hanswors. You really make me laugh.

    Con-Tester

    April 24, 2012 at 22:47

  390. Shazee, op grond van die feit, dat jy my antwoorde nie eers probeer verstaan of bevraagteken om verstaan te word. Julle val net aan in plaas daarvan dat debat gevoer word.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 24, 2012 at 22:40

  391. Go on, Hanswors, pull the other one. “It’s true because I say it’s true. I can show you an old book.” Ha-ha-ha Hanswors, what a funny little deceiver you are!

    By the way, how long did it take you to weave all those words into a quasi-coherent-but-factually-erroneous sentence? Besides the laughable claims you make, you fucked it up further when you added a reference to your Holey Babble.

    Now be a good drolkop and show me where I said those things you attributed to me on April 23, 2012 at 09:29, see? Otherwise we might start thinking that you are being evasive. Or something.

    Con-Tester

    April 24, 2012 at 22:26

  392. Con-Tester, reality is that I have proof and that is a fact, for I reason with logic, by evidence, as written in the Bible, which you and friends fail to acknowledge.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 24, 2012 at 22:18

  393. Wat is my houding teenoor ander mense Hans? En op grond waaarvan maak jy afleidings omtrent my gemoedstoestand?

    Shazee

    April 24, 2012 at 03:42

  394. Hanswors, your attitude towards reality is proof that you don’t foster any interest in facts, reason, evidence or logic.

    Con-Tester

    April 23, 2012 at 23:00

  395. Oh, so now you’re changing your silly little fairytale again, eh Hanswors? What a funny and deceitful little guy you are!

    Once more, ou drolkop: Show me where I said what you claim. Come, come, grow an honesty bone or two or your skydaddy might start wondering about how much of a crushtian you really are, ou Hanswors. (Although one can only wonder about what exactly an omniscient skydaddy would wonder about in your case.)

    Con-Tester

    April 23, 2012 at 22:57

  396. Shazee, en jou gesindheid teenoor ander is bewys dat jy nie ‘n welbehae in die mens coester.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2012 at 22:53

  397. Con-Tester, the only sense you understand is nonsense and I am not questioning anything but merely expressing, that I understand why God is disappointed in His creation of man.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2012 at 22:49

  398. Is dit al Hans? Ek glo ook aan vrede op aarde (nie dat ek veel daarvan sien nie) maar ek het nie vir jesus nodig daarvoor nie.

    Shazee

    April 23, 2012 at 11:57

  399. You see Hanswors, you speak in such childishly haphazard terms that it is often hard to understand what the fuck you’re bleating about. I see now that your reference to “ when someone out of politeness, apologizes” pertains to Chaos Poet’s comment of April 21, 2012 at 08:55 — or at least, that’s the only interpretation of your incoherent whining jabber that would make any kind of sense. So now tell me this, Hanswors: Is there no end to your finely-honed powers of comprehension?

    Con-Tester

    April 23, 2012 at 10:37

  400. Oh and Hanswors, when you say, “ It is no wonder God was disappointed in His creation because of arseholes like you,” your true crushtian nature and values really shine through like a beacon…

    Tell me, who the fuck do you think you are to question and criticise how your skydaddy made me, hmm?

    Con-Tester

    April 23, 2012 at 09:54

  401. More of your usual bullshit Hanswors. I never said any such thing. Show me where, drolkop. But if “god” is your own private-language word for all those things, why do you need to add all that stupid waffle and unnecessary Holey Babble crap to it, hmm?

    And you seem to be such a big I Am Without Brains, so you’re two up on me. Don’t try and mend fences with me, see? It won’t work. The only thing that’ll work is if you start talking sense, which just isn’t going to happen. So, you can take your threats of hell and stick ’em down the front of your pants, see? That’s my way of telling you you’re hardly a hotpoint.

    Con-Tester

    April 23, 2012 at 09:41

  402. Shazee, ons is die liggaam van Christus. 1 Kor. 12:27 Maar julle is die liggaam van Christus en lede afsonderlik. Ons glo in “vrede op aard (die aarde waarop die Saaier saai) en in die mens ‘n welbehae”.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2012 at 09:39

  403. Con-Tester, so you say that, Word, Love, Wisdom, Spirit, Truth, Power, does not exist, for that is what God is, according to the Bible.
    You seem to be such a big I am, as when someone out of politeness, apologizes, because you, the big I am seems to misunderstand what the someone has said. You haven’t the integrity to acknowledge and so you tramp on others with your big boots. It is no wonder God was disappointed in His creation because of arseholes like you. It will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a “big head” like you, to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
    I have already pointed out, that only one who has heard the Truth and rejects it, can land up in Hell and not those who are still in darkness. You should acknowledge, that when the subject is on what is written in the Bible, you are definitely no expert.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 23, 2012 at 09:29

  404. Nemo, you. Are beginning to sound like Hans with all this talk of different interpretations.

    Ocam’s razor simply states that a true, or valid theory is the simplest one that accounts for the known facts. It is called Ocam’s razor because it cuts away the inessentials.

    The simplest theory, according to the known facts, certainly does not support the christian god as creator of the world, or the biblical creation myth as the way the universe was created.

    As for your definition of free will; if I tell my child that he must study law at university, or I will cut of his financial support, that is not a free choice, it is coercion.
    A free choice would be; study what you are interested in, and I will support you.

    If god were to say: ” this is what I would like you to believe, and this is the way I would like you to behave, but since I have given you a free will, which implies free choice, if you choose to behave differently, that is ok too” – that would be free will.

    Shazee

    April 21, 2012 at 17:14

  405. nemo prattles (April 21, 2012 at 16:44):

    Being free to choose as I see it does not mean being free of the consequenses [sic] that would follow the choice.

    Why, so do I!

    nemo prattles (April 21, 2012 at 16:44):

    The idea of a supremely benevolent and yet all powerful God could be a problem depending on what you think of as supremely benevolent.

    That explains nothing, least of all how it is that humans’ and your skydaddy’s ideas on benevolence diverge so widely.

    nemo prattles (April 21, 2012 at 16:44):

    The only reason I believe what I do is because in my reading and thinking I have not come up with any preferable alternative.

    Then the concept of “evidence” is clearly one that is irrelevant to you. So why on earth are you proselytising here?

    nemo prattles (April 21, 2012 at 16:44):

    Basically I ended up deciding that in the worst case the requirements to live as a Christian did not really go contrary to how I would want to live my life even if I wasn’t one.

    But you don’t need to believe in any fairytales to live those values.

    nemo prattles (April 21, 2012 at 16:44):

    I was not going to lose anything by setting up an insurance for the next life if it did turn out to be true.

    Check out Pascal’s Wager. Learn something new.

    nemo prattles (April 21, 2012 at 16:44):

    As for Occam’s Razor, this only applies to arguments that are presenting the same point, not to arguments flowing contrary to each other.

    What utterly ignorant tripe!

    As for the rest of your ill-informed reply, I suggest you get yourself informed on the various issues, particularly those relating to epistemological, scientific and other philosophical aspects of these questions. It gets fucking tedious having to go over the same ground repeatedly because some dimwit simply can’t be bothered to do his or her homework.

    Con-Tester

    April 21, 2012 at 17:12

  406. I think this is not getting very far because of a difference in our definitions of ‘free will’ and ‘good’.
    I am actually curious what you think free will actually is if not being free to choose between different options? Being free to choose as I see it does not mean being free of the consequenses that would follow the choice. That I would define as anarchy not freedom.

    The idea of a supremely benevolent and yet all powerful God could be a problem depending on what you think of as supremely benevolent. The idea of good that you are using, correct me if I am wrong, is basically an abscense or abhorence of anything unpleasant. This again I do not think is correct, at least not in this context. I would say that good is simply the ability to fulfil the original purpose that comes attatched to the object in question. A good chair is one that I can sit on without breaking and with a reasonable amount of comfort, a good weapon is one that can be used to inflict large amounts of damage in as little time with as great of accuracy as possible. As far as God is concerned he is capable of defining himself as good simply because he has no inherant purpose. As for the presense of evil in the world this is then because we are able to choose whether or not to fulfil our purpose. He could have created a world without the need for evil but that would then have a different purpose. Part of, possibly most of, the purpose for this world is to show that God is able to and willing to redeem even that which has been completely corrupted. In order for that to happen there must be corruption to redeem.

    The only reason I believe what I do is because in my reading and thinking I have not come up with any preferable alternative. Basically I ended up deciding that in the worst case the requirements to live as a Christian did not really go contrary to how I would want to live my life even if I wasn’t one. I was not going to lose anything by setting up an insurance for the next life if it did turn out to be true. The majority of what I have written so far is just what I came up with from my reading of the bible and the rest is from discussions with friends.

    As for Occam’s Razor, this only applies to arguments that are presenting the same point, not to arguments flowing contrary to each other. The argument of Creation verses Evolution is not two different ways of explaining the same thing. They both describe different worlds. From the evolution perspective the world is a product of chance and therefore has no real purpose wheras from the creation viewpoint there is a very deffinate purpose and we are actually required to act on it.
    Also the physical evidence found in the world does not exactly disprove the existance of God even if it is interpreted as pointing to evolution. The idea that God created the world through the medium of evolution does not actually have any negative impact on the gospel message. It does present some potential theological issues but most of those can be chalked up to different interpretations of the scriptures.
    I do not personally believe that the world was created that way but that is another debate for another forum and/or time as it does not really relate to the idea of the goodness of God.

    Also Shazee I do think that Chaos Poet has at least one good question here:

    “One question is, does your understanding of Heaven and Hell come from the historical study of the Bible and where the ideas of Gahanna (however it is spelled) and Hades interplay? Or does it come from the societal portrayal of Christian faith by non-Christians? Just wondering what the background of your understanding is so I know where you are coming from.”

    From what you are saying so far it does not look like you are actually talking about the same Christian beliefs that we are. I think a better way to describe hell would be an existance perminantly outside of God’s influence.

    nemo

    April 21, 2012 at 16:44

  407. Chaos Poet, I hope it is clear now. It is unlikely that anybody will be able to prove one way or the other that a creator of some sort does, or does not exist, any time soon.

    The point is that the christian god, specifically, as he is being presented by christians, clearly and demonstrably cannot logically exist.

    If you want to argue that your god could very well be a bad god, then why worship him?

    Shazee

    April 21, 2012 at 11:20

  408. I apologize for the misunderstanding. You are right, I did misconstrue things. I appreciate you bringing things back on track. I do recognize that there are some serious objections which, while not necessarily new in essence, do need to be examined by any of us who claim to the faith.

    I’ll be working on looking at the arguments presented as they come up. I would love to hear more about the implications of your stance, but I will watch and see how the discussion goes.

    Before this the free will debate was being discussed. It will be interesting to see where it progresses from there.

    Chaos Poet

    April 21, 2012 at 08:55

  409. Chaos Poet, allow me to give you an unsolicited piece of advice for how to go about things on this, an atheist blog that will foster more harmonious exchanges: Do not pretend that what you’re doing is reasoning and debating when in reality you’re confabulating excuses, and try to recognise it whenever you do so. In that vein, why don’t you just ask your question simply and without first preloading it with all manner of garrulous and extraneous drivel!?

    The argument is simple. It goes like this: The state of the world militates overwhelmingly against the existence of a purported creator-god who has the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and supreme benevolence — so much so that the existence of such a god is readily dismissible, and even more so in view of the fact that we have far simpler, more plausible, naturalistic, evidence-borne, ateleological explanations for why the world is as it is.

    It’s Occam’s Razor in action.

    The minute residual chance that it may be otherwise needs to stand or fall on its own merits, evidence and/or arguments. It’s just no good pulling a brace of verbose pretexts from your arse to try and paper over the cracks. Either come with a new argument or acknowledge the serious objections outlined above.

    Con-Tester

    April 21, 2012 at 08:21

  410. I am not sure how the idea that our conception of God proves He doesn’t exist if we are wrong. If we are wrong about God being good, then we are wrong about Him being good.
    “If you do not grant the possibility that the god you believe in is a malevolent psychotic bully, he most certainly does not exist.”
    I don’t quite understand the logic of this argument, if you could please clarify. As I see it, even if we are wrong and He is not a good God, that does not refute His existence; it merely proves we are wrong about His moral standing. You are arguing that God is not good, but I am not sure how our perception of Him changes His existence. I can believe that my friend is an amazing person who is always looking out for my good; but if I’m wrong then they still exist, I’m just a sap for believing them. Yes, Christian doctrine proclaims a good and benevolent God, and yes I believe that to be true; but if I am wrong then it simply means that God is evil, not non-existent.
    Thank you for the response, but a bit more clarity on your argument would be awesome.

    P.S. Rick, yes I do mean I will ask God. Part of my faith is that I believe He interacts with us, but that is far beyond the scope of this argument. I don’t think this area needs any clarification unless everyone here wants to hear my life story. I am willing to do that, but I don’t think that it is the point of this discussion. If you want to, just ask and I can talk to you on a different medium so we don’t divert from the topic at hand.

    Chaos Poet

    April 21, 2012 at 07:35

  411. Jong Hans, ek verwag nie ‘n spesifieke tipe standaard antwoord van jou nie, net een wat sin maak.
    Ek moet se, jou geloof klink nogal vreemder as die gemiddelde, en dit se baie.
    Wil jy nie ‘n bietjie vir ons vertel wat noem jy en die “baie wat soos jy glo” julself nie. Dit klink nog vreemder as die gemiddelde gereformeerde stront waarmee ek grootgeword het.

    Shazee

    April 21, 2012 at 04:55

  412. Chaos Poet, the argument about a good god, or a bad god cannot prove the existence, or the non existence of a god. If god is omnipotent he is surely capable of being either bad or good, as he chooses to be.
    If I start with the assumption that god actually does exist, and I observe what is happening in the world, he certainly is a bad god, a very bad one.
    The point, however, is not whether god is good or bad.
    The point is that the christian doctrine proclaims a good and benevolent god.
    If you do not grant the possibility that the god you believe in is a malevolent psychotic bully, he most certainly does not exist.

    Shazee

    April 21, 2012 at 04:40

  413. Chaos poet, “I’ll have to ask Him more about these subjects”.

    Are you going to ask “Him”, as in the good Lord? In all seriousness, but how do you intend on doing that?

    rick

    April 21, 2012 at 03:28

  414. Hanswors, it’s just so typical of you godiots to be self-righteous. As far as childishness goes, I’m only carrying your proud and unwavering tradition forward, only with much more honesty than you are capable of. I do it quite consciously, you know. And now you can’t stand it. What a funny man you are, Hanswors.

    Con-Tester

    April 20, 2012 at 23:20

  415. Shazee, ‘n paar betekenisvolle woorde is beter as baie woorde, wat min betekenis het.
    Jy gaan by my nie die standaard antwoorde kry wat jy verwag omdat ek nie glo soos meeste sogenaamde Christenne nie.
    Soos CT reageer, is ek verplig om laerskoolagtige “one liners” te gebruik.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 20, 2012 at 23:14

  416. Inconsequent apologiot babble, all noisy subterfuge and no substance. This kind of contrived and convoluted nonsense, together with that you are actually serious about it without realising its utter sterility, is what makes you blokes so hilarious.

    You can either follow manfully and diligently and with integrity the logic to the inevitable conclusions that your own premisses demand, or you can go and make up new shit along the way to cover up all the other shit you’ve fabricated for covering up the cracks and flaws, and so end up ultimately with a big, heaving, steaming pile of shit. The former is called “intellectual honesty.” The latter is simply fucking ridiculous (not to mention transparently and reprehensibly dishonest), and the main reason why it is hardly ever possible to have a meaningful discussion with a godiot.

    Con-Tester

    April 20, 2012 at 22:12

  417. In response to Con-Tester, Christians are called willing slaves. We as Christians are “bond-slaves,” which means that we choose who we serve. We either serve God or not. That is a very good point though. For further reading on this you can look at I Corinthians 7 (In the Bible).
    As far as Shazee’s point of blackmail, that is a very good point as well. I will admit that it can look like that. In a sense, we are choosing to either serve God and live eternity with Him (being saved from separation by Jesus), or live eternity without Him. I’ll have to ask Him more about these subjects.
    One question is, does your understanding of Heaven and Hell come from the historical study of the Bible and where the ideas of Gahanna (however it is spelled) and Hades interplay? Or does it come from the societal portrayal of Christian faith by non-Christians? Just wondering what the background of your understanding is so I know where you are coming from.

    Is your argument that a good God “wouldn’t” condemn people to Hell or that Hell cannot logically exist? Until we solve the problem of whether Hell exists, and whether or not God exists, we cannot interact with sub-topics or the interplay of the two.

    Grant me a little logical babble.
    – To prove God exists we must start with the presumption of possible existence/non-existence, not His actions.
    – If we prove God exists (or doesn’t) by His actions, then we are jumping the gun a bit.
    – To prove God doesn’t exist based on His actions or supposed actions, is starting with the assumption that God exists and can act (which your very argument refutes).
    – If you start with an assumption of actions, then His existence becomes an absolute which can either be affirmed or blindly denied.
    – If you wish to disprove God’s existence, start with evidence and logical arguments on the basic assumption of being (which is ironically assumed here whether it was meant or not).
    – If you wish to disprove God’s goodness then fine, go ahead and try to disprove that; however, disproving His existence based on actions merely questions His goodness rather than His existence.
    – Either argue His goodness (and continue with these arguments) or argue His existence (and redirect this conversation)

    I will admit that we Christians affirm that His actions show us of His existence (one area of this is called natural theology), but someone acting proves they exist but it cannot disprove existence.
    -To prove that someone doesn’t exist by actions, you must prove they don’t act.
    – Only those who exist can act.
    – If they don’t exist, they don’t act.
    – If they act, they do exist; whether they are good or evil is yet to be determined.

    An couple analogies for this are as follows: “Since the bully is a jerk, I’m going to say He doesn’t exist because I don’t like Him.” or “My Dad abused me so I am going to treat Him as thought He doesn’t exist: I will never talk to Him or even acknowledge Him.” Either way, it doesn’t prove they don’t exist. Granted, this topic is a lot bigger than these two analogies.

    As far as an argument of His goodness, you are presenting a good argument; however, as far as arguing His existence your logic is slightly misdirected. If you wish to argue against the existence of a GOOD God, then you are on the right track. Please choose which you are arguing for: I am willing to go either way but you need to decide which way you want to take it.

    Chaos Poet

    April 20, 2012 at 21:41

  418. Nemo, even if I grant your point that god has the right to destroy us, seeing that he has created us in the first place, what would that tell you about the character of god? He gives us life and consciousness, he gives us free will, and if we don’t exercise the free will in a manner hat he approves, he burns us in hell forever.

    I don’t call that free will, I call it blackmail by a psychopathic control freak.

    Anyway, CT has rumbled your free will argument already, so I need not say much more about it.

    Shazee

    April 20, 2012 at 09:18

  419. nemo, it’s not free will to say to someone, “You can choose to follow me or not, but if you don’t, I will make sure you suffer eternal torment of the most horrific kind.” What you’ve done is tacked on some convenient ad hoc bullshit to preserve the notion that your skydaddy gave you free will.

    But if you really think that that’s “free will” then you have a willing slave’s mentality.

    Con-Tester

    April 20, 2012 at 09:12

  420. This is still free will Shazee, he has given us a choice between life and death, urging us to choose life. As far as how he requires us to behave, the main jist of it is simply to love him first, and secondly to love other people as we would love ourselves (this also means that we would need to respect ourselves as well of course). Everything else falls into place if those two requirements are met first. Most of the things we are called to do are simply a result of not everyone following that ideal, and some people needing to be rescued from their oppression. Yes we are supposed to turn the other cheek to oppression but that does not mean that we should turn someone elses cheek for them. So basically if we help other people as opposed to hurting them, and recognize God as the supplier of everything that is worth anything in the world we are doing just fine. Yes there is still a lot wrong with this world, many people abuse this freedom quite heavily, and we are still suffering the effects of the corruption brought on by this sin but eventually that will all be restored to the way it was originally created.
    Quite honestly since he created all of us, it is entirely in his right to destroy us for no reason if he really wants to. The fact that he has given us the oportunity to escape that fate says quite a lot about his mercy/goodness/patience I think.

