Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Science & Religion

with 294 comments

Science and religion. O-O-O-o-o-oy! [1]

Some of the leading practitioners of modern science, many of them vocal atheists, were gathered in La Jolla, California, in November 2006, for a symposium entitled “Beyond belief: Science, religion, reason and survival”, hosted by the Science Network, a science-promoting coalition of scientists and media professionals convening at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. They were there to address three questions. Should science do away with religion? What would science put in religion’s place? And can we be good without God?[2]

The first salvo came from University of Texas, Austin, cosmologist Steven Weinberg, to enthusiastic applause: “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion. Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilisation.”

Yet Weinberg admitted he would miss religion once it was gone. Religion was, Weinberg had said, like “a crazy old aunt” who tells lies and stirs up mischief. “She was beautiful once,” he suggested. “She’s been with us a long time. When she’s gone we may miss her.”

Richard Dawkins would have none of it. Weinberg, he said, was being inexplicably conciliatory and “scraping the barrel” to have something nice to say about religion. “I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing upon religion,” he told the assembly.

Kant once famously remarked that philosophy addresses three fundamental questions: “what can I know?”, “what shall I do?”; “what may I hope for?”

David van Biema posits the issue succinctly when he introduces a debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins: Can religion stand up to the increasing ability of science to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience?[3]

Is there place for both science and religion? I have long been critical of Stephen Jay Gould’s “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” (NOMA) – putting the quarreling kids nicely to bed so Mom can watch Desperate Housewives in peace. (Readers will forgive the obvious anachronism.)

Gould’s NOMA is a rather vacuous idea. I concur with Dawkins that Gould’s separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp.[4]

Shall one apply to theology for insight into Kant’s challenge? I think not. Religion is diametrically opposed to the pioneering spirit of scientific exploration. Believers are generally characterized by a zealous certitude and a readiness to adjust facts to sustain a conviction, while the scientific process, with deference to Karl Popper, dictates that progress in science is only ever made when a hypothesis is collapsed, not when it is confirmed.

Said physicist Heinz Pagels, “… The capacity to tolerate complexity and welcome contradiction, not the need for simplicity and certainty, is the attribute of an explorer. Centuries ago, when some people suspended their search for absolute truth and began instead to ask how things worked, modern science was born. Curiously, it was by abandoning the search for absolute truth that science began to make progress, opening the material universe to human exploration.”[5]

The explorer spirit is conspicuously absent in the theist approach. Theists invoke a cosmic legislator/regulator, a magician, to fill any present void and to explain the mysteries about nature that may have scientists stumped at any particular time. The good doctor Hippocrates warned against this mindset, “Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things.”

There is enormous danger in a meandering into metaphysics, in covering the challenge of evolving understanding with the theist tarpaulin of faith, for as science advances, so the magician retreats, eventually to be pushed off the edge of space and time altogether, and into redundancy.[6]

To presume for lack of sufficient understanding is an egregious manifestation of cognitive knavery – it is adiaphoristic and connotative of intellectual acedia.

What can one reasonably hope to learn from (Christian) theology? Nothing, but that one should apply elsewhere. Founded in ancient oracles, loosely organised in the 1st century, entrenched in the 4th, adjusted in the 16th, refined in the 18th and propped in the 20th, theology is dead in the 21st. All that remains is the sorry sight of the believer pulling the dead body of Christ behind her after the way of a mother baboon…

Science does not have all the answers. But this fact does not indicate that religion has any answers at all. In deference to Darwin, it has often and confidently been asserted that man’s origin, for instance, can never be known… but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.[7]

There is an expanding universe between science and religion. I choose science. Not for answers, but for progressive explanation, in pursuit of the voussoir of evolving insight…


[1] Rosten. L. 1970. The Joys of Yiddish. Pocket Books. New York. 277-279. According to Rosten “oy” is not a word; it is a vocabulary. It is uttered in as many ways as the utterer’s histrionic ability permits. It is a lament, a protest, a cry of dismay… “O-O-O-o-o-oy”, the 29th and final variant listed by Rosten, means “at-the-end-of-one’s-wittedness”, or “I-can’t-stand-anymore”, as in “Get out! Leave me alone! O-O-O-o-o-oy!” Rosten. L. 1970. The Joys of Yiddish. Pocket Books. New York. 277-279.[2] Michael Brooks and Helen Phillips. 18 November 2006. Beyond belief: In place of God. New Scientist. 2578: 8-11.[3] David van Biema. November 5, 2006. God vs. Science. TIME.[4] November 5, 2006.[5] Heinz Pagels. 1985. Perfect Symmetry: The Search for the Beginning of Time, Simon and Schuster, New York.[6] Paul Davies. 1995. Physics and the Mind of God, The Templeton Prize Address.

[7] Charles Darwin. 1871. The Descent of Man (2nd edition)

Written by Nathan Bond

November 18, 2007 at 07:53

294 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Bollocksed Goofs (😆😳 ), of the three references you keep stamping your feet about, your comment of August 31, 2011 at 22:16 was addressed by me — comprehensively, and with total and complete honesty — on August 31, 2011 at 22:32 with an addendum on August 31, 2011 at 23:01.

    What more could you want?

    What, exactly, do you feel is worth adding to, subtracting from and/or addressing in your comment of September 1, 2011 at 20:54? Besides the bits already addressed by me on September 1, 2011 at 21:59, I’ve looked it over but it there’s not much of any substance there apart from your assertion that, “There is, from a scientific point of view, not much to do but observe” in relation to “hypotheses, theories needing investigation” with respect to the god-hypothesis. To that, my honest response is, “Ever heard of ‘Occam’s Razor’?” When we run out of naturalistic accounts, then (and only then!) is it time to hypothesise about mystical/supernatural shit.

    So, will you enlighten me on the specifics of your exprctation(s) in respect of this “modicum of honesty” you keep harping on about? (Hier, kry vir jou nòg vannie Great Harping Fallacy!)

    As for your “special reference” comment of September 3, 2011 at 14:36, pay attention now:

    All your accusations — argumentum verbosium, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, hasty inference/unsupported claim/false attribution, misrepresentation, ludic fallacy, composition fallacy, quote mining, confirmation bias, argumentum ad verecundiam, straw man, poisoning the well, loaded questions, reductio ad Hitlerum, reification fallacy, ignoratio elenchi — all of these I’ll happily concede and agree to, okay? Read that again: “I’ll happily concede and agree to” them. Why? Because — for the third time now — in almost every case those allegations attempt to subvert the actual argument by shredding the packaging it comes in. If you can’t see that, tough shit.

    That apart, you repeatedly ask for me to point out where, in your own words, you have said such-and-such. Well, that’s the thing, see? You hardly ever commit to any position or say anything of any substance (which has now been pointed out to you by yet another commenter on this blog and affirmed by its owner, nogal), so it’s typically a question of inferring your meaning from your mind-numbing verbiage. You really should take a good, long, hard look in a mirror.

    Still, among all the whining you manage to assert, “[Y]ou most probably do not ‘acknowledge that [unexplainable experiences] could very easily be misperceptions’, you demand that they are.” To this I say “Bullshit!” This, as scientists say of unfalsifiable hypotheses, isn’t even wrong. I demand no such thing. What I do demand is the same thing that science does: Provisional rejection of unproven hypotheses for which there is nil evidence in favour of better-established accounts. That is, for someone who claims to be a “friend of science” to fucking act accordingly and stop inhaling woo-woo smoke.

    No doubt, the above will still not have a sufficient “modicum of honesty” for your eclectic tastes. But d’ya thinks it’s enough for a clear “yes” or “no” to you-know-which question? Do you think your credibility is that good? Or are you just going to continue “rest[ing your] case with [me]” and this “from here on out [I] will for the largest part be ignored by [you]” approach? D’ya thinks maybe I’m not worthy of your honest, upright and straightforward answer, hmm?

    Con-Tester

    January 7, 2012 at 21:54

  2. It’s those godgone “mysterious ways” again, for sure. The cow, her bullock and gutful of methane trinity is never anywhere to be found despite being everywhere all the time. If you’re a philosophical naturalist, that’s a real problem, whereas if you’re a godiot or a delusional with goggle-eyed hope for the reality of a “spiritual realm” (whatever the fuck that might be), it’s a real bumper of a bonus because it means you get to say solemnly that you respect science while anally gang-raping it.

    Con-Tester

    September 23, 2011 at 12:46

  3. You’d think that, at this point, that all-powerful, all-knowing, almighty, omniscient, omnipotent bearded lady in the clouds would just step forward and say Yissis Fok Julle Almal – Hier Is Ek!! with a mighty roar and some lightning n stuff, and save litres of soois’ and unBalanced Truth’s ink.
    But no, She lurks as always in the inner recesses of their minds, never to actually manifest Herself. Cow.

    bewilderbeast

    September 23, 2011 at 11:58

  4. Oh, and that selfsame substanceless mind-numbing garrulity, due to its pervasiveness, is the cause of my comatose titness.

    Con-Tester

    September 22, 2011 at 22:30

  5. 😆😆😆 This is you “ignoring me for the most part”? Just one follow-up comment directed at you and you respond? Good one!😆😆😆

    
    

    You wouldn’t recognise honesty if it kicked you in the corpus callosum. Your post was addressed. You must have missed it. Here it is in a nutshell: You don’t like how I package my arguments? Tough, then don’t read ’em. But don’t try to pretend to anyone, including the casual reader, that you’ve actually offered anything of substance that weakens those arguments because you haven’t — a predictable result of your slippery style that is the same one so beloved by cretinists and IDiots.

    And I defer to your much superior familiarity with Argumentum Verbosium, including its spelling, see? After all, your smarmy and mind-numbing garrulity is a dead giveaway that you’re a supreme guru of this rare skill.

    Con-Tester

    September 22, 2011 at 22:25

  6. Dear CT
    Science & Religion September 3, 2011 at 14:36 will have to be addressed with a modicum of honesty before any new issues can be addressed.
    But thank you for proving my point. And it is Argumentum Verbosium, you comatose tit.

    Balanced Truths

    September 22, 2011 at 21:10

  7. And a self-important rambling fuckwit like you has the temerity to level accusations of argumentum verbosiam at me!? Here, have another steaming mug of tu quoque.

    You should do yourself and the world a favour and look up philosopher A.C. Grayling’s short essay titled Can an Atheist Be a Fundamentalist?. It’s all of four pages long.

    When you have read and digested that properly (at best a doubtful eventuality), you should delve into the current state of cognitive science: Pinker, Wiseman and Ramachandran make a good start because it is clear from the eminent cognitive biases and naïveté of your scribblings that you are as clueless about this subject as you are with this “atheism = religion” canard. The aforesaid authors form an equally good starting point for clearing up how and where humanity’s notions of “spirituality” arise — no doubt exposés that will be ignored for being too disconcerting because they provide good reason to suppose that these ideas are chimeras.

    As for history, two things. First, the so-called “secular” origin of atrocities and violence in recent history is a bullshit ruse, and a deeply ignorant or dishonest one (take your pick). The underlying drive behind Nazism, Socialism and Communism is the same thing religion taps into, namely mob mentality fuelled by unreason and glib answers. The only difference is in the details of the rallying point. But rambling fuckwits like you can’t see the essential similarities. Second, if religious authorities of the past had been given access to 20th century technology, specifically weapons and infrastructure, it’s a sure bet that the statistics (and today’s society) would in any case look vastly different. It’s a good thing then that they didn’t have such access.

    Science doesn’t need “friends” like you, and neither does atheism or agnosticism. As said, you’re an enemy of reason, logic and evidence equal to any godiot. Just more voluble.

    Con-Tester

    September 21, 2011 at 22:30

  8. Of critical importance to the body of ideas taught to people as truthful or correct with particular reference to a system of thought that is based on the values, characteristics and behaviour that are believed to be best in human beings, rather than on any supernatural authority, is the inherently admirable but impractical belief that humanity is not restricted by it’s fundamentally natural and material nature.

    In other words, that progress in morality’s effect on humanity’s conduct, and activities associated with government, will accrue over time or that this body of ideas can cause changes and so enhance the human ability to function in a sustainable way similar to the advances in science and technology.

    Scientific progress creates a basis for the acquisition of further scientific knowledge that can be reproduced, the same does not hold true for principles of right and wrong derived from a personal conscience and a moral standard that effects conduct in human society. Our documented past experiences has not shown much along the lines of positive development, but rather layers upon layers of repetition of past improvements and regressions. Human nature is a basic obstacle to such positive development becoming successively more pronounced or effective. Perceived advancement, in the short term, more often than not fizzles out, or worse, is reversed like the balanced truth of a predetermined equilibrium.

    Fundamental, fanatic or proselytising atheists would credit to their imagined expert wielding of science, as a theist beating club, some level of progress in educating the individual

    casual reader

    in secular ways which is a notion based on the illusion that humans are able to make decisions and act on them as free and independent moral agents.

    This is the preformed atheistic opinion based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, and inaccurate stereotypes, and is not likely to happen anytime soon if we take evidence from our past into account. Proponents of Atheism who claim to believe that humanity can free themselves from all spiritual influences are not realists but apostles of Atheism, fervently whishing to redefine the spiritual and religious world, and consequent dogma, that surrounds them in non-religious idealism that becomes a political religion with the illusion of freedom as it’s central tenet, renewing the worst of the religious characteristics by claiming a beneficial transformation as long as everyone accepts their view of things for the reason that they have no doubt that their way of life is best for everyone.

    Authoritarianism, powerful allegiances, financial organisations, religion, communism, cultural practices, fascism, secular revolutions, democratic capitalism and so many more can all share the blame for so many levels of physical and psychological pain and distress brought on by a closely organized system of rules, values, ideas and beliefs forming the basis of a social, economic, or political philosophy or program.

    Angry, fundamentalist, proselytising atheism proposes a principle of supposed personal salvation echoing the principles of devotion, belief or trust in somebody or something, without logical proof. Hypocritically so, especially as this is a concept they so vehemently denounce.

    To these bitter fundamentalists it becomes entirely unacceptable to have no religious beliefs and yet be friendly to religion and spirituality, it is a hypocritical notion that claims humanitarian roots while condemning a spontaneous pre-programmed defining human characteristic.

    Since human evolution is very slow, having not changed us much in our recorded past, and, since spiritualism is an automatic involuntary psychological answer to a search for meaning, it is improbable that a knowledge of science will change this human trait, of gravitating toward belief in a higher power, and so it is unreasonable to expect this flavour of Atheism to have any positive effect.

    In fact, this brand of Atheist has forgotten that most of the faith-based violence of the past hundred years, or so, was secular in nature and will actively argue against any extreme cruelty in recorded history having ever been committed by controlling groups that claimed the explicit official approval of scientific, rather than religious, principles for their crimes, still, the fact remains that with the honest right of the scientific principle, it’s righteous power to enforce rules or give orders, science is extremely capable of reducing the human condition, which is impossibly difficult to analyse and quantify, to emotionless scientific data making no moral judgements about how this data is to be acquired but having very compelling ideas about the economical and scientific benefits that would be forthcoming.

    This type of atheist would never admit that the hypothetical eradication of religion would constitute a loss of freedom. They coin the phrase liberal to describe themselves and their cause but they have conveniently forgotten the meaning of the word.

    This Atheistic movement’s political agenda, to regulate or eradicate religion, thwarts its own objectives, like fighting for peace, and makes a mockery of science every time it is mentioned.

    Besides the fact that such supposed learned and educated individuals have yet to realise that repressing religion is like repressing a full bladder, that it invariably leads to a worse outcome, it explains a lot about humanity’s failings.

    Clearly the cyclic lessons of history means nothing …

    Balanced Truths

    September 21, 2011 at 21:37

  9. How totally unexpected, you’re still evading. Sense of smell not working so good? Can’t smell the pigshit you keep vomiting up?

    You don’t answer any questions, even those where I asked you, oh, a day-and-a-half ago already, what questions of yours you mean. It must be hard having this cognitive impairment as a constant companion.

    Another question for you. Two, actually. (1) How’s that for a little boy’s last word? (2) Or are you going to be perverse just to thwart a little boy’s ardent and obsessively all-consuming desire to have the last word?

    Con-Tester

    September 10, 2011 at 20:56

  10. “There you go again, deliberately misrepresenting one question (while ignoring all the rest) so that you can pretend that you’ve given a meaningful answer.” If I am not mistaken, this is your m.o. Skillfully sidestepping my questions, like the two, three, four… I lost count, not answered by yourself.

    Come-on, indulge me, have the last word as usual little boy…

    soois

    September 10, 2011 at 20:44

  11. There you go again, deliberately misrepresenting one question (while ignoring all the rest) so that you can pretend that you’ve given a meaningful answer.

    Your skyfairy in his/her all-encompassing power and wisdom made everything. Ergo, he made the old dispensation. But I guess that simple point is too much for a brain-dead godiot to fathom.

    Con-Tester

    September 10, 2011 at 20:35

  12. Actually the old one was made by man, the new by Him, but why try to explain that to you? Blinkers you know!

    soois

    September 10, 2011 at 20:29

  13. Yup, I bet you tell yourself that fairytale about not disregarding the inconvenient bits of your Holey Babble all the time. Stoned any adulterers lately? Eaten any shellfish? Killed any disobedient children? Worn both wool and cotton at the same time?

    Oh wait, I know this one. You don’t answer questions. You dodge them with feeble bullshit like “context” (Whazzat?), “read figuratively” (Who decides? You?), “new dispensation” (Why was the old one faulty when it was made by your all-perfect, all-knowing skydaaaaddieee?) and similar inventions.

    Con-Tester

    September 10, 2011 at 20:06

  14. To add to this subject; “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (1 Timothy 6:10, NIV)”, thus the reason for gambling could be wrong, rather than gambling itself.

    You see guys, I make jokes and we have a whole new subject to debate, especially ole C-T who sees red the moment I dare to post something. Like I said, a horse with blinkers…three possible reactions…etc…etc…etc…

    soois

    September 10, 2011 at 19:59

  15. Actually, the Bible contains no specific command against gambling. The Bible does however tells us that “he who does not work, should not eat and wear torn clothes”, and throughout the Bible history, lots were distributed to ascertain who should get what. Even Jesus’s clothes were kept and lots drawn to establish the winner of mentioned garment to be sold at a hefty price. I guess amongst mentioned history it was established by Christianity, or religion in general, that gambling must be a sin.

    I have not once disregarded any part of the Bible to suit myself or my beliefs.

    soois

    September 10, 2011 at 19:53

  16. 😆😆😆 An Arabian thoroughbred called “Con-Tester”!? That’s a much better bet any day of the year than that old nag called “soois.”😆😆😆

    
    

    Even worth disregarding your Holey Babble’s admonition against gambling and betting, don’t you think? I mean, you regularly disregard the bits you don’t like anyway, so why on earth should a sure bet faze you?😉

    Con-Tester

    September 10, 2011 at 14:57

  17. Magtig ouens, nou dat ek daaroor dink. My kleindogter gaan vir my de moer in wees, maar as Oupa haar kan bederf sal sy my seker vergewe. Ek het ‘n pragtige Arabier hings, nee, eintlik is dit haar perd, en sy naam is, “Brand” volgens die plaaswerkers, “Prins” volgens haar, maar as ek hom nou “Con-Tester” noem, en inskryf by perdewedrenne (natuurlik nou te laat vir die “Durban July”), kan ek dalk ‘n paar rand maak. My dilemma is dat ek as Christen nie aan loterye en so voorts mag deelneem nie, maar perdewedrenne is mos darem nie loterye nie, en as boer is dit mos my beroep om ‘n inkomste uit my diere te genereer.

    Hoe lyk dit? Wie gaan geld op Con-Tester verwed?

    soois

    September 10, 2011 at 14:28

  18. Yes, yes, I know. You’ll say literally anything to try and demonstrate your superiority to Con-Tester, no matter how asinine, slimy or contrived it might be.

    You’re a funny little moron. So easily amused.

    
    

    :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen: Honest.:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

    Con-Tester

    September 10, 2011 at 14:21

  19. Nah, not “post hoc”, but does not really matter. It amuses me and is meant to amuse only me. Still would like to bet on the horse called “Con-Tester” though.

    soois

    September 10, 2011 at 14:01

  20. Yes, your sheer brilliance outshines us all, especially when laying post hoc traps…🙄

    
    

    The joke of course is that it doesn’t extend to anything of any substance, like answering questions.

    Con-Tester

    September 10, 2011 at 13:34

  21. Natuurlik het jy dit opgemerk. Moedswillig gedoen om jou maksimim moontlike 3 reaksies te toets. Wens jy was ‘n resiesperd, dan was ek ‘n riljoener.

    soois

    September 10, 2011 at 13:20

  22. Ja, “goggerol” sê dit alles amper perfek toepassend.

    Con-Tester

    September 10, 2011 at 13:00

  23. ErickV,

    Hallo daar en ook aan soois of is dit nou Malherbe? Vraag aan soois deur Malherbe beantwoord. Miskien moet ek maar stilbly, of mag ek maar self namens soois die vraag aan soois beantwoord?

    Indien wel, hallo ErickV! Jong, ek weet waaragtig nie. Jy weet, alles moes iewers begin het, en dit is waar ek die “Big Bang” en selfs evolusie nie weggooi nie, maar anders as die geloof dat die mensdom deur die “B B” veroorsaak is, het ek al gewonder, selfs al op die blog dit gevra, of God nie deur die “Big Bang” onstaan het nie, hetsy direk, of selfs ‘n evolusionere proses direk daarna, met direk bedoel ek natuurlik ‘n proses van etlike miljoene jare.

    Jy sal oplet, dat ek ook maar wonder en selfs filosofeer hieroor, want eintlik weet ek goggerol, en ou C-T sal dit vir jou beaam.

    Groete.

    soois

    September 10, 2011 at 12:50

  24. ErickV, ek vermoed dat die godiote meen jou vraag is te eenvoudig, simpel selfs, om ’n antwoord te verdien. Dit is mos onmoontlik dat enige godioot iets oor sy of haar hemelpapa nie kan verduidelik nie. Die kombinasie van drie kort woordjies, nl. “ek weet nie,” bestaan beslis nie in hulle taalskat nie as dit kom by hul fantasieë.

    Con-Tester

    September 10, 2011 at 10:35

  25. Malherbe,
    Jong, ek het hierdie vraag min of meer op dieselfde trant op ‘n ander blog gevra.
    Die enigste antwoord wat ek gekry het is ‘n doodse stilte van die gelowiges!
    Nou wonder ek, hoekom?

    ErickV

    September 10, 2011 at 04:10

  26. Hy bestaan al moer-lank Erick, blykbaar laaaank voor die +/- 4.5biljoen ouderdom van ons groen planeet as mens al die slim dominees moet glo. Mens kan maar net raai dat hy ‘n ding vir Minerva gehad het, en toe lg. vir Prometheus val, besluit die Drie-gotte-wat-eintlik-een-is, hy gaaan nooit as te nimmer tot in ewigheid draadtrek nie, en verkrag toe maar Josef se verloofde. Eintlik is daar goeie rede om te vermoed dat die Drie-gotte-wat-eintlik-een-is se seksuele frustrasie, die eintlike oorsaak is vir die aanbranding in sy skeppingsoond. Die probleempie kon hy so maklik opgelos het indien hy eerstens vir homself ‘n vrou geskep het, en daarna oor Adam se alleenheid ge-worry het. Maar nee, hy en Bacchus speel toe mos eers poker, en toe Drie-gotte-wat-eintlik-een-is die game verloor, suip hy homself besimpeld en ons skepsels is die uiteindelike resultaat. Hierdie verduideliking maak baie meer sin as enigiets wat Stroois kan voorlê.

    Malherbe

    September 9, 2011 at 15:17

  27. Hello Soois!
    Hier is ek ook vir ‘n slag!
    Net ‘n vraag aan jou. Hoe lank bestaan God al?

    ErickV

    September 9, 2011 at 11:54

  28. Okay, so you “cannot explain it better to [me].” Why does that not surprise me?

    But are you going to answer my questions? Or are you going to carry on insulting everyone’s intelligence with your Punch-and-Judy act?

    Yeah, yeah. That ol’ dishonest fraud and liar, Con-Tester, has no answers for you, only questions that you just carry on bypassing with bullshit, never mind that you have consistently shown a remarkable failure to comprehend the most elementary ideas.

    So, what are your questions again? (That is, assuming you asked them in the first place. Where and when? I don’t see them.) Let’s see if I can apply your strategies in “answering” them.

    Con-Tester

    September 8, 2011 at 11:57

  29. Naw, you are not drawing me back into this again. Apart from drawing a picture I cannot explain it better to you. You on the other hand are dodging my questions, but do not bother, as usual you are not going to even try anyway, are you? It is blatantly clear that you are ducking and diving, but instead of trying to defend, you are attacking, hoping to blind the rest of the readers (insulting their intelligence) and drawing their attention away from the question at hand. Thus, you are in fact dishonest and a fraud, simply too dishonest to ever admit defeat and that makes you a liar, yes C-T, a liar and a fraud.

    soois

    September 8, 2011 at 11:38

  30. Yet more dodging. No need to pick apart “answers” as obviously flawed as those you’ve given so far. The real inabilities are plain to see.

    [A] thousand word in which to say absolutely bugger-all.” How ironic. The fact that you aren’t able to follow clear English is your defect, not mine. And whose posts are the longest here, especially when dumping screeds of yawn-inducing “comic relief,” hmm?

    You’re not going to answer my questions, are you?