    Well I guess there is also the requirement of acknowledging that we are not perfect (as in not even close), and that the only way we would ever be considered good enough is if he decides to forgive us (this being the whole point to Jesus taking the penalty instead of us), but I think this goes without saying. I know that I at least have hurt plenty of other people, both accidentally and on purpose, and am still hurting people now. Although I try to avoid this whenever I can, I would still be disqualified from entering a perfect world simply by the fact that, as I am right now, I would corrupt it myself. This isn’t really about what we can do after all, all we need to do is decide that we want to continue existing enough that we are willing to accept his help and forgiveness, including the changes it will bring to our lives. Everything else he has taken care of already.

    This view will obviously not make a lot of sense unless it is first assumed that God exists, created this world, and is directly responsible for everything good in it, but I think that is sort of required for most of my arguments.

    nemo

    April 20, 2012 at 08:59

  421. nemo, besides Shazee’s powerful and compelling point (April 20, 2012 at 06:49), the “Free Will” defence is a fuck-up right from the start. By hypothesis, your ostensible creator skydaddy is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and supremely benevolent. That means, among other things, that there is nothing s/he doesn’t know or can’t do. More specifically, it means s/he could have created a world without any suffering and yet retain complete free will in it because there’s nothing your skydaddy can’t do, right? Equally, s/he knows exactly the total detail from start to finish of how everything is going to turn out because there’s nothing your skydaddy doesn’t know, right? Finally, s/he wants it all to be blissful for everyone because your skydaddy is perfectly good, right? Now why do we still have a world where this supposed all-powerful, all-wise, all-good skydaddy creator’s alleged plan has gone so badly off the rails? And the idea that natural disasters and other so-called “acts of god” that take an indiscriminate toll in human lives, the idea that such events are the product of “free will” is just fucking hilariouly absurd. Remember, your skydaddy, in all his/her power and wisdom and goodness, supposedly made the world that way, when there’s no reason whatsoever that s/he couldn’t have made it differently, especially when s/he knew right from the beginning exactly how it was all going to turn out.

    Besides AIDS orphans and millions of starving children (all of which your skydaddy supposedly has the power to alleviate at a stroke, but apparently not the will), do you know that between 15% and 20% of human pregnancies end up in miscarriages? That’s a few tens of millions of deaths annually of the unborn innocent for no good reason, making your skydaddy the most prolific abortionist ever to have bloodied the world.

    So on all those premises and their consequences, the “Free Will” defence is a fucking joke. And a sick one at that. Either your skydaddy is a ham-fisted bungler who can’t do whatever s/he sets his/her mind on, or s/he’s a myopic retard who doesn’t know even a fraction as much as the godiots pretend, or s/he’s a sick fuck with a psychopathic streak as wide as the universe. Or maybe some combination of those possibilities.

    Occam’s Razor, however, demands that we drop the whole stupid argument altogether instead of trying to salvage the irredeemable.

    But like I said: It would be really, really good if you godiots bothered to read just a little further than the end of your oh-so-easily-out-of-joint noses. Perhaps I should have said “… bothered to read and to think…”.

    Con-Tester

    April 20, 2012 at 08:40

  422. Nemo, it is an interesting free will that god provides: you have a free choice to behave exactly as he dictates, and to believe exactly as he requires, and go to heaven and eternal bliss, or I can choose not to behave or believe as he wants me to and burn in hell forever.
    You call that free will?

    Shazee

    April 20, 2012 at 06:49

  423. Nee hans, niemand probeer jou met vrae enige plek inlei nie.
    Jy maak dit onmoontlik om ‘n sinvolle redenasie met jou te probeer voer deur deur jou onophoudelike vermyding van vrae waarop jy nie ‘n eerlike antwoord het nie, antwoorde, wat as jy dit eerlik en reguit moet antwoord, nie jou vooraf opgestelde geloof kan ondersteun nie.

    As jou bygeloof rasioneel was, of as dit op enige wyse hoegenaamd deur objektiewe bewys ondersteun was, sou dit nie vir jou nodig gewees het om ‘n strik agter elke vraag te vermoed nie. Dit sou nie vir jou nodig gewees het om die fokus van die onderwerp onder bespreking so deursigtig en oneerlik te verander nie. Dit sou nie vir jou nodig gewees het om CT se kommentaar met jou kinderagtige, laerskoolagtige “one liners” te vermy omdat jy nie meer sinvolle antwoorde het nie.
    As jy reg was in jou primitiewe bygeloof sou jy vrae reguit kon antwoord en dit rasioneel kon regverdig.

    In jou vermyding van vrae en in jou rasionalisering van die onlogiese en ongeloofwaardige is jy nie anders as alle gelowiges nie, jy is net effens dommer en komiekliker as die gemiddelde.

    Ek wag vir jou “one liner”

    Shazee

    April 20, 2012 at 05:48

  424. Con-Tester could you explain why the free will idea does not work? I do not actually have anyone else in my contact circle who is capable of answering it from your perspective and the post about free will on this blog does not really seem to say much about it either. The example of the young man and his lover seems to do a perfectly good job of illustrating just how humans are capable of using their free will to corrupt the free will of their weaker peers and is not really very accurate when applied to the Christian God.

    In the case of God I think the parable should be somewhat closer to what Johan said although it could be a bit better explained.
    Firstly as a result of the woman’s actions she has a child that she is then unable to feed. The young man then sends her love letters offering to forgive her and help raise the child but is rejected. This continues until both her and her child starve to death. The help was offered but never forced (preserving the woman’s free will) and thus rejected.

    nemo

    April 20, 2012 at 05:45

  425. I like how honest and open parts of this discussion are. I appreciate people who present things in a logical and honest way. I am a Christian, and I’ll admit that it is hard for me to deal with the hardship of the world. Yet I also realize that God has called me to be “Salt and Light” which basicially means I am responsible for what happens in the world. We are the caretakers and representatives (image bearers) of God. While these issues have been brought up many times, they are continually fresh due to new people who are affected by them. Each person has to decide for themselves what they believe, and I appreciate all of you who are willing to interact with this subject instead of running from it. I personally believe that I am right, but everyone believes they are right so that isn’t a huge revelation. What I would like to know is more of how some of the other people in this post came to their conclusions.

    In the end we all have to live with the consequences of decisions we make and the things we believe. Thank you for allowing me to see what you believe, and I hope that those of us in both camps can continue have honest discussions. I hope that we can truly investigate each other’s claims and find out for ourselves what we believe.

    Chaos Poet

    April 20, 2012 at 01:37

  426. Hanswors, that would be “merely”. And despite your glib protestations to the contrary, you are thoroughly dishonest, as I have amply demonstrated on April 16, 2012 at 08:20 in the The Year of the Atheist thread. You still can’t prove me wrong on any of those things.😛

    Con-Tester

    April 19, 2012 at 23:10

  427. Shazee, when you try and lead me with questions into that which I do not believe, then of course I will go another direction. I am not dishonest and am mealy broadening the horizon.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 19, 2012 at 23:04

  428. Nemo, an ad hominem attack ceases to be one, once the integrity and honesty of one of the parties to the debate becomes relevant to the veracity of his arguments.
    Hans,amongst others, has a proven track record (easily proven by direct reference to this blog) of avoiding straight questions, shifting the focus of arguments he cannot answer, arbitrary rationalisation, and of generally misrepresenting plain facts.
    His honesty and integrity is clearly not irrelevant to the argument.

    Shazee

    April 19, 2012 at 21:28

  429. nemo, it would be really, really good if you godiots bothered to read just a little further than the end of your oh-so-easily-out-of-joint noses. Then perhaps we would be spared the tedious posting and reposting of such unutterably inane and unsustainable drivel as yours. The “Free Will” argument is as stale and bankrupt as it is deceitful. In fact, it is an excuse, not an argument.

    Con-Tester

    April 19, 2012 at 17:58

  430. I can always enjoy a good argument even if only for the sake of the argument itself so here are my thoughts on the matter:

    The question is still basically how an all powerful and loving god would ever allow the evil that we see around us correct? I just wanted to make sure that is the main point of this since it appears to have degraded into a series of ad hominem attacks from both sides.

    I think that in order to understand this it is important to understand how we were created and the reason for said creation in the first place.
    One such understanding is the idea of being created with the purpose of being in voluntary relationship with the creator. In order to sustain such a relationship both sides need a free will to choose to work towards the same goal otherwise it is no longer voluntary. Obviously the all powerful creator would have a free will since creation would have to be a choice on his part and we as the creation would then have to be created with a free will of our own in order to fullfill this purpose. In other words we need to have the freedom to break the relationship as well as uphold it.
    Apparantly he decided to create more than one of us and give us some limited ‘creation’ abilities of our own (namely, reproduction) and therefore we are also required to relate to eachother as well. As far as I can tell a part of how the Bible says that we as the creation are supposed to relate to this god is in upholding relationships with the other people around us here on earth as well.
    If we were unable to hurt each other in this relationship then it would cease to be voluntary and since we cannot directly hurt someone that is all powerful the closest that we can come to is to be able to hurt the rest of his creation.
    If we are created as relational beings with a free will then could the state of this world not all make sense as the results of our actions or lack thereof?
    The reason that people are starving in slavery or otherwise oppressed is because someone decided to break from that ideal of holding up the relationship with the people they can influence. Some of the people doing this even claim to be Christians although I do not believe that they can actually be truely Christian if they are willing to break off from the moral code they are supposed to follow so easily.
    The reason for the natural disasters that plague us is also related to this, if we are arguing from the Christian view of God then we must assume that the Bible is accurate which means that at some point a while ago God became fed up with the failure of humankind and destroyed most of us in a global flood. Before this the world was perfect, there probably were no earthquakes, floods or famines, but a flood of that size would do some serious damage to this planet, causeing unsability in the earth’s crust and all kinds of interesting things such as deserts.

    The real question I think is why so many of us, both Christian and not, are not doing anything about the issue? We potentially have the power to help those people but we just sit around and make as much money as we can, not really willing to put out the effort to correct the obvious wrongs in the world. I must say that Christians have been responcible for a large percentage of the efforts that are actually in place to help but there are supposed to be 2 billion people in the world that claim to be Christian, about a quarter of the total population, and many of them are living as hypocrates instead of helping.

    nemo

    April 19, 2012 at 07:19

  431. Hanswors, that would be Mickey Mouse. Mind your utterly disrespectful spelling, now! 😛

    
    

    My and others’ questions to you that you have dodged, evaded, avoided and generally bullshitted your way past questions are all over this blog. I’m done repeating them at your Lordship’s convenience. Seek them out yourself. Or amuse us with another of your “explanations” of all those Holey Babble contradictions. You decide, see?

    Con-Tester

    April 2, 2012 at 21:18

  432. Con-Tester, I know about Micky Mouse so post a question.

    Hans Matthysen

    April 2, 2012 at 21:07

  433. Hanswors, you can’t be very bright if you don’t realise that if I claim experiences with Mickey Mouse, my claims are completely and unquestionably true!

    Now answer some questions, you funny clown, you.

    Con-Tester

    March 31, 2012 at 22:35

  434. Con-Tester, you can’t be very bright if you think that you can say, that what I have experienced, does not exist just because you have not had similar experiences.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 31, 2012 at 22:17

  435. Really, Hanswors? I said your Holey Babble is a collection of fairytales. I said the dictionary definition of certain words is entirely inadequate. How in your skydaddy’s name does that equate to not accepting what’s in those books!? Is that what is being taught on Planet Hanswors lately?

    That beside, you’re still just making up new bullshit and dodges and excuses.

    Con-Tester

    March 30, 2012 at 21:37

  436. Con-Tester, you don’t accept what is written in the dictionary just as you don’t accept what is written in the Bible.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 30, 2012 at 21:31

  437. Once more, Hanswors: You’re talking horseshit. You’re making stuff up as needed. All your assertions are nonsense.

    There, I’ve contradicted you again. Three times, nogal. Pick up a dictionary and look up the word “contradict”. Learn something new, ou.

    And on the topic of new stuff, try actually answering some questions.

    Which pathetic evasions remind me: Hey, Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), this GC&UPOO&TF still not done enough shtupping for your liking, eh? Ah well, too fucking bad.

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2012 at 22:25

  438. Con-Tester, you haven’t contradicted me, you have only expressed what you think of my answer. Lets see if you can do better than that?

    Hans Matthysen

    March 29, 2012 at 22:14

  439. More garbled bullshit and excuses, Hanswors. If your skydaddy… er, I mean your “god” is just another word for “love”, why do you go and complicate matters like you always do? Why can’t you keep it simple and straightforward, hmm?

    And I’ve contradicted every “answer” you’ve given. I’ll do so again, Hanswors: You’re talking blatant childish kak.

    Now try actually answering some questions. Read the comments in this and other threads to find the questions since you imply you don’t know which questions I’m talking about. Or how about another hilarious “explanation” of a bible contradiction, say?

    Con-Tester

    March 29, 2012 at 08:14

  440. Con-Tester, it is not an excuse, as that is what God is, love! You of course give the impression, that you only love yourself, as if you are a god yourself.
    Why don’t you ask a question? You have not contradicted any answer I have given you, instead you just badmouth me as you cannot contradict what I have answered. You don’t only appear to be an intellectual idiot but also an intellectual fool.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 29, 2012 at 08:04

  441. Feel whatever you want, Hanswors, but you’re a presumptuous fucking idiot if you think there cannot be love without your “god”.

    Instead of making stupid excuses and avoiding things, try answering some questions.

    Con-Tester

    March 27, 2012 at 23:15

  442. Con-Tester, life has no meaning without “Love” (God), so I can only feel sorry for you.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 27, 2012 at 23:05

  443. So in conclusion, my advice to you is to present something original, something persuasive, or be ridiculed. Or keep quiet. Your choice. But don’t complain about being treated badly. Read this blog and its comments first before you proceed to stick your feet in your mouth.

    Con-Tester

    March 27, 2012 at 20:33

  444. Yet more contrived, lamebrain poppycock, this time seasoned with an overdose of artifice.

    The world is not what you would expect from an allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing, supremely benevolent creator. The fact that our sense of morality rails against the way the world is, is ditto not the product one would expect from an allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing, supremely benevolent creator. The fact alone that this divergence exists prominently and pervasively, even if it is only one of perception, strongly suggests something is fundamentally wrong with either the world or our perception thereof, and possibly both, when measured against the alleged attributes of the supposed creator of both those things.

    When the apologiots finally see through to that compelling essence of the problem, then we might actually and finally expect that one of them will mount an argument against it that is more than sophistry and manufactured bullshit which serve solely to cover it up. When the godiots finally see that Occam’s Razor effortlessly slices their wishful cerebral appendages away like the cancers that they are, then we might actually succeed in having a fruitful discussion. When the religiots concede that they may, for any number of entirely naturalistic reasons, be mistaken, then we might start treading on some common ground.

    But it is not in their natures to acknowledge the extreme weakness and very probable erroneousness of their utterly ridiculous “arguments”. Ergo, any fruitful discussion with bibliots and crediots is simply not possible. Only ragging them remains.

    Con-Tester

    March 27, 2012 at 20:31

  445. “What a pile of contrived, ill-informed poppycock: God exists because my ideas of good and evil are either subjective, in which case my argument against “god” is implausible, or those ideas are properly objective, in which case I have come to them from an absolute moral authority.”
    ~Con-Tester March 26, 2012 at 19:22

    You would be right in saying that the quote of C. S. Lewis that I posted does not prove the existence of God. However, that was not the point of the quote. I posted the quote because it explains how the, “Proof!” that God does not exist (which you may see at the top of this page) is, in fact, not proof at all.

    Lewis’ conclusion that, “atheism turns out to be too simple,” was formed on the fact that his brand of atheism was fundamentally based on the aforementioned, “Proof!”

    If your atheism is not based on said, “Proof!” then the quote from Lewis is not speaking of your brand of atheism, and you may feel free to ignore it.

    I should also mention that C. S. Lewis did not believe in God because atheism was disproven for him, but rather, because he felt he had met God. I do not think he penned the above quoted words in order to convince atheists of the, “error of their ways.” It was, I think, meant as a means of combatting the fallacious above written “Proof!”

    Shreger

    March 27, 2012 at 19:52

  446. Shazee, the “Word” you speak can destroy or create.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 26, 2012 at 23:26

  447. No Hanswors, I don’t believe in the fevered figments of your imaginings that you wish were real but for which you have no evidence or compelling argument.

    Con-Tester

    March 26, 2012 at 23:24

  448. These guy’s do not believe in love, because “God Is love.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 26, 2012 at 23:18

  449. And what exactly have you learned from me, Hanswors?

    No dodges or stupid excuses now, please. Just a straight answer will do — that is, if you’re capable of such a thing.

    Con-Tester

    March 26, 2012 at 23:18

  450. Con-Tester, glad to see that I can learn something from you, thanks.
    I think you have been smelling the poppies.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 26, 2012 at 23:12

  451. There might, or might not be a creator of the universe, which is an omnipotent “god”, but he\she\it will still have to answer the Darwinion imperative; where does this creator come from? How did this creator originate?
    The problem remains that the creator must have arrived late in the history of the universe, as “he” must “himself” be an evolved creature.

    Shazee

    March 26, 2012 at 20:10

  452. What a pile of contrived, ill-informed poppycock: God exists because my ideas of good and evil are either subjective, in which case my argument against “god” is implausible, or those ideas are properly objective, in which case I have come to them from an absolute moral authority.

    Even if we accept the necessity of some absolute fount of morality (which already presumes far more than it actually explains), there is still a huge unfilled gap between that presumption and any particular edition of “god”. More importantly, this naïve either-or account of our moral sense neglects the inherited, the instinctive and the learnt aspects thereof. Our morality isn’t somehow separate from the rest of our existence in the natural world.

    So, once more: What a pile of contrived, ill-informed poppycock. Aplogiots will love it, of course.

    Con-Tester

    March 26, 2012 at 19:22

  453. Your dislike of the author does not refute his logic.
    And it is interesting how you judge God to not be loving enough, then turn around and espouse your own hatred for another person.

    Shreger

    March 26, 2012 at 19:10

  454. Quote me C. S. Lewis, will you, you blackguard, you bounder, you rogue and you varlet!?

    I haaaaate C. S. Lewis!

    O.K. Just an overreaction.

    But I haaaaate C. S. Lewis!

    Nathan Bond

    March 26, 2012 at 18:21

  455. “If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling “whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn’t it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren’t all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?” But then that threw me back into another difficulty.

    My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.

    Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too— for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense.

    Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. ”
    ~C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    Shreger

    March 26, 2012 at 04:15

  456. Hanswors, in English, plurals do not take an apostrophe, except in certain special cases. And it’s “etc.”

    That besides, you’re presenting an argument from Hanswors’ personal perceptions. “It is a reality,” you confidently assert. Sorry boet, but you’ve got no evidence. As ever, your “argument” is “It’s true because I say it’s true! I can show you an old book.”

    That’s just plain shit covering your eyes, Hanswors. Maybe yours need a good wipe.

    Still and all, you’re avoiding questions with wishful bullshit.

    Which hilarious silliness reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Your avoidance of this simple question is really amusing. How much auto-stuprating must a GC&UPOO&TF do to win your gracious favour? (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

    February 4, 2012 at 22:18

  457. Con-Tester, just wipe the shit out of your eye’s and look around you. See the reliable reason, evidence and support of God’s (Love’s) existence. It is a reality. Sorry that it is not very complicated as it is not meant to make you Scribes ect. feel important.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 4, 2012 at 22:04

  458. Support of what, Hanswors? What exactly are you gibbering about? Please help us lesser intellects understand! Please explain what you mean to say!

    What does your bald assertion that “as God is Love, reliable reason, evidence and argument is support thereof” have to do with objective assessment of reality? Or is it just something quasi-novel you pulled from your arse because you thought it sounded clever, Hanswors? Please explain!

    After all Hanswors, 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, instead of constructing incomprehensible drivel, don’t you rather demonstrate how you would “rather share [your] understanding”?

    When you’ve settled the above, you can pick whichever 40 of those contradictions you want to. Why is this giving you so much difficulty? Why all the avoidance and evasion? It’s almost as skippily dippy as not being able to supply a simple yes-or-no answer to a very simple question.

    Which top-drawer gabble reminds me: Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), you need to see more shtuppie-shtuppie by a GC&UPOO&TF?

    Con-Tester

    February 3, 2012 at 23:09

  459. Sorry, I actually meant my humble fucking apologies.

    Shazee

    February 3, 2012 at 22:29

  460. My humble apologies CT, I was so exited to see oom Piet in the land of the living again that I got ahead of myself.

    Shazee

    February 3, 2012 at 22:00

  461. Tut-tut, Shazee, profanity and all that fucking half-witted rot, care is in order.🙄

      
    

    And all that fucking spasmodic, epileptic fucking repetition, you’d fucking swear on a stack of fucking Holey Babbles it was fucking religious…

    Which fucking hilarity-inducing monotony reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 )…

    Con-Tester

    February 3, 2012 at 21:50

  462. Con-Tester, as God is Love, reliable reason, evidence and argument is support thereof.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 3, 2012 at 21:48

  463. Oom Piet het n fokken helder oomblik! Hy het wakker geword en onthou om die donnerse knoppie te druk. Fok my flenters oom Piet, ek hoop iemand onthou jou medikasie terwyl jy nou fokken wakker is.

    Shazee

    February 3, 2012 at 20:26

  464. 1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3

    There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].

    4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4

    The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].

    5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5

    Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].

    6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6

    Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].

    7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7

    “Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].

    Kind regards,

    Piet Stassen.
    3 Februarie 2012.

    Piet Stassen

    February 3, 2012 at 20:14

  465. Very easy Hans wors, when there is no reliable reason, evidence or argument to support it, Hans wors. Then it’s very likely to be a delusion. (There are of course certain minimal standards in each the ideas of “reason, evidence or argument” that to an extent depend on the magnitude and a priori plausibility of the claim in question, standards of which godiots/religiots/bibliots/crediots are typically wholly ignorant.)

    Now, will you attend to all those other questions, reason, Hans wors? Or can we expect yet more table-turning, goalpost-shifting an evasion from you?

    Which cognitive deficiency reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”?

    Con-Tester

    February 2, 2012 at 22:32

  466. Con-Tester, how do you know when something is delusional?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 2, 2012 at 22:14

  467. Predictably, Hanswors, you dodge the crucial question (which has been put to you before on this blog) with an irrelevancy. So let me repeat it for you before answering it because you won’t do so for one of several possible reasons: If you can’t properly, reliably and objectively detect something, how do you know it’s not a delusion?

    The answer is that you don’t know, no matter how hard you assert that you do.

    Now follow my example and get back to answering my other questions because it would appear that you are actually the one on drugs (like godphine, religuana, credoine and biblium), what with all the fanciful shit you make up.

    Which far-fetched gobbledegook reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? More shtuppie-shtuppie needed, you reckon? Okay, but don’t say I’m an uncooperative GC&UPOO&TF now, see?

    Con-Tester

    February 1, 2012 at 23:31

  468. Con- Tester, are your perhaps on drugs, as you appear to be delusional?

    Hans Matthysen

    February 1, 2012 at 20:57

  469. Hanswors, that’s total nonsense. If you can’t properly, reliably and objectively detect something, how do you know it’s not a delusion?

    Which muddleheaded non-thinking reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? More auto-stupration for me, I guess. 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 31, 2012 at 22:14

  470. Con-Tester, why would one want to argue. What you cannot see or touch, yet you know it is present appears to be spiritual. Symbolism show’s things observed in the mind (with the minds eye).

    Hans Matthysen

    January 31, 2012 at 21:40

  471. But Hanswors, you yourself acknowledge nothing. Nor do you actually answer anything.

    So now you’re saying you can’t measure “grace” (at best, a wholly subjective notion), and therefore “grace” = “spiritual”/“spirit” (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to be). Is that what you’re saying? If so, it doesn’t explain anything. It’s a circular argument. Nor does it address the point I have repeatedly made that we may not be able to measure/detect certain things because we lack adequate definitions for them. Yet, all along I have been asking for just such a definition. Therefore, your “answer” is a failure.

    Try to understand my questions better: What is “spiritually”, Hanswors? 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. How can one detect “spiritually”, Hanswors? How can one test for it and decide — reliably and objectively — that it is there?

    Which smarmy non-answer reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? C’mon, shtup me more, more, more!

    Con-Tester

    January 31, 2012 at 08:21

  472. Con-Tester, at last you acknowledge that you cannot measure the things I mentioned. Good for you!

    Hans Matthysen

    January 30, 2012 at 23:23

  473. Who’s changing the scenario, Hanswors? You are. You keep looking for new words describing things we can’t measure, just as I predicted. Even so and as already pointed out, the things we can’t measure are merely things for which we have no proper functional definition.

    Which shiftiness reminds me: …

    Con-Tester

    January 29, 2012 at 22:22

  474. Con-Tester, accept the fact that you cannot measure grace and don’t change the scenario.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 29, 2012 at 21:54

  475. Hanswors, can you catch a red herring?😉

    Con-Tester

    January 28, 2012 at 23:16

  476. Hanswors, look up “fMRI”. Learn something new. Please.

    Are you going to go through the entire dictionary until you actually find something we can’t measure at present? (Here’s a hint: The fact that we don’t know exactly how to measure some things now, doesn’t mean that they can’t be measured at all, ever — unless argumentum ad ignorantiam is your thing. The only reason some things appear to be beyond mensuration is because we lack clear, functional definitions of those things. Capisce?)

    Which brain-dead non-reason reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? There’s a GC&UPOO&TF seeking relief, if not salvation, from your withering condemnation…🙄

    Con-Tester

    January 28, 2012 at 23:11

  477. Con-Tester, you are referring to a lie detector that only can tell from the bodies reaction whether one’s love is true or false. It cannot measure love.
    You cannot measure forgiveness.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 28, 2012 at 21:40

  478. “BULLSHIT BAFFLES BRAINS”

    EricV

    January 28, 2012 at 07:26

  479. Yes Hanswors, as a matter of demonstrable fact, you can. So much so that you can distinguish the real thing from the pretence. If you think otherwise, I suggest you do a hasty bit of reading on the subject of cognitive science’s current status. That’s because quite clearly you would rather make eminently ignorant assertions about stuff you know nothing about than answer worthwhile questions — or face the fact that you’re clutching at chaff.

    Which spasmodic bullshitting reminds me: Hey, …

    Con-Tester

    January 27, 2012 at 23:55

  480. Con-Tester, you cannot measure love.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 27, 2012 at 22:11

  481. Hanswors, wake up! You obviously cannot help yourself dodging my points. Or my questions.

    Which artifice reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? More auto-stuprating on my part good for you? This GC&UPOO&TF can think of few things more pleasing than pleasing you. A little quid pro quo, maybe? In the name of honesty if nothing else? Didn’t think so. Too bad.

    Con-Tester

    January 26, 2012 at 23:22

  482. Con-Tester, wake up! You cannot measure wisdom of which you come short.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 26, 2012 at 23:15

  483. Het iemand “Godsdiens en die reg: so se die VSA” deur Andreas Van Wyk op bl 24 van vandag se Beeld gelees?

    Shazee

    January 26, 2012 at 21:51

  484. Hanswors, it’s you who’s talking shit. All measurements that we make are without exception the response of an instrument to a stimulus. You can even measure a measuring instrument’s response to a stimulus. As it happens, the system I mentioned involves measuring, by fMRI, the response of a prior instrument to a stimulus, namely the brain.

    I defy you to name even one thing that can be measured directly on its own terms without involving instrument response. You cannot. The very notion is self-contradictory. Even your senses/brain combo is a collection of instruments — sometimes erroneous, to be sure, but instruments nonetheless.

    Therefore, and once more, you’re talking ignorant tripe of the most delusional and ill-informed sort. We can measure those things, as described, at least to the extent of establishing their presence or absence.

    So, answer my questions, please.

    Which haughty ignorance reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? A GC&UPOO&TF would like a simple, effortless answer, assuming that’s not beyond your capabilities.

    Con-Tester

    January 25, 2012 at 23:33

  485. Con-Tester, you are talking shit as you cannot measure the things I have mentioned. You can measure the physical bodies reaction to emotions but you cannot measure the things I have mentioned.
    I will give you an answer in Afrikaans to your so-called question: Janee.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 25, 2012 at 23:07

  486. Nathan,
    Onthou jy toe ek so ‘n ruk terug navraag gedoen het oor Josie Raaths van “Radio Kansel”?
    Hy het toe nog met my dogter uitgegaan.
    Nou ja, my gut feeling was toe reg. Hy was nie so lekker in die kop nie.
    Hy het oor die naweek selfmoord gepleeg oor blykbaar ‘n vroumens en ook as gevolg van die kerklike instansie waarvoor hy gewerk het. Dit was in die koerant “Sondag” en ook Beeld van gister.
    Ai, die arme godiote darrem! Hulle breins werk nie so lekker nie.

    EricV

    January 25, 2012 at 12:04

  487. Hallo julle almal,
    Hies ek ok weer. Shit, maar julle kan darrem ‘n klomp kak praat as ek nie by is nie!
    Arme Oom Piet kry alweer geen rus vir sy siel nie.
    Ou arme Hans is nog steeds besig met sy bybel drome. Hy praat van “love,forgiveness, the power of a word, righteousness, understanding, joy ect?”
    Nou, ek is bly hy het dit genoem. Ek het gedurende die kersgety op ‘n baie interressante video afgekom.
    Gaan google Athene’s “Theory of Everything”.
    Dit beaam my siening ook. Alles word deur die brein veroorsaak. Liefde, seks, jagsgeit, drange, godsdiens, balans van regverdigheid, ens.
    Soos die engelsman sal se “It’s all in the mind”.

    EricV

    January 25, 2012 at 11:54

  488. Ek’s bly om dan dalk ook ’n bietjie verligting te kan voorsien, Shazee. Die jirre weet, ons kry oorgenoeg vervelige boelsjit…😉

    Con-Tester

    January 24, 2012 at 23:20

  489. Con – Tester, I am going to stop my DSTV subscription, this is enough entertainment for me.
    Ek het darem nou fokken lekker gelag jong.

    Shazee

    January 24, 2012 at 22:49

  490. Johannes Coetzee nog nie weer hier gewees nie?:mrgreen:

    Satan

    January 24, 2012 at 22:43

  491. …which onanism reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Or is my auto-stupration not yet sufficient for your eclectic tastes? Purleeeeze, be a generous ol’ shtuppie and share with an unrepentant GC&UPOO&TF a scrap of your magnificent magnanimity, your poised balance and your veracious truth. Maybe then others will not see through you so easily, but it’s just a GC&UPOO&TF’s thought.

    Con-Tester

    January 24, 2012 at 22:40

  492. Shazee, dieselfde boek, daai Huilerig Gebabbel, sê dan ook jy mag mos nie draadtrek nie — of ten minste komkolle oppie grond sit nie. Dis nou seker letterlike draadtrek wat verbode is want die simboliese draadtrek van sekere galowiges en pseudogalowiges wat hierso hul “saad” van wysheid op die grond versproei is dan selfbevredigend aansienlik…

    Con-Tester

    January 24, 2012 at 22:40

  493. Yes Hanswors, you can. They are distinctly classifiable as emotive states via a fMRI. Look it up if you’re confused. Additionally, they are emotive states that are distinguishable depending on whether they are directed towards a real target or an imaginary one, except in the case of severely psychotic subjects.

    But you’re still and very obviously dodging my questions, Hanswors. All of that while I answer yours. Very honourable and upstanding. Will you now answer my questions? Or can we expect yet more dodging from you?

    Con-Tester

    January 24, 2012 at 22:39

  494. Con-Tester, can you measure love, forgiveness, the power of a word, righteousness, understanding, joy ect?

    Hans Matthysen

    January 24, 2012 at 22:27

  495. Malherbe, kan jy nie die verskil sien nie? As dit in die BOEK is moet dit mos heilig wees,of hoe?

    In die werklike wereld waarin ek en jy leef is dit n baie siek moer wat oor perde en donkies fantasseer, maar as dit in die BOEK staan moet daar seker een of ander heilige simboliek daaragter wees, of anders weet ek nou nie wat nou eintlik daarmee bedoel word nie………

    Kyk, skynheiligheid het klaarblyklik geen perke nie.

    Shazee

    January 24, 2012 at 21:59

  496. Ja Shazee, maar dieselfde bliksems het dit teen porno op ‘n betaalkanaal. Die gotte is werklik vreemd. Ek sien die “Modemolle Monster” se suster reken op haar Facebook blad dat sy en haar broer “eendag saam gaan aansit aan jesus se tafel”, want hy sal sy hartjie na afloop van sy dade vir jesus gee. Ja, en indien die vrou wat hy aangerand het sou besluit om ongelowig te raak omdat haar gotte haar nie kon beskerm nie (sekerlik ‘n moontlikheid), eindig sy in die ewige vuur. Daar’s nou vir jou ‘n regverdige got, om nie eens te praat van intelligent nie.

    Malherbe

    January 24, 2012 at 10:53

  497. Perde en donkies nogals ne? Boobs en bestialiteit, my moer.

    Hans, verduidelik bietjie die simboliek hieragter asseblief man.

    Oom Piet het jy gesien wat se hierdie vuilbek donners? Ag nee sies man, gee hulle so n bietjie n paar lesse in “profanity”

    Shazee

    January 23, 2012 at 21:01

  498. …which lechery reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Or must I just “continue to stuprate [myself] wholly unhindered by [you]”? (Hmm, “stuprate.” Good word. 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 23, 2012 at 20:14

  499. Oh wow, this guardian-of-good-morals god of the Holey Babble seems to like a bit of soft porn every so often!😯

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2012 at 20:13

  500. Ja, nee, soos iemand al voorheen gese het – so mal soos n kakhuis kokkerot – oeps! Sorry oom Piet, gaan le maar so n bietjie jy sal gou beter voel.

    Shazee

    January 23, 2012 at 15:53

  501. Shazee, jy moet besef dat ouens soos oom Piet heimlik wens dat dieselfde fundamentalisme deur Islam, ook plaaslik uitgevoer word. Moenie dink oom Piet gaan tot jou redding snel wanneer sy gebroedsel jou met klippe doodgooi omdat jy sy gotte se naam “ydelik” (of watter sonde ookal volgens sy Bronstydhandleiding)gebruik het nie. Nee, ek skat oom Piet is die tipe wat sal toekyk, ‘n horing kry, en dan vir sy vrou vertel hoe sy gotte se geregtigheid voor sy oë geskied het. Mens hoef net te let op die hoeveelheid kere wat die Kristinne jou smaakvol meedeel hoe jy in die ewige vuur gaan brand, om te besef dat bg aantyging glad nie vergesog is nie.

    Malherbe

    January 23, 2012 at 13:28

  502. Shazee, you must understand that the mere act of announcing unbelief already constitutes profanity in Proffie Piet “Profanity” Stassen’s view. Why else would he always focus on Holey Babble verses that tell us all about words and speaking in relation to his skydaddy’s insecurities?

    Which anxiety reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? Still letting me “continue to stuprate [myself] wholly unhindered by [you],” eh?😉😛

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2012 at 12:47

  503. Oom Piet, waar kom die toegewyde obsessie met vloekery vandaan?
    Dink jy nie daar is ernstiger goed in die wereld aan die gang waaroor jy jouself as goeie christen behoort te bekommer nie? – die ouens wat se koppe afgekap word in Iran byvoorbeeld. Dit behoort jou sommer baie te pla en nagte te laat wakker le, die meeste word dan juis onthoof vir oortredings van Islamietese wette, iets wat jou ook mos nie aanstaan nie, ne? Ek bedoel nou die goddelose Islam natuurlik.

    Wat ek nie kleinkry nie is die onvoorspelbare tydsverloop tussen jou poste.
    Ek kry die indruk dat jy van tyd tot tyd n helder oomblik kry en dan onthou om die “post comment” knoppie te druk. Probeer volgende keer as jy weer so n bevlieging kry, om ook te onthou om iets oorsprongkliks te pos.

    As jy my wil bekeer gaan dit nie help ek kry die indruk jy is dalk net geestelik versteurd nie.

    Sien oom Piet, ek het nie eers een vloekwoord gebruik nie, ek wil regtig nie nog n n episode ontlok nie.

    Shazee

    January 23, 2012 at 12:12

  504. Proffie Piet “Profanity” Stassen delivers another lecture so stunning in its depth and breadth as to convert the world instantly.

    Mind you, there are those two niggly insuperable problems of the futility of renewing apostates to repentance (Hebrews 6:4—6) and the one unforgiveable sin of blasphemy against the holey ectoplasm (Mark 3:29). It is not surprising that they should remain wholly unaddressed…

    Which lapse reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? This “ghastly cunt, unmitigated piece of ordure, treacherous fuck” admires your gift for profanity. The least you can do in return is to give a clear answer. Go on, be a demon…🙄

    Con-Tester

    January 23, 2012 at 11:22

  505. 1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3

    There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].

    4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4

    The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].

    5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5

    Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].

    6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6

    Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].

    7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7

    “Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].

    Kind regards,

    Piet Stassen.
    23 January 2012.

    Piet Stassen

    January 23, 2012 at 09:25

  506. So, once more, 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, Hanswors?

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Them darn crickets’re still making that god-awful racket…). And don’t pretend you’re not reading this, see? ’Cos it puts your chosen moniker in perspective.

    Con-Tester

    January 13, 2012 at 23:22

  507. Con-Tester, 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 23:13

  508. What are you trying, but failing, to say, Hanswors? 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), you sure talk incoherently.

    Will you speak more clearly?

    Which reminds me: Hey Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), what’s your answer, “yes” or “no”? (Crickets still chirping and…). Should I remind you of the question, to which I defy you to point out where you have given an unequivocal “yes” or “no” answer to?

    Con-Tester

    January 12, 2012 at 23:40

  509. Con-Tester, I am looking out for your own dictionary.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 12, 2012 at 23:28

  510. Oom Piet, ek sien wat jy probeer doen, jy is soos die ou waarvan CT gepraat het, jy probeer ons moeg maak met jou sotlike toss.
    Dit is dieselfde kak wat jy oor en oor pos, amper soos die die kinders in die Madrasa’s moet doen totdat die kak behoorlik ingesink het, VRA MAAR VIR ENIGE TALIBAN TERRORIS.
    Sit jy ook en wieg en jou koppie knik as jy die stront pos?

    Shazee

    January 12, 2012 at 21:49

  511. 1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3

    There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].

    4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4

    The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].

    5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5

    Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].

    6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6

    Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].

    7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7

    “Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].

    Kind regards,

    Piet Stassen.
    13 January 2012.

    Piet Stassen

    January 12, 2012 at 21:22

  512. Hanswors, it looks like you’re too kakbang even to attempt an answer. I’ve already pointed out to you that the dictionary definitions are inadequate because they are somewhat circular and don’t provide any clarity in terms of functional and/or mensurational characterisation. In case you haven’t understood this yet, it’s why I keep asking you.

    After all, “[you] understand more of the Bible than what you ever can know or understand” (Discombobulation thread, December 22, 2011 at 23:20), so you can furnish deep and abiding explanations. 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… you know the tune by now). Should I 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 6, 2012 at 22:36

  513. Con-Tester, the brain fart must perhaps exist in your mind as I have referred you to the Dictionary in regard to your question, but then, the big I am does not accept what is written in dictionaries. Maybe you should make better use of your time and wright your own Dictionary as it might be popular among atheists.
    How do you like that for a quick answer?