    Con-Tester

    September 8, 2011 at 11:22

  31. It is very obvious who are answering questions and who are dancing around with unimportant issues, like for instance trying unsuccessfully to flaw my answers and to flaw my so-called “new friend” (sorry BT, I did not intend to draw you into this, I merely mentioned you as another person who discovered C-T’s inability to debate an issue), and off-course complety ignoring my questions hoping that no-one will notice. As I’ve said, I am reacting out of pure amusement, having long ago discovered that you have in fact a thousand word in which to say absolutely bugger-all.

    soois

    September 8, 2011 at 10:51

  32. Yes, I know what patient, brilliant, able, gifted and indulgent people you and your new friend think you are. Your last post’s several errors testify to it nicely.

    Funny thing is, you’re still dodging my questions with all sorts of irrelevant ruses in much the same way as your new friend focusses almost exclusively on the packaging my arguments come in rather than their contents, besides misidentifying here and there, as well as himself committing several of the fallacies he thinks diminish my arguments (here, have a steaming hot mug of tu quoque). No, it’s you godiots, and especially those who would deny their status in that regard, who are incapable of conducting a reasonable conversation because godiots desert reason the day they start taking godiot “reasoning” seriously. This is why you have to sidestep the issues I raise instead of meeting them squarely.

    The fact that the first Crushtians sprang up like fungal mould in a particular area at a particular time fails to account for the fact that they didn’t spring up all over the world more or less simultaneously at around the time your god decided it was time to give humanity his/her message of Eternal and Immutable Truth™. Your god failed to whisper in the ears of any Chinese, Inuit, Maasai, etc., leaving the world to play a silly game of Broken Telephone (your own analogy) with his/her alleged crucially important Eternal and Immutable Truth™. Nor does your lightweight fluff even approach any kind of intelligible account of why your god’s alleged message is subject to such a wide range of divergent possible interpretations.

    You just keep inventing new bullshit in an attempt to cover up the fact that you have no answers to my questions. And yes, I’m amused by your pogo stick tactics. They emphasise what you godiots so love doing, namely bouncing around while pretending you know what you’re talking about. Citing instances fails to tackle the principles.

    Con-Tester

    September 8, 2011 at 10:21

  33. Another thing about translation problems is that the Greek written language does not have commas etc., and therefore the meaning of something can change if commas were to be put in the wrong place. A classic example:

    Luke 23:43 (King James) “43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

    Note the comma.

    Translated changing comma: “43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.

    Tha latter translation probably being the acurate one, as we all know that Jesus in fact went into Heaven only 43 days later, and not on that day, thus he told the thief on the cross that he will go to heaven, but not today as is written in the King James Version

    soois

    September 8, 2011 at 09:39

  34. Con-Tester,

    Last time I’ve checked, I’ve concluded, as in fact even Balanced Truths had, that you are uncapable of having a balanced two sided conversation, and henceforth I am only indulging you to amuse myself. Therefore I owe you no answers or explanations, but I still do so, merely as a gesture of patience, and I did in fact answer both questions.

    But, let me spoonfeed it to you. Go read in the Bible, the story of the tower of Babel and you will find the answer as to the different languages. And then, just to keep yourself out of mischief, go and work out for yourself how different languages originated in your evolutionary world. How it happened that through evolution not only were different races “created”, but how it also happened that all of them all over this earth decided on a vocal language as a means of communication.

    On the other question, let’s describe the “telephone” game in more detail, so that even you can understand it. If I whisper a fact into your ear, and you repeat it into the next person’s ear, and he does the same to a third person, and this carries on, by the time the tenth or twentieth person repeats the story, you will be amazed at how some details were either changed, removed or added. Why? Because of the one person feeling certain details are more important than others, and henceforth only repeats what he or she feels important, because not all people are equally good listeners, not all have the same ability to remember detail. I did however stress that the Bible and especially the message of the Bible did not change as significally as some people tend to think. Furthermore, I.ve translated the mentioned piece (Matt 19:14) from the original Greek.

    soois

    September 8, 2011 at 09:24

  35. Malherbe.

    Inderdaad.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 8, 2011 at 06:34

  36. Typically, you evade my questions with made-up baloney rather than address them. You have yet even to attempt explaining why humanity has multiple languages, not just one universal one. “Explained very well in the Bible” and “you will find the more recent translations more accurately taken from the original” are dodges, not answers to the questions asked, and Shakespeare’s English is much the way it was spoken in his own time because he wrote for the common people.

    What shouldn’t be that hard to grasp (but evidently is extremely hard for godiots) is the plain fact that different interpretations and meanings exist for something that allegedly originated from a perfect, all-powerful being. Such looseness and sloppiness strongly suggests a lack of perfection and a shortage of power.

    Now stop your cerebral hopscotch and juvenile fabricating, and address the point. That is, if you can.

    P.S. The only comic relief to be found around here lately is you godiots.

    Con-Tester

    September 7, 2011 at 18:17

  37. Malherbe, “comic relief” = gaan kyk na die vertaling.

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 17:04

  38. Stroois, daar bewys jy nou weer dat julle Christene die grootste liegbekke is. In jou laaste stelling noem jy ” Just some comic relief my friend, albeit very true.” Die feit dat indien ons jou kop oopkap, daar geen brein gaan wees nie, beteken beslis nie dieselfde geld vir die professor nie.

    Malherbe

    September 7, 2011 at 17:02

  39. Just before I log off for today:

    By Marilyn Adamson
    “Just once wouldn’t you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God’s existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, “You just have to believe.” Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.
    But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks…all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.
    When it comes to the possibility of God’s existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, “You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.”2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God’s existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider…
    1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
    Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
    The Earth…its size is perfect. The Earth’s size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
    The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth’s position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
    And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4
    Water…colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You’ll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
    It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
    Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5
    Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
    Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
    Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
    Ninety-seven percent of the Earth’s water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6
    The human brain…simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
    The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.
    The eye…can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages — simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain — the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
    2. Does God exist? The universe had a start – what caused it?
    Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
    Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, “The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion…The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.”9
    Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, “the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade…and the universe was filled with light.”10
    The universe has not always existed. It had a start…what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
    3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
    Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn’t change — on earth or in galaxies far from us.
    How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
    “The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn’t have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence.”11
    Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, “Why nature is mathematical is a mystery…The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.”12
    4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell’s behavior.
    All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It’s made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!
    Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13
    Why is this so amazing? One has to ask….how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person’s body should develop.
    Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.
    5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
    I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don’t believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people…to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.
    I didn’t realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn’t escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God’s existence, my prayer began with, “Ok, you win…” It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
    I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, “I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued.” C.S. Lewis said he remembered, “…night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England.”
    Lewis went on to write a book titled, “Surprised by Joy” as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God’s existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.
    6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
    Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you’ll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you’re looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.
    He said, “I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”14 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, “follow my words and you will find truth.” He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me.”15
    What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can’t do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people…blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects…created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature…walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I’m telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you’re seeing.16
    Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.
    Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, “I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.”17 This is God, in action.
    Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We’re told that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”18
    God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth’s perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.
    If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.
    This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, “Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her].”19 If you want to do this, but aren’t sure how to put it into words, this may help: “Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen.”
    God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, “I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.”20
    So, does God exist? Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way.”

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 16:55

  40. Stroois, please don’t tell me you embrace that ridiculous student/atheist fairytale? Last time I heard this one was in highschool, told by our “gottediens” teacher.

    Malherbe

    September 7, 2011 at 16:50

  41. “Your “Clever Chrustian” (another oxymoron, that) vs. the atheist professor fairytale has been dissected and eviscerated in another thread on the blog. “Seek, and ye shall find.””

    Just some comic relief my friend, albeit very true.

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 16:40

  42. “Why did your god see fit to have people speaking many different languages that — curiously — all evolve over time, when quite obviously it would be infinitely more sensible to endow all of humanity with one single and unchanging language so that his/her message would forever be understood correctly by everyone?” Explained very well in the Bible.

    “Why does your god’s alleged word leave so much elbowroom for ascribing different meanings depending on what you desire?” You sound like some Christians, the ones who would let you believe their church is the only true church. Actually, the meaning does not differ from translation to translation, but unlike mentioned “only true churches” you will find the more recent translations more accurately taken from the original. The higly regarded King James version reminds me of Shakespeare who purposefully wrote old English, difficult to understand and very easy to misinterpret.

    “According to ol’ Holey Babble-brains here, the world spoke Greek and Latin, and now apparently Hebrew too, when s/he wanted to spread his/her Eternal and Immutable Truth™ among humans. Presumably, this also applies to all the then-indigenous peoples of Asia, Australia, Africa and the Americas, as well as assorted islanders, which would explain why no originals of his Holey Babble exist written in, say, old Chinese…” Oh, your poor man, please go and study history and you will find that the old Roman empire during the time of Jesus and thereafter when Christianity started, consisted of Europe, the British Isles, Greece and North Africa. The first Christians were Jewish (Hebrew), Greek and Roman )Latin). Cannot be that difficult to grasp!?

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 16:38

  43. Your “Clever Chrustian” (another oxymoron, that) vs. the atheist professor fairytale has been dissected and eviscerated in another thread on the blog. “Seek, and ye shall find.”

    Con-Tester

    September 7, 2011 at 16:18

  44. What parts of my questions are giving you such enormous difficulties?

    Why did your god see fit to have people speaking many different languages that — curiously — all evolve over time, when quite obviously it would be infinitely more sensible to endow all of humanity with one single and unchanging language so that his/her message would forever be understood correctly by everyone?

    Why does your god’s alleged word leave so much elbowroom for ascribing different meanings depending on what you desire?

    ————————————
    

    Yahweh the moral font. Yeah, right. Read all about it in the first part of the Holey Babble. Try not to trip over all the godiot excuses, though.

    ————————————
    

    According to ol’ Holey Babble-brains here, the world spoke Greek and Latin, and now apparently Hebrew too, when s/he wanted to spread his/her Eternal and Immutable Truth™ among humans. Presumably, this also applies to all the then-indigenous peoples of Asia, Australia, Africa and the Americas, as well as assorted islanders, which would explain why no originals of his Holey Babble exist written in, say, old Chinese…🙄

    Con-Tester

    September 7, 2011 at 16:13

  45. http://www.pagetutor.com/jokebreak/141.html

    This takes a while to read, but it’s well worth it. May we be prepared always to give an answer to the reason for our faith…
    ________________________________________
    “LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. “You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”
    “Yes, sir.”
    “So you believe in God?”
    “Absolutely.”
    “Is God good?”
    “Sure! God’s good.”
    “Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”
    “Yes.”
    “Are you good or evil?”
    “The Bible says I’m evil.”
    The professor grins knowingly. “Ahh! THE BIBLE!” He considers for a moment. “Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?”
    “Yes sir, I would.”
    “So you’re good…!”
    “I wouldn’t say that.”
    “Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could… in fact most of us would if we could… God doesn’t.”
    No answer.
    “He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?” No answer.
    The elderly man is sympathetic. “No, you can’t, can you?” He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. “Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”
    “Er… Yes.”
    “Is Satan good?”
    “No.”
    “Where does Satan come from?”
    The student falters. “From… God…”
    “That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he?” The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. “I think we’re going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen.” He turns back to the Christian. “Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”
    “Yes, sir.”
    “Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? Did God make everything?”
    “Yes.”
    “Who created evil?”
    No answer.
    “Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things – do they exist in this world?”
    The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”
    “Who created them?”
    No answer.
    The professor suddenly shouts at his student. “WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!” The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian’s face. In a still small voice: “God created all evil, didn’t He, son?”
    No answer.
    The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.
    Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues, “How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?”
    The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. “All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn’t it, young man?”
    No answer.
    “Don’t you see it all over the place? Huh?” Pause. “Don’t you?” The professor leans into the student’s face again and whispers,
    “Is God good?”
    No answer..
    “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”
    The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor. I do.”
    The old man shakes his head sadly. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your Jesus?”
    “No, sir. I’ve never seen Him.”
    “Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”
    “No, sir. I have not.”
    “Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus… in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?”
    No answer.
    “Answer me, please.”
    “No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”
    “You’re AFRAID… you haven’t?”
    “No, sir.”
    “Yet you still believe in him?”
    “…yes…”
    “That takes FAITH!” The professor smiles sagely at the underling. “According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?”
    The student doesn’t answer.
    “Sit down, please.”
    The Christian sits…Defeated. Another Christian raises his hand. “Professor, may I address the class?”
    The professor turns and smiles. “Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering.”
    The Christian looks around the room. “Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I’ve got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?”
    “Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”
    “Is there such a thing as cold?”
    “Yes, son, there’s cold too.”
    “No, sir, there isn’t.”
    The professor’s grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Christian continues. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that.
    “There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 – You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”
    Silence.
    A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.
    “Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?”
    “That’s a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn’t darkness? What are you getting at…?”
    “So you say there is such a thing as darkness?”
    “Yes…”
    “You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you…give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?”
    Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. “Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?”
    “Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error….”
    The professor goes toxic. “Flawed…? How dare you…!”
    “Sir, may I explain what I mean?” The class is all ears.
    “Explain… oh, explain…” The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.
    “You are working on the premise of duality,” the Christian explains. “That for example there is life and then here’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it.”
    The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. “Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?”
    “Of course there is, now look…”
    “Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?” The Christian pauses.
    “Isn’t evil the absence of good?”
    The professor’s face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. The Christian continues. “If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil.”
    The professor bridles. “As a philosophical scientist, I don’t vie this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable.”
    “I would have thought that the absence of God’s moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going,” the Christian replies. “Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”
    “If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”
    “Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
    The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.
    “Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?”
    “I’ll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?” the professor hisses.
    “So you don’t accept God’s moral code to do what is righteous?”
    “I believe in what is – that’s science!”
    “Ahh! SCIENCE!” the student’s face spits into a grin. “Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed…”
    “SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?” the professor splutters.
    The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. “To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?”
    The professor wisely keeps silent. The Christian looks around the room.
    “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?”
    The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. “Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain…felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain?” No one appears to have done so.
    The Christian shakes his head sadly.
    “It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor’s brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain.”
    The class is in chaos. The Christian sits…
    Because that is what a chair is for.

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 16:02

  46. “Though expecting to be rather irked by it, I was surprised to find myself almost enjoying (and agreeing) with a lot of what Sam Harris had to say in his TED Talk entitled “Science can Answer Moral Questions.” His thinking regarding the balance that needs to be struck between the Taliban’s “cloth prison” approach to women’s bodies and the over the top exhibitionism of the average corner kiosk seems right on the money to me. I would also agree with him that the statutes of political correctness that prevent us from critiquing these matters do indeed need to be challenged. And though it was not part of his talk, I was pleased to learn that he has been an ardent supporter of the state of Israel and tough critic of its opponents. So far so good.
    What I do not yet understand is why he (or any atheist for that matter) makes so many moral proclamations. The average atheist makes certain basic assumptions about reality: that we all exist as a result of blind and purposeless happenstance, that free will is illusory, that there is no conscious “self” and that there is no objective right or wrong. As Dr. Will Provine has said, “[as an atheist] you give up hope that there is an imminent morality … you can’t hope for there being any free will… [and there is] no ultimate foundation for ethics.”
    Related Article: Morality: Who Needs God?
    If that’s the case, what precisely is Sam Harris doing judging the Taliban or anybody else? The case he tries to make is that morality is somehow scientifically built into reality and when done correctly results in what he calls “human thriving.” But surely the objective listener must recognize that the notion of “thriving” itself is utterly subjective. The Taliban might very well believe that they are the pinnacle of human civilization and there has never been any shortage of cultures whose depravities were considered (by them) to be perfectly wonderful things to do. Are we really arrogant enough to suggest that we’re so different?
    Either way, why exactly does he care? What difference could it possibly make what one random collection of electrons does to another? He harbors some subjective notion that things ought not be done that way? Well tough darts. It boils down to his meaningless assertion vs. their equally meaningless one. Furthermore, if there is no such thing as free will, then what sense does it make to blame anyone for any action whatsoever? “I felt like it” or “I couldn’t help myself” should be considered perfectly reasonable defenses to any “wrong-doing.” In fact, the most sensible and logically consistent outgrowth of the atheist worldview should be permission to get for one’s self whatever one’s heart desires at any moment (assuming that you can get away with it). Why not have that affair? Why not take a few bucks from the Alzheimer victim’s purse — as it can not possibly have any meaning either way. Did not Richard Dawkins teach us that selfishness was built into our very genes?
    To live a “moral” life, the atheist must choose to live a willful illusion as the true nature of the world contains, as Dawkins suggests, “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” It boggles the mind how anyone with this worldview even bothers to get up in the morning only to suffer through another bleak and meaningless day. Freud summed this up well when he said, “the moment a man questions the meaning and value of life he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence.”
    In a 2007 lecture at Sewanee University, Christopher Hitchens gave an oxymoronically entitled talk called “The Moral Necessity of Atheism.” In it, he argued that racism was illogical due to our common “relationship to ground worms and other creatures.” An original case for equality to be sure. In as much as we’re all like earthworms we really ought to treat each other well. Strange. Is not Hitchens an ardent supporter of the tenets of Neo-Darwinism that necessitates the perpetual death struggle within all species at all times? Shouldn’t he in fact believe the precise opposite of what he claims? Survival of the fittest does not suggest social harmony. Furthermore, doesn’t Darwinism suggest that certain groups within a given population will develop beneficial mutations, essentially making them “better” than other groups? It would seem that racism would again be a natural conclusion of this worldview — quite unlike the theistic approach which would suggest that people have intrinsic value due to their creation in the “image of God.” (Hat tip: Moshe Averick, Nonsense of a High Order) And yet, like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens is very often engaged in explaining “morality” to the world. What gives?
    At the end of the day, the reason that I can agree with many of the moral assertions that these atheists make is because they are not truly outgrowths of their purported philosophies, but rather of mine. I would suspect that the great majority of the atheistic understanding of morality comes directly or indirectly from what is commonly referred to as the Judeo-Christian ethic. I have not yet found an atheist who is willing to follow his or her convictions through to their logical conclusions (outside of sociopaths like Jeffrey Dahmer who was at least honest enough to say, “I always believed the theory of evolution as truth that we all just came from the slime … if a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”).
    Through my private conversations with atheists, most of whom I would describe as very good people, I am becoming convinced that they don’t really buy the party line when it comes to ethics. Like it or not, they seem to have an objective sense that certain things are “just wrong” and it’s almost as if those things are built into the fabric of reality. Objective morality requires an absolute standard by which to judge it. The alternative is amorality. As Dr. Joel Marks said, “the long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality…”
    You can’t have it both ways. If one has embraced the worldview that embraces amorality, then it would be logical to admit that one’s personal morality is based on subjective preferences and comforting fiction or to recuse oneself from discussions (and lectures) on the topic.”
    http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Atheism_and_Morality.html

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 15:30

  47. “What is the “original translation” please?” The Greek one I gave you, although there are those who claim that the Greek was originally translated from Hebrew (unproven, and even so, translated directly only once).

    “What language did your god dictate to his scribes in?” Hebrew, for the most part, but He does not speak to me in Hebrew, nor does he speak to an Englishman in Latin. Too difficult for you to grasp?

    “Wouldn’t that mean s/he’s really a Greek god?” I think I did answer this one.

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 15:10

  48. How does that answer any of the questions I raised?

    Con-Tester

    September 7, 2011 at 14:23

  49. Please do not force me to educate you on the Roman history, how it happened that at the time the languages Latin and Greek were used. If I tell you something in Afrikaans, say for instance I give testimony of God in Afrikaans, does that make my God an Afrikaans God? For pete’s sake, you are more intelligent than that?

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 13:50

  50. How does any of what you wrote relate to the point that different translations render different meanings and that that fact is already deeply suspicious? An infallible omni-everything god should have no trouble at all ensuring that his/her word is unambiguous in any language.

    While you’re at it, why did your god bother in the first place to make people who’d end up not being able to understand one another properly, if at all?

    What is the “original translation” please? (Sounds just like an oxymoron, actually.) What language did your god dictate to his scribes in? Ancient Greek? Wouldn’t that mean s/he’s really a Greek god?

    Con-Tester

    September 7, 2011 at 13:22

  51. Apart from a usefull tool like the Internet, I also happen do be in the fortunate position of having a Greek neighbour (actually he and his brother are more like “boertjies” as they have been born and raised here, but their home-language is still Greek) who also owns the local shop along with his brother. We call the Charlie and Gabriel (Gabes), but their real names are, dare I say it, “Greek” to us.

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 12:29

  52. My point exactly, why I like to use the original translation. It is like whispering into someones ear, and see what comes out of number 10’s mouth.

    Seems your characters worked. Nice.

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 12:22

  53. That’s just my point: You can translate it in many different ways and arrive at different shades of meaning, depending on what you want it to say. To any person with minimally functioning critical faculties, that’s highly suspicious in the case of an infallible, omni-everything creator entity’s words…

    Ανδ Γρηηκ λεττερς πριντ φινε. Ιου ιυστ νηηδ τω ταιπε θεμ συιταβλυ.

    Con-Tester

    September 7, 2011 at 11:43

  54. Johannes, jong, ek weet nie van ‘n spesifieke datum nie, maar ja, eendag kom Hy, dalk 21 Oktober, dalk volgende jaar, dalk vanaand, maar ja, Hy kom weer.

    Groete

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 11:06

  55. Guess the Greek characters does not work. Best I can do is This: “o de ihsouV eipen afete ta paidia kai mh kwluete auta elqein proV me twn gar toioutwn estin h basileia twn ouranwn”.

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 11:00

  56. It must be a thrill as it does not happen very often. As for the translation, I guess if you want to stick to the King James version, but:

    Matthew 19:14 New International Version (NIV) 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

    Matthew 19:14 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984) 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

    Matthew 19:14 Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE) 14But Jesus said, `Let the children come to me. Do not try to stop them. The kingdom of heaven belongs to people like them.’

    And my favorite, the original Alexandrian or Greek: “” directly translated into English : “But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

    o de Ihsouv eipen, (5627) Afete (5628) ta paidia kai mh kwluete (5720) auta elqein (5629) prov me, twn gar toioutwn estin (5748) h basileia twn ouranwn.

    http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=mt+19:14&translation=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1

    soois

    September 7, 2011 at 10:57

  57. Julle kan maar rustig agteroor sit en wag vir 21 Oktober 2011 wanneer God finaal alle boosheid gaan vernietig. Dis nie meer sol ank nie , kom ons wag geduldig en met opwagting vir God.

    johannes

    September 7, 2011 at 10:36

  58. And, of course, there’s antecedent “heathen” mythology about which it is very odd to note that other mythologies invariably deny any influence on their own fairytales…

    Con-Tester

    September 7, 2011 at 09:35

  59. Dankie vir die uitklaring GeDaante. Ek is nou minder verward.

    Net een vragie: Op 5/09/2011 skryf jy aan Verifanie “Soois, saam met biljoene ander, glo in God. Maar as hierdie Opperwese bestaan, is Hy, anders as ‘n mens, nie manlik of vroulik nie….” So GeDaante, is ek korrek om hieruit af te lei dat die got waarin Stroois “saam met biljoene ander” glo, ook volgens jou in die klas van Hebreeuse mitologie val en dus (net soos Zeus) nie ‘n “ware” god is nie?

    Malherbe

    September 7, 2011 at 08:24

  60. Malherbe!!!

    Jy sê:

    1. “… my gunsteling is Ra,….”

    Verkeerd. Daar bestaan nie ‘n got genaamd Ra nie. Dit is Egiptiese mitologie.

    2. “… of Zeus, …”

    Verkeerd. Daar bestaan nie ‘n got genaamd Zeus nie. Dit is Griekse mitologie.

    3. “….of nee, Minerva… ”

    Verkeerd. Daar bestaan nie ‘n got genaamd Minerva nie. Dit is Romeinse mitologie.

    4. “….of wag, miskien eerder Aphrodite,…”

    Verkeerd. Daar bestaan nie ‘n got genaamd Aphrodite nie. Dit is Griekse mitologie.

    5. “….of Bacchus…”

    Verkeerd. Daar bestaan nie ‘n got genaamd Bacchus nie. Dit is Romeinse mitologie.

    6. “ai man geDaante, kyk nou hoe verwar jy my al weer.”

    Jy is inderdaad meer verward as wat ek aanvanklik gedink het.

    7. “Wil jy my nie asseblief help kies nie?”

    Nee.

    8. “Vertel my watter got jy aanbid.. ”

    Nie een nie.

    9. “… en verskaf asseblief tog redes.”

    Hoekom?

    10. “Soos jy kan sien sukkel ek met die keuses en dan ook die ou kompleks-issue.”

    Ek vermoed jy sukkel met baie meer dinge as dit. Het jy al Engelse Sout probeer?

    11. “Wat betref die feit dat jou gotte aan die een of ander grootheidswaan gely het toe en die mens na sy beeld geskape het,”

    Ek weet nie hiervan nie. Jy kom my verward voor.

    12. “- Genesis 1:26: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

    Genesis 1:26 is Hebreeuse mitologie. Jy kom my verward voor.

    13. “- Genesis 5:1: This is the written account of Adam’s line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.”

    Genesis 5:1 is Hebreeuse mitologie. Jy kom my verward voor.

    14 “- Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

    Genesis 1:27 is Hebreeuse mitologie. Jy kom my verward voor.

    15. “- 1 Corinthians 11:7: A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.”

    Moenie alles glo wat Paulus geskryf het nie. Dit gaan jou net verwar.

    16. “Ai, hoe minderwaardig voel ekke nou weer.”

    Ek kan dit goed glo.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 6, 2011 at 20:42

  61. It’s always a thrill and a pleasure to correct…

    But that translation of yours seriously sucks.