    Hans Matthysen

    January 6, 2012 at 22:15

  514. But Hanswors, when it comes to comprehension, you’re obviously unbeatable. One just has to read any three of your comments to see that. That’s why I keep asking you the same question, which you have yet to answer, Hanswors: What is “spiritually”, Hanswors? 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. How can one detect “spiritually”, Hanswors? How can one test for it and decide — reliably and objectively — that it is there?

    You should be able to answer the above very quickly and easily 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 4, 2012 at 23:01

  515. Con-Tester, your interpretation of my short comment has shown that, although you are suppose to be exceptionally highly qualified in the English language, your comprehension thereof is very poor.
    What question?
    You don’t really want anybody to ignore you because you love the attention, unless it reveals what a fool you really are.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 4, 2012 at 22:17

  516. What a very keen nose you have, Hanswors! While you’re so intently sniffing the arseholes and the shit and thinking how unneeded you are, maybe you will answer my questions. Maybe, in the process you can expose me for a fraud and at the same time give more of your much-needed support to ol’ Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ) since you’re the only one of an admittedly small sample who does.

    That should be very easy since he is, as predicted, not able to keep ignoring me for any length of time, and “[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 and chirping and chirping and… you know the tune).

    Con-Tester

    January 2, 2012 at 22:49

  517. I see there is a lot of shit written above and so I got thinking, shit comes from arseholes so I am not needed here.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 2, 2012 at 21:40

  518. PS: Proffie, you and Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ) should get together. See if you two can conduct a coherent conversation of more than five words each.

    Con-Tester

    January 2, 2012 at 16:45

  519. What a fucking hoot you are, Proffie Piet Stassen! Ever thought of doing a comedy show? You could call it “Profanity, God and I: A Still Life.”

    Con-Tester

    January 2, 2012 at 16:13

  520. “Marked by contempt and irreverence for what is sacred” – sounds about right I would say.

    Shazee

    January 1, 2012 at 22:11

  521. 1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3

    There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].

    4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4

    The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].

    5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5

    Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].

    6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6

    Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].

    7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7

    “Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].

    Kind regards,

    Piet Stassen.
    1 January 2012.

    Piet Stassen

    January 1, 2012 at 20:53

  522. Right-on Shazee,
    Glad to hear another sane voice in this wilderness of fucked-up, idiotic, insane, stupid, child-molesting,
    war-mongering, preaching, proselytising and totally blind assholes who can’t accept the simple reality of
    science. As far as I am concerned, just like Billy Connoly said:

    “You’ve had your two or five thousand years of shoving religion and christianity down our throats, BUT NOW IT’S OVER” iT’S ALL FUCKING OVER!

    Welcome to this blog.

    verifanie

    December 19, 2011 at 16:42

  523. The only persons that have to “prove” the existence of a god, any god, are those who assert that it exists.
    If I claim that there are fairies living at the bottom of my garden, the onus is on me to prove it, not on those who disbelief my ridicilous claim to disprove it.
    A negative cannot, per definition, be disproved and the non existence of a god (or my garden fairies) can therefore not be disproved,and to assert that this constitutes proof of anything is irrational in the extreme.
    On the other hand, if a god did actually exist, the bad and evil things that happens in the world is easy to explain: simply postulate a nasty god instead of a good and loving one. It makes perfect as the Abrhamic god have always struck me as a particularly nasty sadist.

    Shazee

    December 19, 2011 at 14:08

  524. Holy shit! Ou Kampeerder se disippel is terug!
    Hoeveel keer gaan “liewe jesus” nog kom?
    Ek dag dan masterbasie word volgens die bybel nie toegelaat nie!

    ErickV

    November 19, 2011 at 08:04

  525. Johnny!!! Welkom terug. Bring on the shit.🙂🙂

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 17, 2011 at 20:26

  526. Dis die 17de November en die Groot Opfok is al amper ’n maand laat. Wat’s ou dooskop Camping en sy drolagtige hansworse se verskoning vir die fokop nou weer, Johannes?

    Want dis nog nie geskryf nie.

    Con-Tester

    November 17, 2011 at 14:15

  527. It is written , Jesus is coming again and very soon.

    johannes

    November 17, 2011 at 13:58

  528. Newton wisdom:

    Isaac Newton said: A woman with one leg is a pushover.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 16, 2011 at 18:48

  529. Confucion wisdom:

    Confucius says: Elevators smell different to midgets……..

    Woman who flies upside down in aircraft, is sure to have crack up…….

    verifanie

    November 16, 2011 at 07:34

  530. It is written:

    A policeman from Nottingham Junction,
    whose organ had long ceased to function.
    Deceived his good wife
    every night of her life
    with the aid of his constable’s truncheon.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 16, 2011 at 05:32

  531. Have you heard of the guy from Kent
    Who’s tool was all buckled and bent
    So to save himself the trouble
    He put it in double
    And instead of coming he went

    verifanie

    November 15, 2011 at 21:43

  532. It is written:

    A stubborn old preacher called Stassen
    Was fiercely opposed to wild cussin’,
    With biblical verses
    He criticised curses,
    And carped with a shitload of fussin’.

    Con-Tester

    November 15, 2011 at 19:51

  533. It is written:

    There was a young lawyer named Rex,
    who was sadly deficient in sex.
    When charged with exposure
    he said with coposure:
    “De mininmus non curat Lex.” *

    * The law does not concern itself with trivalties.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 15, 2011 at 19:09

  534. It is written:

    A lively young hussy called Mary
    Did things in her bed that were scary,
    Her belly did burgeon,
    She cried, “I’m a virgin!
    And Joseph? Oy vey, he’s a fairy!”

    Con-Tester

    November 15, 2011 at 12:38

  535. It is written:

    There was a young lady from Crew
    who said to the curate with rue:
    The vicar is quicker
    and slicker and thicker,
    and two inches longer than you.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 15, 2011 at 05:47

  536. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

    Satan

    November 14, 2011 at 21:20

  537. It is written:

    There was a young woman from Wheeling
    Who professed to lack sexual feeling
    ’Til a cynic named Boris
    Simply touched her clitoris
    And she had to be scraped off the ceiling.

    Con-Tester

    November 14, 2011 at 19:17

  538. It is written:

    A randy young fellow named Clair,
    was enjoying his girl on the stair.
    On the twenty third stroke
    the bannister broke,
    so he finished her off in midair.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 14, 2011 at 18:56

  539. Oooh look, more veiled threats! And wow, this time from a heathen source, nogal. But ai-ai-ai, our Proffie is slipping. First, he says you can repent and beg forgiveness for anything from his three-in-one skydaddy so that you don’t need to roast forever. Now he seems to be saying that you can never take back things you wrote (with the implication that you’re gonna get bliksemed for it later when you vrek). I guess you need to be a Proffie with postdoctoral work in profanity studies before you are able to understand such apparent contradictions.

    (Dankie verifanie, maar onthou dat ’n taal se meer basiese uitdrukkings gewoonlik die maklikste en vinnigste geleer word…)

    Con-Tester

    November 14, 2011 at 10:34

  540. The moving finger writes; and having writ,
    Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
    Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
    Nor all thy Tears wash out a word of it.

    [Omar Khayyam, d.1123 A.D.]

    Piet Stassen

    November 14, 2011 at 09:12

  541. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha…….
    Dit is so lekker om te lag vir die klomp gristelike konte.

    Con-Tester,
    Ek moet se dat jou Afrikaans by die dag verbeter, jong. Mooi so! Hou so aan.

    Daan, ek is so bly om te sien dat jy nie so ‘n verskriklike eng, konserwatiewe kop-in-jesus-se-hol
    gristen is nie. , en dat jy ook so ‘n bietjie, lekker grappies kan trotseer. Ek het gelees jy skryf dat jy
    darem nou al tot sekere meer “verligte” insigte gekom het. Sterkte hoor!

    En nou Prof? Wat gaan jy nou doen? Dit lyk nie vir my of jy ons amal “bekeer” het van ons lekker lag
    en grappies maak nie….. Jy moet jou skoon ou bekkie maar iewers anders neem. Dalk gaan jy daar ‘n paar ouens kry wat dadelik sal ophou sulke “vieslike” woorde gebruik. Hahahahahahahahaha.

    verifanie

    November 14, 2011 at 07:15

  542. It is written:

    Jack and Jill went up the hill
    for some hanky panky.
    Jill the dill
    forgot her pill,
    and now there’s little Frankie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 14, 2011 at 05:54

  543. My fok, ouens! Ek los julle vir twee fokken dae en kyk hoe fokken maak julle. ’n Swak fokken voorbeeld van Gristelikke fokken liefde as ek ooit ene fokken gesien het. Die fokken hel gaan julle nog fokken hard bliksem, luister wat fokken sê ek. En Proffie Piet “Pa Profanity” Stassen sal dit fokken staaf met ’n klomp fokken bybelfokkenversies en emmersvol fokken Jeeeeeebussssst! geneurie.

    Con-Tester

    November 13, 2011 at 22:10

  544. It is written:

    In the Garden of Eden lay Adam;
    complacently stroking his madam.
    And great was his mirth
    for he knew that on earth,
    there were only two balls and he had ’em.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 13, 2011 at 07:04

  545. It is written:

    There once was a farmer who sat on a rock,
    shaking and waving his big hairy….
    fist at the neighbours who sat on some bricks,
    teaching their children to play with their….
    kite strings and marbles as in old days of yore.
    along came a woman who looked like a….
    decent young lady with legs like a duck,
    tell them she’ll show them some new ways to…
    educate their children to sew and to knit,
    while the cleaner of the stable was shoveling the…
    dirt and the rubbish, the muck and the mire,
    and the dirty old farmer was pulling his….
    horse from the stable to go on a hunt,
    and the farmer’s young lady was powdering her….

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 13, 2011 at 07:01

  546. It is written:

    He who despised Moses’ Law died without mercy on the word of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy of punishment, the one who has trampled the Son of God, and who has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who has said, “Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, says the Lord.” And again, “The Lord shall judge His people.” [Hebrews 10: 28-30 MKJV, eSword].

    Piet Stassen

    November 12, 2011 at 11:39

  547. ErickV,
    Ek is so bly dat jy aangesluit het by Prof. Piet Stassen en myself. Ek kan sien dat jou ma jou vuil fokken bek goed uitgespoel het met ‘n sterk seep, en nou kan jy ook nie so fokken vloek soos sommige van die ander donderse bloggers nie. Ek sien ou Con-Tester is ook ‘n ou met ‘n rein hartjie.

    Jy sal bly wees om te hoor dat ou Prof. Piet staan gereed met ‘n groot doos (oeps jammer!) er..boks vol seep. Hy wil graag elke kont wat so vloek, se bek uitspoel.

    Reg so! Die fokken bliksemse etters is groot poese as hulle nie will leer om op te hou vloek nie. En hiermee wil ek net groot hulde bring aan ons slim en wyse leier, Prof. Piet Stassen………….

    Ahem…..

    Prof, baie dankie vir die pragtige en reine lesse wat jy aan ons bring, keer op keer.
    Ons, die dom klomp dose wie niks weet nie, waardeer dit so veel dat jy ons op die regte pad probeer hou. Was dit nie vir jou nie, dan sou ons maar net sulke eenvoudige dom, onnosele, nikswetende fokken bliksems, dose, poese, etters,
    naaiers en moerkonte gewees het. Alle Heil aan Prof Piet….!!!!.

    verifanie

    November 11, 2011 at 21:49

  548. verifanie,
    Wie gee jou die reg om met jou donnerse soetsappige fokken woordjies te kom? Gelukkig fokken vloek ek glad nie soos ‘n wetterse, etterse, blou bles bliksemse matroos nie!!
    Piet Stassen, ek skaam my in my moer in vir hierdie konte!!!!

    ErickV

    November 11, 2011 at 13:49

  549. Prof Piet Stassen,
    Ek stem jintemal saam met jou oor “profanity”

    Hierdie gefokken gevloekery is sommer ‘n klomp kak. Dis wat ek se. Ek se dit heeltyd. Kyk, ek is nou nie ‘n gewelddadige oukie nie, eintlik ‘n vreeslike saggeaarde ou, vredeliewend, en lief vir almal. Maar…..

    As ek eendag ‘n ou moet ontmoet wat vreeslik vloek…..

    Here prof, ek moer sy tande in sy keel af dat hulle by sy poepol uitmarsjeer. So ‘n fokken poes sal weet dat ek (wie eintlik ‘n baie nice ou is). nie sulke kak gaan vat nie. Hy sal weet van sy ma se poes, haar moer en sommer ‘n klomp ander goeters as ek met hom klaar is.

    Sulke donderse etters, bliksems, fokops, dose en poese moet hulle eie kak gaan naai.

    Laat ek jou gou vertel prof. Ek staan eendag by ‘n busstop en ek hoor die ou hier langs my
    begin so vreeslik te vloek. Jammer dat ek dit nou gaan herhaal, maar dit moet vertel word.

    Hy begin te skree: The butcher took a BLOODY piece of meat, threw it over the DAM wall,
    into the BLOOMING flowers….

    Wel ek was geskok tot in my fokken tone. Ek draai om en se vir hom in my beste Engels:

    Hay, lissen here you. “Why is you swerring like a matrose from a ship hay? Dussn’t you no dat the free gots in heffen dussn’t like dat? De free gots what are one saying you will burning in hel foreffer and effer hay?

    Ek se: I is so taaiered from herring all dis swerring, you know?

    Hy se hy is Italiaans en leer engels en oefen dit en hy vra my do you work for de lort cheeses ek se ja en hy se hy werk vir melrose cheeses en ons moet vriende word. Ek se not de fok, ek word nie vriende met iemand wat so vreeslik vloek nie. Ek het hom nie gemoer nie, want die bus het gekom. Maar voordat ek op die bus geklim het, toe se hy vir my:

    “Therre isa onaly wanna gott” Ek se “free”, hy se “wanna”. Ek se “free”, hy se “wanna” . “Free wanna” Free wanna, Free wanna. En toe vertrek die bus. Ek het vir hom tong uitgesteek

    Ek staan eendag in die veld, en daar is niks om my nie, net ‘n donkie wat daar onder ‘n boom staan. Hier kom ‘n ou aangeloop en hy se: “Look at that ass”. Ek kyk om my rond om te sien waarvan hy praat, maar sien niks nie. En so weer ‘n keer, moes ek iemand berispe. Ek se vir hom:

    “Hay, you finking all de taaim yus from asses hey? Dere are yus a donkie here, but you only finking of asses? Sis man, you fakking dirty man you. De free gots am going to kick you in you balls”

    Jissie, dis oaks ice go big very big corse he finks dis boertjie are going to bliksem him hay.
    He yus runned away.

    Ja-nee Prof, ons goeie mense moet opstaan en preek as daar gevloek word………

    verifanie

    November 10, 2011 at 07:46

  550. A fuckin’ pulpit with a fuckin’ peanut gallery attached.😛

    Con-Tester

    November 7, 2011 at 08:19

  551. What the fuck is this forum coming to?😦😦😦

    Daan Van der Merwe

    November 6, 2011 at 21:59

  552. Goodness me, back to the old moot shit again, are we? Moot twice over, in fact.

    Con-Tester

    November 6, 2011 at 17:41

  553. It is written:

    ‘ … and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.’ [Hebrews 11:6 ASV, eSword].

    Piet Stassen

    November 6, 2011 at 17:36

  554. 😥 Factless, emotional babble. Even if it is written. Boo-hoo.😥

    
    

    This what passes for reason with you? Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

    Con-Tester

    November 6, 2011 at 08:17

  555. It is written:

    Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed?
    For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
    He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.
    Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
    But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
    All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
    He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
    By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?
    And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
    Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.
    He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.
    Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. [Isaiah 53:1-12 ASV,eSword].

    Piet Stassen

    November 6, 2011 at 07:52

  556. Fuck me, some actual progress! So you’ve stopped this feebleminded fairytale fearmongering of yours and opted for lowbrow mendacious moralising instead. Only problem is, who’s who in this latest little cameo you’ve plucked from your silly fairytale book?

    Con-Tester

    November 5, 2011 at 22:52

  557. It is written:

    The good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil: for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. [Luke 6:45 ASV, eSword].

    Piet Stassen

    November 5, 2011 at 22:02

  558. Once more: Entirely moot. Saying your silly storybook refrain over and over and over won’t change that because your silly storybook says that certain “iniquities” cannot be forgiven and certain “sins” will always be reckoned. Clearly, you’re too thick even to understand your own silly storybook.

    What a fuckin’ hoot you are!

    Con-Tester

    November 5, 2011 at 18:53

  559. It is written:

    Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin. [Romans 4:7-8 ASV, eSword]. Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. [Isaiah 1:18 ASV, eSword].

    Piet Stassen

    November 5, 2011 at 18:23

  560. Still totally moot. Did you have an accident and fall on your head? It would explain your inability to comprehend the simplest of matters. A great loss to humanity, a mind as fine as yours. That’s why no smileys this time…

    
    

    😉😛😉😛😉😛😉😛😉😛😉😛😉😛😉😛😉😛😉😛😉

    Con-Tester

    November 5, 2011 at 13:50

  561. It is written:

    Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin. [Romans 4:7-8 ASV, eSword]. Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. [Isaiah 1:18 ASV, eSword].

    Piet Stassen

    November 5, 2011 at 13:07

  562. 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    All of which is still moot, given that apostates are beyond redemption and that blasphemy against the Holey Ghostey is an unforgiveable sin. I’m surprised (well, more like vaguely amused) that a man of your unsurpassed intellect fails to grasp this rather elementary concept, Professor Piet “Profanity” Stassen.

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    November 5, 2011 at 12:21

  563. It is written:

    All that which the Father giveth me [JESUS] shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. [John 6:37 ASV].

    There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. [Romans 8:1 ASV].

    But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [1 John 1:7-9 ASV].

    Piet Stassen

    November 5, 2011 at 10:01

  564. :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

    
    

    All of which is moot, given that apostates are beyond redemption and that blasphemy against the Holey Ghostey is an unforgiveable sin. I’m surprised (well, more like vaguely amused) that a man of your towering intellect fails to grasp this rather elementary concept, Professor Piet “Profanity” Stassen.

    
    

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

    Con-Tester

    November 5, 2011 at 08:58

  565. It is written:

    For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Romans 6:23 ASV, eSword].

    Piet Stassen

    November 4, 2011 at 23:52

  566. Hebrews 6:4-6(KJV):

    For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; …

    Now read that again until it penetrates: Your own fairytale book tells you that are you are wasting your time trying to convert lapsed believers back into the fold. “[I]t is impossible … to renew [apostates] again unto repentance.” What part of this is frying your two-and-a-half brain cell, hmm? Or is it another “metaphorical” passage that you get to interpret for everyone else and fight over with others, hmm? If so, why does your brainless god talk so much klonterige riool in metaphors, hmm?

    Con-Tester

    November 4, 2011 at 10:22

  567. 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    Another absolutely brilliant lecture from our very own resident whiz kid non pareil, Professor Piet “Profanity” Stassen! The depth of insight and incomparable verve this man brings to his material is incomparably captivating. Would that everyone was able to add so momentously to the corpus of human knowledge. The really puzzling thing is that “Profanity” Stassen is neither yet a Nobel laureate nor canonised for his extensive Good Works.

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    November 4, 2011 at 09:25

  568. 1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3

    There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].

    4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4

    The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].

    5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5

    Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].

    6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6

    Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].

    7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7

    “Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].

    Kind regards,

    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    November 4, 2011 at 09:09

  569. Oooh look, it’s Professor Profanity come to join his genius protégé and to give us another earth-shattering lecture! Wow, aren’t we just blessed with good fortune to have such an illustrious pair of intellects among us. Must be gawd’s hand…🙄

    Con-Tester

    November 3, 2011 at 23:25

  570. LESSON IN PROFANITY

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    Kind regards,

    Piet Stassen.
    http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen

    Piet Stassen

    November 3, 2011 at 23:20

  571. Oh, so now you’re suddenly talking to me again? Or rather, preaching at me again. Make up what passes for your mind, please, or it might just start emerging that you don’t have one. Actually,…🙄

    
    
    
    

    Let’s pick apart your religiot/crediot/bibliot/godiot stupidities, shall we?

    
    
    
    

    soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 18:13):

    [An approaching hailstorm is not a verifiable occurrence] to the person you are phoning 30 km downwind, and especially not if you only see weather patterns that suggest an oncoming storm, not the actual storm, but as usual you are uncomfortably stupid for such an educated person to grasp this.

    Do you even know what you’re waffling about, hmm? There are any number of options open to a perso to check the validity of what you’re saying in the case of a hailstorm, starting with simply looking at the sky, or asking the weather bureau, or phoning a friend, or cautiously driving in the direction you indicate, or … or … or … etc. But noooo, you’d rather spew forth more unbelievably idiotic crap than acknowledge you’re desperately spew forth such unbelievably idiotic crap.

    
    
    
    

    soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 18:13):

    unlike you who “demand” that we should believe your bullshit and unproven theories, I have not once demanded that people should believe me.

    Then what the fuck are you doing here preaching your childish and unproven gumph on an atheist blog without a shred of credible proof to offer!? Oh wait, you want to warn people of impending doom, never mind that you can’t see your own laughable folly. And with “bullshit and unproven theories,” I presume you mean mainly evolution, and hominid evolution in particular. You’re so funny the way you whinge about how people won’t listen to you. Maybe you should just for a change try to listen to those hundreds of thousands of specialists and experts who have actually looked at the evidence and found it not to be “bullshit and unproven theories.”

    
    
    
    

    soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 18:13):

    I have merely asked people to give Jesus a chance and find out for themselves whether I am lying.

    And several of the people here, including myself, have told you that they’ve already tried all that and found it to be a worthless joke. Obviously that’s not good enough for arrogant you, and you feel the need to preach everybody into submission. So yes, you are lying. And talk about not listening. Again.

    
    
    
    

    soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 18:13):

    Again you, out of fear that others might discover the truth, is the one demanding things and trying to belittle me and other believers. You are in fact, a pathetic little person, obviously without a life except for being at your pc or cell on a permanent basis, and therefore has a sick need to rob others of the chance of life, and I do mean real life with hopes and dreams. I actually feel sorry for you.

    😆😆😆😆😆😆 Fuck, the confabulation is absolutely hysterical! You could cut the irony with a rolling pin, that’s how thick it is.😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    
    
    

    soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 18:13):

    Do I need to say more?

    Not really, but evidently that won’t stop you repeatedly making a dom poes of yourself.

    
    
    
    

    Get it through your thick skull that your warnings are futile. You can take your god in his three pieces and stick him where the sun don’t shine, see? Or where the monkey puts his nuts, whichever you prefer. When you start talking sense and actually offering some kind of vaguely plausible argument, you’ll find me and no doubt many others a whole lot more receptive. Until then, your bullshit will remain a bunch of fairytales retold by a bunch of smoked-up, toked-up Bronze Age goatherds in slightly altered guise before being sold to the world as The Eternal and Immutable Truth™. The fact that you fell for this baseless zombie story as something special says much about your and every other religiot/crediot/bibliot/godiot’s critical faculties.

    
    
    
    

    But not as much as you obvious inability to comprehend a simple and oft-repeated statement: “Prove it, and I’ll listen. If you can’t prove it, stop trying to pretend that it’s true by peddling fantasies upon fantasies.”

    Con-Tester

    November 3, 2011 at 19:05

  572. “An approaching hailstorm is a verifiable occurrence. That means you can show convincing proof that one is coming…” not to the person you are phoning 30 km downwind, and especially not if you only see weather patterns that suggest an oncoming storm, not the actual storm, but as usual you are uncomfortably stupid for such an educated person to grasp this.

    “Your profound arrogance is that you expect — nay, demand — that people must buy into your juvenile fairytale on nothing more than your idiotic say-so and your claims that you “see” things coming…” unlike you who “demand” that we should believe your bullshit and unproven theories, I have not once demanded that people should believe me. I have merely asked people to give Jesus a chance and find out for themselves whether I am lying. Again you, out of fear that others might discover the truth, is the one demanding things and trying to belittle me and other believers. You are in fact, a pathetic little person, obviously without a life except for being at your pc or cell on a permanent basis, and therefore has a sick need to rob others of the chance of life, and I do mean real life with hopes and dreams. I actually feel sorry for you.

    “But your reactions are truly revealing — and, to me, comforting…” Do I need to say more?

    soois

    November 3, 2011 at 18:13

  573. soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 09:34):

    Kyk nou maar na CT se reaksie, waar hy my as arrogant beskou net omdat ek ander wou waarsku. As hy nou bv iemand sou waarsku om hulle motors onder dak te plaas omdat daar ‘n erge haelstorm in hulle rigting oppad is, sou hy as ‘n held beskou word, nie arrogant nie.

    … hier is mense wat verlore is en dit glad-nie besef nie …

    You’re just too dim a godiot to get it, aren’t you? An approaching hailstorm is a verifiable occurrence. That means you can show convincing proof that one is coming. The shit you’re talking has no credible argument or evidence to back it up, and was pulled kicking and screaming from the arses of a bunch of smoked-up, toked-up Bronze Age goatherds before being sold to the world as The Eternal and Immutable Truth™. Your profound arrogance is that you expect — nay, demand — that people must buy into your juvenile fairytale on nothing more than your idiotic say-so and your claims that you “see” things coming. Prove it, and I’ll listen. If you can’t prove it, stop trying to pretend that it’s true by peddling fantasies upon fantasies.

    In any case, according to your own rule book, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (whatever the fuck that’s supposed be) cannot be forgiven. Need I really remind you yet again of the multiple instances where I committed this “crime”!? Are you that dense, hmm? Here it is again: Your Holy Ghostey is a fart in a Jiffy bag with the cesspool morals of a Jeffrey Dahmer.

    soois wrote (November 3, 2011 at 09:34):

    As ek nie ‘n persoonlike verhouding met Hom beleef het nie, sou iemand soos jy eerder my weg van God gedryf het as die “Con-Testers” van hierdie wereld.

    Yet more of your dimwitted arrogance. It’s so funny how you and other godiots simply can’t agree when you sing from exactly the same hymn sheet. Each of you thinks you have The Eternal and Immutable Truth™ and whoever disagrees is a heretic, condemned to hell. Moreover, it’s not my purpose to separate idiots like you from your infantile fantasies, and your inability to fathom my purpose just keeps playing right into my hands. But your reactions are truly revealing — and, to me, comforting…

    Con-Tester

    November 3, 2011 at 10:36

  574. Satan,
    goeiedag ou maat. Nee jong, ek sal seker maar kort-kort inloer en kyk wat se die ouens op die blog. Ek weerhou my egter van argumente waar moontlik, want ek het tog klaar my oortuigings hier gedeel, en dit hang mos maar van elke ou self af of hy Jesus ‘n kans wil gun of nie. Kyk nou maar na CT se reaksie, waar hy my as arrogant beskou net omdat ek ander wou waarsku. As hy nou bv iemand sou waarsku om hulle motors onder dak te plaas omdat daar ‘n erge haelstorm in hulle rigting oppad is, sou hy as ‘n held beskou word, nie arrogant nie. Ek sien hoe ‘n paar ouens hier op ‘n ramp afstuur, maar ek moet maar stilbly. Ek sien al die tekens, maar moet maar my kop in totale fatale moedeloosheid sak en in ongeloof, omdat dit duidelik ouens met bo-gemiddelde inteligensie is, ouens wat hoogs geleerd is, wat nogsteeds totaal en al blind is vir dit wat besig is om te gebeur, maar miskien is dit juis die geleerdheid en intellek wat die probleem is, die skans wat maak dat hulle die wetenskap en die Woord eenvoudig nie kan versoen nie.

    Johannes Coetzee, jy weet, jy is die rede hoekom ek in die eerste plek op die blog afgekom het. Ek het van jou voorspellings gehoor en wou meer uitvind. Het jou naam ge-“Google” en op die blog afgekom. Het intussen die geveg voortgesit omdat ek gesien het hier is mense wat verlore is en dit glad-nie besef nie, maar ek is nogal teleurgesteld in jou, want jou uitsprake maak dat mense al minder glo. Eerstens omdat jy datums en tye wil voorhou wat nie gebeur nie, en dan met die een of ander flou verskoning kom hoe julle die Woord verkeerd verstaan en vertolk het, en tweedens omdat jy wil voorhou hoe net sekere mense gered is en hoe dat die tyd vir bekering verby is. Hoor my mooi, totdat Jesus die dag terugkeer, san elkeen wat Hom as verlosser aanneem gered wees, eers daarna is die wat Hom verwerp het verlore. As ek nie ‘n persoonlike verhouding met Hom beleef het nie, sou iemand soos jy eerder my weg van God gedryf het as die “Con-Testers” van hierdie wereld. Pasop dat jy nie dalk eendag verantwoording moet gaan doen oor die mense wat verlore is as gevolg van jou nie. As jy wil preek en getuienis lewer, mooi so, maar maak seker jou getuienis en preke is opbouend, nie afbrekend nie.

    Groete aan almal.

    soois

    November 3, 2011 at 09:34

  575. Fuckin’ hilarious how Camping’s Clowns blankly refuse to see the fuckin’ obvious! Everything just gets twisted to fit their warped worldview.

    Johannes, it’s been a month now and you have yet to provide Nathan with his Chateau Petrus. Oh wait, my bad, you never actually took the wager ’cos you couldn’t muster the balls to put your convictions on the line properly. That’s probably why your skydaddy decided at the last minute to postpone enacting his wrath on all us worthless sinners…

    Con-Tester

    November 3, 2011 at 09:31

  576. Ons was geestelike hoere en was verkeerd met 21 Oktober as die finale dag op aarde .
    Op 21 Oktober het God wel geestelik die laaste basuin geblaas. Die finale seels word nou oopgemaak en alle onreg word vasgespyker teen die gewete en siel van die sondaar. Die Kerke wat in 1988 deur God uitgespeg is nou vasgeketting in die Hel. Die deure na salvation is nou gesluit. Die twee getuies wat vir 153 dae bespot en geestelik gedood was het opgestaan .

    Alle eer aan God

    johannes coetzee

    November 3, 2011 at 09:05

  577. Soois,

    Se jy nou goodbye soos Johannes Coetzee? 😕

    Satan

    November 2, 2011 at 20:51

  578. Whatever you say. Millions upon millions wouldn’t believe you, but I do…🙄

    
    

    [Notice the sheer undiluted arrogance here: “I’ve done my duty in warning you that you’d better mend your rotten ways to be more in line with mine or else you’ll burn in hell forever. If you won’t listen to me, it’s your own fault (and never mind that I cannot offer the tiniest shred of credible proof for any of this).”

    A prime example of crushtian love, charity and tolerance.]

    Con-Tester

    November 2, 2011 at 15:44

  579. “Die feit dat o.a. Hans en soois blykbaar tou opgegooi het wys daarop dat hulle blykbaar uiteindelik tot die besef gekom het dat hulle pogings om hul strooi te verkondig keer op keer uitgedaag sal word en as onsin afgetakel sal word…”

    Nie so nie, het my Christelike plig gedoen. As ‘n werkie klaar is, is hy klaar. Diegene wat agter gebly het, het net hulleself om te blameer in die hiernamaals. Groete en sterkte.

    soois

    November 2, 2011 at 14:43

  580. Briljant

    Balanced Truths

    November 1, 2011 at 19:59

  581. Vergeet van Piet Stassen! Ene Frikkie Botes skryf in 30 Oktober se Rapport die volgende in reaksie op ‘n brief deur Jan Venter van Bloemfontein:

    “Ek en YHWH is een, en YHWH is geen god nie, satan is god wat aanbid wil word en diensknegte van god is baalaanbidders, kinders van YHWH is mede erfgename van die koningkryk omrede die koningkryk van YHWH binne ons is en nie met sigbare tekens kom nie . Jesus is die christus, net soos ek en my mede broers en susters van YHWH die christus is, Jesus het slegs die christus kom openbaar weer aan die mense wat satan so lank gepoog het om die christus in ons dood te druk. Ek is geen dienskneg van geen god nie, ek is slegs n kind van YHWH en Jesus is my broer wat 2000 jaar gelede op aarde was. Wanneer ek die lewe laat sal ek weer en word in YHWH die GROOT EK IS en soos Jesus een is met hom sal ek ook weer wes. Die onsterflike siel van die mens wat vir ewig in die hel gaan brand is onbybels en baal se dwaal leer. Die kerk is van satan. Lees 2 Thess 2 vers 3 en 4 en ook Joh 8 vers 44.”

    Jislaaik! En om te dink daar’s mense daarbuite wat dit nét nie wil glo nie.

    rick

    October 30, 2011 at 04:15

  582. :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

    Satan

    October 24, 2011 at 14:28

  583. Ten minste hou ou Piet darrem hierdie forum aan die gang!!🙂

    ErickV

    October 24, 2011 at 11:23

  584. Shit, Piet Stassen is nog maller as wat ek gedink het! Ons van ape afstam? Watter klomp bok kak!
    Maar nou ja, wat anders van ‘n mens wat al sy kennis slegs uit die bybel uitkry?
    Google oompie, GOOGLE!!!!!!!

    ErickV

    October 24, 2011 at 11:12

  585. Oh and BTW, all those grammatical and hyphenation errors aside, the English plural of “ego” is “egos”, not “ego’s”. It’s typical of a godiot/religiot/crediot/bibliot not to care about the basics.

    Con-Tester

    October 23, 2011 at 21:24

  586. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

    
    

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

    
    

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

    
    

    Prof. Piet Stassen strikes again, this time with an even bigger wagonload of straw men in their bullshit suits. It’s all emotive rhetoric and no substance — which is understandable, given that Prof. Stassen’s recent successes in overturning the whole of biology and several other scientific disciplines must have taxed him immensely, physically, emotionally and, above all, intellectually.

    
    

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

    
    

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

    
    

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

    Con-Tester

    October 23, 2011 at 21:18

  587. ATHEISM-EVOLUTIONISM: THE WEIRDEST RELIGIOUS-CULT ON PLANET EARTH?

    1. ‘Atheism-Evolutionism’ is probably the weirdest, most puzzling religious-cult on planet Earth. Adherents of this cult [i.e. the atheist-evolutionists, or more correctly, the Darwin-worshippers] assert that they do not believe in God. Instead, they have invented a substitute-god, i.e. the golden-calf of atheism-evolutionism. Fortunately, the members of this cult can be fairly easily identified. They, for instance, have a huge problem with a person [Jesus Christ] who once had said, “I have come from God … ” yet, contrary to all known mathematical-logic, they have, at the same time, no problem to fall prostrate on their knees and worship a person who used to be a very ordinary, sinful man [Charlie Darwin] who once had said, “I have come from an ape … “.[!?].

    2. Now, how could any rational, sane human being trust and believe what a person has to say whose brain had ‘evolved’ from that of an ape? Duh! I would not even trust an evolutionist with a box of popcorn. Let’s recall Darwin’s famous last words: “Hey guys, listen closely: My brain, in fact, my entire anatomy, has evolved from that of an ape, or at least then I share a common ancestor with the ape. Please come closer, I have this exciting new theory …!” [1859].

    3. Critical-thinking: Men and primates share many common traits not because they share a common ancestor, but because they share a common [as in ‘mutual’] Creator, Jesus Christ. Needless to say, I reject the [erroneous] teaching, i.e. that humans are ‘primates’, with the contempt it deserves. Never mind the resemblances [between humans and primates] … the differences are simply too critical. For instance, apes do not turn into humans after six beers.

    4. Darwin would probably have excelled in science-fiction. Unfortunately he went ahead and wrote a piece of preposterous science-fiction gobbledygook which he actually published as fact, probably the biggest academic-fraud and most virulently-racist ‘literary’ tripe anyone could ever have imagined. The racist slant of his theories is clear from the [full] title of his 1859-book:

    ‘On The Origin Of Species Or The Natural Selection Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life.’

    [Dear objective reader, go to any library and check out how the evolutionists and the media usually conveniently leave out the racist slur of ‘favoured races’ in the book’s full title and only refer to the first part, ‘The Origin Of Species’].

    5. Darwin had a theory that the ‘lighter-skinned races’, i.e. the ‘whites’ would ultimately one day rule over and dominate the ‘darker-skinned’ races. For instance, ask yourself the question: Why are all ‘hominids’ in museums and textbooks always depicted as darker-skinned, cave-dwelling morons … why are there no lighter-skinned ‘hominids’? Palaeontological racism, perhaps? [Charlie, you old racist you!]. In fact, I have a hunch that the atheist-evolutionists have a hidden agenda … with their sick, rotten, racist ‘Evolutionary Theory’ they are trying to revive the redundant neo-nazi, white-supremacist [apartheid/segregationist] ideology under the ‘respectable’ guise of ‘science’ and ‘biology’. What a brontosaurian embarrassment to our Constitution and Human Rights Charter! Shame on the [pseudo] academics and [pseudo] scientists. Real men and real scientists follow Jesus Christ, just ask Charles Spurgeon, Charles Finney, Andrew Murray, John G. Lake, Watchman Nee, Philip Yancey, R.A. Torrey, Henry Morris, Lee Strobel, Michael Behe, William Lane Craig, Lance Ferrell and many others.

    6. There is, alas, a well-known spiritual-law [& natural-law] that goes, ‘Deep calls unto Deep’. [I don’t think the atheist-evolutionists are familiar with this concept]. In other words, in the final analysis, with Darwin’s ‘Evolutionary Theory’ only apes would really be interested in what an ape has to say, so don’t blame the rest of us for not buying into the science-fiction of ‘Nature-has-made-the-Universe-by-pure-random-coincidence-and-chance’. Nature [per se] is not that intelligent, and even if it were, the making of this Universe would logically then not have been random-coincidence and -chance, but Intelligent-Design.

    7. The religious-cult of atheism-evolutionism simply fails to boggle the mind. The Darwin-worshippers assert that they do not believe in God and/or in the Universal dichotomy of good-versus-evil … yet in the same breath they contradict themselves by saying that ‘religion is evil’. If religion were ‘evil’ [the antithesis] what then does the atheist-evolutionists hold up as the ultimate good [the thesis]? Come on, guys, sometimes you really do not make sense at all. On the other hand, some of your conclusions may sometimes be actually correct … even a stopped watch is right at least twice a day.

    8. The sad irony is that, contrary to atheists-evolutionists, even demons have the common-sense to believe in God. The Apostle James writes: ‘You believe that there is one God, you do well; even the demons believe and tremble.’ [James 2:19 MKJV, eSword]. Atheists-evolutionists, if you refuse my teaching [and you probably will] or even the obviously more-superior teaching of Jesus Himself [you probably shouldn’t] at least then demonstrate some rudimentary spiritual-intelligence and learn from the demons. My recommendation to you is as follows: Get your over-inflated little Mickey Mouse ego’s out of the way and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Master today, otherwise, as Jesus Himself had said, you may die in your sins, a thought simply too ghastly to contemplate. The BLOOD of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, still cleanses from all sin! In fact:

    THERE IS A FOUNTAIN!

    There is a fountain filled with BLOOD,
    Drawn from Emmanuel’s veins,
    And sinners plunged beneath that flood,
    Lose all their guilty stains!

    [William Cowper, 1731-1800].

    9. Dear Nathan Bond supporters and readers, I have done enough to persuade you to follow Jesus Christ. If you reject Him today, you do so at your own peril. Oswald Smith has once said that no man has the right to hear the Gospel twice until everybody on Earth had heard it at least once, so I am not going to further waste my precious, priceless Gospel-seed on arrogant, stubborn, unyielding, rocky ground while I could have dropped it into soft, receptive soil instead. If the religious-cult of atheism-evolutionism [bad news thriving on death, fossilized-bones and disaster] makes you happy, go ahead … knock yourself out. But remember this: Jesus saves today … tomorrow may be too late.

    Kind regards,

    Piet Stassen.
    [www.scribd.com/PietStassen].