    Con-Tester

    September 6, 2011 at 18:10

  62. I stand corrected, it should be Matt 19:14.

    Thank you C-T.

    soois

    September 6, 2011 at 17:24

  63. Will the real Matthew 19:4 please stand up!? But whatever, even cherry-picked passages aside, it makes perfect sense that a godiot would feel inspired when s/he reads that “by him there is place for all who are, just as small children are, dependent on their heavenly father’s care.” After all, the term “skydaddy” didn’t come into existence for no reason…

    Con-Tester

    September 6, 2011 at 17:13

  64. Ou verifanie,

    sorry jong, het eintlik net bedoel dat jy nie net kan raas en vloek nie, maar ook ‘n diep ou kan wees.

    Jy gaan weer aan oor babas ensovoorts en maak dan asof die Bybel mense aanhits om kinders te mishandel, maar die waarheid is dat die Bybel inderdaad raad aan albei gee, en juis ouers vermaan om hulle kinders nie te mishandel of moedeloos te maak nie.

    “Kolossense 3:21 praat: Vaders, moenie gedurig by julle kinders fout soek dat hulle moedeloos word nie.”

    “Efesiërs 6:4: En vaders, moenie julle kinders so behandel dat hulle opstandig word nie, maar maak hulle groot met tug en vermaning soos die Here dit wil.” Die tug word met liefde bedoel, soos die HERE dit wil, straf, nie doodslaan nie.

    Jesus se: “Matt 19:4 “Wag! Moenie die kindertjies wegjaag nie. Laat hulle na My toe kom. God se nuwe wêreld is juis vir almal soos hulle bedoel. By Hom is daar plek vir almal wat soos klein kindertjies afhanklik is van hulle hemelse Vader se sorg.” M.a.w, daardie ding van “kinders moet gesien word en nie gehoor word nie” is on-Bybels en verkeerd.

    Groete

    soois

    September 6, 2011 at 16:17

  65. GeDaante, jy is seker nie ernstig oor die opnoem van al die gotte nie. Maar as jy moet weet, my gunsteling is Ra, of Zeus, ….of nee, Minerva….of wag, miskien eerder Aphrodite,….of Bacchus…….ai man geDaante, kyk nou hoe verwar jy my al weer. Wil jy my nie asseblief help kies nie? Vertel my watter got jy aanbid en verskaf asseblief tog redes. Soos jy kan sien sukkel ek met die keuses en dan ook die ou kompleks-issue.

    Wat betref die feit dat jou gotte aan die een of ander grootheidswaan gely het toe en die mens na sy beeld geskape het, hieronder ‘n paar voorbeelde. Ai dat ‘n ateis nou ‘n godiot se navorsing in sy eie Kakpraathandleiding moet doen. Dit skree ten ten heme….eh….Minerva!

    – Genesis 1:26: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
    – Genesis 5:1: This is the written account of Adam’s line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.
    – Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
    – 1 Corinthians 11:7: A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

    Ek laaik veral die laaste een oor die vrou – wonder hoe vroulief Malherbe gaan voel wanneer ek vanaand hierdie juweeltjie aan haar oordra. Maar ek neem aan ek interpreteer weereens die Kakpraathandleiding verkeerd omdat ek nie soos Stroois, ‘n verhouding met die Hoofkakprater het nie. Ai, hoe minderwaardig voel ekke nou weer.

    Malherbe

    September 6, 2011 at 10:16

  66. Ou Sooibrand,
    Aangaande jou stelling dat ek begin “filosofeer” het……..

    Ek steur my glad nie aan enige filosofie op aarde nie. Ek GLO nie in enigiets nie, hetsy dit daai kak-boek is waaarin julle julself so inkruip, met sy gotte, duiwels en tonne kakpraat, of enige IDEE(S) wat enige mens
    kwytraak. Ek WEET wel dat ek ‘n soogdier is, nes jy en almal van ons, en ons is hier agv evolusie.

    Ek lees wel en volg wetenskaplike asook kliniese navorsing, ondervindings en oplettendheid van sekere skrywers soos bv. Dr. Arthur Janov, Frederick Leboyer, oorlede A.S. Neill van Summerhill faam, Jean Liedloff se Continuum Concept en des meer. Hierdie persone skryf en het geskryf oor die toestand
    van die mens, hier op aarde, nie daar in die hemel nie, ook nie oor die “laaste dae” en ander kak nie.
    Dit waaroor hulle skryf, resoneer direk met my, en behoort ook te resoneer met ander, mits hulle
    heeltemal toe is, soos miljoene godiote.

    Ou geDAANte, hoe gaan dit met die bottel Oros? Any new deals? Kry jy dalk nou al twee skape vir
    een bottel? Jy vergeet dat jou ou godioot-maattjie Sooibrand beweer dat OF ou jessussie, OF een van die drie gotte wat een is, hom gereeld besoek en dan chat hulle lekker so oor ‘n koppie boeretroos, of
    is dit Oros?

    Het julle almal geweet dat die grootste fout wat ouers met jong mensies maak, is dat hulle nie vir klein
    babatjies kan toelaat om al hulle pyn uit te huil nie? Die babas word opgetel en geskud, ge-shus en daar word gepraat en gepaai en hulle aandag word afgetrek met allerlei goeters……..Sommige ouers skree sommer of slaan.

    As ‘n baba of jong kind huil, tel haar net op en hou haar in jou arms. Moet nie praat nie, moet nie skud nie.
    As sy wil loskom, laat haar, en tel haar weer op as sy wil. As sy iets wil he en dit dan gooi, moet nie skree
    of slaan nie. Dit kan dalk aanhou vir ‘n uur of wat, en dalk menige kere.

    Dit……is die liggaam se manier om ontslae te raak van geweldige pyn wat veroorsaak word deur
    ‘n toestand in die baarmoeder, of met ‘n pynlike geboorte. Die groot, vet en “kwaai” of woedende tannies en ooms wat jy sien, loop rond met al daardie pyn in hulle. Hulle was gebliksem toe hulle wou huil of
    kwaad word, want daai fokken kak-boek se mos vir ouers dat die kind ‘n sot is en dat sy rug gemaak is
    vir die roede. Die kak-boek se ook dat ‘n kind MOET sy ouers “eer”, maar se niks van hoe die ouers die
    kind se gevoelens moet respekteer nie. That stupid Solomon with his “spare the rod/spoil the child” crap.
    Daar sit hulle vandag in die tronke en le op strate omdat hulle ouers nie totale liefde en warmte kon toon
    nie.

    Verder kan ek net se: Leer om net te kan LUISTER as jou kinders, kleinkinders of selfs ‘n volwassene
    iets op die hart het en dit wil uitpraat. Moet nie advies gee nie! Moet nie praat nie! Laat die kind of persoon sy of haar hart totaal uithuil. Jy sal ‘n ander mens sien daarna. Jong mensie, tieners of volwassenes met ernstige probleme kan gehelp word met ‘n terapie waar daar net toegelaat word om pyn uit te huil.

    Lees gerus oor al hierdie dinge, dan kan die wereld beslis ‘n beter plek word. Moet nie kinders se gevoelens onderduk nie. Laat hulle toe om kwaad te word, of wat ookal. Dit gaan nie oor respek nie.
    Ek het vriende wie se kinders vir hulle se net wat hulle wil, en selfs uitkak. Maar….daardie kinders is die
    liefderikste mense, en so geweldig lief vir hulle ouers, want hulle is vry om hulle emosies te wys.

    verifanie

    September 6, 2011 at 07:59

  67. Malherbe rig ‘n weldeurdagtige, intelligente pos aan my:

    1. “Daan, die “God” waarna jy verwys, is een van vele gotte.”

    Regtig? Maar noem hulle gou op asseblief. Of is jy te verward?

    2. “Verifanie is dus heeltemal korrek in sy verwysing.”

    Maar natuurlik. Ongelowiges is ALTYD reg en gelowiges is ALTYD verkeerd. Dit is mos nie verwarrend nie.

    3. “Maar het jou gotte dan nie die mens na sy beeld geskape nie?”

    Ek is nie bewus van enige gotte wie die mens na sy beeld geskape het nie. Hou op om te probeer om my te verwar.

    4. “Ai, Daan ek lei reeds aan ‘n minderwaardigheidskomples (sic) …”

    Dit verbaas my nie.

    5. “… omdat ek nie jul heilige Kakpraathandleiding verstaan nie.”

    Dis nie my skuld nie.

    6. “Moet my asseblief nie verder verwar nie.”

    Oukei.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 6, 2011 at 05:57

  68. Sooisman!!!! Dagsê.

    Ek sien jy kap dit nog flou hier. Bly om te sien dit gaan nog goed met jou.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 6, 2011 at 05:41

  69. Billy Connolly @ 1 min 36 sec: “You can just make it up as you go along. It’s pish!

    Ramen.

    Con-Tester

    September 5, 2011 at 23:00

  70. Hier is ‘n hartlike lekker-lag video oor godiote en rock-en-roll……..

    Check ook die een oor “Billy Connolly and Christians” langsaan

    verifanie

    September 5, 2011 at 22:14

  71. Hahahahahaha……….

    Here ouens,
    Dankie vir die lekker lag. Ek sal een van die dae dalk weer so ‘n laaang kommentaar pos. Die ou klomp
    godiotiese poese met hulle kak, maak my voel dat ek ‘n eier in my hol kan kook……

    Ou geDAANte, jou beskrywing van vaginas en des meer, is dalk die meeste sin wat jy nog op hierdie blog
    kwytgeraak het. Mooi so! Nou moet jy nog net ‘n slag weer soveel sin praat en vir ons vertel hoe simpel al die godiote, of jesusiote is, of wat de fok – iote daar nog is.

    Wat van ‘n nuwe een? “Soois-Daaniote”?

    verifanie

    September 5, 2011 at 22:03

  72. Ja jong, ooralste net oogklappe in afwering teen snotklappe en poesklappe.

    Con-Tester

    September 5, 2011 at 22:00

  73. Malherbe,

    seker maar swaar om ‘n “one-track mind” te he?! Nogal twee klinkers, asof hy weet wat die woord moet wees. Nog een met oogklappe aan.

    soois

    September 5, 2011 at 20:44

  74. Soois, kan jy asb verduidelik wat die verskil is tussen “poes” en “p..s”? M.a.w. verander die weglaat van twee klinkers die bedoeling van dit wat jy wil oordra? Is jou gotte OK met hierdie stommerike tipe skynheiligheid? Of is jou gotte net te onnosel om te sien dat hulle om die bos gelei word?

    Malherbe

    September 5, 2011 at 13:04

  75. …in stark contrast to certain others.

    Con-Tester

    September 5, 2011 at 11:08

  76. Hallo Daan!

    Nogal verlang na jou ou maat. Ten minste klink ou Verifanie weer soos Verifanie. Vir ‘n tyd lank het die ou begin filosofeer en eintlik nogal intelligent begin klink.

    Malherbe, ek het nie, want ek gebruik nie daardie woord nie. Ek het hom ‘n p..s genoem.

    soois

    September 5, 2011 at 10:26

  77. Soois, jy het poes verkeerd gespel.

    Malherbe

    September 5, 2011 at 09:17

  78. Daan, die “God” waarna jy verwys, is een van vele gotte. Verifanie is dus heeltemal korrek in sy verwysing. Maar het jou gotte dan nie die mens na sy beeld geskape nie? Ai, Daan ek lei reeds aan ‘n minderwaardigheidskomples omdat ek nie jul heilige Kakpraathandleiding verstaan nie. Moet my asseblief nie verder verwar nie.

    Malherbe

    September 5, 2011 at 09:14

  79. Verifanie, Verifanie!!

    Ek bid nou al amper 10 maande lank vir jou en ek sien GEEN resultate nie.

    1. Soois het nie ‘n “got” nie. So dit is sinneloos om na hierdie “got” se poes te verwys. Soois, saam met biljoene ander, glo in God. Maar as hierdie Opperwese bestaan, is Hy, anders as ‘n mens, nie manlik of vroulik nie. Hy het dus geen geslagsdele nie en om na Sy poes te verwys is eweneens sinneloos.

    2. Jesus behoort nie aan Soois nie. So om vir Soois te sê “jou Jesussie” is verskriklik simpel. Wat meer is, Jesus is al meer as 2000 jaar oorlede. So om na sy poes te verwys is absurd. In elk geval, Jesus was ‘n man so hy het nooit ‘n poes gehad nie. Dit lyk my jy weet nie wat is ‘n poes nie. Net vir die rekord, die woord “poes” is ‘n platvloerse term en verwys na die vroulike geslagsdeel deur meer gegoede en beskaafde mense na verwys as ‘n “vagina”.

    3. Daar is ook manlike engele. So om na al die engele se poesse te verwys is belaglik.

    4. Satan bestaan nie. Hy is ‘n mitologiese figuur en om na sy poes te verwys is eweneens absurd. In elk geval, selfs volgens Hebreeuse mitologie, het Satan nie ‘n poes nie. Hy het twee horings en ‘n gepunte stert.

    5. Om vir Soois, of enige iemand anders ‘n “poes” te noem, is VREESLIK kommin. Sulke mense het nie respek vir vrouens nie. Nie eers vir hulle eie ma’s of susters nie.

    Sies Verifanie. Ek begin twyfel in die krag van gebed. Of dalk is my geloof nie sterk genoeg nie.

    Daan Van der Merwe

    September 5, 2011 at 06:23

  80. En jy ou verifanie, die grootste p..s van almal.

    Groete

    soois

    September 4, 2011 at 20:56

  81. Soois,
    Jou got se poes, jou jesussue se poes, jou engeltjies se poese, jou satan se poes, almal en alles in die hemel se poese. Hulle is almal en alles groot fokken POESE…….en jy ook, omdat jy in sulke KAK glo.

    verifanie

    September 3, 2011 at 22:04

  82. Hey, I’m merely following the lessons and cues you, my greatest teacher, have provided me with. But denial from you at this late stage!? Tut-tut, you really should know better. You taught me way too well for that…

    Con-Tester

    September 3, 2011 at 17:40

  83. Finally, your morbidly obsessive fascination with me and the minutiae of my life is revealing and unhealthy. You really should go see a psychiatrist about that. Cyber-stalking is a crime, you know.

    As I thought, well, I rest my case with you, as from here on out you will for the largest part be ignored by me.
    I assure you I don’t think as much of you as you clearly do yourself. I never claimed to know who you are, except for the clues you have left about your own abilities, having mentioned that you are a mathematician and that you are fluent in German.

    I am sorry that I have somehow aroused your paranoia, but seriously sit down, one sun is enough…

    Man! am I glad my avatar is wearing shades.

    Balanced Truths

    September 3, 2011 at 17:31

  84. Ag shame, poor Bawwanced Twoofs. Constantly being beaten on by that nasty fallacy-mongering afeist, Con-Tester, and nobody knows why!

    As for your response, three things. (1) Much as expected, it consists largely of ad hoc and post hoc bogeyman-spotting. (For our casual reader, I’m not sure what the technical term for this particular fallacy is, but I’m sure our correspondent will, if asked, think of one that seems to fit.) (2) At the very least, it confirms one major observation I have made, the one that perhaps lies at the heart of all this gigglesome to-do, namely that you avoid, apparently with pathological fervour, giving any clear statement of your position on any issue under discussion, leaving our casual reader only fog and fluff to work with. On that basis then, it’s really funny that on George’s blog, at least two other contributors besides me had you pegged for a godiot. (For our casual reader, that’s one more instance of argumentum ad populum and ad hominem, though I could be missing a few, not being at our correspondent’s level of fallacy-spotting expertise.) (3) Again with reference to your curiously standpoint-free response, have you looked in a mirror lately regarding your several fingers pointing at me? (For our casual reader, that’s a tu quoque fallacy, a type that somehow our dear correspondent seems to have forgotten about.)

    Finally, your morbidly obsessive fascination with me and the minutiae of my life is revealing and unhealthy. You really should go see a psychiatrist about that. Cyber-stalking is a crime, you know.

    Oh, and in case it’s not clear to our casual reader, my entire response here taken in total is probably a whole string of fallacies which I’m sure our correspondent will only too happily point out.

    Con-Tester

    September 3, 2011 at 16:33

  85. Argumentum verbosium, refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented that

    our casual readers

    are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details.

    Argumentum ad hominem, for “to the man”. You are an arguer who uses ad hominem attacks on the person instead of the argument, you resort to attacking an opponent either through: labelling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks or anger.

    Here goes from where I left off:

    Then, in a move that can only be described as ridiculously asinine, you take your conception of the supernatural…

    The word conception indicates a broad understanding of the supernatural, so this particular use of petitio principii creates the premise to the

    casual reader

    that I have somewhere claimed to have an understanding of the supernatural. You also employ argumentum ad populum as you will attempt to paint me with the theist brush on an atheistic blog.
    Please provide the references where, in my words, I claimed such understanding. Also if, you would be so kind, indicate what ridiculously asinine move I employed.

    as somehow profound or meaningful or fruitful without understanding that (1) science implicitly makes unambiguous statements about it, and (2) whichever way you slice it, the “supernatural” is a scientifically utterly bogus concept.

    A false attribution, a ludic fallacy of the single cause, as science can make no unambiguous statements about the supernatural as it is not measurable or quantifiable, so how can I lack understanding and where did I claim that my supposed understanding of the supernatural was profound or meaningful, again, please provide references.

    Again, this fancy constitutes an anti-scientific subterfuge on your part.

    Contextomy, misrepresenting my position to make it seem more simplistic and extreme, employing argumentum verbosium to confuse the

    casual reader

    into accepting that I have indeed claimed this fancy while at the same time accusing me of ‘proof by intimidation’ tactics in claiming that science has made some unambiguous positive claims regarding the supernatural and that I have some special knowledge in this regard.

    Please provide references in my words and explain how they are un-scientific and try to not confuse the issue.

    Finally, you completely fall off the bus by whingeing about people roping in the methods and findings of science to defend an atheistic outlook

    Quote mining and a blunt lie, I have often expressed my indignation at the atheistic notion of using science as a club to beat theists with and my sincere concern about the knee-jerk reactions that this will inevitably bring on, I have not, however, made any attempts to moan about the erroneous use of science to further the atheistic outlook where it was used so correctly. If, however, you refer to your unscientific attempt of using Craig Venter’s ambitions to somehow constitute the dethroning of God, then you can please provide some counter argument to what I wrote.

    , which, since they fail to support yours adequately, is evidently nothing more than a deceitful attempt at levelling the playing field through disarming the opposition.

    How please does the findings of science fail to support my [non-atheistic or supposedly theistic] outlook? Moreover, please provide references as to where I claimed or employed a similar tactic to support my outlook and while you are at it please provide insight as to this outlook while at the same time not contradicting your claims about my not having made such on outlook clear.

    Again, argumentum ad hominem, for “to the man”. You are an arguer who uses ad hominem attacks on the person instead of the argument, you resort to attacking an opponent either through: labelling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks or anger.

    You are using the very first logical fallacy I mentioned above in conjuction with argumentum ad ignorantiam, reliance on people’s ignorance of the whole argument by focusing on a part (or straw men) and again employing argumentum ad populum to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weaknesses rather than facts and reasons.

    Well, good luck to you in trying to get that right.

    Using the principles of a composition fallacy where the conclusion of your argument depends on an erroneous characteristic inferred from selective parts of my writing coupled with a confirmation bias focusing on selective “evidence” that supports what

    our casual reader

    would like to believe about me, simply for not being an astute atheist.

    Now there’s little doubt in my mind that you’ve got all of what passes for “reasons” and “arguments” laid out in a neat row inside your head but you won’t be putting them up for scrutiny anytime soon, probably for fear that these may be shown to be deficient, or perhaps already have been.

    Argumentum verbosium mixed with argumentum ad hominem

    And that’s your shabby variety of “truth” and “balance” in a nutshell as far as I have been able to infer from your frequently inscrutable blather.

    Argumentum verbosium mixed with argumentum ad hominem
    and inferred quote mining by which you build virtual straw men to which you can refer to again and again. You are confusing the issue and poisoning the well, a special case of argumentum ad hominem.
    Please provide references to at least a fair number of my frequent blathering. I would be satisfied with five examples, where my blathering was not expressing anything clearly and thus hard to interpret.

    Your kind is intellectually even more dishonest than any raucous dunderhead religiot afflicted with a terminal case of rubber duck syndrome, such as this moron soois over there.

    Argumentum ad hominem, please clearly provide reference as to what gives you occasion to define me as “my type” [religiots], from my words, if you please.

    Shall we do this a bit more thoroughly? Yes please, let’s do that.
    Re: Comment posted August 31, 2011 at 22:44
    I don’t “refuse to allow” that many people totally believe that they have had certain experiences. My allegedly disallowing it is something you just manufactured from thin air.

    Clearly not, since what I said was “You refuse to allow the possibility that any individual could have experienced an authentic sequence of events that could have shaped their warranted belief in a personal God, you refuse to admit that such a God does not have to conform to any of the perceived natural laws and that your are not the authority on logic and reason outside of this reference frame. You cannot judge the morality of any God with the extremely limited tools you have in your arsenal of weapons against spirituality, your beef with religion is a personal matter and the fact that you skip over so many more worthy causes, some of which you are an active member of, to pursue religion makes you a hypocrite, equal to any of the run of the mill theists. Your entire cause is subversive.”

    What I do disallow is that reports of those perceptions are reliable and/or objective, and that they are anywhere near sufficient to establish convincingly those most remarkable of claims the narrator thinks they establish, as numerous as they may be. I’d sooner believe that Elvis is cruising around Brakpan in a brushed titanium UFO because a throng of purple-rinse tannies adamantly swears to the truth of that story.

    And you may well be entirely correct in the first place but your second sentence just proves “your beef with religion is a personal matter and the fact that you skip over so many more worthy causes, some of which you are an active member of, to pursue religion makes you a hypocrite, equal to any of the run of the mill theists. Your entire cause is subversive.”

    Goodness knows, I’ve experienced things that I’m at a complete loss to account for, but I’m honest enough to acknowledge that they could very easily be misperceptions on my part.

    Your feigned honesty here has nothing to do with it, you most probably do not “acknowledge that they could very easily be misperceptions”, you demand that they are.

    It is a well-known scientific and easily demonstrated fact that the human brain is eminently fallible in several significant ways that are directly relevant to belief, knowledge and experience. Consequently, it is far less likely that mystical claims rest on an actual underlying reality (for which there is zero evidence) than on a common brain pathology peculiar to humans working in concert with the brain’s being haphazardly error prone in the appropriate ways (for which there is plenty of good evidence).

    I never claimed it was likely, but good use of argumentum ad ignorantiam, reliance on people’s ignorance of the whole argument, by focusing on a straw man and employing argumentum ad populum to sway opinions to popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons and using the principles of a composition fallacy where the conclusion of your argument depends on an erroneous characteristic inferred from selective parts of my writing coupled with a confirmation bias focusing on selective “evidence” that supports what

    our casual reader

    would like to believe about me, simply for not being an astute atheist, like you.

    This same imperfection of the human brain is something all you tawdry mystical nuts are forever happy to attribute to everyone else but never to yourselves.

    Argumentum ad hominem and argumentum verbosium with a confirmation bias focusing on selective “evidence” that supports what

    our casual reader

    would like to believe about me, simply for not being an astute atheist.

    As far as you’re concerned, it’s patently impossible that you could be mistaken. It’s what lies at the heart of your arrogant intellectual dishonesty.

    Argumentum ad hominem and argumentum verbosium with a confirmation bias focusing on selective “evidence” that supports what

    our casual reader

    would like to believe about me, simply for not being an astute atheist.

    Pray tell by what otherworldly pastiche of confabulation and warped logic does your view of what constitutes a worthy or an unworthy cause make me a hypocrite for opposing religion!?

    A loaded question that requires my answer to confirm an “otherworldly pastiche of confabulation and warped logic “. I have also answered this question in detail already.
    on ‘Die kerk is “verwonderd” July 17 2011, at 12:14.

    I s’pose it must be the same sort of brilliant insight that leads to doe-eyed god-belief in the first place. Or maybe you’re merely projecting. You’ve read this before because I’ve said it countless times: I oppose religion because it’s by far the most common and widespread superstition that deliberately and quite consciously sets about fucking up the critical faculties of innocently trusting children by inculcating fear, and because it hobbles people, usually for life, which from your perspective makes opposing it an unworthy cause, eh?

    Creating the straw man notion that I claim opposing religion is wrong, I never said it was an unworthy cause , just that you skip over more worthy causes, some of which you are an active part, so you are using the principles of a composition fallacy where the conclusion of your argument depends on an erroneous characteristic inferred from selective parts of my writing coupled with a confirmation bias focusing on selective “evidence” that supports what

    our casual reader

    would like to believe about me, simply for not being an astute atheist.

    Indoctrinating and encouraging easy and habitual belief in extremely improbable, evidence-free and effectively unintelligible things based on comfort-inducing whims is just dandy with you, eh?

    No not dandy, but a placebo, which will be present in one way or another whether you have religion or not and is, in fact, far less damaging than political corruption, or organised crime institutions like banks and insurance companies who employ smart statisticians to legalised robbery.

    It’s cool by you that whenever an argument is put forward that militates against a specific view, the holders of that view repeatedly just dodge the point with facile glibness and/or opportune invention instead of doing the properly courteous thing in either engaging with it properly or admitting the weakness, eh?

    A non sequitur, half truth and loaded question embodies the assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. You make a statement and end it with a question mark.

    It’s presumably also okay with you that religiots can repeatedly and consistently treat any and all such arguments with contempt rather than the respect they merit, eh?

    A non sequitur, half truth and loaded question embodies the assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. You make a statement and end it with a question mark.

    But it’s not okay when I respond calling you a stupid, ignorant and mendacious cunt when you have cast the first bucketload of stones because I don’t buy into this pretentiously daft turn-the-other-cheek grubbery, eh?