    Piet Stassen

    October 23, 2011 at 20:44

  588. 😆

    Con-Tester

    October 23, 2011 at 19:31

  589. If true, Malherbe, it would be the minefield of incomprehension and mystery it clearly is today, and it would be subject to every individual’s interpretation and as such open to politicians’ manipulations and to charlatans’ agendas, which it clearly is today. Thus we speak of science because we can measure it, and we speak not of other things because we have no proof, and we feel not like being ridiculed.
    What has sustainability got to do with it, if it is indeed true?

    Balanced Truths

    October 23, 2011 at 18:21

  590. I am not sure what your point is BC – the last paragraph is confusing. I get the impression you are sitting on two chairs. If true, this is in my opinion not a sustainable position.

    Malherbe

    October 23, 2011 at 16:21

  591. Whenever I am struck anew by the irrationality of ad hominem attack, I revel in the words of Elbert Hubbard, “If you cannot answer a man’s argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names.” – Nathan Bond

    Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy. Aristotle

    Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: ‘Ye must have faith.’
    A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    Max Planck

    As far as reality provides some measure of itself, the eastern <iYinYang resonates with me. Whenever I am forced to relinquishing control, admitting that no action of mine, no matter how carefully calculated, will have any desired effect, when I realise my fate is left to lady luck, it is then that I think of this balance of good and bad and allow myself to be reminded that on the scale of a Multiverse any plea on my part for good fortune would have little influence other than psychological self motivation.

    Perhaps God helps those who helps themselves

    When it comes to religion…I am somewhat tolerant of people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities and divine involvement in the universe and human life – or of the universe in human life – while the religious system in the context of an institutionalized system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine becomes somewhat less tolerable when it interferes with the freedom of others’ personal beliefs or values. For the less educated there is psychological value in a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and/or attitudes that somebody lives by in order to cope.

    However, the fanatical obsession that causes certain practices or activities that somebody is completely devoted to or preoccupied by becomes a danger to the freedom of others. I severely dislike politics and other forms of manipulative proselytising.

    I believe science and the scientific method is the closest we sentient humans have come to a universal truth where we can all be on the same page, so to speak, but I am also influenced by circumstantial evidence to the not so scientific opinion that there is a somewhat more subjective balanced truth in general.

    Balanced Truths

    October 23, 2011 at 12:24

  592. Malherbe, soortgelyke punte wat jy maak oor hoekom ’n forum soos hierdie nodig is, is al ’n paar keer tevore gemaak op die blog maar dit wil lyk asof dit nie deurdring nie. Dalk word dit as ongeldig gesien. Hoe dit ookal mag wees, daar is nog redes wat ook al gemaak is, bv. dat die forum vir mense duidelik wys dat daar wel andersdenkendes is wat die religieuse tjol deurkyk het en dan verwerp het. Voordat hulle ’n forum soos die teekom, sal baie gelowiges dit eenvoudig nie glo nie as jy vir hulle vertel dat daar ’n aansienlike groep ateïste kan wees nie. Die verstommende arrogansie daarvan het my dronk geslaan toe ek dit vir die eerste keer raakgeloop het. Verder, kan ’n forum soos die ’n baken van hoop wees vir mense wat dalk dink hulle twyfel alleen, en dat daar geen skaamte aan sulke twyfel of verwerping gepaard hoef te gaan nie.

    As Daan sê dat hierdie blog bygedra het tot sy heroorwegings van sy geloofsposisie wat hom minder fundamentalisties laat verkeer het, dan het die blog mos nou in ten minste een instansie ’n waardige werkie verrig. Die feit dat o.a. Hans en soois blykbaar tou opgegooi het wys daarop dat hulle blykbaar uiteindelik tot die besef gekom het dat hulle pogings om hul strooi te verkondig keer op keer uitgedaag sal word en as onsin afgetakel sal word, want dit ís onsin — onsin wat boonop fundamenteel onverstaanbaar is, maar wat die gelowige deur sy of haar aksies beslis beweer hulle verstaan (en daardeur weer arrogant optree). So het daai gelowiges wat gekom en gegaan het dalk geleer dat daar wel mense is wat ordentlike bewyse eis, en wat nie tevrede is net omdat die kak met ’n diep en ernstige stem saam met ’n vinger in die lug uitgesaai word. Selfs het hulle dit nie geleer nie, verstaan hulle sekerlik dat daar plekke is waar hul onnosel kinderstories nie eenvoudig aanvaar sal word nie net omdat hulle sê dit is so. In ieder geval het die blog dan ook ’n bietjie vordering gemaak.

    Con-Tester

    October 23, 2011 at 12:21

  593. Daan

    Baie jare terug, nog lank voordat Nathan of George begin het om in SA platforms te skep waar gelowiges en uitgesproke anti-godsdienstiges mekaar kan aanvat, het ek deelgeneem aan een van die eerste soortgelyke forums in Amerika waar ek tot baie dieselfde gevolgtrekking as jy gekom het. Daar was twee karakters wat my sterk beïnvloed het, een was n baie intelligente wiskundige wat met oënskynlik onuitputbare geduld elke argument aangevat het en, met behulp van n deeglike kennis van hipnose, baie suksesvol was om menige n fanatiese gelowige op sy plek te sit sonder om hulle as gehoor te verloor. Hiermee saam was daar n gelowige, kerkganger en baie aktief in een of ander denominasie, wat met besonderse helderheid n geestelike argument aangevoer het, hy het duidelik onderskeid gemaak tussen die wetenskap en die geloof en nooit die een teen die ander afgespeel nie, ek kon nooit, as n wetenskaplike, fout vind met wat hy gesê het nie.

    Ek glo beide jy en Malherbe is reg in wat julle hier gesê het, daar sal geen wenners wees nie en daar is waarde in die uitlaat wat menige n anonieme deelnemer hier kan maak, persoonlike waarde en waarde vir die leser wat dalk nooi n bydrae sal maak nie.

    As die tipe platform meer mense van fundamentele oortuigings kan laat afsien is dit n baie waardevolle stap in die regte rigting.

    Balanced Truths

    October 23, 2011 at 12:11

  594. Terloops, ek let op 21 Oktober 2011 het gekom en gegaan. Terleurgesteld Johannes Coetzee? Of is daar nou ‘n nuwe datum?

    Malherbe

    October 23, 2011 at 11:06

  595. Daan, ek kan nie namens Nathan praat nie en het ook nie die mail waarna jy verwys ontvang nie. Na my mening is forums soos hierdie nie daar om gelowiges tot ander insigte te bring nie. Dit bestaan bloot om ‘n alternatiewe posisie te stel. Hard, en duidelik en sonder skaamte en apologie. Ek (en baie ander wat soos ek dink) gee ‘n blou duit om wie of wat gelowiges aanbid. Ons het egter ‘n moerse probleem met die feit dat hul dogma daagliks in ons kele afgedruk word. Soos dat hulle druk uitoefen om die parlement met gebed te open (soos in die verlede). Of dat sekere staatsdiens departemente hul oggend begin deur opening van gebed (soos die SA polisiediens)!! Of dat godsdiens op slinkse maniere by skole ingevoer word. Of dat daar hoog opgegee word rakende die morele waardes wat godsdiens outomaties tot gevolg het – so asof ongelowiges ‘n spul vlak immorele misdadigers is. (Al ooit gehoor iemand praat van “hy is so ‘n mooi ateis, sy voete so plat op die aarde”? – as ek nog een keer moet hoor dat Bakkies of Victor of wie-ookal so mooi en oulik is bloot omdat hul in ‘n skydaddy glo, gaan ek sweerlik braak.) Nee Daan, in my boeke kan elke ou in die privaatheid van sy huis of binne ‘n kerkgebou aanbid wie en wat hy wil. Wanneer hy egter die vermetelheid het om die wetenskap deur sy dogmatiese bril aan te val, of vir my as ongelowige vertel dat ek ‘n verkeerde posisie voorstaan – alles gebaseer op sy heilige boek – wel, dan gee hy my sekerlik die reg om die lafheid van sy dogma uit te wys. Of hoe?

    Gelowiges maak hul daagliks daaraan skuldig om almal om hulle te wil bekeer. Annerdag sit ek op die vliegtuig en terwyl ons opstyg, prewel die ou langs my (hard genoeg vir almal om te hoor) ‘n gebed vir ‘n veilige vlug. Skynbaar het die loods se vaardighede of die teglogiese ontwikkeing wat met vlug gepaardgaan, oor die ou se kop gevlieg. Wat doen Malherbe? Hy bly stil. Los die man uit dat hy voortleef in sy selfgeskepte wollerigheid. Maar toe gebeur dit – die vragie na Malherbe se kant toe: “Ken jy vir Jesus?” Hierdie uitlokking gee my sekerlik die reg om te reageer met ‘n “Nee, het die man nog nooit ontmoet nie”? Na ‘n twee uur vlug was die ou in trane. Wat egter verstommend was, was die mense rondom ons (wat die argument kon aanhoor)se kopskuddende reaksie. “Het jy dan geen respek nie?” “Jy is darem nou te hard op die arme man”. My punt is: Indien die samelewing my nie die kans gun om eerlik te reageer wanneer ek uitgelok word nie, dan is ‘n forum soos hierdie sekerlik die ideale plek. Niemand het vir die Sooise, Hanse en Stassens gedwing om hier te kom spoeg nie. As jy jouself vir ‘n stuk biltong uitgee, kan jy sekerlik nie kla wanneer jy gekou word nie.

    Malherbe

    October 23, 2011 at 09:44

  596. Ek hwt ‘n tyd terug ‘n e-pos van Nathan gekry, wat ek glo julle almal gekry het, waarin hy onder andere sê dat hy nie meer oor godsdiens skryf nie.

    Hy het, as ek dit reg het, hierdie blog begin in ‘n poging om godsdiens uit te roei deur daarvan ‘n bespotting te maak en om gelowiges uit te kryt as ‘n klomp beenkoppe.

    Ek het omtrent twee jaar gelede op hierdie blog die volgende aan Nathan geskryf:

    “Godsdiens is ‘n idee. Daar is net een manier om ‘n idee te beveg, en dit is met ‘n ander idee. En as dit jou idee is om met God die spot te dryf en gelowiges as ‘n klomp idiote voor te hou, kan ek jou noual sê jy mors jou tyd”.

    Die van ons wat al lank hier deel neem, weet dat gelowiges gekom en gegaan het sonder dat die gespottery enige afbreuk aan hulle geloof of godsdienstige behoeftes gedoen het. Hans Matthyssen het nog voor my hier begin bydraes lewer en het blykbaar ook nou die aftog geblaas.

    Een ding is seker. Niks wat hier geskryf is en veral die pogings om hom belaglik te maak en te verkleineer, het hom enigsins laat afwyk van sy geloof of godsdienstige oortuigings nie. Dieselfde met Soois.

    En wat is tans die situasie? Die enigste gelowige wie gereeld kommentaar lewer is Piet Stassen wie, soos Malherbe tereg opgemerk het, so mal is soos ‘n kolhaas op tik.

    Ten minste het hierdie blog, tesame met ander forums en persone, my laat dink en is ek nie langer die fundamentalistiese gelowige wat ek was toe ek hier begin deelneem het nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    October 23, 2011 at 08:27

  597. Jy’s meer geduldig as ekke, Malherbe.

    To the question whether all atheists are whatever disparaging wet dream this bibliot feels like pulling out of his arse, the answer is self-evident. That is, should he care to have an actual look instead of pumping his ridiculous hey-my-mind’s-already-made-up-and-my-eyes-are-closed-to-all-else bullshit. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc. — where’s the anonymity, hmm?

    But in fact it says most of what needs to be said about the lamebrain arrogance of the godiot that he seeks to equate the anonymity afforded by a forum such as this with the rabid actions of towel-headed religiot fundies bent on converting the world. The parallels with Taliban terrorists are of course much closer and much more numerous with this godiot’s own actions in seeking to scare the world into following his absurd fantasies. That is, should he care to take objective stock of his laughably ham-fisted fumblings, this would be obvious to this daffy stuffed shirt of a hypocrite.

    Con-Tester

    October 22, 2011 at 23:36

  598. Nog iets Oom Piet. Ek wou nog altyd weet: Hoekom is godiote so lief om te skree? Ek vind die verskynsel werklik interessant. Geloofsforums is vol van uitterksels in hoofletters. Miskien is daar ‘n rede voor. Miskien hoor jul gotte dan beter verbeter dus jul kans op die ewige presentjie? Ek het nou oom, se vraag (in hoofletter) mooi beantwoord. Sal oom hierdie vragie van my beantwoord of moet ek dit eers UITSKREE?

    En ja oom, ek besef my vragie het niks met die argumente hier uit te waai nie…amper soos oom se vraag aan CT.

    Malherbe

    October 22, 2011 at 22:50

  599. Oom Piet,
    Dit verstom my dat die weerhouding van identiteit vir jou so ‘n belangrike faktor is op ‘n forum soos die. Gaan dit enigsins verskil maak aan die argumente? Indien dit egter jou herhalende gebrabbel sal stop, hier volg ‘n paar voor-die-hand-liggende redes hoekom Malherbe ‘n mate van anonimiteit verkies:
    1) Diskriminasie: Ek leef in ‘n gemeenskap waar die oorgrootte meerderheid die een of ander got aanhang. Ons landswette is veronderstel om sekulariteit voor te staan, maar helaas, dit is nie die geval nie. Die uiteinde is dus dat ekself, maar meer belangrik, my gesin, die risiko van diskriminasie loop. Blatante diskriminasie teen ongelowiges in ons RSA skoolstelsel is ‘n werklikheid en word eers ervaar wanneer jy die skoen aantrek.
    2)Uitlaatklep: A.g.v. punt 1, het ek geleer om in my daaglikse omgaan met die gemeenskap, my tong te byt en ‘n poging an te wend om minder uitgesproke te wees. Tragies, maaar ongelukkig die realiteit. ‘n Anonieme forum dien dus as welkome uitlaatklep waar ek my gedagtes en uitsprake vrye teuels kan gee. Wonderlik bevrydend. Dankie Nathan.
    3) Bevordering van oop gesprek: Dit kan maklik bewys word dat in ‘n debatsomgewing, anonimiteit die hindernisse tussen mense verwyder. ‘n Gelowige het byvoorbeeld die vryheid om sy/haar vrae vertwyfelinge rakende geloof te openbaar op ‘n anonieme forum sonder om die gevaar te loop dat Oom Doom hom Sondag oggend gaan voorkeer, of Oom onderwyser, of Pa en Ma,… Hoe wens ek nie ek het as kind blootstelling tot hierdie tipe forums gehad nie. Dammit, ek het soveeel tyd gemors om die dogma reg te probeer bewys. ‘n Forum sonder anonimiteit sou egter nie dieselfde waarde bring nie.

    Beantwoord dit jou “MILLION-ROUBLE QUESTION” oom Piet? Ek skat nie. Ek voorspel jy gaan antwoord met jou tradisionele cut-en-paste joppie.

    Malherbe

    October 22, 2011 at 22:43

  600. 😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    What part of “No” is giving you so much trouble, hmm? All of it, of course!

    Not surprising, really.

    Kind disregards,

    Con-Tester

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆

    
    

    😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    October 22, 2011 at 14:56

  601. THE MILLION-ROUBLE QUESTION: WILL THE MACHO-ATHEIST HIDING BEHIND THE FRILLY PETTICOATS AND CHANTILLY-LACE PROTECTION OF HIS/HER CHAT-ROOM ALIAS EVER COME OUT OF THE CLOSET? IT IS EASY TO BE BRAVE WITH A HOOD OVER YOUR HEAD … ASK ANY TALIBAN-TERRORIST. [ARE ALL ATHEISTS MORAL COWARDS, OR JUST THIS ONE?].

    1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3

    There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].

    4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4

    The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].

    5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5

    Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].

    6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6

    Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].

    7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7

    “Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].

    Kind regards,

    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    October 22, 2011 at 13:01

  602. Oooh, I’m so impressed with the profound depth and subtle finesse of your playground psychology antics. The answer to your dumbass question — i.e. “WILL THE MACHO-ATHEIST HIDING BEHIND THE FRILLY PETTICOATS AND CHANTILLY-LACE PROTECTION OF HIS/HER CHAT-ROOM ALIAS EVER COME OUT OF THE CLOSET?” — is, “What ‘closet’ are you gibbering about, hmm?” And there’s no need to shout, see? It scores you only negative points, see?

    If you think your feeble tactics will persuade me to reveal my identity publicly, then you’re an even bigger moron than currently available evidence suggests, and my answer to that is, “No, not to any godiot of your laughable mediocrity.” It’s precisely the inundating prevalence of pontifical, self-righteous, deluded idiots like you who convince me that doing so would be a serious lapse of good judgement. Besides, the people who count know who I am.

    Or do you perhaps think that knowing my identity will affect the validity of my points, hmm? If so, you’ll have to explain that little bit of godiot/religiot/crediot/bibliot logic so that all may see the contorted bullshit you morons constantly manufacture with such ease.

    Have you got it? Has it penetrated? Are your two brain cells capable of jostling that straightforward answer?

    I reckon not.

    Con-Tester

    October 22, 2011 at 12:31

  603. THE MILLION-ROUBLE QUESTION: WILL THE MACHO-ATHEIST HIDING BEHIND THE FRILLY PETTICOATS AND CHANTILLY-LACE PROTECTION OF HIS/HER CHAT-ROOM ALIAS EVER COME OUT OF THE CLOSET? IT IS EASY TO BE BRAVE WITH A HOOD OVER YOUR HEAD … ASK ANY TALIBAN-TERRORIST.

    1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    3. LESSON IN PROFANITY 3

    There is none holy as Jehovah, for there is none beside You. Neither is there any rock like our God. Talk no more so very proudly. Remove arrogance out of your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed. [1Samuel 2:2-3].

    4. LESSON IN PROFANITY 4

    The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[Psalms 12:6].

    5. LESSON IN PROFANITY 5

    Then those fearing Jehovah spoke together, each man to his neighbor. And Jehovah listened and heard. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Jehovah, and for those esteeming His name. “And they shall be Mine”, says Jehovah of Hosts, “for the day that I will make up My treasure. And I will pity them as a man has pity on his son who serves him. Then you shall again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God, and him who does not serve Him.” [Malachi 3:16].

    6. LESSON IN PROFANITY 6

    Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.[Ephesians 5:6].

    7. LESSON IN PROFANITY 7

    “Your words have been strong against Me”, says Jehovah. “Yet you say, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ [Malachi 3:13]. “So with your mouth you have boasted against Me, and have multiplied your words against Me. I have heard them.”[Ezekiel 35:13].

    Kind regards,

    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    October 22, 2011 at 11:46

  604. ErickV, your response is better than mine.😥😉

    Con-Tester

    October 22, 2011 at 10:27

  605. Dear cowardly Mr Godiot hiding behind the juvenile fantasy, evidence-free delusion and fundamentally incomprehensible twaddle drummed into your vacant cranium from childhood: Your idiotology must be a pretty daft one for you to think that repeating the same bullshit over and over and over again is going to convince any rational person of its supposed truth. Your “best” arguments and evidence are a pisspoor fuckin’ joke and your whole stale barely-worth-a-chuckle repertoire smells musty and mouldy — almost as much so as your non-existent skydaddy whose at best resembles an ineffectual and miserable old fart, and at worst an indiscriminate serial psychopath.

    Try a new tack. Maybe you’ll learn something, though that’s evidently nigh impossible.

    Con-Tester

    October 22, 2011 at 10:23

  606. Bible thumping moron!!!

    ErickV

    October 22, 2011 at 10:23

  607. Dear brave Mr. Atheist hiding behind the petticoats and protection of a chat-room alias: Your ideology [atheism-evolutionism] must be a pretty embarrassing one if one must wear a mask in public to survive the shame. The point is, it is easy to be a macho-hero with a hood over your head [Ask any Taliban-terrorist]. You cannot hide your identity from God, you know … God sees through the hood and the alias. The Bible says: ‘Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight, but all things are naked and opened to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.’ [Hebrews 4:13 MKJV, eSword]. The million-rouble question: Will Mr. Atheist ever be macho enough to remove the hood [the alias] voluntarily, or shall we have do it for him?

    1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    3. THE URGENT NEED FOR TRANSFORMATION

    Paul warns: Or do you despise the riches of His kindness, and the forbearance and long-suffering, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and your impenitent heart, do you treasure up wrath for yourself in a day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God … [Romans 2:4-5 MKJV, eSword].

    4. THE PROMISE

    ‘Blessed are those whose lawlessnesses are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will in no way impute sin. [Romans 4:7-8 MKJV, eSword].

    5. THE INVITATION TO RECONCILE WITH GOD

    Paul says: ‘For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation.’ [Romans 5:10-11 MKJV, eSword].

    6. THE SECOND COMING

    Jesus says: And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come … And then the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And then all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the heaven with power and great glory. [Matthew 24:14, 30 MKJV, eSword].

    7. THE GUARANTEE

    Jesus says: ‘The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away.’ [Matthew 24:35 MKJV, eSword].

    Kind regards,

    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    October 22, 2011 at 07:37

  608. X. LESSON IN PROFANITY X

    O fok, presies hoe fokken dom is hierdie onnosel godioot poese!?

    Con-Tester

    October 21, 2011 at 23:23

  609. 1. LESSON IN PROFANITY 1

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].PROFANITY

    pro·fane (pr-fn, pr-)
    adj.
    1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
    2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
    3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
    4. Vulgar; coarse.

    tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
    1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
    2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
    [Middle English prophane, from Old French, from Latin profnus, from pr fn, in front of the temple : pr-, before, outside].[Acknowledgement: Free Online Dictionary].

    2. LESSON IN PROFANITY 2

    Profanity is a show of disrespect, or a desecration or debasement of someone or something. Profanity can take the form of words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors that are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or other forms. The original meaning of the adjective profane (Latin: “in front of”, “outside the temple”) referred to items not belonging to the church, e.g., “The fort is the oldest profane building in the town, but the local monastery is older, and is the oldest building,” or “besides designing churches, he also designed many profane buildings”. Over time, the meaning has changed. Profane language often takes the form of cursing, swearing, expletives, bad words, dirty words, nasty words, cussing, blasphemy, and irreverent, obscene, foul, indecent, strong, pejorative, disgusted choice, bad, or adult language, and sometimes even “immature” language. [Acknowledgement: Wikipedia].

    Piet Stassen

    October 21, 2011 at 22:37

  610. Holy shit, here is His Bibles Voice again. He knows fuckall else than verses!!!
    Donnerse pateet!!!

    ErickV

    October 21, 2011 at 05:04

  611. REMINDER OF THE WEEK

    Don’t be taken in by the fundie twits’ twaddle. Their words aren’t few, and they’ll say literally anything, no matter how idiotic, in “defence” of their nonsense. They are fools’ voices, as you can surely see from the multitude of their words.

    Con-Tester

    October 20, 2011 at 23:33

  612. REMINDER OF THE WEEK

    Do not be rash with your mouth, and do not let your heart be hasty to say a word before God. For God is in Heaven, and you are on earth; therefore let your words be few. For a dream comes through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice by the multitude of words. [Ecclesiastes 5:2-3 MKJV, eSword].

    Piet Stassen

    October 20, 2011 at 23:26

  613. Halleuya!!! At last!! The proof we al needed!! Thanks to Piet Stassen!!
    All scientists, paleontoligists, geoligists, archaeoligists, etc are wrong! They are educated but stupid!
    They know absolutely nothing! All their studies are useless. They must start to read the bible! Everything is in there! Before their eyes!! How can we after all these years be so stupid!
    All the goat herders that lived 6,000 to 2,000 years ago knew everything! Even though they were uneducated! They had the knowledge! It is because of them that we have al the technology! Praise them all! Piet Stassen proofed that all hearsay evidence in the bible taught by goat herders are true beyond any doubt!
    All Magistrates and Judges please note! All hearsay evidence must be allowed in all courts from now on!
    BECAUSE PIET STASSEN, THE BIG GURU, SAID SO!!

    ErickV

    October 19, 2011 at 09:21

  614. 1. Admonition Of The Week

    Do not be rash with your mouth, and do not let your heart be hasty to say a word before God. For God is in Heaven, and you are on earth; therefore let your words be few. For a dream comes through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice by the multitude of words. [Ecclesiastes 5:2-3 MKJV, eSword].

    2. Gospel Tract Of The Week

    ‘Fourteen Steps For Evolutionists To Prove The Creationists Wrong’ [free download from http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen%5D

    3. Snippet Of The Week

    ‘Evolution’s Most Amazing Feat!’ [Easy-to-understand single-pager … free download from http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen%5D Promise Of The Week

    4. Promise Of The Week

    ‘And he showed me a pure river of Water of Life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of its street, and of the river, from here and from there, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each yielding its fruit according to one month. And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And every curse will no longer be; but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His servants will serve Him.’ [Revelation 22:1 MKJV, eSword].

    5. Mystery Of The Week: Man Or Mouth?

    Weird … why would it on Earth be necessary for the brave, outspoken, opinionated, profane and garrulous ‘Con-Tester’ to hide behind a chatroom-alias?

    Piet Stassen

    October 17, 2011 at 20:15

  615. Piet Stassen
    October 17, 2011 at 10:53

    Free downloads at http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen

    Regarding your download, there is a section on evolution that requires transitional forms, there are plenty the Frogfish is a good example. What do you make of that?

    Balanced Truths

    October 17, 2011 at 19:15

  616. “… and in other international news, world-renowned biotheologian, Emeritus Professor Piet Stassen has definitively settled the long-standing question of human origins once and for all. His two-part paper titled ‘Why Evolution Is Bunk: God Did It!,’ which was published in the prestigious journal Nature last month, was immediately accepted as totally convincing by all experts in the fields of biology, medicine, genetics, geology, embryology, and many other relevant areas of study. One specialist was reported as saying, ‘If only we’d known about this god chap from the beginning! There can be no doubt that this finding removes every unsolved problem in the biological and related sciences at a stroke. No wonder all of us and our colleagues are rushing to redirect our research efforts accordingly. Humanity owes Professor Stassen a huge debt of gratitude.’ Having solved all of biology, the question now being asked most in academic circles is what is next for Professor Stassen. Current consensus among his peers is that this genius’s next research project will focus on why neither Mickey Mouse nor Frodo Baggins is not the True Saviour™…”

    Con-Tester

    October 17, 2011 at 11:46

  617. Recommended reading for all Nathan Bond supporters:

    1. ‘Evolution: The Science That Evolved Into A Fairy Tale’
    2. ‘Meditations & Contemplations: A Reader For Both Creationists And Evolutionists’

    [Free downloads at http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen

    Kind regards,

    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    October 17, 2011 at 10:53

  618. Ek dink “Lord Of The Rings” is meer aanvaarbaar. Daar is net sulke snaakse karakters in as die in die bybel!

    ErickV

    September 20, 2011 at 11:01

  619. Dis juis hoekom ek aanhoudend aandring dat hulle bietjie Mickey Mouse moet gaan lees en swot. Maar dit blyk te veel gevra te wees dat die fundies bevoeg genoeg is om enige lesse of betekenis daarin te kan raaksien want Mickey Mouse se mistieke elemente is meer gevorderd as die fundies se storieboek s’n.

    Con-Tester

    September 20, 2011 at 10:31

  620. Ek wonder net wat sou die fundies maak as daar nie so ‘n ding soos die bybel was nie?
    Sou hulle ‘n ander “heilige boek” soek vir riglyne van hoe om te lewe?
    Soos wat ek die storie sien kan hulle glad nie sonder daarmee klaarkom nie.
    Hulle kan glad nie verantwoordelikheid vat vir hul eie dade nie! Dit is altyd die duiwel of die vader se skuld!

    ErickV

    September 20, 2011 at 10:15

  621. Piet Stassen, my raad aan jou is om te hou by jou avakadopeer navorsing. Van die twak wat jy my aanbeveel om te lees, het ek reeds gelees. Vraag is nou of jy bereid is om iets onapologeties te lees – iets soos Dawkins se “Thr Greatest Show on Earth”.

    Malherbe

    September 18, 2011 at 20:32

  622. Recommended reading for ignorant fundie twits: Anything not written by other ignorant fundie twits.

    Con-Tester

    September 18, 2011 at 20:05

  623. Recommended reading for all Nathan Bond supporters:

    1. ‘Evolution: The Science That Evolved Into A Fairy Tale’
    2. ‘Meditations & Contemplations: A Reader For Both Creationists And Evolutionists’

    [Free downloads at http://www.scribd.com/PietStassen%5D

    Kind regards,

    Piet Stassen.

    Piet Stassen

    September 18, 2011 at 09:20

  624. “Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: “Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull, their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.” Matthew 13:13-15. Aan almal wat die pot missit oor Christenskap: Christenskap is NIE tradisie nie, Christenskap is NIE ‘n tronkstraf of beperking nie. God belet jou nie om vrae te vra nie, inteendeel vra soveel soos wat julle wil, Hy sê tog: “ask, and it will be given to you, seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” (Matthew 7:7) Moet net nie skrik as HY jou antwoorde gee wat volgens JOU nie aanvaarbaar is nie. Hy het ons almal vrye wil gegee, volg HOM of wees teen HOM. Your choice! “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” Matthew 7:24-27

    All-4-GOD

    April 12, 2010 at 17:24

  625. Hans, ek het jou ‘n vraag gevra en jou soortvan geantwoord op die twak wat jy kwyt geraak op McBrolloks, maar jy het soos ‘n groot speld verdwyn. Jy sê ek ken nie die Bybel nie en insinueer dat jy wèl. Watter deel van die Bybel interpreteer jy korrek? Die hele een, of net hier en daar waar dit jou pas? Waar is al die ander kerke en Chritelike gelowe verkeerd, so van so dat elke denominasie vas oortuig is dat hùlle die enigstes is wat aan Jesus se voete sit?

    As wetenskap bedryf was soos julle godsdiens bedryf, sou ons nog almal in grotte gewoon het. Maar dankie tog dat ons voorouers nie almal deur die delirium virus besmet is soos julle nie. Deur nugtere vrae te vra, en toepassing van die natuurwette te bewerkstellig deur wetenskaplikes en ingenieurs, word jy en jou mede gelowiges toegelaat om sonder verhindering julle viruses waarmee julle besmet is te verprei. En die groot tragiek van die hele storie is is dat julle arme kinders net soos julle grootgemaak word, en weerhou word om vrae te vra wat enigsins die Bybel (soos geïnterpreteer deur Hans, let wel) sal in twyfel trek. Nee wat, julle is lewenslose doppe wat rondloop en dieselfde twak oor en oor prewel; geen wonder niemand met ‘n halwe brein het respek vir julle nie.

    Savage

    January 5, 2010 at 19:13

  626. H: ‘Het jy nog nooit gehoor “en oweral is God’
    Ja, ek het al daarvan gehoor, maar helaas nog nooit gesien.
    H: Dit is duidelik, dat toe jy eens op ‘n tyd ‘n gelowige was, het jy nooit die Bybel geken of verstaan.
    Tot die beste van my vermoe het ek probeer. Iemand wat dit ‘verstaan’ flous homself – m.a.w. is ‘delusional’ . Pak die boek weg saam met Alice in Wonderland en ander boeke van die aard.
    Ek het jou nie beskuldig dat jy nie jou medemens lief het, simpatie het en van oorlog hou nie. Ek ken jou nie en sal nie die aanname maak nie. Wat ek wel gese^ het is dat omdat ek (myself) nou anders redeneer oor dinge, my insig gebaseer is op realiteit en dit het my gevoel in baie opsigte versterk. Julle ouens wat so moet keer vir julle ongesubstansieerde ideologie is darem lig geraak.
    Wat ek wel se^ is dat oorlog in die naam van God of Allah op ‘n daaglikese basis bedryf word en dat leiers oor die wereld dit doen om hulle verksuilde agendas te bereik. Dit kry hulle net reg deur God in die ‘equation’ in te bring. Die kolaterale skade is onskuldige kinders en nie eens dit sit hierdie ‘war mongers’ af nie.
    H: ‘ Moontlik het jy, op daardie stadium, God aanbid by die altaars van die Baalse priesters’
    Een woord: Stront. Ingekleur: brabbel wat nie sin maak nie. Waar kom jy aan die twak?
    H: ‘Jesus en Sy volgelinge het geen oorlog gevoer of hulself verdedig behalwe teen die bose magte van die lug.’
    ‘Bose magte van die lug’ = nog stront. Lekker hoe jy Jesus net losmaak van die 3-God. Hy is tog deel van die 3-enige, reg. Of is die nuwe neiging in jou kringe om elkeen van die 3 ‘n eie persoonlikheid te gee. Dit kan nogal oulik wees. God – al die O’s, magtig, orals, liefdevol (??) en dan Jesus – vredemaker ‘extra ordinaire’. Natuurlik is die Spook (Heilige Gees) daar om ons bang te maak😉

    screw-tin-eyes

    January 5, 2010 at 10:07

  627. Hans, dit is weereens duidelik dat jy nie veel begrip het van die realiteit nie en ook nie feitlike oorwegings nie. Die vervelige redenasies wat jy aanhoudend en herhaaldelik vir jou god bied, is bankrot en dwaas, en sou belaglik gewees het was hulle nie so uitgeput nie.

    Con-Tester

    January 4, 2010 at 23:23

  628. Screw-tin-eyes, dit is wat God is en het niks te doen met alleenreg nie.
    Het jy nog nooit gehoor “en oweral is God”, ja in die diereryk ook.
    Dit is duidelik, dat toe jy eens op ‘n tyd ‘n gelowige was, het jy nooit die Bybel geken of verstaan.
    Ek het nog altyd baie liefde vir my medemense.
    Ek het nog altyd baie simpatie met hulle leed.
    Ek het nog altyd ‘n haat vir oorlog.
    Ek besef nog altyd, dat ek net die een lewe op aarde het en dit moet gebruik om die wereld ‘n beter plek te maak.
    Ek het nog nooit geglo, dat mense nie gestraf word met ongelukke en dood omdat God kwaad is vir hulle nie, maar dat ons verantwoordelik is vir ons dade en niks moet doen om ander leed aan te doen nie. (Die Bybel wys dat ons moet waak en bid, nie slaap en bid nie.)
    Moontlik het jy, op daardie stadium, God aanbid by die altaars van die Baalse priesters.
    Jesus en Sy volgelinge het geen oorlog gevoer of hulself verdedig behalwe teen die bose magte van die lug.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 4, 2010 at 21:46

  629. Savage, as jy die Bybel geken het, sou jy weet dat God nie iets anders is nie en neem kennis, dat niks in jou lewe het ontstaan sonder die “woord”. Dit is duidelik dat jy nie veel begrip het van God nie en ook nie geestelike denke nie.

    Hans Matthysen

    January 4, 2010 at 21:25

  630. Pieter, dit is vir my so pateties om te sien hoe sommige christen-mense verkies om hulle-self ‘in die duister’ te hou wat kennis aan betref. Maar die onderwerp hier is of God bestaan, al dan nie. Waarop jy net ‘n baie swak-beredeneerde aanhaling van ene Jaco gepos het. Regtig, dis ‘n baie lui benadering. Komaan, se^ bietjie iets wat jy self beredeneer het en oor gedink het wat betrekking het op hierdie saak. Anders moet ek maar weer my ‘beskeie’ opinie herhaal en dit mag dalk bietjie meer kleurvol wees.

    screw-tin-eyes

    January 4, 2010 at 21:16

  631. Pieter, as jy vasklou aan sulke infantiele twak redenasie, dan verdien jy om voort te gaan en jou lewe te vermors.

    gelukkig is my lewe geen vermorsing nie, miskien jou beskeie opinie, maar nou ja ; elkeen is seker geregtig op sy eie stupid opinie.

    Pieter

    January 4, 2010 at 12:16

  632. Eintlik is dit nie Jaco O’Callahan se god wat ’n plan het nie, nè Pieter. In werklikheid is dit Jaco en al sy gelowige eweknieë wat ’n plan het – ’n om mooi verskonings uit te dink vir hoekom hulle god homself gedra asof hy glad nie bestaan nie.

    Con-Tester

    January 1, 2010 at 10:43

  633. Pieter, as jy vasklou aan sulke infantiele twak redenasie, dan verdien jy om voort te gaan en jou lewe te vermors.

    screw-tin-eyes

    January 1, 2010 at 10:37

  634. Ai toggie, Pieter! Ai!

    Nathan Bond

    January 1, 2010 at 08:47

  635. Hans, van wanneer is hierdie eienskappe (Woord, Liefde, Lig (verstaanbaarheid/insig), Waarheid, Wysheid,) wat jy noem, die alleenreg van jou god, wat jy kan gebruik as bewys dat hy bestaan.

    Eienskappe soos liefde, insig, verstaanbaarheid en ek wil selfs se^ wysheid, bestaan in die dierewereld ook en dis bewys. Dit bewys nie dat daar ‘n god is nie, dis is natuurlike emosies man.

    Jou god het nie hierdie emosies tot stand gebring om te bewys hy bestaan nie, okay !!!

    En anders gestel, ‘by no stretch of the imagination’ is hierdie emosies bewyse van ‘n god nie. Asseblief man. Kom by, dink en moenie al die gebreinwaste ‘cliches’ oor en oor herhaal nie. Dit gaan dit nie waar maak nie.

    En hier is nog iets vir jou. Vandat ek nie meer glo in die bybel en ‘n god nie, het ek:

    -baie meer liefde vir my medemense,
    -meer simpatie met hulle leed,
    -haat ek oorlog,
    -besef dat ek net die een lewe het en dit moet gebruik om die wereld ‘n beter plek te maak,
    -dat mense nie gestraf word met ongelukke en dood omdat god kwaad is vir hulle nie, maar dat ons verantwoordelik is vir ons dade en niks moet doen om ander leed aan te doen nie.

    Dis meer as wat godvreesende mense kan se^ wat oorlog maak in gods naam, glo dat kinders lei omdat hulle of hulle ouers ‘sondig’ is, of was. Snert. Hou jou god – Die woorde/eienskappe wat jy hierbo genoem het is nie deel van die god wat jy voorhou nie – kyk net om jou.

    screw-tin-eyes

    December 30, 2009 at 23:18

  636. Hans, jy is besig met metafisika hier; nie eens nàby ‘n Christelike geloofsverklaring of –openbaring nie. Dit is duidelik jy het nie veel van ‘n begrip van rasionele denke nie, want om hierdie stelling van jou te bewys is onmoontlik. Of vertel jou boek van fabels vir jou sulke goed?

    Savage

    December 29, 2009 at 17:27

  637. Screw-tin-eyes, God bestaan omdat die volgende bestaan; Woord, Liefde, Lig (verstaanbaarheid/insig), Waarheid, Wysheid, Gees, ens.

    Hans Matthysen

    December 15, 2009 at 23:33

  638. Ek het eers ‘n klomp goed oor Johannes kwyt geraak en toe alles maar ‘delete’. (DW het hom in elke geval op sy plek gesit). Dit behoort nie hier te gaan oor die ‘incoherent’ gebrabble van ‘n ‘lunatic-fringer’ wie se benewelde brein hom dinge wysmaak wat feeverhale na die waarheid laat lyk nie.

    Ek wil net se^: Johannes, maak jou sinne klaar man – dis baie snaaks, jou sinsbou. Dit klink seker vir jou bybelse, ne^. Bv. ‘Die woord allah is ontleen uit die Bible en word veral in sekere dele van die boek Daniel en Esra.’ …ge-wat ???

    Pitie, shame I ‘pitie’ you, to be taken in by this word-play. Have you ever heard of science. Warm, cold – it can measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit, right. Same goes for light and dark. They are scientific facts and their origin can be determined. It should not to be used in this way to delude people. But hey, only the gullible can be deluded,that is a fact too.