    Please provide the excerpt that qualifies as a bucketload of stones that warranted the use of argumentum verbosium coupled with argumentum ad hominem to enforce the implied non sequitur, half truth and loaded question which embodies the assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement that I am indeed what you say and have done what you accuse me of.

    Simply stunning grasp of the issues you’ve got there, I must say.

    If you say so it must be so, argumentum ad verecundiam coupled with argumentum ad hominem.

    No, what’s far more plausible is that it’s another unravelling strand of your pretence to intellectual honesty that’s showing.

    If you say so it must be so, argumentum ad verecundiam coupled with argumentum ad hominem.

    Just like every other godiot posting here, you secretly realise the legitimacy and validity of the criticisms of religion and of god-belief that are being voiced here, and they leave you uncomfortable because they threaten your fact-free, emotionally held notions.

    No I openly realise and have in fact pointed out many of the criticisms of religion, but you are just using almost all of the above fallacies to make your point.

    Why else would you drunkenly rally in “defence” of what you yourself have explicitly recognised as a matter of faith alone (August 6, 2011 at 08:46) unless you conceitedly think that the same thing doesn’t apply to your own supernatural beliefs!?

    argumentum ad consequentiam an argument that concludes a premise based on whether it leads to desirable or undesirable consequences coupled with a lie and using the principles of a composition fallacy where the conclusion of your argument depends on an erroneous characteristic inferred from selective parts of my writing coupled with a confirmation bias focusing on selective “evidence” that supports what

    our casual reader

    would like to believe about me, simply for not being an astute atheist.

    And just like every other godiot posting here, you’re not honest enough simply to admit that you want me and every other critic just to shut up so that you can carry on unhindered trumpeting your hooey all over the place.

    Please provide the references where I trumpeted and why what I trumpeted is hooey, preferably without the above argumentum ad hominem which by now is implied in almost everything you say. Another example of argumentum ad ignorantiam in relying on people’s ignorance of the whole argument by focusing on a part (or straw man) and employing argumentum ad populum to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons.

    Hypocrisy? For sure!

    Agreed.

    All of which is neatly borne out by the apparent earnestness of this arrantly execrable and presumptuous demand for special favours. That’s your side talking, not mine.

    Reductio ad Hitlerum. Please provide any smidgeon of evidence where I would be affiliated with this moron, or are you just using another fallacious lie to push me into the fundamental theist camp, using another non sequitur.
    You are employing a reification fallacy to strengthen your straw man and not even having the decency to hack it to pieces yourself but leaving it to argumentum verbosium and Argumentum ad ignorantiam to support the principles of a composition fallacy where the conclusion of your argument depends on an erroneous characteristic that you inferred along with a confirmation bias that supports what

    our casual reader

    would like to believe about me, simply for not being an astute atheist.

    Right, so basically your argument is that I can’t say anything that you don’t like about your “god” because s/he’s far beyond my or anyone else’s limited comprehension and s/he transcends the strictures of narrow earthbound logic and human morality.

    It has nothing to do with like, Using plurium interrogationum, rhetoric questions that presupposes my viewpoints relying on argumentum verbosium to, at this point, effectively poisoning the well.

    In short, we’re back to them ol’ “mysterious ways” again — that is, apart from urgently raising the question of which special and verifiable facts you command and aren’t sharing that give you such a privileged view of the supernatural status quo.

    Please provide references as to where I claimed to have verifiable facts that I refuse to share that gives me occasion to advocate a privileged view and, in particular, please indicate examples of this privileged view itself. I don’t recall ever claiming any knowledge of the supernatural, quite the opposite.

    (Not that I expect that you will deign to answer such a trifling question straightforwardly, if at all.)

    A trifling question hey, I will answer that when you have indicated what knowledge of the supernatural status I have supposedly advocated.

    Now back to those “mysterious ways.” Yay, how thrillingly original.

    Please provide references for this particular return to “mysterious ways” you refer to here. Or is this just more argumentum verbosium?

    But you haven’t “balanced” this very carefully and that’s why your “truth” comes out all lopsided and naïve.

    Kindly provide the references for the truths I proposed and please provide explanations as to why they are lopsided.

    If “mysterious ways” is an argument that undermines my contentions, they undermine yours just as much because suddenly we don’t even know what we’re talking about anymore when we say “god”.

    No, not suddenly, but always, we never have and we most probably never will, you can argue the drawbacks of religion but neither of us can define “god” other than assuming certain observable principles could apply and philosophising about them.

    We no longer have any objective yardstick with which to make any comparisons or to settle any disputes.

    Please explain how this is my doing?

    Whatever I say about “god” is true (and false), and whatever you say about “god” is equally true (and equally false). Literally anything goes with these “mysterious ways” and “god” can be whatever you want it to be, including nothing at all. By seriously raising this “god’s” ineffability as an argument, you’ve bodily heaved epistemology and consequent reasoning out of the window for the sake of “winning” your point. Well done, kudos to you.

    This is all based on your straw man fallacy in as much as you are holding that I claimed somewhere that these probabilities are now somehow equal. Please provide the reference where I stated my point of view in support of the mysterious ways and please clearly indicate how I nullified consequent reasoning, In my words.

    Now you need to live with the consequences of that move, which aren’t pretty and which no doubt you are too dishonest to recognise, let alone accept. Henceforth, no more kudos for you.

    Straw men, upon straw men, upon straw men, requiring me to defend myself against the principles of the composition fallacy where the conclusion of your argument depends on an erroneous characteristic inferred from selective parts of my writing coupled with a confirmation bias focusing on selective “evidence” that supports what

    our casual reader

    would like to believe about me, simply for not being an astute atheist.

    Your argument means that anyone can say whatever they please about your “god” and you not only have no plausible argument against them whatsoever, you cannot in principle even have any counterargument.

    My “god” now, hey? Please provide reference where I once use the words my and god together in an attempt to provide any, even an inferred definition. Straw man ad nauseum, plurium interrogationum, rhetoric questions that presupposes my viewpoints coupled with Ignoratio elenchi where your irrelevant conclusions are missing the point, providing arguments that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question, which is the straw man argument, based on the previous straw man argument seeded with the various argumentum ad hominems and employing argumentum ad ignorantiam to dump it all in a large cauldron of argumentum verbosium.

    If “mysterious ways” supports your view, they support every view, and you have no option but to admit them all because you have no sound basis on which to reject them. All you have left to argue with are wishful intuitions.

    Is this n hypothetical point or did I use mysterious ways to support my views somewhere? Please provide references.

    That’s the inevitable upshot of your “Gee, ‘god’ is just sooo incomprehensible!” argument, no matter how much you try to squirm past it. That’s the unavoidable conclusion this “mysterious ways” con trick of yours forces you into drawing.

    Please provide references to:
    1) my arguments
    2) my squirming

    Not very persuasive or productive, huh? The difference is that I don’t accept your bankrupt argument for the aforesaid reasons, and you, by proposing it, have forfeited any claims to being rational.

    Please provide references to:
    1) my bankrupt argument, in my words please.
    2) where I required your acceptance, and more importantly,
    3) where I proposed it.

    We may as well argue forever about the appearance of the colour yellow internally on each of our mind screens but until you realise that there’s an objective standard by which to judge that we’re both looking at something physical that is yellow, all your experiences with hatchlings and yolks and daffodils count for precisely nothing and nobody other than you yourself — and in toto, they do so wholly subjectively at that.

    Ignoratio elenchi where your irrelevant conclusions are missing the point, providing arguments that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

    You are indeed that enemy of logic, reason and evidence, whether you like it or not.

    Ignoratio elenchi where your irrelevant conclusions are missing the point, providing arguments that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

    If you want to discard logic and reason like that, by all means do so. It’s fine, really. It’s your prerogative.

    Ignoratio elenchi where your irrelevant conclusions are missing the point, providing arguments that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

    But at least be consequent about it and muster the intellectual balls to acknowledge that on that premiss, no assertion about “god” can be any more or any less compelling than any other.

    Please provide references as to where I held ‘that premise’ and where I held that assertions about “god” could be made in a compelling fashion.

    In short, your own argument pulls the rug out from under you and you have nothing further to say that can’t immediately be refuted using exactly the same justification you use. That’s the cost of your gambit. That’s the corner you’ve painted yourself into just for the sake of appearing to have a valid argument.

    References please as to my argument and my gambit, in my words.

    Your “god’s mysterious ways” are in no objective way demonstrably superior to my or anyone else’s “god’s mysterious ways,” and my “god’s mysterious ways” encompass just about everything you believe about him/her but with the added bonus of not involving any directed effort on his/her part by virtue of manifestly not existing. Being infinitely awesome while not existing must surely be the epitome, the pinnacle of “mysterious ways,” no?

    Perhaps, at this stage it depends entirely on what particular group of straw men you are referring to.

    I trust that the above adequately illustrates the pathetic absurdity of your position which has you wanting to have your cake and eating it too while it melts away right before you.

    Now that is a laugh, no really, in particular the trust you place in the notion that anyone can make honest sense of this fallacious argument you seem to be having with your own imagination coupled with the inferences you have made about me all based on the argumentum verbosium and argumentum ad ignorantiam principles to support composition fallacies where the conclusions of your arguments depend on erroneous characteristics that you inferred along with confirmation biases that support what

    our casual reader

    would like to believe about me, simply for tolerating soois, for being tolerant of your pet peeve, theists.

    So instead of making up such self-defeating baloney, just admit that you simply don’t know and leave it at that.

    I often have. I usually say “we just don’t know”.

    Doing so would make for a much more respectable and balanced truth. But hey, I’ll understand perfectly if that’s not really your thing…

    Of course you would, you would be positively delighted.

    You’re an obvious little fraud with delusions of specialness. Short of some show of nous from you, from here on in you can count on little else beside me treating youn with the same kind of ridiculue I level at all the other religiot/godiot retards.

    There you go, rounding it off with one last compelling argumentum ad hominem,

    What is a youn, and how do you ridiculue, and do you always have to accompany it with spit freckled frothiness, or is it equally effective without?

    Balanced Truths

    September 3, 2011 at 14:36

  86. You should follow your own flavou… I mean advice, my juicy little airborne lamb chop with god sauce.

    Con-Tester

    September 2, 2011 at 21:50

  87. Malherbe,

    ek gaan waaragtig nie weer van voor af vir jou ook die geskiedenis van moraliteit met ‘n teelepeltjie voer nie. Gaan lees liewer die vorige plasings op die blog, of doen ‘n bietjie navorsing oor oa jou eie voorvaders se geskiedenis.

    soois

    September 2, 2011 at 20:50

  88. I didn’t think I had left much room for doubt, byt that would be a “yes” to all of “[wading] through [my] spit freckled frothy in order to dissect it point by point and if so should [you] address all the fallacies also, and if so should [you] try to infer your intent and address that also…?”

    In answer to your trailing question, because I want to know exactly what errors and fallacies you think I’m committing and why, as well as what you think my intent is. That way, I at least get a good chuckle. Also, since you have demonstrated it amply, you don’t know what “a few decent honest points for discussion” means.

    That’s why.

    Con-Tester

    September 2, 2011 at 20:11

  89. Ok so you want me to wade through your spit freckled frothy in order to dissect it point by point, but should I address all the fallacies also, and if so should I try to infer your intent and address that also?

    Why do you not want to boil it down to a few decent honest points for discussion?

    Balanced Truths

    September 2, 2011 at 20:05

  90. Yes. The first.

    Con-Tester

    September 2, 2011 at 19:45

  91. Note to the casual reader:

    Hi there😉

    Note to the Con-Tester:
    Do you want me to wade through your spit freckled frothy in order to dissect it point by point and if so should I address all the fallacies also, and if so should I try to infer your intent and address that also, or do you want to boil it down to a few decent honest points for discussion?

    Balanced Truths

    September 2, 2011 at 19:23

  92. Well, I am consoled by the fact that being blinkered and unwise by your no doubt gold-standard yardstick most certainly beats being demonstrably a terminally blind nanowit with the cognitive acuity of my alleged early ancestors. But yes, my little flying lamb chop with god sauce, whatever your zombie skybuddy Jeeeeebussssst! tells you to say, it must be okay. Can’t not be true, now can it?

    Con-Tester

    September 2, 2011 at 09:53

  93. Soois, jy skryf o.a. “They did the Christian thing though.” Sooisie, dis stellings soos hierdie wat vir my oorgenoeg bewys is van die gevaar van godsdiens indoktrinasie. Watter reg het jy om moraliteit vir jou godsdiens te eis? So nou doen die ateiste “die Christian” thing? Jou arrogansie ken werklik geen perke nie. Die feit dat dit geen duit verskil gaan maak indien ek gedeeltes uit jou lawwe heilige boekie gaan aanhaal wat sal bewys dat jou god alles behalwe morele konsekwentheid toepas, maak ‘n debat met jou sinloos. Ek kan aanhaal uit jou heilige Twakpraatboek dat jou god verkragting, moord, slawerny, pludery, en….en… nie net goedpraat nie, maar ook beveel. Jou voorspelbare antwoord: Malherbe verstaan nie die Kakpraatboek nie. Hy interpreteer verkeerd. Hy het nie ‘n verhouding met my gotte nie. Maar ek, Soois, ek eis moraliteit op vir die christendom. Arrogansie sonder teuels.

    Malherbe

    September 2, 2011 at 09:39

  94. Amoeba, bacteria, virus? Sorry, but I lost track. Just call it god.

    soois

    September 2, 2011 at 09:12

  95. Never had an affair with you, and never will have. Just anticipated you having some comment, in fact, the precise comment as above to whatever I write.

    As I’ve mentioned before, you are like a horse with blinkers on, and are utterly predictable, like all people who are restricted to 2 or 3 responses to everything happening in this world. That is why I pointed out that you are well educated, but when it comes to wisdom, I’m afraid your creator, the amoeba, let you down.

    Greetings

    soois

    September 2, 2011 at 09:11

  96. Oh, so now you want to start an affair with me again, eh? Too funny that you have this immense problem sticking to your promises. Very, um, crushtian of you.

    As for helping others during a time of need, you crushtian dimwits have merely arrogated that natural instinct most humans have and called it your own. So carry on spouting your hilarious piffle, please.

    And bully for you, your “god” saving you from ruin and all. Yeah, right…

    Con-Tester

    September 2, 2011 at 08:05

  97. Con-Tester,
    anticipating your response, I will answer the question before it is asked, or reply to the response from you, before you respond.

    You see, a fire started 30km West of town after a bakkie capsized and burst into flames. Our on farm is not far from there. A wind of 45 to 50km/h forced the fire eastward and all our farmers raced there to combat it. Good old fashioned Christian farmers. Would an atheist help? Off-course he would!

    We soon realised that this fire was getting out of control, but without having to ask, farmers from other districts came over to help. OFM radio called for people to help. People from FNB came over to distribute cold drinks amongst the helpers. All Christians? Probably not, but I would like to believe so. They did the Christian thing though.

    We chased the fire which jumped the N1 route and eventually won 24km East of town, just short of my other two farms, where I live.

    How did God help? Well, if these two farms burn down as well, I would have been ruined. The guys with the most losses are also the guys that can afford it the most, not that I wish any losses onto anyone, but somehow we all will get through this. Other farmers offered grazing to the ones who’se grazing was lost. Good Christian people, some maybe not, but that is how God works. He does not swing a magic wand, no, He uses people to help people.

    We as a town seemed to get devided, everyone fending for himself, but we were forced to stand together. I believe that God was fierce, but I also believe that He healed a whole district.

    God bless.

    soois

    September 2, 2011 at 07:02

  98. Malherbe,

    as jou kind vir sy denkbeeldige maatjie raad vra en hy hom aanse om ;n spesifieke deel in ‘n spesifieke boek te lees, en dan die antwoord daarin kry wat sy vraag of dilemma beantwoord, dan is sy denkbeeldige maatjie en my God een en dieselfde.

    Balanced Truths,

    was nog altyd oop vir die wetenskap. Om my vorige loopbaan te kon doen was die wetenskap, of liewer bruikbare wetenskap baie belangrik. En nee, ek dink ook nie C-T is ‘n idioot in die sin van verstandelike vermoee nie, maar tog is daar ‘n verskil tussen wysheid en kennis, en wys is hy beslis nie. Godsdiens wil ek in niemand se keel afdruk nie, maar as Christen is dit my wens om ander ook te help red as ek kan. Dreigemente van hel en pyn, dit is Johannes Coetzee se afdeling, nie myne nie, maar julle mag dalk die nuus kyk vandag en sien hoedat ‘n kwart van ons distrik gister afgebrand het. Een van my plase het afgebrand, maar God se genade het gesorg, na my en my vrou se gebede, dat die ander twee nie gebrand het nie. Ek het weer diie mag van vuur, wind en water aanskou, ja, wetenskaplike elemente, en toe die Mag van God. Party ouens het al hulle grond verloor. Ek persoonlik het van 1 uur gister middag tot 1 uur vanoggend nog brand gespuit.

    Groetedr

    soois

    September 2, 2011 at 06:28

  99. Note to the casual reader: Observe how this impostor of a self-appointed “truth balancer”/“balanced truther” supports at least one of my central contentions about him. After twice laying it out carefully at substantial length, the sum total of this fraud’s response is a stream of blunt, uncorroborated denial, offhand rejection and a one-sentence dismissal that doesn’t even begin to deal with any of the several points raised. I’ll happily admit to having it all totally wrong about this conman if only he’d bother to say clearly what his position actually is, which is something this buffoon of a straw-oil salesman has never done.

    Not once, ever.

    No doubt because of morbid trickster’s pigeonholeophobia or something. Being constantly non-committal is cowardly, not commendable.

    Instead, he berates me with wads of cotton wool and marshmallows that are supposed to pass as meaningful. I can only go on what I am presented with, and I am presented with what smells like a bullshit-covered scam, something this swindler obviously chooses to disregard.

    Oh, and he knows my real identity plus some details of assorted parts of my life. That knowledge miraculously empowers him to drop the odd hint here and there in lieu of any actual arguments as if his wannabe intimidatory pop psychology 101 tactics somehow (1) would be effective, and (2) absolved him of the tons of bullshit he’s been peddling here and elsewhere.

    Signed,

    
    

    😆😆😆 An Embittered Extremist.😆😆😆

    P.S. I take it, BT, that this means you will no longer want to be my lover. Sad.
    E.E.

    Con-Tester

    September 2, 2011 at 00:24

  100. You can write it off as “not so very good opinions” and “logical fallacies” and “just funny” and “speechless” and “stupidity” and “hypocrisy” and “contradictions” and “Poppycock bollocks” and “Pffft” and “nonsense” all you like, see? But I notice that writing it off thus is just about all you can do, and it maybe hasn’t occurred to you that my views don’t magically spring to life in a vacuum all by themselves.

    “Straw men” indeed. That from the master confabulator.

    By all means investigate and research every possible angle. I positively encourage that. But don’t try and bullshit me that you have any knowledge of or respect for science when you repeatedly imply that we must conduct ourselves as if what you’d prefer to be true must be so.

    “Straw men” indeed. Again from the master confabulator.

    Con-Tester

    September 1, 2011 at 21:59

  101. Con-Tester, you may build and hack your straw men to pieces all by yourself.

    Balanced Truths

    September 1, 2011 at 21:46

  102. Soois, ek is bly as wat ek gesê het iets vir jou beteken, dit maak my bly as die wetenskap vir almal oop is om regtig iets nuuts te leer. Die wetenskap is die enigste proses wat ons het om identifiseerbare waarheid te bepaal, dit beteken dat dit die waarheid vir jou en vir my is en dat dit oor en oor beproef kan word en steeds die waarheid sal bly, en as dit nie so is nie dan word dit verander tot dit weer die waarheid is. Jou geloof in God is joune, nie myne nie en niemand anders sin nie, jy is geregtig op gemeenskap met die gelowiges en hulle ook, maar jy kan nie jou geloof of jou persoonlike definisie van God op enige wetenskaplike manier uitdruk of verdedig nie.

    Con-Tester is geen idioot nie, hy is soos meeste van die ateïste op die soort werf n ekstremistiese militant en soos meeste ekstremistiese militante is hy verbitterd, maar onder geen omstandighede is hy n idioot nie.

    Ek is bly as God, wat jou definisie ook al mag wees, met jou resoneer, ek stel voor dat jy nie jou siening in ander se kele afdruk nie, almal is baie meer beïndruk deur gelowiges wat duidelik uit hulle voorbeelde en gemoedere iets spesiaals het sonder om ooit n dogmatiese woord van hulle te hoor, as met die wat gewapen met een of ander boek onder die arm rond loop en ander probeer bang maak met stories van helle.

    Balanced Truths

    September 1, 2011 at 21:18

  103. Shall we do this a bit more thoroughly? Yes please, let’s do that.

    Re: Comment posted August 31, 2011 at 22:44

    I don’t “refuse to allow” that many people totally believe that they have had certain experiences. My allegedly disallowing it is something you just manufactured from thin air. What I do disallow is that reports of those perceptions are reliable and/or objective, and that they are anywhere near sufficient to establish convincingly those most remarkable of claims the narrator thinks they establish, as numerous as they may be. I’d sooner believe that Elvis is cruising around Brakpan in a brushed titanium UFO because a throng of purple-rinse tannies adamantly swears to the truth of that story. Goodness knows, I’ve experienced things that I’m at a complete loss to account for, but I’m honest enough to acknowledge that they could very easily be misperceptions on my part. It is a well-known scientific and easily demonstrated fact that the human brain is eminently fallible in several significant ways that are directly relevant to belief, knowledge and experience. Consequently, it is far less likely that mystical claims rest on an actual underlying reality (for which there is zero evidence) than on a common brain pathology peculiar to humans working in concert with the brain’s being haphazardly error prone in the appropriate ways (for which there is plenty of good evidence). This same imperfection of the human brain is something all you tawdry mystical nuts are forever happy to attribute to everyone else but never to yourselves. As far as you’re concerned, it’s patently impossible that you could be mistaken. It’s what lies at the heart of your arrogant intellectual dishonesty.

    ———————————————
    

    Pray tell by what otherworldly pastiche of confabulation and warped logic does your view of what constitutes a worthy or an unworthy cause make me a hypocrite for opposing religion!? I s’pose it must be the same sort of brilliant insight that leads to doe-eyed god-belief in the first place. Or maybe you’re merely projecting. You’ve read this before because I’ve said it countless times: I oppose religion because it’s by far the most common and widespread superstition that deliberately and quite consciously sets about fucking up the critical faculties of innocently trusting children by inculcating fear, and because it hobbles people, usually for life, which from your perspective makes opposing it an unworthy cause, eh? Indoctrinating and encouraging easy and habitual belief in extremely improbable, evidence-free and effectively unintelligible things based on comfort-inducing whims is just dandy with you, eh? It’s cool by you that whenever an argument is put forward that militates against a specific view, the holders of that view repeatedly just dodge the point with facile glibness and/or opportune invention instead of doing the properly courteous thing in either engaging with it properly or admitting the weakness, eh? It’s presumably also okay with you that religiots can repeatedly and consistently treat any and all such arguments with contempt rather than the respect they merit, eh? But it’s not okay when I respond calling you a stupid, ignorant and mendacious cunt when you have cast the first bucketload of stones because I don’t buy into this pretentiously daft turn-the-other-cheek grubbery, eh?

    Simply stunning grasp of the issues you’ve got there, I must say.

    No, what’s far more plausible is that it’s another unravelling strand of your pretence to intellectual honesty that’s showing. Just like every other godiot posting here, you secretly realise the legitimacy and validity of the criticisms of religion and of god-belief that are being voiced here, and they leave you uncomfortable because they threaten your fact-free, emotionally held notions. Why else would you drunkenly rally in “defence” of what you yourself have explicitly recognised as a matter of faith alone (August 6, 2011 at 08:46) unless you conceitedly think that the same thing doesn’t apply to your own supernatural beliefs!? And just like every other godiot posting here, you’re not honest enough simply to admit that you want me and every other critic just to shut up so that you can carry on unhindered trumpeting your hooey all over the place.

    Hypocrisy? For sure!

    All of which is neatly borne out by the apparent earnestness of this arrantly execrable and presumptuous demand for special favours. That’s your side talking, not mine.

    ———————————————
    

    Right, so basically your argument is that I can’t say anything that you don’t like about your “god” because s/he’s far beyond my or anyone else’s limited comprehension and s/he transcends the strictures of narrow earthbound logic and human morality. In short, we’re back to them ol’ “mysterious ways” again — that is, apart from urgently raising the question of which special and verifiable facts you command and aren’t sharing that give you such a privileged view of the supernatural status quo. (Not that I expect that you will deign to answer such a trifling question straightforwardly, if at all.)

    Now back to those “mysterious ways.” Yay, how thrillingly original.

    But you haven’t “balanced” this very carefully and that’s why your “truth” comes out all lopsided and naïve.

    If “mysterious ways” is an argument that undermines my contentions, they undermine yours just as much because suddenly we don’t even know what we’re talking about anymore when we say “god”. We no longer have any objective yardstick with which to make any comparisons or to settle any disputes. Whatever I say about “god” is true (and false), and whatever you say about “god” is equally true (and equally false). Literally anything goes with these “mysterious ways” and “god” can be whatever you want it to be, including nothing at all. By seriously raising this “god’s” ineffability as an argument, you’ve bodily heaved epistemology and consequent reasoning out of the window for the sake of “winning” your point. Well done, kudos to you.

    Now you need to live with the consequences of that move, which aren’t pretty and which no doubt you are too dishonest to recognise, let alone accept. Henceforth, no more kudos for you.

    Your argument means that anyone can say whatever they please about your “god” and you not only have no plausible argument against them whatsoever, you cannot in principle even have any counterargument. If “mysterious ways” supports your view, they support every view, and you have no option but to admit them all because you have no sound basis on which to reject them. All you have left to argue with are wishful intuitions. That’s the inevitable upshot of your “Gee, ‘god’ is just sooo incomprehensible!” argument, no matter how much you try to squirm past it. That’s the unavoidable conclusion this “mysterious ways” con trick of yours forces you into drawing. Not very persuasive or productive, huh? The difference is that I don’t accept your bankrupt argument for the aforesaid reasons, and you, by proposing it, have forfeited any claims to being rational. We may as well argue forever about the appearance of the colour yellow internally on each of our mind screens but until you realise that there’s an objective standard by which to judge that we’re both looking at something physical that is yellow, all your experiences with hatchlings and yolks and daffodils count for precisely nothing and nobody other than you yourself — and in toto, they do so wholly subjectively at that. You are indeed that enemy of logic, reason and evidence, whether you like it or not.

    If you want to discard logic and reason like that, by all means do so. It’s fine, really. It’s your prerogative. But at least be consequent about it and muster the intellectual balls to acknowledge that on that premiss, no assertion about “god” can be any more or any less compelling than any other. In short, your own argument pulls the rug out from under you and you have nothing further to say that can’t immediately be refuted using exactly the same justification you use. That’s the cost of your gambit. That’s the corner you’ve painted yourself into just for the sake of appearing to have a valid argument. Your “god’s mysterious ways” are in no objective way demonstrably superior to my or anyone else’s “god’s mysterious ways,” and my “god’s mysterious ways” encompass just about everything you believe about him/her but with the added bonus of not involving any directed effort on his/her part by virtue of manifestly not existing. Being infinitely awesome while not existing must surely be the epitome, the pinnacle of “mysterious ways,” no?

    I trust that the above adequately illustrates the pathetic absurdity of your position which has you wanting to have your cake and eating it too while it melts away right before you.

    So instead of making up such self-defeating baloney, just admit that you simply don’t know and leave it at that. Doing so would make for a much more respectable and balanced truth. But hey, I’ll understand perfectly if that’s not really your thing…

    You’re an obvious little fraud with delusions of specialness. Short of some show of nous from you, from here on in you can count on little else beside me treating youn with the same kind of ridiculue I level at all the other religiot/godiot retards.

    Con-Tester

    September 1, 2011 at 21:13

  104. Con-Tester
    August 31, 2011 at 23:01

    Addendum to comment posted August 31, 2011 at 22:32: Besides which, I notice that you simply rejected out of hand what I wrote on some trumped-up grounds without bothering to think about out why I wrote it. If nothing else, over the past few years you should have learned by now that Con-Tester doesn’t simply throw out arbitrary empty statements. There’s invariably a brace of reasons behind what I write. Is that something else you’re conveniently ignoring? Or does it not matter to you because you already know that it’s certainly wrong?

    No, yes, yes, no, no

    Wow, what a spittle-flecked frothy you have rendered! Allow me to reciprocate, albeit with considerably less spittle, flecking and froth, an absence more than adequately compensated for by evidentiary weight:

    Another one of your not so very good opinions.

    As hard as you try to do so, you can’t hide the fact that you’re a closet godiot.

    I honestly don’t care for your incessant use of logical fallacies to win arguments, I bet you were a super member of the debating society and kudos for you, if we are going to have any hope of having any form of conversation that does not regress into a mud slinging contest then you will refrain from using this tactic on me, that is if you have the capacity at all, something I seriously doubt.

    Maybe you buy into the self-contradiction of the Kalam cosmological argument or something similar. Maybe it’s one or other flavour of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Maybe it’s some variant of the ontological argument.

    No, ad infinitum, but that’s probably just funny to me…

    Maybe it’s this personal experience you keep harping on about that it’s simply impossible for you to be mistaken about. I don’t know because you have yet to put your cards on the table.

    Wow, I am speechless, this level of stupidity is very unlike you. They should rename one of the fallacies to the ‘you keep harping on about that’ fallacy. Unless you practice what you preach you just remonstrate that you too are a hypocrite

    Nor does it much concern me unless you care to present some novel argument(s). That is, if you can muster the courage to say what you believe together with the trivial ability of stating it intelligibly, which history strongly suggests is something that far exceeds your reach.

    I am going to ignore these contradictions, it really is unlike you. Belief, to believe as opposed to knowing, novel principle that, lets assume you were in the debating team in der Schule, now you get to play the role of the theist, with whatever beliefs you like, now let us see if you can say what you believe together with the trivial ability of stating it intelligibly.

    Meanwhile, you pontificate from on high about “balance” and “truth,” fraudulently roping in science wherever it suits you — fraudulently because you’re not true to its disciplines and practices.

    Poppycock bollocks, that is.

    You seem to accept the evidence-free and unproven (and indeed unprovable) god-hypothesis, contrary to the demands of science.

    It is more like hypotheses, theories needing investigation, many tentative explanations for phenomena, used as bases for further investigation. There is, from a scientific point of view, not much to do but observe.

    As near as anyone can tell, to you, the extreme improbability of some all-powerful supernatural entity existing translates into a minuscule probability that it is true, which prevents one from ruling it out completely, and that is sufficient for you to take a huge leap and entertain it as very likely, again totally against the rigours of science.

    Pffft

    Then, in a move that can only be described as ridiculously asinine, you take your conception of the supernatural as somehow profound or meaningful or fruitful without understanding that (1) science implicitly makes unambiguous statements about it, and (2) whichever way you slice it, the “supernatural” is a scientifically utterly bogus concept. Again, this fancy constitutes an anti-scientific subterfuge on your part. Finally, you completely fall off the bus by whingeing about people roping in the methods and findings of science to defend an atheistic outlook, which, since they fail to support yours adequately, is evidently nothing more than a deceitful attempt at levelling the playing field through disarming the opposition. Well, good luck to you in trying to get that right.
    Now there’s little doubt in my mind that you’ve got all of what passes for “reasons” and “arguments” laid out in a neat row inside your head but you won’t be putting them up for scrutiny anytime soon, probably for fear that these may be shown to be deficient, or perhaps already have been.
    And that’s your shabby variety of “truth” and “balance” in a nutshell as far as I have been able to infer from your frequently inscrutable blather. Your kind is intellectually even more dishonest than any raucous dunderhead religiot afflicted with a terminal case of rubber duck syndrome, such as this moron soois</b over there.

    I don’t have the energy for this shit, if you want to boil it down to a modicum of honesty then perhaps I will answer, otherwise there is no point in this nonsense.

    Balanced Truths

    September 1, 2011 at 20:54

  105. Soois, jy noem dat “…Hy reeds bewys het dat Hy bestaan en my gemaak het, terwyl die wetenskap evolusie nog aan my moet bewys.”

    Ek het begrip daarvoor dat die wetenskap dit nie kon regkry om evolusie aan jou te bewys nie, want ek dink eerlikwaar nie jy besit oor die WIL om die wetenskap se verduideliking te snap nie. Lees gerus Dawkins se “Greatest show on earth” of Coyne se “Why evolution is true”. Dis nou indien jy die wilskrag en moed het.

    Waarvoor ek egter geen begrip het nie, is hoe op deeske aarde jy as “bewys” van jou got ‘n sg verhouding met jou got kan aanvoer (as ek jou reg verstaan). My jongste praat daagliks met ‘n denkbeeldige maatjie by name Agrab. Vir hom is die maatjie ‘n werklikheid wat saam met hom in die kar klim, eet en skooltoe gaan. In sy kop bestaan die Agrab werklik. Hy het ‘n verhouding met Agrab wat net so “werklik” is soos jou verhouding met jou got. Die enigste verskil tussen jou en my laaitie is dat hy ‘n kind is. Die verskil tussen Agrab en jou got? Zero.

    Malherbe

    September 1, 2011 at 16:14

  106. I discredit it as total nonsense because it patently is total nonsense, you moron. In the literal meaning of “total nonsense,” i.e. “non-sense,” you moron. Just like your claim is total nonsense that any thinking atheist would argue that evolution disproves your “god’s” existence, you moron. And don’t bother concerning yourself about any of your total nonsense ever being too late for me, you moron. As for who the moron here is, that would self-evidently be you, you moron.

    Con-Tester

    September 1, 2011 at 12:08

  107. Balanced Truths,

    dankie, jou skrywe maak sekere dinge duidelik en is iets om aan te herkou. My probleem met evolusie was en is juis omdat ongelowiges dit as bewys neem teen die bestaan van God, terwyl my siening was en is, dat indien evolusie wel verantwoordelik was vir die ontstaan van die mensdom, moes God dit (evolusie) as instrument of metode gebruik het vir Sy skepping. Nou sal jy vra, maar hoekom ek so vasklou aan ‘n God vir die skepping. Wel, ek kan dit nie bewys nie, en die idioot C-T maak dit af as nonsens, maar ek het ‘n persoonlike verhouding met Hom. Daar gebeur daagliks dinge wat ek net aan Hom kan toeskryf, en hoe meer ek Hom nader met my probleme, hoe meer antwword Hy my en help Hy my.

    Jy sien dus, vir my het Hy reeds bewys dat Hy bestaan en my gemaak het, terwyl die wetenskap evolusie nog aan my moet bewys. Wie gaan ek dus glo en vertrou? Die Een wat Hom reeds bewys het aan my.

    Con-Tester. Wie is die moroon? Seer-sekerlik nie ek nie, maar wanneer jy dit agter kom, is ek bevrees, gaan dit te laat wees.

    soois

    September 1, 2011 at 11:37

  108. Addendum to comment posted August 31, 2011 at 22:32: Besides which, I notice that you simply rejected out of hand what I wrote on some trumped-up grounds without bothering to think about out why I wrote it. If nothing else, over the past few years you should have learned by now that Con-Tester doesn’t simply throw out arbitrary empty statements. There’s invariably a brace of reasons behind what I write. Is that something else you’re conveniently ignoring? Or does it not matter to you because you already know that it’s certainly wrong?

    
    

    Wow, what a spittle-flecked frothy you have rendered! Allow me to reciprocate, albeit with considerably less spittle, flecking and froth, an absence more than adequately compensated for by evidentiary weight:

    As hard as you try to do so, you can’t hide the fact that you’re a closet godiot. Maybe you buy into the self-contradiction of the Kalam cosmological argument or something similar. Maybe it’s one or other flavour of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Maybe it’s some variant of the ontological argument. Maybe it’s this personal experience you keep harping on about that it’s simply impossible for you to be mistaken about. I don’t know because you have yet to put your cards on the table. Nor does it much concern me unless you care to present some novel argument(s). That is, if you can muster the courage to say what you believe together with the trivial ability of stating it intelligibly, which history strongly suggests is something that far exceeds your reach.

    Meanwhile, you pontificate from on high about “balance” and “truth,” fraudulently roping in science wherever it suits you — fraudulently because you’re not true to its disciplines and practices. You seem to accept the evidence-free and unproven (and indeed unprovable) god-hypothesis, contrary to the demands of science. As near as anyone can tell, to you, the extreme improbability of some all-powerful supernatural entity existing translates into a minuscule probability that it is true, which prevents one from ruling it out completely, and that is sufficient for you to take a huge leap and entertain it as very likely, again totally against the rigours of science.

    Then, in a move that can only be described as ridiculously asinine, you take your conception of the supernatural as somehow profound or meaningful or fruitful without understanding that (1) science implicitly makes unambiguous statements about it, and (2) whichever way you slice it, the “supernatural” is a scientifically utterly bogus concept. Again, this fancy constitutes an anti-scientific subterfuge on your part. Finally, you completely fall off the bus by whingeing about people roping in the methods and findings of science to defend an atheistic outlook, which, since they fail to support yours adequately, is evidently nothing more than a deceitful attempt at levelling the playing field through disarming the opposition. Well, good luck to you in trying to get that right.

    Now there’s little doubt in my mind that you’ve got all of what passes for “reasons” and “arguments” laid out in a neat row inside your head but you won’t be putting them up for scrutiny anytime soon, probably for fear that these may be shown to be deficient, or perhaps already have been.

    And that’s your shabby variety of “truth” and “balance” in a nutshell as far as I have been able to infer from your frequently inscrutable blather. Your kind is intellectually even more dishonest than any raucous dunderhead religiot afflicted with a terminal case of rubber duck syndrome, such as this moron soois</b over there.

    Con-Tester

    August 31, 2011 at 23:01

  109. You refuse to allow the possibility that any individual could have experienced an authentic sequence of events that could have shaped their warranted belief in a personal God, you refuse to admit that such a God does not have to conform to any of the perceived natural laws and that your are not the authority on logic and reason outside of this reference frame. You cannot judge the morality of any God with the extremely limited tools you have in your arsenal of weapons against spirituality, your beef with religion is a personal matter and the fact that you skip over so many more worthy causes, some of which you are an active member of, to pursue religion makes you a hypocrite, equal to any of the run of the mill theists. Your entire cause is subversive.

    Balanced Truths

    August 31, 2011 at 22:44

  110. If intolerance for deceit and bullshit qualifies as those “theistic attributes [I] claim to abhor” then you are entirely welcome to paint me guilty. I’ll wear that crown proudly.

    And you’re only half right about “those who do not oppose spiritualism … must be blabbering idiots all the same.” When they come forward with these unsustainable notions behind a flimsy shield of pretensions and try to dress them up by hijacking science and torturing reason, then they are in fact dishonest blabbering idiots.

    Con-Tester

    August 31, 2011 at 22:32

  111. Ok, I’ll bite:

    Your current correspondent is just as much an enemy of fact, logic and reason as you are. He’s just more subversive about it and hides it much better, that’s all.

    Not entirely true, I am not an enemy of fact, logic or reason. It is just the irritating notion, to the Con-Testers of the world, that, in your rigorous scientific view of reality, those who do not oppose spiritualism with the same level of astute atheism as you must be blabbering idiots all the same. You display many of the theistic attributes you claim to abhor.

    Balanced Truths

    August 31, 2011 at 22:16

  112. Soois, jy moet leer om onderskeid te maak tussen die wetenskaplike teorie van abiogenese en evolusie. Daar is geredelike bewyse dat die nodige chemiese elemente, bestanddele, lank terug in die Aarde se geskiedenis wel beskikbaar was en dat die kondisies wat toe geheers het die spontane vervaardiging van aminosure tot gevolg gehad het. Laboratorium toetse het dit al getoon deur dat die regte elektriese ontladings soortgelyk aan weerlig in n sop saamgestel met die basiese chemiese komponente, wat lank terug beskikbaar was, daar binne n kort bestek van tyd die spontane vorming van molekules waargeneem is.

    Terwyl in Evolusie, en spesifiek die aanname dat ons n gemeenskaplike voorouer met die ape deel n ander onderwerp is. DNA ooreenkomste bevestig dat die Sjimpansee en die Bonobo as ons naaste lewende familie beskou kan word, tog toon fyner studies van hulle geneties masjinerie dat ons nie die anatomiese struktuur van die laaste gemeenskaplike voorouer by die ape sal vind nie. Tot onlangs was fossiele te jonk of te onvolledig om werklik bewyse te kon lewer maar Ardipithecus ramidus verander die prentjie. Die afwesigheid van sekere hand, voet, bekken, rugwerwel, en ledemaat dele en verhoudings wat gespesialiseerd is vir klim en kneukel-loop tesame met tand-emalje diktes beteken dat ons bekende aap families hierdie eienskappe onafhanklik van mekaar bekom het. Hulle het parallel ontwikkel. Dit toon ook dat daar n oorweldigende groot kans is dat die klinkklare bewyse vir ons gemeenskaplike begin punt binnekort gevind sal word.

    Balanced Truths

    August 31, 2011 at 22:11

  113. Oh, so you’re not going to have an argument with me because I’m a liar and an idiot, eh? And yet you do always end up in an argument with me. Funny that, n’est-ce pas?

    
    
    
    

    Once more for the inattentive numbskulls here: It’s very, very simple. This is an open forum. If you don’t want me poking fun at you, then don’t talk such hilariously ignorant kak

    
    
    
    

    😆😆😆 As for “well informed and knowledgeable,” you wouldn’t recognise those properties if a bunch of polymaths threw the Library of Congress at you, you corny dimwit. Your current correspondent is just as much an enemy of fact, logic and reason as you are. He’s just more subversive about it and hides it much better, that’s all.😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    August 30, 2011 at 08:16

  114. C-T,

    anyone with half a brain knows that you are in fact the idiot, and worse, the real liar, but I am not even going to get into an argument with you, especially since you are poking your nose into a discussion between me and another person (one I do consider well informed and knowledgeable, even though we do not agree on all things) as usual.

    soois

    August 30, 2011 at 06:36

  115. Sing with me: “How swe-e-e-e-e-e-e-t…

    … to be an idiot.

    Jesus Christ, this oke’s lies just keep getting worse, not better as you’d expect given all the practice he’s had.

    Con-Tester

    August 29, 2011 at 21:08

  116. BT,
    at no point as far as I know has evolution been any kind of threat to Christianity or intelligent design. On the contrary, it is very easy to argue evolution as the means of intelligent design, argueing that God used evolution as the tool or tools and means for Creation. Therefore, my objection or pessimistic view as to evolution has nothing to do with religion, and evolution is therefore no proof against Christianity, nor is Christianity a proof against evolution, it is my own, maybe uninformed view as to the beginning of life.

    soois

    August 29, 2011 at 20:38

  117. Soois, at some point, when you have enough evidence, it becomes proof enough. Every puzzle piece found confirms the theory. Every new piece that leads to more pieces of the puzzle fits together to confirm what Darwin had begun to piece together so long ago. At some time or the other you have to accept that.
    It is not impossible that our reality is an elaborate hoax, it is, however, improbable.
    Just because it has become a bone of contention does not mean that these truths need to be seen as a threat to your belief in God, it just means that no preacher-man can spin you a story, count his money and paint you saved. It also means no one has to get nailed to trees anymore, but I wouldn’t hold my breath on that count.

    Blanced Truths

    August 29, 2011 at 20:25

  118. BT,

    Nothing new here my friend… “With Molecular biology we can visualise and compare the DNA of all the great apes and humans and see how it slowly evolved from a common point, it is evidence, clear to anyone who understands the language of DNA.”…

    If you go back to my posts, you will see me saying more or less the same, but I also included Chromosomes. Scientists believe that all primates have a common ancestor, referring specifically to the bones etc found thus far, but they also concluded that if these bones belong either to human or ape ancestry, not both, it is more likely from the ancestry of the great apes. So I repeat, although your scientists are apparently excempt from the burden of proof, that the common ancestry is a “likely” theory, not proven fact.

    soois

    August 29, 2011 at 15:42

  119. soois, I doubt you really have a problem with your perceived lack of proof or evidence for Evolution, I think you have a problem with the principles of abiogenesis and that you are evolved from a primate.

    We don’t really use the word proof in science, it is rather a term properly used in mathematics. Science has data or observations that are or are not consistent with theories and hypothesis like evolution. It is incorrect to talk about ape to human evolution, but there is enough data and evidence for a common ancestor that was neither ape nor human. Our last common ancestor was likely a primate, neither ape nor hominid.

    With Molecular biology we can visualise and compare the DNA of all the great apes and humans and see how it slowly evolved from a common point, it is evidence, clear to anyone who understands the language of DNA.
    The Chimpanzee’s DNA is 99% identical with human DNA. We share exact DNA damage like the broken VitaminC gene, the ErV virus and its insertion sites in our genomes show that we share common viral insertion sites.

    Molecular biology has shown aspects of human evolution

    The Great Divides: Ardipithecus ramidus Reveals the Postcrania of Our Last Common Ancestors with African Apes

    Rapid metabolic evolution in human prefrontal cortex

    A Burst of Segmental Duplications in the African Great Ape Ancestor

    Reconstructing phylogenies and phenotypes: a molecular view of human evolution

    Immunological comparisons indicates that African apes and humans were closely related and, indeed, shared a common ancestor as recently as 5 million years ago. Although initially dismissed, this finding has proven robust and numerous lines of molecular evidence now firmly place the human-ape divergence at 4–8 Ma. Resolving the trichotomy among humans, chimpanzees and gorillas took a few more decades. Despite the readily apparent physical similarities shared by African apes to the exclusion of modern humans (body hair, knuckle-walking, thin tooth enamel), the molecular support for a human–chimpanzee clade is now overwhelming.

    Blanced Truths

    August 23, 2011 at 21:59

  120. 😀😀😀 Oh me, oh my, now Con-Tester equals Verifanie. What paranoid fancies will this numbskull convince himself of next, I wonder?😀😀😀

    Con-Tester

    August 22, 2011 at 15:14

  121. Yes, you really do miss rather a lot — far too much, as a matter of fact.

    It’s readily dismissible as a fable for the simple and amply sufficient reason that there’s no plausible reason or evidence to support it. You keep missing that smack-in-the-face point.

    Just as you keep missing what it means for something to be a “scientific theory” or how science operates to accumulate knowledge (REAL knowledge, not the fake stuff you’re selling). Why aren’t you calling General Relativity “just a theory,” hmm? Because it doesn’t threaten your delusions of specialness, that’s why. Still we use it to calculate backwards and forwards in time what happens in and to the universe. And it’s “just a theory,” just like evolution. So why are you challenging evolution so vigorously, hmm? Because you’re too fuckin’ lazy to go and find out the facts before attacking something you have an autistic three-year-old’s understanding of, and too fuckin’ thick to see how intensely laughable your sense of self-importance is when you simply sweep aside the learned opinions of tens, even hundreds of thousands of relevant experts who work in many related scientific disciplines. You keep missing that part, too.

    As for demonstrating it, just one example: A recent experiment, reported on in the prestigious journal Nature, went on for about twenty years and observed a major dietary shift in E. coli bacteria, specifically an entirely unprecedented ability to metabolise citrate. Cultures were saved every 500 generations, and so the experiment is (1) well-documented, and (2) repeatable. For the total dimwits among us, such a major shift is akin to humans suddenly being able to feed themselves adequately by eating just sand. More for the total dimwits among us, such a major shift opens up whole new vistas for these organisms to develop and adapt to entirely different environments, niches they could not previously occupy. But hey, that’s not proof, you’ll say. Not in itself, maybe, but taken with a myriad other observations, it forms a cohesive picture. That’s another thing you keep missing.

    So you had better explain exactly and in some detail what sort of evidence would satisfy you, something else you keep missing. Do you want somebody to show a crocoduck or hippophant? If that’s what you want, you’re missing vastly more than anyone has hitherto had any reason to suppose.

    If you really were interested, you’d dig up such information for yourself, but you’re not really interested because you already know it’s all wrong anyway, and therefore you won’t go looking. Instead, you’ll just repeat the same tired and oft-discredited crap that cretinists and IDiots keep punting.

    But don’t stop now, please, I beg you! You were going along so very splendidly in showing how sane and well-founded religious belief truly is. These revealing exhibitions are just what we need, and so we also need you to carry on doing the sterling job that you’ve been doing so far.

    Or is Mickey Mouse a bit hard to follow and keeping you occupied, maybe? Hey, that’d be really cool! Or are you weighing up the pros and cons of buying that tower in Paris, perhaps?

    Con-Tester

    August 22, 2011 at 15:09

  122. On the “hate” topic, for someone not hating me you are sounding more and more like that Verifanie character, with your outbursts of bad language. Come to think of it, Verifanie lately sounded like a well educated person, while you are slipping. Verifanie becoming Con-Tester? Con-Tester becoming Verifanie? I’m starting to wonder about this!?

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 14:46

  123. Missed this one: “My “opinions” are backed by demonstrable evidence. Yours are not.”

    It can only demonstrated using scientific principles, but still not replicated, thus remaining theory. If that is the measures used, I can do the same using the Bible, combined with known and recorded history, thus also demonstrable.

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 14:14

  124. Fables, you have just made a statement, now you have to prove that It is a fable.

    See, I just corrected my grammar. Paid attention when you rapped my fingers for bad spelling.

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 14:09

  125. “Also, it’s not up to me to disprove your opinions; it’s up to you to prove them. There’s no such thing as a “burden of disproof” on anyone who doubts your stupid claims” Same goes for you my friend, same goes for you.

    “No, I’d much rather entertain the high likelihood of something for which there is considerable and solid evidence than believe in speculative…” Like I said, unproven, high likelihood, same diffs. “Speculative”? Hardly.

    “The former approach is entirely reasonable and intellectually honest, in contrast to the latter which amounts to selling and buying into ridiculous fables…” Honest to sell a “highly likely” unproven theory? Guess I have no idea of the meaning of that word. Fables, you just made a statement, now you have to prove that it is fables. Nothing to disprove now.

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 14:07

  126. Oh, and I don’t hate you. How can anyone hate a feeble joke?

    Con-Tester

    August 22, 2011 at 12:43

  127. My “opinions” are backed by demonstrable evidence. Yours are not. That’s the difference. Also, it’s not up to me to disprove your opinions; it’s up to you to prove them. There’s no such thing as a “burden of disproof” on anyone who doubts your stupid claims. There’s a very good reason for that which clearly escapes you. You have the burden of proof but keep dodging it and insisting that I must disprove you, something that is hardly required of me. Nevertheless, I have given sound logical grounds that point directly at the fundamental incoherence of what you believe, but you simply sidestep it with fabrication and evasion. What an impish little clown you are!

    Then, once again, you go on to do it wrong. Deliberately distorting the atheist/rationalist position. Tut, tut, you naughty, naughty boy! No, I’d much rather entertain the high likelihood of something for which there is considerable and solid evidence than believe in speculative and self-contradictory nonsense for which there is absolutely no evidence or reason whatsoever. The former approach is entirely reasonable and intellectually honest, in contrast to the latter which amounts to selling and buying into ridiculous fables as Eternal and Immutable Truth™.

    But you godiots are manifestly incapable of understanding the vast chasm that divides the two. If you were, you’d not be so comprehensively obtuse and cocksure about your chumpish bullshit.