    ‘Good and Evil’ have existed since time immemorial. And don’t tell the snake in the park thing, please. Even before your Adam and Eve frolicked around in the naughty garden, there was good and evil. It exists in the natural world of which we are a part. And then you go and imply that this is proof – agghh pleeeeze.

    Ek ‘like’ vir Daan. Net ‘n kwessie van tyd, reg ou maat, dan het die grysselle gewen?

    Mary – go read some science books. Open your mind. It’s very liberating and above all – makes you see what utter fools you religious people are making of yourself.

    Everybody else who thinks proof that god exists is in the bible – wow. You guys will believe anything that is written down. If you can’t taste, see, hear, feel or smell it (and maybe calculate it should be added), it does not exists in my book.

    screw-tin-eyes

    December 8, 2009 at 17:01

  639. Dit is nou werklik ‘n Babel se verwarring wat ek hierbo lees en dit wil voorkom, of die onbekende God, nog vir baie onbekend is.

    Hans Matthysen

    October 6, 2009 at 22:42

  640. Johannes , as daai 3 gotte Jeeesus van jou die aarde iewers in 2011 gaan kom opfok het hy ‘n spesiale plan om al die Allah kakpraters ook op te fok.

    Jy skryf ; Genadiglik is Heilige God besig om die rekord straight te stel, naamlik dat die Heilige Bybel die enigste ware Woord van God is .

    Huh ? Wat bedoel jy nou . Gaan die Moslems en Jews nou begin Bybel lees en in liewe Jesus begin glo ?

    Kak man jy droom , die Moslems dink jy is ‘n infidel en die Jews weet Jesus is ‘n kakpraat god ( 3 gotte )

    Nou sê vir my ou Johannes . Jy het nou al mooi verduidelik hoe jou 3 gotte die 2 biljoen fuctup kerk gelowiges gaan uitspoeg . Wat gaan jou 3 gotte met die Moslems en Jews doen. Gaan hulle harder kak as jou Christen Broeders wat kerk loop?

    Jy skryf ; Vandag hoor nie net die christendom weer die ewige evangelie nie maar hoor die ander 2/3des van die volkere buite die christendom die Goeie Nuus vanuit die Bybel en word hulle onleiding van die Heilige Gees in Sy ewige Koninkryk ingelei….!.,

    Fok nou verstaan ek jou nie ou Johannes . Jy beweer dat jy net die evangelie moet HOOR en dan word jy ingelei. Gods man , dan is ek mos ook gesave , ek het die kakpraat evangelie al baie gehoor .

    Of bedoel jy dat as jy na jou RADIOSTASIE KERK luister – HOOR – dan is jy gesave , maar as jy in die kerk sit is jy gefok.

    Wat van as jy in die Mosk of Sinagoge sit en na die Imam of Rabie luister en HOOR . Is jy dan ook OK – of lê die triek in jou Radiostasie se kakpraat stories .

    Jy skryf ; Die een ware “kerk” is saamgestel uit niemand minder as diegene wat deur Heilige God voor die grondlegging van die aarde uitverkies is.

    Ooo my fok hier kom dit nou . Is jy uitverkies Johannes ?
    Want jy weet as jy nie een van die lucky ouens in jou gotte se lucky packet is nie , is jy poer in jou moer ou broeder. Moertoe man ….met of sonder die gotte Jeeeeesus.

    Wat jy nie verstaan nie ou broer , in jou eie woorde skryf jy dat god reeds besluit het wie gaan piekniek saam met hom hou en wie nie.
    Weet jy wat ou Johannes , die dag as ek my laaste asem uitblaas wil ek sê dat ek alles uit die lewe gekry het wat moontlik was. Ek wil die dood net net maak – soos in sideways inglip en alles opgebruik .

    Maar om piekniek saam met jou jaloerse gotte daarna te gaan hou , nee wat , ek like dit fokol om te sing soos in 24/7 , en nog minder om gotte se gatte te lek , en ek soek ook nie 72 of 100 virgins nie. Nee jissis , gee my eerder 72 slette of hoere met nice boob jobs wat die job ken. Jissis nee , fok , ‘n pieknie saam jou gotte en virgins . Wat kan kakker as dit wees.

    Nee jissis , dink net om na Jesus se gekerm heeldag te sit en luister oor hoe seer sy handjies en voetjies is en hoe banggat hy was toe sy papa hom verlaat het .
    Kry vir jou Johannes ek het nie tyd vir jou gotte se family kakpraat en opfok business nie .

    DW

    October 6, 2009 at 09:27

  641. When is soon? Only indoctrinated brain dead cloth head fools like you , Hans and Johannes believe in bull shit . Get a life man.

    DW

    October 6, 2009 at 08:28

  642. Somehow in all that drivel I managed to miss “the Babtists[sic]. Silly me!

    Con-Tester

    October 4, 2009 at 18:54

  643. johannes coetzee wrote (October 3, 2009 at 9:12 pm):

    Die woord allah is ontleen uit die Bible en word veral in sekere dele van die boek Daniel en Esra.

    Maar presies wat die Katolieke, die Lutherns, die Babtiste, die Mormone, die charismatiese groepering, die Reformed, die “you name it” kerkgroeperinge hulle eie “do it yourself” gospels geskep het, het die Muslim of Isamietiese gemeenskappe hulle eie “do it yourself” gospels geskep.

    Allow me to translate: ):

    The word “Allah” is taken from the Bible is especially in certain parts of the book of Daniel and Ezra.

    But precisely what the Catholics, the Lutherns [sic] , the Mormons, the charismatic groupings, the Reformed, the ‘you name it’ church groupings created as their own ‘do it yourself’ gospels, the Muslims or Islamic communities created their own ‘do it yourself’ gospels.

    (Grammatical errors preserved as closely as possible.)

    See? That’s one down who doesn’t buy your version. Now we just need Matthysen and van der Merwe to weigh in with their own various flavours of infallible biblical knowledge.

    Con-Tester

    October 4, 2009 at 18:50

  644. Die woord allah is ontleen uit die Bible en word veral in sekere dele van die boek Daniel en Esra.

    Maar presies wat die Katolieke, die Lutherns, die Babtiste, die Mormone, die charismatiese groepering, die Reformed, die “you name it” kerkgroeperinge hulle eie “do it yourself” gospels geskep het, het die Muslim of Isamietiese gemeenskappe hulle eie “do it yourself” gospels geskep.

    As my mense (die christendom) tog maar net die Lewende God, die God van Abraham, Isak en Jakob, die Skepper van die hemele en die aarde met soveel respek, agting en vrees bejeen het sooswat die volgelinge van Allah uit die Islamitiese of Muslim gemeenskap dit doen sou beide groeperinge (die christen en muslims) ontdek dat hulle nie net dieselfde aardse vader het nie maar ook dieselfde Hemelse Vader het.

    In ‘n sekere sin het die christendom veral vanwee hul hoogmoed gedurende die amper pas afgelope 2000jaar baie skade aangerig in die “broeder” verhouding tussen die nakomelinge van Isak en Ismael. Dis seker dan ook een van die hoofbeweegredes waarom die Muslim of Islamitiese gemeenskappe hulle eie “Woord van God” geskrywe het.

    Vandag is dit ongelukkig die Islamitiese gemeennskappe wat in presies dieselfde strik getrap het as die waarin die Joodse gemeenskap getrap het gedurende die dae van die eerste koms van die Messias.

    Genadiglik is Heilige God besig om die rekord straight te stel, naamlik dat die Heilige Bybel die enigste ware Woord van God is. Vir die christen wat in vormgodsdiens verval het wag egter die grootste verrassing van alle tye wannner die Messias op 21 Mei 2011 terugkeer en Hy die grootste deel van Sy finale oes uit die sogenaamde Oosterse en Asiatiese volkere gaan inbring.

    Vandag hoor nie net die christendom weer die ewige evangelie nie maar hoor die ander 2/3des van die volkere buite die christendom die Goeie Nuus vanuit die Bybel en word hulle onleiding van die Heilige Gees in Sy ewige Koninkryk ingelei….!

    Gedurende hierdie laaste van die laaste dae ontdek die nakomelinge van Isak en die nakomelinge van Ismael dat hulle inderwaarheid “broeders” met ‘n gemeenskaplike vader en Vader is wat deur hulle onderskeie kerkstrukture vir eeue van mekaar geskei en uitmekaar gehou is.

    Genadiglik het die kerk-era vir goed op 21 Mei 1988 ten einde geloop toe Heilige God die hele kerkstruktuur “uitgespuug” het…!

    Die een ware “kerk” is saamgestel uit niemand minder as diegene wat deur Heilige God voor die grondlegging van die aarde uitverkies is, Hy voor die grondlegging van die aarde vir hulle sondeskuld betaal het, Hy hulle gedurende hul leeftyd ‘n nuut herskepte hart (siel of gees) gegee het, en Hy aan hulle op 21 Mei 2011 ‘n nuut herskepte verheerlikte liggaam gaan gee sodat hulle vir ewig met Hom in Sy Koninkryk te regeer.

    Aan God, aan Heilige God al die eer, van nou af tot in ewigheid. Amen.

    Kom gou Here Jesus kom gou…!

    johannes coetzee

    October 3, 2009 at 21:12

  645. Soon will We show them Our Signs in the (furthest)regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth (Quran,Al-Fussilat,41:53)

    Think about it.
    Please visit: http://www.sundacolugo.wordpress.com

    Muhammad Dzulhelmi

    October 3, 2009 at 15:09

  646. “Allah” the guide to the “True Path,” eh?

    Tell that to Coetzee, van der Merwe and Matthysen. I’ll lay a thousand to one odds that they won’t believe you.

    Con-Tester

    October 2, 2009 at 22:18

  647. what is the concept of God?
    Say He is Allah the One and only; Allah the Eternal, absolute; He begets not nor is he begotten; and there is none like unto Him (Quran,al-ikhlas,112:1-4)

    What is the religion accepted by Allah?
    The religion before Allah is Islam (Quran,Ali Imran,3:19), (Quran,Ali Imran,3:85)

    May Allah Guide Us All to the True Path.

    Dzulhelmi

    October 1, 2009 at 19:38

  648. So, what you are saying, is that people who are termninally ill and prayed to be healed yet die of their illness just did not believe sufficiently, or prayed hard enough, or their deaths must serve as a lesson to others? I lost two friends in the space of four days, Mary. Your ‘argument’ sucks. Fuck off.

    Jan Swart

    May 12, 2009 at 12:46

  649. Goldstein wrote (21 Jan 09 at 8:07 am):

    An atheist has to convince himself – believing in God comes naturally.

    Yes, that’s true: atheism usually is a conclusion drawn from various lines of evidence and reasoning. Then again, so are the findings of science. In contrast, belief in (a, any) god is invariably a socially installed premise from which a veritable cornucopia of unsustainable and indefensible conclusions are drawn (c.f. “Anti-science”).

    Goldstein wrote (21 Jan 09 at 8:07 am):

    Vocabulary of the atheist speaks for itself!

    Yes, vocabulary – as opposed to gibberish – tends to do that.

    Con-Tester

    January 21, 2009 at 12:41

  650. Goldstein

    Methinks humans are born atheists. And then the priests begin their molesting…

    As I have said over and over and over again – my language is calculated to clearly show my disgust at religion and its idiot “God”. When religion ceases its unspeakable terror and its unimaginable mendacity my language will be tempered. Until such time, religion remains a crock of shit and religion’s “God” a cunt.

    This atheist is happy to let his cant speak for itself as long as Christians let their deeds speak for themselves: war, discrimination, dupery…

    What say you Christians abandon the lies – creation, virgin birth, life everlasting – and I abandon the descriptive words for your lies?

    Nathan Bond

    January 21, 2009 at 08:18

  651. An atheist has to convince himself – believing in God comes naturally. Vocabulary of the atheist speaks for itself!

    Goldstein

    January 21, 2009 at 08:07

  652. Ditto. I am awed by what revoltingly, contortedly, perversely contrived rationales you believers are capable of dreaming up to preserve the illusion that your god is good.

    Oh, and you might want to brush up on your cosmology and natural history. Too many straw men, you know. Also, look up David Hume’s critique of the argument from design while you’re at it.

    Con-Tester

    November 16, 2008 at 16:55

  653. Mary, having read your “example”, I wanted to puke. Believers are sick.

    Nathan Bond

    November 16, 2008 at 15:35

  654. ” thought long and hard about it”!!!
    What you just wrote here (the few remaining words after filtering out the obsene vocab)just proves you did not think at all.

    How can you not proof God’s existence? Turn on Dicovery Channels and watch sea world (for example)…they will give you a mouth-drop evidences of God’s existence. The breath-taking organized cosmos is just too well organized to exist by some massive explosion.

    Why are you angry at God, when you must be angry at the messing that humans commit in the absence of God?

    Belief does not mean the total absence of ratinality. For instance, you use your head and logic to find out that God lies beyound your mental capabiilities of grasping the mysteries of this universe. You can’t claim that you understand this universe and the different froms of life which exist on it…they are a way beyound your head and beyound the head of the greatest scientists of our time..so you use your head to at least conclude that there is someone with supreme intelligence who created this complicated thing that you live in and is intelligent enough to have created you so beautifully complex.

    Why does God allow some people to be hungry? well, imagine that you are living in a world where no one is needy of anything. All people are rich with their phsyical and phsycological needs overly satisfied. Where is the challenge? how can you prove that you are with God and not with otherwise? It is a necessity to have a room for imperfections so that we can prove ourselves by fixing those imperfections and filling in the gap. Imagine that students do not take exams at all (absense of pain and challenge), how will the professor know that they understood the material well? how will the students know that they have earned themselves an education if they did not take those tests (verbal, written, practical-easy and difficult tests)? So you see, the concept of pain is not far from your head or your understanding, coz while you seem to argue against it, you are actually appreciating it and realize its importance in life.
    Let’s look at a simple example:
    Your friend is sick. God allowed your friend to be sick so that you can help him (this is a chance for you to do something good), at the same time, your friend will benefit from this sickness:
    1) he will sense your love and it will bring him joy.
    2) he will grow stronger (if he did not have patience, he will learn it through his sickness- if he had no time for God, he will have time for God during his sickness and will feel God’s hand in his life, when he was too occupied with life to feel it)
    3) It is a true test of his metal (essence). If he is truely strong and truely love God, he will endure his sickness and will get out of it stonger than before and more able to face life challenges. If however, he has a weak essence, then he will learn this deffect and will fix it. Even you believe in the blessings of hardships and you know that they create stronger humans and are usually an eye-opening experience, which opens one’s eyes on God’s beauty, the faithfulness of those who love you, who are your real friends and how aren’t, etc…
    If you understood the usefulness of hardships, you will never blame God. Also, you have got to distinguish between the hardhips that God allow, and the hardships that one causes himself to suffer from becaue of his immoral behvaior or thinking. So if someone was so envious of his neighbour that he killed him, he can’t blame this on God, but only on himself and his twisted mind. God is innocent of the sins humans commit, and whatever harship He temporarily allows us to face, they are only meant for our strengthening and learning to become better humans than what we are now.

    Mary

    November 16, 2008 at 14:47

  655. “Scientists continue to be some of the biggest deluded fools on the planet sprouting off completely unsupported nonsense.”

    WOW!!!!!!! Hier’s die link. http://www.Preterism.info.

    Ontspan Nathan! Ek het verlede week vir die eerste keer van Preterisme gehoor. Ek teken toe sommer in op hulle nuusbrief! ‘n Mens kan dit skaars glo, maar hierdie ouens is nog meer fucked-up as die 38 2011 Bybeliete. (Ekskuus! Ek het van Mal Johannes vergeet: Maak dit 39.)

    NS. DW, wat de fok gaan aan in Johannesburg?! Na gistermiddag beter die manne in Joeies vandag wegbly van gholf en eerder kerk toe gaan. Toemaar, die Bulle sal in die finals die Leeus wys hoe om die Sharks op te fok.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 28, 2008 at 06:14

  656. As God nie ons skepper is nie, hoe kan dit wees dat Livitikus en Deuternomium so ‘n goeie handleiding vir die biochemiese masjien blyk te wees.

    Mense vind nou nog steeds uit dat die Wette wetenskaplikke mediese voordele vir die biochemiese masjien inhou.

    Die ene oor lee blikke is net so van toepassing op Angus Bachus en die Drie suster kerke … vul jou self dus met rellevante kennis voor jy ander mense van lee doppe beskuldig … party Sataniste ken julle geloof beter as julle self…

    Bierpens

    September 26, 2008 at 19:13

  657. Nathan en Dirk, dit is duidelik dat julle geestelike voorvaders Amoriete

    Lekker Hans

    Moses se vir die Amoriete – val plat tussen die riete maar watch vir julle tiete daar is moerse muskiete .

    DW

    September 23, 2008 at 08:12

  658. Hey, Nathan! your wish may come true, ole man.
    When Jesus does come back to earth he probably WILL be shot and/or poked in the eye. Have you seen that play by the Irishman where Jesus comes back to earth? He lands up in Guantanamo Bay (hey, he looked brownish, had a beard and a towel on his head and spoke Palestinian – Worse: He couldn’t speak English!!! So you can’t blame that US Customs oke at JFK that threw him in the slammer!).

    PS: What’s this “site editor” shit? Is there a sort of holy oke hidden in the background who is allowed to come onsite and say things (which BTW looked like BS to me) that somehow carry more weight than what us mortals say?
    Explanation, please!

    bewilderbeast

    July 24, 2008 at 14:01

  659. DJ
    When I argue “God’s” cosmic fuck-ups, I argue from the faith-based perspective that “God” indeed exists. I do so because believers are quick to recognize “God” and give praise for everything that impress them – from aunt Martha’s miraculous healing to little Johny’s improved numeracy skills. But “God” never gets debited!
    So… if indeed there is a “God”, he is responsible (directly or tacitly) for hunger, for wars, for illness, for earth-quakes, for tsunami’s, for volcanic eruptions, for tropical storms and the like. And don’t, purleaze, blame it all on some fruit pilfering eons ago. If “God” is still pissed at Adam and Eve he has unresolved issues he needs to discuss with a shrink.
    Pretty damned immature, this “God”.
    Ps. About evolution… go read, dammit!

    Nathan Bond

    July 22, 2008 at 11:37

  660. Nathan
    The so called Cosmic F@#%$-^& of God, please be so kind as to show me what that consists off?
    We are living in the 21st century and not the dark ages. Long gone are the days that anyone can claim unverified facts. Do not forget, the internet is a powerful tool and anyone can use it.
    For every scientist that believes in the EVOLUTION, another is not.
    And believe it or not it can be proofed.
    So – God did not make any so called cosmic F)(*-()% my frind, Humans did!!!!
    Greetings

    DJ

    July 22, 2008 at 10:53

  661. Tim
    It is not possible to disprove the existence of “God”. And, methinks, that somehow means that “arguments against” a deity is also futile. I contend that it is much better – for “God”! – if it doesn’t exist: the shame of “God’s” cosmic fuck-ups would be too great even for an omnipotent being.
    Islam, as I indicate in “72 Virgins” (see Pages) is a pathetic excuse for an idiotology (sic). Not interested.

    Nathan Bond

    July 20, 2008 at 19:25

  662. Since you are referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, why not look into Islam. I think you will find some stuff very different and there will be no need for you to encounter original sin, Jesus on the cross, salvation and stuff like that.

    As with a God allowing suffering and pain to children, I don’t think that is a strong argument against his existence. William Lane Craig refers to that as the emotional argument against his existence. Just because it feels wrong does not mean it is so.

    Tim

    July 20, 2008 at 16:05

  663. Johannes, wat jy hierbo skryf is die getuienis van mense en die kerkstrukture waarna jy verwys, is deur die Romeine, Jesus en Sy volgelinge se vervolgers, gestig. Hulle het wel die Bybelse geskrifte as riglyn gebruik, tog is dit nie die ware wynstok nie. Die strukture wat God, deur Jesus daar gestel het, bestaan uit Herders en nie uit huurlinge nie. Dit is die getuienis van God.