    Has Mickey Mouse grabbed you yet? How about that tower in Paris, you interested?

    Con-Tester

    August 22, 2011 at 12:38

  128. I guess, looking at your reaction to my “teachings”, that you are in fact not interested to know more, and I’ll have to “flunk” you, and not bother with any further “classes”.

    In the end my conclusion is, that we are simply two individuals with different opinions, myself knowing that God does exist, but apparently unable to prove it to you, and it saddens me because of what I know, and you, believing that He does not exist, unable to prove that He does not exist, and hating me for not being a follower of your beliefs.

    I have read many forums where the atheist implies that Christians hate them, the atheists, but in all of them it is the atheis who attacks tha theist and give the impression of hatred for the believer.

    Maybe Nathan should open a new topic of discussion. This one is getting boring.

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 12:12

  129. You have only your own stupid and dishonest approach to thank for the mud-slinging, you poor, suffering, innocent, abused man. This kak approach of yours where you simply disregard and/or distort what is put before you is where the mud-slinging actually begins. You did that, not me. If you’re not going to consider any arguments earnestly then you deserve to be ridiculed and laughed at because you’re here under false pretences.

    How you getting on with Mickey Mouse. Still struggling to find the True Meaning? That figures.

    Con-Tester

    August 22, 2011 at 12:10

  130. Evidence of the “in-between” still are undiscovered..”

    
    

    😆😆😆 Your pitiful attention span is showing, as are your levels of education and comprehension. No more of that brain-rotting Ray Comfort for you, see? 😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    August 22, 2011 at 11:58

  131. From the same site:

    Booth: “Micro evolution is given as evidence. If it were true, the fossil record would show micro evolution all the way back to the supposedly one-cell organism that everything evolved from.
    They only have imagination and wishful thinking. The fossil record does not blend together by small steps (transitions). So Darwinian evolution did not occur. They cannot prove something that never happen.”

    Malcolm D (an atheist): “Yet apparently you can believe in creationism with even less proof. Name one “foolish assumption.” Name one “wild speculation.”
    The theory of evolution is not comprehensive or complete… but it is the best scientific explanation of the origin of life available that does not involve magic or the supernatural.”

    You see, the typical atheist thinking, “I will rather believe in inconclusive “evidence” than the possibility of the “supernatural””.

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 11:55

  132. Stephen: “I am so fed up of atheists repeating the same ****-and-bull by saying that macro evolution is a scientific fact and yet never give a shred of proof. Does anybody else feel frustrated with this? All I want is a tiny bit of proof that macro evolution is true and that the origin of life happened without a creator. Just a shred of proof will mke me happy. But no, instead I get a pile of pig slop theories and foolish assumptions–athests, do you not realise that foolish assumptions and wild speculation is not scientific evidence? You repeat over and over that macro evolution is proven. Ok, I hear you, provide a shred of proof. Don’t throw your hands in the air and say, “Millions and billions of years” Give me some proof!

    Ok atheists, please, lets be honest. If you tell me to read a science book all I get is more unproven theories and foolish assumptions of how it all happened. I can read another science book that will come up with something else, but again, zero evidence or proof. You go to a museum and you see a load of fossils, but then you study history and you discover that there have been tons of fossils frauds. And these fossils do not even prove that they are transitional. All we have is the word of scientists who can make them fit into their imaginary evolutionary chart. All I want is some proof. Just a little bit. Not speculation or foolish assumptions, I want proof. Not a lot. Just a tiny bit will do.”

    Joseph: “Aww now…. You’re asking for proof!!! That’s asking too much of them! It really would be easier to ask them to rise and fly by flapping their arms… it just ain’t gonna happen🙂

    Good luck getting any strait answers. I’ve been asking for months now… no proof yet, just mud slinging.

    You can lead an atheist to the truth but ya can’t make em’ drink. May I say that I do admire your trying though🙂

    Be Blessed! Stay Strong!:

    http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110121155513AANagRo

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 11:51

  133. You are. Plainly and obviously. Can’t see the wood for the trees. Nor give any kind of plausible account of what you’re so desperately pushing.

    Or are you maybe saying that you’ve now changed your mind about any of those “Yes” answers you gave earlier, hmm?

    My tower-in-Paris offer is still available. Are you getting into Mickey Mouse yet?

    Con-Tester

    August 22, 2011 at 11:49

  134. Coming from an atheist: http://carm.org/atheist-says-he-knows-there-no-god

    “Matt: Or the understanding must be reevaluated…. ‘Facts’ have been found to be wrong before.

    Atheist: Facts are not Truths. They are reasonable assumptions. I will get a dictionary definition for that one…”

    Interesting…

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 11:48

  135. “Do you really think I haven’t heard all this horseshit you’re piling up here before, that I haven’t demolished it multiple times, or that you’re teaching me anything new!?” I wonder who is delusional??

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 11:32

  136. “…blatantly self-contradictory alphabet soup you’re spewing…”

    I did mention that I was quoting someone else and that I in fact learnt from it. Obviously you have not, and never will, I suppose. Got the old blinkers on as usual, standing behind the door, accusing me of not being open to opinion or willing to be corrected?

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 11:31

  137. Balanced Truths,

    to get back onto your answer, link included, on my question pertaining evolution, or more precisely, macro-evolution, the question remains. If your answer is “no”, I will respect it, but as a matter of opinion that I cannot agree with. Macro evolution is still a theory, very clever theory, but still not proven. To draw up for instance “The Consensus Phylogenetic Tree of All Life” was quite ingenious, albeit with at least three (3) “hypothetical common ancestors” and does not conclusively prove it to be correct. Evidence of the “in-between” still are undiscovered.

    Nonetheless, thank you for your reply and link.

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 11:25

  138. Do you really think I haven’t heard all this horseshit you’re piling up here before, that I haven’t demolished it multiple times, or that you’re teaching me anything new!? Wow, what a delusional fuckin’ hoot you are!

    The only novelty to your “answer” is that it demonstrates how pathetically, desperately lame your excuses are becoming. “God is omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, but he’s not, he’s better than that…” Can you even smell the blatantly self-contradictory alphabet soup you’re spewing!? Clearly not.

    Nor does it address the point which still stands and which you just refuse to get, as simple as it is, eh? Your “god” made everything. That means s/he made the world and Lucifer. There is “evil”/”sin” in the world which you attribute to Lucifer. Since your “god” made Lucifer and knew in advance and in perfect detail how things were going to happen, your “god” directly and deliberately put this “evil” into the world. This conclusion follows inescapably from your own premisses, no matter how much you want to wriggle and squirm and dodge out of it. Put another way, it is not logically possible to sustain your premisses about your supposed “god’s” purported nature and actions, and at the same time have him/her entirely blameless for the substandard world we find ourselves in. You either forfeit at least one of those premises, or you forfeit logic itself, but if you really care about what’s true, the choice is obvious.

    No doubt you’ll now vomit up another stream of evidence-free anorexic Holey Babble verses or plagiarised anaemic cretinist/IDiot pigshit that again completely misses the above point. You should rather give me an answer about buying that tower in Paris from me and looking seriously into Mickey Mouse

    Con-Tester

    August 22, 2011 at 11:18

  139. By the way, the Gap Theory is not what is important, whether satan was before creation or during, does not matter, what matters is the cause of pain and suffering. Now pay attention, or I may just give you homework.

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 10:46

  140. And to conclude today’s lesson: “Consider too, this deep insight that David made about God’s character.
    (And this is paraphrased to bring out the thought.)
    David, speaking of God, said:
    ‘I have come to see that You are the kind of person that values keeping your word so much, that you put the doing of right, and the keeping of your word, as more important than how people may view you as a Person. No matter how much it may effect your reputation or hurt you.’
    (paraphrased from psalm 138:2)

    “For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (ASV)
    “For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.” (NKJV)
    “You have exalted your word above all your name” (ESV, footnote reading)

    So, He values his word above his name. Kind of a different thought, yes ?
    Actually, what an amazing insight into God’s nature and personality. It almost takes your breath away to realize what kind of person God actually is.
    Methinks David knew God very well…”

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 10:41

  141. Now, how can we continue with your education if you already try to put down your teacher? Take in the info first my man, and not just one little interesting piece, the whole thing.

    Let me quote a piece of another well informed person, in fact, he can answer your questions much better than me. I was quite astounded and learnt quite a bit myself from this. Just maybe you learn something, and CT, please pay attention, I will try not to tax your abilities too much.

    “Many years ago I awoke in the middle of the night to the sound of my father in agony, it was to mark the beginning of the slow trip through hell called cancer. If you are going through this yourself or with someone close to you please forgive my use of that horrible word, few words can match it for horror. But such was the beginning of a process of questioning and thinking that ended for me some years after my father’s death.
    My first reaction to my father’s pain was one that surprised and disturbed me a great deal; anger and resentment towards God. I never would have expected it. I am more than somewhat embarrassed and actually sad to have to tell you what I said to God, I actually told him “I know everyone has to die, but if you let Dad suffer horribly I’ll never forgive you, because I know you can prevent it if you want to”.
    Fortunately, my father never went through the long suffering, the anticipation of which brought on my outburst to God. But it did leave me with a problem; I needed to know why God permits suffering. There was obviously something about the nature of God that I didn’t understand.
    So like whinnie-the-pooh I was determined to think, think, think.
    The first rule in my process of inquiry that I determined to use for the answer to the question of God and suffering, was; that the answer must be quite deductive, as opposed to inductive, in other words; an inductive conclusion is achieved by direct observation. For example, if you see me move a glass of water with my hand you know how that glass was moved. However, if you don’t directly see me move the glass, but I’m the only other person in the room you can deduce that I moved the glass. Similarly, most conclusions as to why God permits wickedness are somewhat inductive; God exists, God is all powerful, wickedness exists, therefore God permits wickedness.
    The second rule of inquiry was a principle of deductive reasoning that Sherlock Holmes tried to impress on Watson “When you have eliminated every possibility, whatever is left, no matter how impossible must be true”. In other words, if you come to a crime scene, and you eliminate every possible murder weapon except for a green monkey with a red machete, you have to put aside your preconceptions and preferences and look for a green monkey with a red machete.
    The third rule of inquiry was a principle of tenacity from my Dad. I remember one time many years ago I was out on the patio with my Dad and my oldest brother came up and very smugly said “no one can understand the fact that God has no beginning or end”. To which Dad said “well, I don’t understand it, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be understood. You can understand anything if you think about it long enough, look at what Einstein did with Time. Who would have thought that time could be so well understood?”.
    The forth principle was one from my mother, and although I wasn’t going to consider it binding I wanted to honour it if I could. She maintained that “the truths about God elevate him, and lies about him degrade him”.
    So, armed with these four principles of inquiry:
    1. The problem must be quite deductive and not inductive.
    2. After I had eliminated every possibility whatever was left, no matter how impossible, I had to accept.
    3. You can understand anything if you think about it long and hard enough.
    4. The truth about God should elevate your view of him.
    And so, my pondering began.
    The first question I asked of the great ‘out there’ was “is this just the way things are supposed to be?”. Interestingly, the bottom line of all medicine, law, religion, philosophy, and much science is the simple sentence “things ain’t right”. Medicine tries to repair and prevent, law tries to control and correct, religion and philosophy try to explain and much of science tries to repair.
    So the answer to the first question is; No, this is not the way things are supposed to be.
    The second question, which at first seems to be the same as the first question is “is the earth being lived in according to God’s will?”. Now this is where it gets interesting, logically the answer must be the same as the answer to the first question; “No, the earth is not being lived in according to God’s will”. So, stated differently; the earth is being lived in against God’s will. As I thought about this I realized; if you can do something against someone’s will, that person obviously has limitations. For example, if I come into your house and take some of your possessions against your will, I can only do that if I’m stronger than you or I have legal powers over you, as in the case of a repossession. But in each case you have limitations. If you had unlimited control or powers there is no way I could take those possessions against your will. Likewise the earth can’t be lived on in a manner against God’s will if he’s unlimited, therefore God must in fact be a limited being. This, needless to say, is something I had never heard before anywhere, but invoking the Holmesian principle “when you have eliminated every possibility, whatever is left no matter how impossible must be true” requires you to come to that conclusion. But if this is a truth, is seems to degrade God and not elevate him. But consider this illustration; a good strong man gets into a situation where he has to fight a dirty streetfighter, well, he makes a resolve to himself that he’s not going to fight dirty just to win a fight. So, he wades into the fight and probably takes a few more licks than he would have if he’d fought dirty, but, by golly, he wins. As he walks away from the fight do you view him as a weak man because he limited himself to fighting clean? Hardly. His limitations actually make you view him with more respect. Actually, the Bible says that God cannot lie… That’s a limitation, it also says he can’t leave his word unfulfilled, or a promise unkept… Those are limitations too. So limitations can be a good thing and a sign of strength. So mom’s still right.
    So, the first conclusion I came to (there are three main conclusions and one super-conclusion) is: God is limited.
    The second point is actually quite straightforward, if unorthodox. And it is this; anyone who suffers unfairly against their will is a victim. That, in fact is the definition of a victim. So God by definition is a victim: His creation has somehow been wrested from him and abused in front of his eyes against his will with him unable to stop it. What this did for me is, for the first time in my life, I felt compassion for God. Instead of “poor me, my Dad is suffering with cancer and God won’t help my Dad or me” it became “poor God, his creation has been somehow taken from him, and he’s forced to see it suffer”. So the second conclusion is: God is a victim. In fact The victim.
    The third conclusion is a bit more convoluted. So put on your thinking cap. To illustrate this point let me create a scenario similar to that of the book of Job, wherein the veil of invisibility into heaven is removed and we can see and hear the events happening in heaven. The scene is this: Satan has just gotten Adam and Eve to sin and he’s back up in heaven polishing stars, or whatever it is they do up there. And along comes God and he says to Satan ” I saw what you just did with Adam and Eve.”
    Satan’s reply “So?”.
    God: “Well, because of what you got them to do, now they have to die”.
    Satan: “So?”.
    God: “That means you have to die too”.
    Satan: “No I don’t”.
    God: “How is that?”.
    Satan: “You can’t kill me. Unless you can prove that you wouldn’t do the same thing in similar circumstances. With the right pressure you’ll bend or break the rules too. No one is any better than me, with the right circumstances and motivation anyone will bend or break the rules”. (That Satan feels that no one has perfect integrity, and that God’s integrity is on trial can be established with at least two accounts in the bible. The first is in Job chapter 2:3 wherein God in talking to Satan says ‘ you try to incite me without cause to do evil to my servant Job’, thus showing that Satan thought he could provoke God to do wrong. The second account is in Matthew 4:1-11 where Satan directly tries to challenge and compromise Jesus’ integrity. Again, who was Jesus picturing?)
    God: “That’s not true, my laws are perfect and I’ll never break them.”
    Satan: “Really? Well, try this one on, big guy.
    You told Adam and Eve if they touched or ate that fruit they would die and you’d reject them. Yes?”.
    God: “Yes”.
    Satan: “…and you always keep your word, in fact, that’s one of your laws. Yes?”.
    God: ” Yes to both”.
    Satan: ” But you also had already told them that they could have children. And you always keep your word. So let’s see… hmmm…. You’ve rejected them, but they still can have children, so obviously the children won’t be yours, I guess that makes them mine”.
    At that point God knew what Satan would do to human children, brutalizing, rape, torture, disease…
    Satan: “…by the way, you had a little rule with Adam and Eve; if they so much as ate or touched that fruit once, you’d kill them. I’m holding you to your own rule; if you so much as bend or break one rule one time to help them, you lose. and then you can’t kill me. Your big lesson with Adam and Eve was respect for property rights, and you no longer own the human race, I do.” (remember, even Jesus acknowledged that Satan was the ruler of this world, {John 14:30})
    So, what I realized is that God is on trial, just because you’re on trial that doesn’t mean you’re guilty, but you do have to show up in court. (The concept of God being on trial is not foreign to the Bible; Asaph in Psalm 74:22 says to God ‘ arise o God, do conduct your own case at law’. And again in Micah 6:1-3 God offers to put himself on trial with Israel)
    It is an interesting fact of life that you can tell a great deal about a person by watching them work, you can see if they are organized, neat, smart, clean, etc. etc. Applying that same principle to observing God’s work you will come up with an interesting conclusion about the nature of God; the nature of every single thing God has made, without exception, can be described with one word, and that word is “Law”. If everything he has made reflects and conforms to law, then he himself must be a law-loving, law-abiding person.
    This conversation between God and Satan continued…
    Satan to God: “Are you perfect?”.
    God: ” Yes”.
    Satan: “Did you make me perfect?”.
    God: “Yes”.
    Satan: ” Then how did I turn out so bad? If there is a flaw in me I must have gotten it from you”.
    With this compelling logic Satan clinched the deal, at this point God and everyone else knew that God would have to be so severely tested, that at the end of the trial he could with solid proof say “There is no defect in me at all”. Just a side comment here, you have to give the Devil his due. It is unarguable that Round One went to the Devil. Neither God nor any of his angels could come up with a counter-argument that could stop this horrible process, and it is unarguable that Satan derailed God’s original plan.
    Here’s something to ponder. Every Christian knows that when Christ was on earth, he pictured God. Whether you believe he was God incarnate, a God-man being, or a perfect man, we all know he pictured God. He himself said “if you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father”. So why is it then, if we know that Jesus pictured God his whole life on earth, we forget that he especially pictured God on his last day of life on earth? When he was on trial, (I count at least five trials the night before he died), and said not one word in self-defence, when he died of a broken heart, the person who most loved God; tried, convicted, and executed as a blasphemer. Who was he picturing? God is on trial, and yet how much does he say in his own defence? God would die of a broken heart if he could die, because of the reproach he has had to endure. Here is the kindest, most tender hearted person who has ever lived accused even by his best servants of permitting wickedness. And when Jesus died his horrible death, is there any doubt in your mind that he was a victim? Again, who was he picturing? (Please read Psalm 69:20) And so the super-conclusion is: God does not permit wickedness, God has wickedness forced on him against his will.
    In fact in the Bible book of James, James says “with evil God cannot be tried, nor with evil does he try anyone”. God just flat does not have evil in him, he never touches the stuff. To even say he “permits” wickedness is an inaccurate statement at best, and a false accusation at worst. I like Elihu’s denouncement towards the end of the book of Job, “Know this for a fact; God will never do wrong”.
    What is called God’s permission of wickedness might be illustrated in this manner; A man marries a woman who already has a child, but before he can adopt the child, the mother dies. At the same time the government under which the man and child live determine that the child needs a surgery that the father/husband feels is unnecessary. At this point the father has two choices, one; kidnap the child and probably get caught and lose the child forever, two; let the government do the surgery, adopt the child, and then repair the damage. If God were to intervene prematurely (illegally) he would ,in fact, prove Satan’s point and all would be lost. If he waits until he has the legal right, Ezk 21:27 he will regain control and do his repair (“look I’m making all things new” Revelation 21:5).
    Conclusions:
    1. God is limited (in a good way)
    2. God is a victim
    3. God is on trial
    4. God does not permit wickedness, but it is forced on him against his will.
    Well, it’s probably not what you’re used to hearing, but as Elihu said to Job (Job 34:3) “…the ear itself makes a test of words, just as the palate tastes when eating”.
    Also, please consider this: For a law to be a law it can have no exceptions, in fact, that is what makes it a law. Similarly, for a complete explanation to be truly complete it must cover all possible aspects, or it is in fact not a complete explanation. To say that God permits wickedness so as to allow persons to choose to serve him might satisfy some. But frankly, many have chosen to serve God and still suffer and experience wickedness. And even Asaph in the 73rd Psalm confirmed that the wicked do not serve God and yet sometimes prosper greatly. And when a two-week old infant suffers horribly and dies of cancer, please, tell me how that child benefits from suffering. In fact, wickedness is not here for anyone’s benefit. It is a horrible thing that God is forced to deal with, and he will deal with it well. But it is not something he chose.
    Dear king David made a very peculiar statement once. He had just done that awful episode in his life with Bathsheba, and he wrote Psalm 51. And in that Psalm he makes this peculiar statement to God “against you, you alone I have sinned”. He just murdered a man, committed adultery, and yet he says to God ‘against you alone I have sinned’. Why? Because David knew that ‘Guess Who’ had to clean up the mess, not him, but God. Everything ever done wrong will be fixed by God and is in fact against God. We’re just very lucky to have a God like him.
    So, gentle reader, thank you for taking the time to read this. Please take a bit of time to ruminate on it.

    (If I could Just trouble you with a brief afterword here….. )
    We are always told that God is;
    Omnipotent (all powerful)

    Omniscient (all knowing)
    and,
    Omnipresent (in all places, everywhere).
    These statements are intended to be the highest superlatives that could possibly describe our Creator. And they are well-intended, but on closer examination, God is not unlimited in his power, in fact Satan is the unlimited one, he will use his power for good or bad whenever and however he chooses. God on the other hand will only use his power for good, so he is not All powerful, but he does have Unmeasurable power, but he, because of his pure and clean nature has no power for wrong.
    God also is not all knowing, if that were true then all things would be predestined, but he gave us his greatest gift when he gave us the ability to choose (free-will). Some would say ‘God chooses not to know’, well, that is true, if I choose not to know how to speak Japanese, do I know how to speak Japanese? No. If God chooses not to know everything about the future then he is not all knowing. Some would say by choice, I would say by design, and really it’s the same thing.
    And lastly God is not Omnipresent, because then he would be in the hand of the murderer, when murder is committed, and in the virus that causes horrible disease.
    So we are told that God is:
    Omnipotent, but he’s not, he’s better than that, he only uses his power for Good.
    We are told that God is:
    Omniscient, but he’s not, he’s better than that, he lets us choose. (Free-Will)
    We are told that God is:
    Omnipresent, but he’s not, he’s better than that, he is perfectly clean and never touches bad.
    It turns out that God is not as we have been told, he turns out to be much better than we could have ever imagined.

    Elihu said at Job 36:2, ‘Have patience with me a little while, and I shall declare to you that there are yet words to say for God’.”

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 10:39

  142. Let the childish fairytales roll, ol’ fruit, and never mind that they fail utterly to address what is a matter of foundational principle that you are too dishonest or too dense (take your pick, but maybe it’s both) to contemplate!

    If those brain-dead “Gap Theory answers” actually satisfy you, I’ve got this iron tower in Paris, a real tourist magnet, that you might like to buy. Offers upwards of R50,000.00 will be considered. If your offer is accepted you get a certificate of ownership and all the profits from visitors. And after that, we could discuss the much, much deeper meaning to be found in Mickey Mouse. Need I really point out that Mickey Mouse is all perfectly true because it says so itself? And, much more importantly, that those lessons are hugely more relevant to a modern age than your Bronze Age confabulations? Did you know that? Off you go then, and make sure that you study Mickey Mouse with all due care and commitment because you’ll only see the really deep value and meaning when you start believing that it’s all true, which it is.

    Con-Tester

    August 22, 2011 at 10:17

  143. My link to the Gap Theory did not work. Here it is: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/gap.html

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 09:41

  144. If you discover the origin of evil, you will begin to get answers to your questions, and who knows, even answer them for yourself.

    Was there creation even before Adam and Eve. Where did the Cherubs (Angels) come from?

    Ezekiel 28 from verse 12: “Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.”
    13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
    14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.”

    The word Cherub is only used when referring to angels, thus not earthly kings, and therefore it is not the king of Tyre being adressed as so many think, but rather the one behind the king of Tyre, namely Satan.

    15 “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.”
    16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.”

    The word “covering” is from the Hebrew word cakak, which means: to entwine or to fence in, to cover over or to protect or defend, even hedge in. Is it possible, even probable that it was Lucifer’s job to protect this very earth he corrupted? Was this and other duties the cause of his pride?

    17 “Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
    18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.”

    Question:

    “Where does Satan and the fall fit into all of this? He must have been cast down before Adam and Eve were created because he was there to temp Eve in the Garden? Was there, could there have been, a pre-Adamic age – and surly this would have been a catastrophic event?” Question taken from a certain Amanda in another forum.

    Answer:
    Satan was cast out of heaven after Adam and Eve were created, because God said the Creation was still “very good” on day 6 after man had been created. There was nothing and no one here before Adam and Eve. Read the page disproving the Gap Theory for more information.

    Isaiah 14 from verse 12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
    13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:”

    Satan wanted to be God. The Bible tells us in 2nd Corinthians 4:4 that Satan has become the “god of this world”. And Revelation 20:10 tells us that he will be eternally punished for it.

    “15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”

    When Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, one third of all the angels were cast out with him. (Rev.12:4,9)

    Revelation 12 from verse 4 (King James Version): “And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
    5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
    6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
    7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
    8 and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
    9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

    Lucifer became Satan, and the fallen angels became Demons.

    Question:
    Why didn’t God just destroy Satan?

    Answer:
    Because sin had entered the world, and into the very nature of man through Adams transgression, then for God to destroy Satan, he would also have had to destroy the man he loved. But God had a better way. A way of Redemption.

    “And Christ the Redeemer was on His way !”

    Question:
    When did Lucifer fall from Heaven?

    Answer:
    It was not before day 6 like many people believe (those who believe the “Gap Theory” wrongly claim this). The Bible tells us that Lucifer was in Eden (which was created on day 6) and was still without sin on that day.

    Ezekiel 28:13 “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.”

    There is a coming judgment of Satan and his angels.

    2 Peter 2:4 “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell [the Greek word here is “tartarus”], and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;”

    Jude 1:6 “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

    In the day of judgment

    “…the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”

    John 17 talks of the time of judgment, the prince of this world will be driven out.

    Hell was not made for man. Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. But those who do not receive Christ as their Lord and Savior will be sent to Hell, and have their part in the lake of fire.

    Satan is “the god of this world” he ” has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel of the Glory of Christ” ( 2 Corinthians 4;4)

    Satan is a liar. The Bible tells us he is the father of all lies.

    John 8:44 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

    He will deceive man in any way he can. Some are deceived by the New Age Movement, others are deceived by Humanists, Evolutionary lies, etc.

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 09:37

  145. 😆😆😆 Ha ha ha ha ha! Look who’s talking about “the big picture”! What a pathetic joke. Your view of matters is sub-microscopic. That’s why you can’t even follow the simplest arguments that severely undermine the coherence of your infantile worldview. That’s why you keep either not answering questions, or dodging questions and points made with all sorts of irrelevancies and fabrications. That’s why it’s a total impossibility to you that you might be mistaken. That’s why you keep thinking that your Holey Babble is compelling evidence supporting your childishly incoherent “god” posturings. “Cart before the horse,” indeed! “Big picture,” indeed! Try telling some other jokes, these are as stale and putrid as your dysfunctional head, man! And the only thing you’re eager for is to “defend” your desperate drivel in any way you can, never mind that it makes you look like a dof flippen poes every single time. It doesn’t matter that several people here have told you much the same thing, you just carry on regardless, just as your fairytale book tells you to do. Is your supposed omnipotent “god” such a weakling that s/he keeps needing a total lamebrain like you to jump to his/her aid!? Actually, that makes perfect sense now that I think of it…😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    August 22, 2011 at 09:16

  146. On the contrary, I am very eager to answer, but you want to put the cart in front of the horse. You want yes/no answers and draw conclusions from it without the big picture.

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 08:18

  147. Bullshit as always, ol’ boy. It’s of course your inalienable right to dismiss out of hand any and all answers that were/are given as “NOT … satisfactorly” [sic], but that just demonstrates, as someone else has also pointed out, that you’re not even prepared to consider them or present some form of counterargument. Nor have you made the slightest effort to gain clarity on the points that you don’t consider convincing or think to be wrong.

    In short, your mind is shut as tightly as a duck’s arse.

    Still, you haven’t answered the latest batch of yes/no answers or selected any questions for further scrutiny, all of which is another strong indication that you simply don’t give a shit what’s true or not, just as long as you get to keep shouting your drivel from the rooftops. Very admirable indeed.

    So carry on putting your smug godiot ignorance on display. It’s both hugely entertaining and edifying.

    Con-Tester

    August 22, 2011 at 07:50

  148. Balanced-Truths,

    miskien mis ek iets, of dalk is ek verkeerd verstaan. Deur “nee” te antwoord beweer jy dat dit prakties bewys is dat die mensdom uit ‘n eensellige lewende organisme onstaan het. Jou “link” bewys nie so-iets nie.

    Con-Tester,

    You see, I made my point, I asked questions, standard or not, that has thus far NOT been answered satisfactorly, but as I said, they were for you to contemplate by yourself, to make you wonder, but it is very important to you to answer them for the benefit of the other readers, to keep them “faithful” to your cause, spreading “ATHEISM” among the people.

    You keep on asking questions, and I can answer them, but this is where the “baby steps” come in. I’ll have to spoonfeed you the Bible story and explain what happened. Quite happy to do so, if you will read it, and be patient. The story unfolded over thousands of years, and cannot be explained in one paragraph. Up to it old chump??

    soois

    August 22, 2011 at 06:56

  149. soois wrote (August 21, 2011 at 20:35):

    Don’t worry CT, most of them cannot be answered without being open to the possibility of God’s existence.

    See how you make me laugh with your stupid bullshitting? I’m far more open to your “god’s” existence than you think — hugely more open, in fact, than you are to the possibility of his/her non-existence because you’ve had “experiences”…

    The trouble is that you godiots who are making positive existence claims with unshakeable confidence are manifestly unable to offer a single shred of evidence or scrap of a plausible argument to substantiate your fanciful claims. Wie beweer, moet bewys, ou pêl.

    Con-Tester

    August 21, 2011 at 21:21

  150. Well, it was perfectly predictable that you’d throw a self-righteous frothy about my limiting my answers to three of your questions. You conveniently ignore that (i) some of them have been answered here already; (ii) your questions are copy-and-pasted versions of standard canards from cretinist/IDiot websites that have been addressed many times before on different occasions; and (iii) there’s a considerable disparity between a “yes/no” question and one that, say, asks to explain how evolution can happen in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Nonetheless, you now claim that your “god” didn’t mean to create perfection. (Really!? And you know this how, exactly?) (10) Doesn’t it strike you as more than a little bit strange that your “god,” who you yourself say knows everything and who can do anything s/he wants, just created life and totally forgot about perfection during that process? Yes or no? (11) Doesn’t it strike you as totally absurd to say that this “god” of yours, who supposedly created everything, went on to create something s/he knew perfectly well was going to turn rotten? Yes or no? (12) Doesn’t it strike you as completely foolish to argue that your perfect, infinite, larger-than-everything-else “god” would bother to dally in such obvious imperfection to begin with when s/he could, by your own direct implication, have done infinitely better? Yes or no? (13) Do you think a master craftsman would willingly and knowingly go out of his way to produce something he knew to be deeply flawed and sell it to a customer anyway? Yes or no? (14) Would you hold such a deceiving master craftsman in high regard anyway? Yes or no?

    I’m still waiting for your three questions. Choose carefully now!

    Con-Tester

    August 21, 2011 at 21:03

  151. soois
    August 21, 2011 at 19:06

    CT kan in elk geval nie al die vrae beantwoord nie, maar wel verdraai om hom te pas. Een van my vrae,: “is dit so dat evolusie net ‘n wetenskaplike teorie is, maar nie prakties bewys kon word nie, ja of nee”, is deur ten minste deur twee persone met “nee” beantwoord. Wie is nou eintlik die leuenaar hier?

    Ek was een van die ouens wat nee geantwoord het, het jy daai verwysing geklik om te sien waarheen dit jou neem, indien wel, wat verstaan jy nie, of wat wil jy voorhou is foutief met die inligting?

    Balanced Truths

    August 21, 2011 at 20:52

  152. “(9) do you see the blatant logical contradiction between this all-perfect “god” of yours and this entirely imperfect alleged creation of his/hers? Yes or no?”

    Yes, but He did not want to create perfection, that would be to create more gods. He wanted to create life, without perfection. Sorry, more than yes or no.

    Sleep well.

    soois

    August 21, 2011 at 20:38

  153. Ah, I get to answer them all, but you get just three!?

    Don’t worry CT, most of them cannot be answered without being open to the possibility of God’s existence. That is why I said that these questions are rather for your own thought, and not to satisfy me.

    Sleep well.

    soois

    August 21, 2011 at 20:35

  154. Here’s another question, one that’s entirely unrelated to the direction my numbered ones are going. In fact, it’s a point I’ve made to you before which you typically ignored, so here it is once more in the form of a question: Even if I cannot begin to answer any of your questions (which is hardly the case), how does that in any way whatsoever strengthen your contentions?

    Do you not understand that my supposed inability to address your concerns to your satisfaction does not validate your own position?

    It would be like saying because I don’t know what “2+2” equals, the answer must be “a million” because you believe it to be the correct answer. It’s plainly ridiculous to argue like that but that is what you are in effect doing with this stream of ignorant kak you keep punting.

    ————————————

    Cool, now you’ve actually answered all of my outstanding questions. You demonstrably agree that your version of “god” (a) could do anything and (b) know in perfect detail how it would unfold and (c) not knowingly make something evil. Now, (9) do you see the blatant logical contradiction between this all-perfect “god” of yours and this entirely imperfect alleged creation of his/hers? Yes or no?

    ————————————

    Which of your questions would you like me to attempt an answer to? Pick any three you like because I’m not going to waste my time with more of them.

    Con-Tester

    August 21, 2011 at 20:00

  155. “(5) Premiss A logically implies that your “god” can make a perfect world with perfect creatures in it — in short, a world fitting for a “perfect god.” Yes or no?”

    Yes

    “(6) Premiss B logically implies that your “god” knows the entire history of everything, including him-/herself, from the beginning of time to its end, and in perfect detail. Yes or no?”

    Yes.

    “(7) More specifically, Premiss B logically also implies that your “god” knows in perfect detail the consequences of his/her own actions. Yes or no?”

    Yes

    (8) Premiss C logically implies that your “god” would not knowingly make anything with evil it. Yes or no?”

    Yes

    soois

    August 21, 2011 at 19:38

  156. Good, but not good enough. You’ve merely repeated three of the answers you’ve given before and finally committed firmly to (3). Now go back to my comment of August 4, 2011 at 10:23 in this thread — that’s 17 days ago — and answer (5), (6), (7) and (8) in a similar yes/no way.

    Then maybe we can proceed.

    Con-Tester

    August 21, 2011 at 19:32

  157. You know what, let’s do yes/no.

    (1) Can your “god” do whatever he wishes to? Yes or no?

    Yes

    (2) Does your “god” know everything? Yes or no?

    Yes

    (3) Is your “god” everywhere at all times? Yes or no?

    Yes

    (4) Is your “god” absolutely against evil? Yes or no?

    Yes

    soois

    August 21, 2011 at 19:21

  158. Malherbe,

    if I could at least make people laugh, I am glad to do it.

    “Does it bother you from time to time that people with doctorates in theology, has radically opposing views to yours? You know, guys like Julian Muller, Sakkie Spannenberg and Abel Pienaar. Or are you the only one that “understands”?”

    No it does not, we can all learn from each other and for the umptienth time, I do not think I know it all. I do however know at least one theology professor who actually became a Christian at the age of seventy-five. In his own words, “nou weet ek eers wat die Bybelskrywer bedoel het, dat die Woord eers oopgesluit word wanneer jy werklik aan Hom oorgegee het. Dat al die grade in die wereld niks beteken sonder Sy wysheid nie.” By this I do not reject the opinions of other theologicians, but i do know or rather, I’ve gathered over time a tendency among well educated people to get a bit of a chip on the shoulder and starting to question everything, being a little god oneself in the sense that “if you cannot explain, it must be lies”.

    “Really Soois, need anyone say more? Are the flaws in “rationale” above not obviously clear to anyone with half a brain? I am filled with honest surprise that you can fly a plane. A kite perhaps…”

    Perhaps, but fact, my friend. I merely explained that the human race was in fact barbaric according to our modern standards, but that in fact, FACT, is that God made the laws prohibiting these terrible customs and behaviour, and that morality stemmed from the time He made these laws. FACT

    “Do you think it is in accordance with an omnipotent god to declare something as insignificant as this a sin? Part of the chest of moral wealth your god brought to the human race Soois? If so, why does this not form part of modern society’s moral framework?”

    So is homo-sexuality, working on the sabbath etc. etc. Most of those laws were made to by Him for the Israelites, THE ISRAELITES, as a means to repay their sins. Today we have Jesus as our saviour. The morality issues remained however, for good reason.

    Con-Tester,

    fingers working faster than my brain I guess. Spelling used to be quite good actually, but my apologies for my lack of perfection.

    I will repeat my answers if you are happy with more than “yes” and “no”.

    Balanced-Truths,

    om die waarheid te se lees ek werklik alles, en ek vra om verskoning as ek ‘n ander prentjie gee. Dit is egter so dat ek van die begin af, ek dink gedurende Desember verlede jaar, op die blog ‘n onskuldige “godsdienstige” vraag gevra het (wil mos ook graag by ander slimmes leer) en is onmiddelik aangeval as ‘n dom “godioot” ens. By my vrae rondom evolusie is ek dadelik aangese om daaroor te gaan oplees en ophou kak verkoop op die blog. Sederdien is ek met vrae gepeper en anders as ander “godiote” het ek to CT se onsteltenis nie net soos mis voor die son gaan verdwyn nie. My antwoorde is ook nie deurgelees of oordink nie, maar dadelik verwerp met snedige aanmerkings. Nou doen ek presies dieselfde, en ek verwag eintlik nie antwoorde nie, maar wou net ‘n punt bewys. CT kan in elk geval nie al die vrae beantwoord nie, maar wel verdraai om hom te pas. Een van my vrae,: “is dit so dat evolusie net ‘n wetenskaplike teorie is, maar nie prakties bewys kon word nie, ja of nee”, is deur ten minste deur twee persone met “nee” beantwoord. Wie is nou eintlik die leuenaar hier? Niks omtrent Christenskap is vir my ‘n bedreiging nie. Wie is die aanvaller hier, ek wat die Bybel verteenwoordig, of hy wat dit probeer vernietig? Dus is die eintlike vraag, wie voel eintlik bedreig?

    soois

    August 21, 2011 at 19:06

  159. soois, jy lees nie regtig die antwoorde op jou vrae nie, jy bestudeer nie die ander persone se woorde nie, jy lees net tot jy n sin kry waarmee jy kan argumenteer of saamstem. Jy leer niks nuuts nie en die waarheid staan jou nie aan nie. CT het opgetel in een van my skrywes hierbo dat ek die verkeerde verwysing gegee het, een wat jou argument sou versterk het as jy dit gelees het maar jy het nie. Ek is die laaste persoon wat aan jou gaan verkondig dat daar geen God is nie, maar, die God waarin jy glo vereis dat jy die waarheid miskyk want jou konsep van God stap nie hand aan hand met die waarheid nie dus is die waarheid alewig n bedreiging vir jou.

    Balanced Truths

    August 21, 2011 at 18:04

  160. Malherbe
    August 14, 2011 at 10:33

    BT, dink jy apartheid sou vir 45 jaar in stand gehou kon word sonder die rol van die christelike godsdiens en spesifiek die NG Kerk?

    Rassisme

    Malherbe

    Dink jy ouers sou hul kinders grens toe kon stuur sonder die boodskappies van “God se wil” wat Sondag na Sondag van die preekstoel af gebulder is?

    Die Moslem-verowerings, die Franse godsdiensoorloë, die Kruistogte, en die Reconquista is voorbeelde van regte godsdiensoorloë, tog, baie nie-godsdiensoorloë het steeds elemente van godsdiens, soos priesters wat kamikaze vliegtuie seën, terwyl baie godsdienstige oorloë weer vir ekonomiese en politieke redes aangevoer is, waar die ware redes agter die konflik die verkryging van grond of die beheer van die handelsroetes was. Die vernietiging van die plekke van aanbidding breek die moraal van die opponent, selfs wanneer die oorlog nie oor godsdienstige ideale aangevoer word nie. In Noord-Ierland is die een kant (Nasionaliste) hoofsaaklik saamgestel uit Katolieke en die ander (Unioniste) uit die Protestante. Die fundamentele oorsaak is die Republiek van Ierland en die Verenigde Koninkryk waar godsdiens die rol van ‘ n kulturele merker gespeel het en geloof aangewend is om goeie mense te kry om slegte dinge te doen.

    Malherbe

    Dink jy verpligte diensplig sou enigsins suksesvol geimplimenteer kon word sonder die rol wat dogmatiese religieuse indoktrinasie gespeel het?

    Joseph Stalin en Mao Zedong het.

    Balanced Truths

    August 21, 2011 at 17:41

  161. That would be the same omnipotent, omniscient, omni-perfect “god” who made women so that they would menstruate in the first place, before declaring it sinful (or “unclean” if you prefer) to have intercourse during those times.

    You have to hand it to this “god”: Never a self-contradiction that can’t be swept under the rug through a suitable torturing and fabrication of “facts”…🙄

    Con-Tester

    August 21, 2011 at 16:03

  162. 😳😳😳 Your spelling is as inept as your thinking.😳😳😳

    
    

    Go on, give us a firm commitment: Are you going to answer my questions? Or are you going to carry on your transparent godiot lying, cheating and bullshitting?

    Con-Tester

    August 21, 2011 at 15:53

  163. Just out of interest Soois, what is your position on sex during a female’s period? Do you think it is in accordance with an omnipotent god to declare something as insignificant as this a sin? Part of the chest of moral wealth your god brought to the human race Soois? If so, why does this not form part of modern society’s moral framework?

    Malherbe

    August 21, 2011 at 14:36

  164. Soois wrote: “Do a little more research and you will find that incestious relations wer the order of the day, especially among the Egyptians. When Moses led the Israelites with God’s help out of Egypet, He (God) gave a lot of laws and rules pertaining to morality. He (God) banned incest, relations with animals, relations during female period etc. etc. The human race was truly barbaric, Christian and non-Christian. This actually proves that God was responsible for morality.”

    Really Soois, need anyone say more? Are the flaws in “rationale” above not obviously clear to anyone with half a brain? I am filled with honest surprise that you can fly a plane. A kite perhaps…

    Malherbe

    August 21, 2011 at 14:28

  165. Soois, ek het nou inderdaad so kliphard gelag met die lees van jou laaste pos, dat my vrou kom kyk het wat aan die gang is. Ek laat haar toe self lees. Haar antwoord verbatim: “Its dumb people like this Soois-guy, that gives religion a bad name.”

    I predicted your silly excuse for an answer in my previous mail. I was correct – ja right, we don’t understand….blood of the male lamb…blah blah…symbolism….blah blah. One question Soois: Does it bother you from time to time that people with doctorates in theology, has radically opposing views to yours? You know, guys like Julian Muller, Sakkie Spannenberg and Abel Pienaar. Or are you the only one that “understands”?

    You are in a pit Soois, digging away with those blinkers and not realising the utter hopelessness of your activity.

    Malherbe

    August 21, 2011 at 14:18

  166. “Human morality (i) predates Crushtianity by a sizeable margin, and (ii) it has changed over time and keeps changing over time, so typically he’s telling laughable little lies for his imaginary threesome buddies.

    Pornography? What about Lot’s daughters who got him drunk and then “did” him while he was sleeping off the bender? Or Ham who possibly pomped his own mother (Leviticus 20:7—8)?”

    Do a little more research and you will find that incestious relations wer the order of the day, especially among the Egyptians. When Moses led the Israelites with God’s help out of Egypet, He (God) gave a lot of laws and rules pertaining to morality. He (God) banned incest, relations with animals, relations during female period etc. etc. The human race was truly barbaric, Christian and non-Christian. This actually proves that God was responsible for morality.

    soois

    August 21, 2011 at 12:56

  167. Malherbe,

    “On my explanation to CT on my family dinamics: Nowhere did I mention that my wife brings up our children with religion…” Het seker verkeerd verstaan, nogal jammer vir die kinders.

    “(Mens sou verwag dat ‘n almagtige god sommer sal weet, maar nou ja, bebloede kosyne doen dit skynbaar vir hom.)” Duidelik vertaan jy minder as wat jy weet. Die bebloede kosyne het gegaan oor die bloed van die lam wat geoffer was, manlike lammers met geen gebrek nie. Hulle moes ook al die vleis eet en die res wat oorbly verbrand. Dit het eintlik simbolies gehandel oor die “Lam” van God wat duisende jare later geoffer sou word, die Lam sonder gebrek en manlik. Die res gaan ek nie eens probeer verduidelik aan jou nie. Net soos CT dink julle julle weet baie, maar voordat jy die Woord behoorlik bestudeer het, sal hierdie dinge vir jou duister bly.

    Ek is al male sonder tal vertel dat ek eers hieroor of daaroor moet gaan oplees voordat ek my slim hou oor sekere wetenskaplike dinge, maar op julle beurt wil julle julle slim hou oor iets waarvan julle boggerol weet. Ek het ook al die vrae beantwoord, maar nou-ja, die IK’s skiet tekort.

    Groete

    soois

    August 21, 2011 at 12:50

  168. More immediately obvious is that contrary to soois’s idiotically ignorant insinuation, human morality did not spring into existence all of a sudden, fully formed and unchangeable, the day his god decided to butt-fuck his son with some nails on two planks. Human morality (i) predates Crushtianity by a sizeable margin, and (ii) it has changed over time and keeps changing over time, so typically he’s telling laughable little lies for his imaginary threesome buddies.

    Pornography? What about Lot’s daughters who got him drunk and then “did” him while he was sleeping off the bender? Or Ham who possibly pomped his own mother (Leviticus 20:7—8)?

    Crushtian “morality” is a pisspoor joke — almost as big a one as theology.

    Con-Tester

    August 21, 2011 at 12:15

  169. So van waardes gepraat Soois. Dit verstom my altyd dat julle outjies so hoog opgee oor die “waardes” wat julle spoke teweegbring. Kom ons neem een voorbeeld uit jou heilige boekie, nl Paasfees (Daar is natuurlik vele meer voorbeelde):

    Paasfees – vanaf die Engelse “Passover” afgelei. Dis nou die tyd voor liewe jesus ons van ons sondigheid kom verlos het. Die tyd toe god die Jode in Egipte opdrag gegee het om hul deurkosyne met bloed te merk sodat hy kan weet watter eersgeborenes hy moet doodmaak. (Mens sou verwag dat ‘n almagtige god sommer sal weet, maar nou ja, bebloede kosyne doen dit skynbaar vir hom.) Onskuldige jong kindertjies wat sekerlik nie eens altyd bewus was van die gode wat hul ouers aanhang of verwerp nie. Die Jode word toe volgens oorlewering oorgeslaan en vandaar die benaming “passover”. Sodoende is alle ongelowiges in Egipte se eersgebore seuns vermoor deur die barmhartige en liefdevolle god van die mens. Tot op ’n dag toe god besluit hy is nou gatvol vir hierdie metodiek en ’n nuwe plan bedink: dis nou sy seun se beurt en hy sal hom martel en dood sodat dit nie meer nodig is vir ons om kosyne met lamsbloed te verf nie.

    En terloops, bg. verduideliking is soos ek dit as 16 jarige ervaar het in die katkisasie klas beman deur ’n dominee. Ek onthou ook dat dominee nie my vrae kon of wou beantwoord nie. Ek onthou ook dat ek die vertelling deur dominee as vreesaanjaend en skrikwekkend ervaar het. Vandag weet ek dat hierdie skitsofreen wat christene God noem, niks meer en niks minder is as die Boesmanne se Volmaan nie. Ek probeer my bes om my kinders te beskerm teen hierdie tipe bangmaakstories wat na my mening neerkom op die ergste graad van kindermishandeling. Tog interessant dat ons volkie vertoë rig om pornografie en geweld op televisie te verban, maar geen probleem het om hierdie tipe verhale met smaak aan minderjariges oor te dra nie. Geweld, verkragting en moord kom gereeld in die Bybel voor en dikwels in opdrag van die christengod. Hoekom nie vertoë rig om hierdie boek uit te gee met ’n G,PG,S waarskuwing op die voorblad nie?

    En jy praat van waardestelsel deur jou geloof gebring Soois? Probeer tog net eerlik wees Sooisie. Maar ek voorspel jou antwoord sal heel voorspelbaar iets langs die lyne van “sinnebeelde wat Malherbe nie verstaan nie” wees. Slegs Soois se benewelde brein verstaan.

    Malherbe

    August 21, 2011 at 11:17

  170. Soois,
    You have supplied zero answers. The only thing you prove is your slippery ability to lie and distort, but I suppose you justify this with a “doing it for jesus”. Lies for Jesus. You are illustrating exactly why religion is such a dangerous tool. You are showing why the historical atrocities like the Spaninsh Inquisition, Crusades, Bosnian ethnic cleansing etc, etc ocurred – neatly justified in the name of religion. Same goes for apartheid.

    On my explanation to CT on my family dinamics: Nowhere did I mention that my wife brings up our children with religion. Stop lying, Soois and display at least some degree of integrity and morals. You talk about morals being brought to the world by religion?! Please man, wake up. If that was true, why all the lies? You are living proof that absolutely zero connection exists between religion and morals.

    Malherbe

    August 21, 2011 at 09:39

  171. 😀😀😀 Yes, you need to say a whole lot more. For example, you need to say the numbers (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8), each followed with a “Yes” or a “No”. Or you could try to fashion some form of semi-plausible argument. But neither of the aforegoing is evidently within your intellectual reach so maybe it’s best if you just keep vomiting up the juvenile bunk we’ve come to expect from you dom flippen godioot poese.😀😀😀

    
    

    (Again, I apologise to any poese that may feel offended by my comparison of them with this swindler of a ho-hum religiot comedian.)

    Con-Tester

    August 20, 2011 at 22:49

  172. “…dom flippen poes you are. Thorn in my side?…”

    Need I say more!?
    Cheers!!

    soois

    August 20, 2011 at 20:55

  173. For the umpteenth time, it’s simple and it will remain simple (but maybe not so simple for a simpleton like you): Answer mine and I’ll answer yours. Got it now? Has it penetrated? Anything still confusing you? Six-word sentences too much of a stretch maybe?

    You haven’t answered anything yet assert that you have. But since you’re being so comically pigheaded about it, I defy you to point to a comment of yours anywhere — anywhere!!! — on this blog (date, time and thread will be sufficient to locate it) where you have answered the five simple questions put to you that are as yet outstanding. That would be a comment of yours clearly showing the numbers (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8), each followed with a “Yes” or a “No”.

    You can’t point to one because no such comment exists.

    But… but… but… that would mean that you, the religiot retard, are lying and continue to lie about it! And, to top it off, in blatant defiance of your alleged supremo skydaddy’s command not to bear false witness against your neighbours! Tut-tut, say it’s not so!

    
    

    😆😆😆 The only point you keep making is demonstrating what a laughably dom flippen poes you are. Thorn in my side? Don’t make me laugh even harder! Just don’t stop doing what you’re doing, okay? You’re doing great things for the atheist cause, and not much for your own.😆😆😆

    
    

    (My apologies to all pigs’ crania and poese that may feel offended by my comparison of them with this fraud of a godiot buffoon.)

    Con-Tester

    August 20, 2011 at 16:47

  174. Like I said, cannot answer, thus defence by attack.

    My point was made, loud and clear for all to see.

    Good by and best of luck.

    soois

    August 20, 2011 at 15:49

  175. You haven’t properly understood a word of what I wrote and are still spouting unsustainable twaddle regardlessly, just as I wrote. Your inept “replies” show that plainly, newfound quasi-politeness notwithstanding. Seeing contradictions where there are none. You still owe me several answers to questions asked, and, as pointed out, your dim-witted thinking is faulty that because I haven’t answered your questions it means that (1) I can’t give some answers and (2) you are right. Neither is true but you carry on talking the same stale kak anyway.

    Just as I expected.

    Go and read what I (and Malherbe wrote after first engaging your brain properly. Or not. You decide. Or let your “god” decide for you, funnyman.

    Con-Tester

    August 19, 2011 at 19:17

  176. My grootste vraag is eintlik, waarom sekere ongelowiges uit hulle pad gaan om gelowiges van stryk te bring?

    Die antwoord is, want hulle is nie ware ateiste nie, maar dienaars van die bose met die opgelegde taak om gelowiges van God af weg te rokkel.

    Groete en sterkte.

    soois

    August 19, 2011 at 15:50

  177. Malherbe,
    jou antwoord aan CT is teenstrydig. Jy vertel dat jou vrou Christelik is en die kinders so grootmaak, dat jy aan hulle erken dat jy nie glo nie, maar dit aan hulle oorlaat om self te besluit as hulle groter is en die tipe besluit kan neem. Ek het self al van tevore gese, dit is beter om ‘n kind met geloof groot te maak en dat hy later self kan besluit om geloof te behou of te verwerp, maar ‘n kind wat ongelowig groot gemaak word sal waarskynlik nooit getrek word om Christenskap te ondersoek nie. Net daarna vertel jy dat jy ‘n probleem het met onderwysers wat die kinders van die Bybel leer. Jou vrou mag hulle met geloof grootmaak, maar bewaar die onnie wat dieselfde doen??

    Ek vra maar net.

    soois

    August 19, 2011 at 15:46

  178. CT, I agree on your views concerning morality, but if you look into history, you will find that our (European) morality stemmed directly from our ancestors’s Christian upbringing. Most white South Africans and Americans were in fact protestant Christians who fled Europe and the Roman Catholic chrurch.

    I do not want to get political or give the idea of racism, but the whites brought morality to the blacks with them, and even today we struggle to succeed. Just check your TV on the strikes and toy-toying. Not just striking like we would, but damaging property and being barbaric. Christianity was the basis for morality. maby not your’s, but somewhere in your history you had a Christian ancestor, who taught his/her child morality and so on and so on.

    soois

    August 19, 2011 at 15:32

  179. Malherbe, skuus dat ek nou eers weer skryf, maar was nogal besig die week.

    Nee my maat, jy is reg dat dit wat ons nie kan verklaar nie, nie noodwendig bo-natuurlik hoef te wees nie, maar my punt was dat die mensdom ‘n hunkering het om ‘n god te aanbid, en my vraag was hoekom. CT vee beslis nie die vloer met my nie, trouens ek het sy taktiek van vrae vra gebruik en daar sit hy toe bek vol tande en kon nie antwoord nie. Het nog duisende sulke
    vrae, maar ek wou net ‘n punt bewys.

    Weet jy waarvoor die Du Toits gebed gevra het? Om hulle grond te behou, of dat God hulle sal dra deur die beproewing? Ek wed jou hulle gebede sal verhoor word, want die Christen het nie ‘n “magic” godjie wat spring as hy sy vingers klap nie, nee, die Christen het ‘n liefdevolle vader wat hom deur moeilike tye dra. Onthou jy die Von Abo’s wat so baie grond in Zim verloor het? Het hier aangekom met byna fokkol, maar hulle geloof. Die Von Abo’s is vandag van die grootste boere in die Vrystaat. Net ‘n voorbeeld. Soms gaan dit moeiliker, maar Hy is altyd daar. Wat dink jy sou die Du Toits sonder geloof gehad het? Absoluut geen hoop nie ou maat.

    Ek is trots op jou dat jy jou 7jarige van die ewige lewe beroof. ‘n Pa duisend jy. Gaan eendag moet antwoord.

    Con-Tester,
    nou is dit God se skuld dat twee vliegtuie in die berg vasgevlieg het. Ongelukkig twee onervare burgerlike vlieeniers wat in digte mis besluit het om VFR vlug te doen. Waarskynlik nie IFR gekwalifiseerd gewees nie. Moes dus onder 19 500 voet hou. As jy na die beeldmateriaal agterna kyk, sal jy sien dat beide vliegtuie eintlik die berg baie laag en langs mekaar getrf het. Hoekom hulle so laag gevlieg het was waarskynlik om onder die wolkbedekking uit te kom om te kan sien. ‘n Dom ding om te doen, maar jy kry dit soms in formasievlugte waar die een vlieenier onseker is en op die ander vlieenier se oordeel vertrou, terwyl die ander weer op jou vertrou. Herinner my aan baie jare gelede toe drie Mercurius BBP stralers, na ‘n lugskou in die Kaap, al drie langs mekaar in die berge daar naby vasgevlieg het, ook in digte mis en dit nogal deur ervare Lugmag vlieeniers.

    My punt is egter, mense maak foute, nie God nie.

    soois

    August 19, 2011 at 15:20

  180. Thanks for your painstaking answer, Malherbe. I hear you.

    And agree fully.

    Con-Tester

    August 16, 2011 at 16:11

  181. Why would we seek the alleviation of suffering without objective morality grounded in a God of justice?” (As cited by soois, August 14, 2011 at 20:03.)

    This must surely be one of the most malignantly, asininely rancid and dull-wittedly offensive questions ever posed to atheists in “defence” of belief in a god. Ever. The direct implication is that atheism overwhelmingly results in callous indifference to others’ suffering and that god-belief is necessary to give meaning to any efforts towards easing the suffering of others. Neither implication is either logically or empirically sustainable. If anything, religion inures people to the suffering of others because, well, it’ll all be okay once the sufferers get to heaven, won’t it?

    We are born with a rudimentary innate sense of things that are good or bad for us. Through experience, we can reflect on our own sufferings and understand that it would not be in our own best interests if those same sufferings should befall those we love and therefore we naturally seek to shield them from following our own misfortunes. For reasons of enhanced survival chances, we evolved as social animals and so we extend our protective instincts to beyond our immediate families. While growing up, we learn further right action from other people, chiefly our parents, as it was shaped over preceding generations by a range of social forces and traditions. In short, a society’s morality adapts over time according to that society’s needs and what it can afford. The fact that certain moral precepts are agreed to by almost all humans and that they seem to remain constant over human history is no more remarkable than that most humans are born with two arms and two legs. To claim that such universality points to a universal font of basic morality is to be laughably ignorant of the aforesaid as well as of the wide divergences that exist among the moral canons of various cultures.

    You don’t need any “god” to have a reason to be a good and caring person. In fact, “god” is a moerse kak reason to be good because it amounts to being blackmailed into being good and caring about others.

    Con-Tester

    August 16, 2011 at 16:07

  182. I have a unique (I think) answer to your question, CT.

    The wife does not share my views, but I would describe our marriage as very solid (albeit with the normal ups and downs). The fact that I am very outspoken about my views is perhaps responsible for some tension, more than the views itself. Before I met her, she was in an abusive marriage – verbal abuse to the extreme, as well as chronic unfaithfulness. When I met the future Mrs Malherbe, I stressed the point that I was not religous and that I never will be. After more than a decade of marriage, the irony is glaring when considering the fact that her ex was religous. I suspect that my views are tolerated simply because she realises the benefits of honesty when compared to hipocrisy.

    However, the Missus regards herself as religous – I think its too ingrained in her psyche to ever change, and frankly I do not feel the need to change her. On bringing up our children, I simply advocate the princilple of honesty. If they ask me, I tell them I don’t believe in gods, but that some good people do. (Difficult one since children tend to put everything in “boxes” of “goodies” and “baddies”.) Bottomline is that they are free to make up their own minds when they are older.

    My biggest problem is not the in-laws or my wife, but the public school system, and especially primary school. Unfortunately most primary school teachers have the IQ of plancton and consider it their duty to teach religous dogma to the children. I have a huge problem with this – wish I had the money to start a truly secular private school. A school where the banners of secularism and humanism are proudly waved and the dangers of religion is stressed without the usual political correctness.

    Malherbe

    August 16, 2011 at 16:06

  183. Good for you and your son, Malherbe! Much more of the same is needed. Do your views cause any tension with your significant other? If it’s too intrusive or too public a question, I’ll understand. Mrs Con-Tester shares my views but is far less outspoken about them.

    Con-Tester

    August 16, 2011 at 14:57

  184. Did god have to wait very long to get all 13 victims into two planes flying the same route before he could make sure that they’d both fly into a mountain, killing all 13? Oh wait, this god can do anything s/he wants to as long as it’s not evil! So, it must be the pilots’ fault for choosing to fly in bad weather, and never mind that this god knew they were going to fly at that time and still put that bad weather in their way…

    Sheesh, what an undiluted load of contrived crap some people want to believe!

    Sincere condolences to the bereaved families.

    Con-Tester

    August 16, 2011 at 14:51

  185. Not a bad idea CT. Humor a very effective method of pointing to the ridiculousness of religion.

    This past weekend my farther-in-law (who is a retired Dominee) repremanded one of my children for not praying before eating with “Don’t you say thank you before eating?”. Man, did my chest swell with pride when the innocent reply came from the seven-year old. “Thank you Mom.”

    Malherbe

    August 16, 2011 at 08:26

  186. Malherbe, I’ll put money on it that, despite it being an open bet, this twit will just fok voort in the same direction as ever, regardless.

    Not that that’d be a bad thing, really. It serves to boldly illustrate how obsessively dense these fundie ignoramuses can be. The clearer that becomes, the more fashionable it becomes to mock and ridicule their ilk. Soon enough we’ll be hearing silly “godiot” jokes like we used to hear “Koos van der Merwe” jokes in days gone by.

    Did you hear what the godiot said when he heard about violent farm seizures in Zim-Bob-we? “Duh, god is great, hallelujah. You can’t prove me wrong. Look how lovely and crimson the blood flows. Accident or design?”😉

    Con-Tester

    August 15, 2011 at 15:43

  187. The Holey Babble!? What on earth are you babbling about, O Holey One? Yes, some of those stories are quite brilliant but if you like your fairytales so much, there are lots of others out there that’ll keep you entertained. You know, the kind of fairytales that don’t need to go around pretending to be fact in order to be widely read.

    Or are you still telling smelly lies about actually answering questions?

    Con-Tester

    August 15, 2011 at 14:53

  188. Soois, some basic advice: The fact that one cannot explain, or do not understand everything, may never serve as proof of supernatural existence. History is filled with examples where humans did exacly that and ended up red-faced – The Khoi-khoi had the moon as their supernatural god, simply because they could not explain. Your drive-with-granddaughter example falls in the same category. I realise your face is already red resulting from CT’s sweeping the floor with you, but thought I could spare you some future humiliation. I am not overly hopeful though.

    Ek lees in vandag se koerante die tragiese storie van die Du Toit familie wat vanaf hul plaas in Zim verjaag is. Mev Du Toit het gevra dat almal (insluitend haar bidgroep) vir haar moet bid. Het fokkol gehelp, Soois. Niks. As ek nou die Soois-resep vir debatering moet gebruik, dan sou ek die afleiding kon maak dat jou got seker maar aan Bob se kant is.

    Malherbe

    August 15, 2011 at 14:45

  189. Brilliance, like the Holy Bible yes.

    soois

    August 15, 2011 at 14:28

  190. Oh dear, feeling a bit set-upon today, are we? All soulful and spiritual without any actual answers to simple questions asked ages ago, eh? All full of smug obliviousness about the documented progression of events, eh?

    Shame again, but at least you can occasionally recognise brilliance when it’s put before you, so your brain, though very far gone, is not yet completely broken.

    Con-Tester

    August 15, 2011 at 10:36

  191. Noticed how you could not answer anything??😀

    Instead used the old tactic of attack. Brilliant my man, brilliant.😛

    soois

    August 15, 2011 at 10:20

  192. Yes, it’s entirely obvious to everyone what a wonderfully deep thinker you are. That would be “deep” relative to a droplet of piss…🙄

    While on that topic, here’s another thing you can neglect to think about: Your skydaddy isn’t any kind of satisfactory explanation for anything. It’s merely a deferment of the questions — which actually makes perfect sense in view of fundie religiot retards’ fundamental dishonesty when it comes to objective inquiry.

    Ag shame, poor fundie religiot retards, always being shown up for the fundie religiot retards that they are. Never mind, your skydaddy and skysonny and skypoep still love you, see? Yeah, right.😛

    Con-Tester

    August 15, 2011 at 10:01

  193. And then I realise who the real “believers’ are. The idiots that believe that all these things happened without intelligent influence.

    soois

    August 15, 2011 at 09:33

  194. Drove my granddaughter to school this morning and my pre-school grandson wanted to wind down the car window because he wanted to “see” outside, and as I wondered how he apparently could not “see” through clear glass, I thought about the wonder of “nature”, for “knowing” that the human race would need clear glass to be able to see but also be protected, for “supplying” us with fossil fuels so that the human race would be able generate energy. For “nature” making sure that “it” “created” a superior species that would have the need to protect the rest of “her” “accidental” creation.

    soois

    August 15, 2011 at 09:30

  195. 😆😆😆 Ha ha ha ha ha ha! More of that churlish, petulant comedy. Twisted, indeed!😆😆😆

    Here’s a question you left out: Why are the biggest and most transparent liars always godiots who think they have all the answers?

    Con-Tester

    August 15, 2011 at 07:40

  196. You see how things are twisted and turned when I start asking questions?

    You know what guys, ignore them and keep your blinkers on, and for those that did in fact sit up and notice, think upon this, why are the most beautifull flowers, Edelweiss, only grow up in the highest mountains, where humans cannot interfere, why do the most colourfull birds stay in the dencest woods, where humans are not present and why are the most beautifull scenery of nature found in the deepest oceans? Nature, intelligent design?

    Keep well.

    soois

    August 15, 2011 at 07:05

  197. A note to the casual reader: The latest splutterings and gaspings of our resident religiot fucktard prove conclusively that he isn’t actually interested in whatever answers to his questions may be forthcoming because he thinks he has all the right answers to them already. How do they prove this? Well, he reads nothing other than his Holey Babble and the ignorant drivel punted at cretinist/IDiot websites. two links were provided here — entirely impromptu and without any hidden agenda on my part, I assure you — that provide some powerful evidence against certain claims made in opposition to his own. Had he but read them, they’d have played directly into his hands, albeit from a different angle. This clearly illustrates the subtle hazards of knowing it all already…

    On the upside, these fundies are just too hilarious for words. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. Life is stranger than fiction. Pick your own favourite cliché.

    Con-Tester

    August 14, 2011 at 23:51

  198. The only vaguely interesting question is 2., to which a very likely answer is, succinctly put, “Common psychology by way of common descent.”

    And no, you didn’t “do [your] tour.” You still owe five yes/no answers that you are desperately dodging with your pathetic little lies.

    You just have to admire the intellectual integrity of godiots which you exemplify so well. Please continue to do so.

    Con-Tester

    August 14, 2011 at 22:54

  199. Ho hum, how original. Yet more flood of cretinist/IDiot BS. But not an answer anywhere in sight.

    Go on, give us more, more, more of that fundie godiot twaddle!
    😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    August 14, 2011 at 20:57

  200. bandwith = bandwidth

    soois

    August 14, 2011 at 20:49

  201. As you are on the net as always, some more:

    1. If every effect has a cause, then what or who caused the universe?

    2. I have stated this one several times, but as yet unanswered. What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?

    3. If the authorities stole Jesus’ body, why, and why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?

    4. What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible, and why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?

    5. Is it absolutely true that “truth is not absolute” or only relatively true that “all things are relative?

    6. Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?

    No need to waste bandwith, just answer these for yourself.

    soois

    August 14, 2011 at 20:48

  202. At this stage you are the one that must answer, I did my tour.

    soois

    August 14, 2011 at 20:38

  203. Ho hum. Another flood of cretinist/IDiot BS. But not an answer anywhere in sight.

    Just carry on spouting your nonsense there, old boy. You just keep proving my point that it’s not possible to have any form of fruitful discussion or debate with religiot morons of your fathomless calibre.

    Con-Tester

    August 14, 2011 at 20:19

  204. “Daar is baie argeologiese bewyse vir Boeddha, vir Mohammed, Horus en die oorgrote Egiptiese oortuigings, maar glo jy al daardie ook? Baie van die mense en plekke is werklik en baie van die geskrifte wat in die Bybel aangehaal word is werklik. Maar dit beteken nie noodwendig dat die bonatuurlike aansprake van die wat in die Bybel aangehaal word alles waar is nie.”

    Totdat jy self die bonatuurlike beleef. Ek kan jou vertel van my vrou se siekte wat deur gebed genees is, of baie ander persoonlike getuienisse, maar dit sal CT en sy cronies net irriteer, maar dit is waar die verskil inkom, wanneer jy self daardie konneksie met God gemaak het, val alles in mekaar en word die Bybel totaal waar.

    Terloops, die Christelike Godsdiens is die enigste waar die oordeel vervang is met “n Messias wat klaar ons loon betaal het. Al die ander godsdienste veroordeel.

    soois

    August 14, 2011 at 20:12

  205. I see you guys react to nice scientific questions, but are stumped when asked normal common sense questions, where you have to think for yourselves and cannot use scientific theory to answer. Copied the next six questions just for thought, no need to answer, just think for yourselves. If you haven’t noticed, I do not need the answers for the questions I am asking, I already know the answers, but I want you guys to chew on them.

    Here goes, taken from http://www.rzim.org/usa/usfv/tabid/436/articleid/10284/cbmoduleid/1561/default.aspx

    “If there is no God, “the big questions” remain unanswered, so how do we answer the following questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? This question was asked by Aristotle and Leibniz alike – albeit with differing answers. But it is an historic concern. Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life? If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found? Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end? How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier? If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong? If you are content within atheism, what circumstances would serve to make you open to other answers?
    If we reject the existence of God, we are left with a crisis of meaning, so why don’t we see more atheists like Jean Paul Sartre, or Friedrich Nietzsche, or Michel Foucault? These three philosophers, who also embraced atheism, recognized that in the absence of God, there was no transcendent meaning beyond one’s own self-interests, pleasures, or tastes. The crisis of atheistic meaninglessness is depicted in Sartre’s book Nausea. Without God, there is a crisis of meaning, and these three thinkers, among others, show us a world of just stuff, thrown out into space and time, going nowhere, meaning nothing.
    When people have embraced atheism, the historical results can be horrific, as in the regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who saw religion as the problem and worked to eradicate it? In other words, what set of actions are consistent with particular belief commitments? It could be argued, that these behaviors – of the regimes in question – are more consistent with the implications of atheism. Though, I’m thankful that many of the atheists I know do not live the implications of these beliefs out for themselves like others did! It could be argued that the socio-political ideologies could very well be the outworking of a particular set of beliefs – beliefs that posited the ideal state as an atheistic one.
    If there is no God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved, so where is the hope of redemption, or meaning for those who suffer? Suffering is just as tragic, if not more so, without God because there is no hope of ultimate justice, or of the suffering being rendered meaningful or transcendent, redemptive or redeemable. It might be true that there is no God to blame now, but neither is there a God to reach out to for strength, transcendent meaning, or comfort. Why would we seek the alleviation of suffering without objective morality grounded in a God of justice?
    If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people, so whose opinion matters most? Whose voice will be heard? Whose tastes or preferences will be honored? In the long run, human tastes and opinions have no more weight than we give them, and who are we to give them meaning anyway? Who is to say that lying, or cheating or adultery or child molestation are wrong –really wrong? Where do those standards come from? Sure, our societies might make these things “illegal” and impose penalties or consequences for things that are not socially acceptable, but human cultures have at various times legally or socially disapproved of everything from believing in God to believing the world revolves around the sun; from slavery, to interracial marriage, from polygamy to monogamy. Human taste, opinion law and culture are hardly dependable arbiters of Truth.
    If there is no God, we don’t make sense, so how do we explain human longings and desire for the transcendent? How do we even explain human questions for meaning and purpose, or inner thoughts like, why do I feel unfulfilled or empty? Why do we hunger for the spiritual, and how do we explain these longings if nothing can exist beyond the material world?”

    soois

    August 14, 2011 at 20:03

  206. As a matter of interest:
    Did you know that the Bible has been the number one bestseller almost every single year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?

    And to keep you guessing: If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?

    soois

    August 14, 2011 at 19:55

  207. Next Q: How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and the proximity to the originals of its many copied manuscripts?

    soois

    August 14, 2011 at 19:50

  208. “…Soois was jy daar toe die Russe die lugruim oorgeneem het, toe ons ouens teen mach2 moes wegkruipertjie speel met die nuwe mach3 manne. Toe die Kubane met minder as die helfte van hulle mag teruggekeer het Kuba toe…”

    Wonder waar kom jy aan daardie kak. Laat ek jou gou vertel, eerstens was ons “scramble” spoed, met “drop tanks” en al MACH 2.3, tweedens was ons kontaksnelheid gemiddeld MACH 0.55, soveel so dat ons Mirage ouens gesukkel het om die Impalas ore aan te sit tydens Operasie Goue Arend en so voorts. Die Russ se MIGS kon daardie tyd, net voor 1989 MACH 2.6 gehaal, maar dit het hulle net vinniger laat weghol.

    soois

    August 14, 2011 at 19:14

  209. A much more credible source presents a rather more balanced assessment.

    Con-Tester

    August 14, 2011 at 17:50

  210. Balanced Truths asks (August 14, 2011 at 10:01):

    [D]id you read the [Horus/Jesus] link?

    I did (after fixing it) and it left me wondering whether you yourself have read the whole thing.

    Con-Tester

    August 14, 2011 at 17:40

  211. Strictly speaking, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) applies not just to closed systems or systems at thermodynamic equilibrium. As far as we know, it applies to all systems where energy exchanges occur (i.e., thermodynamic systems). As an aside, a far more interesting question physically is whether it still applies to systems that are very far from thermodynamic equilibrium, e.g. the very early universe a few moments after the Big Bang.

    What SLT states is that it is impossible for total entropy to decrease. Cretinists and IDiots ignorantly interpret this to mean that you can’t create order in nature without supernatural interference. Obviously and typically, they haven’t thought it through or they are being deliberately dishonest about it. The fact that total entropy cannot decrease does not require that local entropy cannot decrease. A power station is a good example: it draws from an external source of energy, e.g. hydrostatic or fuel, to produce more usable or flexible energy in the form of electricity. In the process, it reduces the local entropy by creating a more ordered form of energy but the total entropy of the whole system (power station plus rest of universe) still increases. Similarly, plants grab electromagnetic energy from the sun to create greater order in assembling various constituents, chiefly water and carbon dioxide, into much more ordered systems in the form of cells. Again, the local entropy is decreased at the expense of the total entropy. Other organisms prey on plants to extract energy that they use to reduce their own local entropy, and so on all the way up the food chain.

    But tell all that to a godiot and he’ll just stare at you blankly before carrying on in exactly the same brain-dead vein as before.

    Con-Tester

    August 14, 2011 at 11:37

  212. BT, dink jy apartheid sou vir 45 jaar in stand gehou kon word sonder die rol van die christelike godsdiens en spesifiek die NG Kerk? Dink jy ouers sou hul kinders grens toe kon stuur sonder die boodskappies van “God se wil” wat Sondag na Sondag van die preekstoel af gebulder is? Dink jy verpligte diensplig sou enigsins suksesvol geimplimenteer kon word sonder die rol wat dogmatiese religieuse indoktrinasie gespeel het?

    Malherbe

    August 14, 2011 at 10:33

  213. …and it will never be in thermodynamic equilibrium as long as the sun keeps shining and albedo continues. Plants use this nett influx of energy most directly for photosynthesis to grow and reproduce. No god required for that. Natural self-organising systems like snowflakes or crystal growth are directed by blind laws. No god required for that either. But humans? Noooooo, we’re far too special (in our own minds only, of course) to be the product of a godless universe…🙄

    Con-Tester

    August 14, 2011 at 10:05

  214. soois
    August 13, 2011 at 15:05
    and
    August 13, 2011 at 18:38

    How do you explain that Daniel prophesied the exact year in which Christ would be presented as Messiah and also prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterwards over 500 years in advance (Daniel 9:24-27)?

    How do you explain David’s graphic portrayal of Jesus’ death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years before Christ lived?

    Con-Tester referred to logical fallacies earlier on, you should really read up on a few of them, they are incredibly powerful and terribly irritating tools in political arguments where you need to justify lies and murder. How do you explain the fact that Horus is the Jesus story, long before all of this you mention above, did you read the link?

    Balanced Truths

    August 14, 2011 at 10:01

  215. soois
    August 13, 2011 at 14:56

    How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?

    It pertains to systems that are in equilibrium. So the second law of Thermodynamics will not say much about Evolution, you see, Earth is not yet a system in equilibrium.

    Balanced Truths

    August 14, 2011 at 09:39

  216. All of which, of course, is underpinned by the telling assumption that the events described not only actually occurred, but also occurred exactly as described. You know, it’s really funny how in works of fiction the individual strands usually tie together quite neatly. Needless to say, this feature is utterly remarkable in a book that was constituted by a panel through an act of ballot…🙄

    Con-Tester

    August 14, 2011 at 09:35

  217. soois
    August 13, 2011 at 14:36

    Next question, and you may elaborate: “As someone who embraces science, how do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?

    Daar is baie argeologiese bewyse vir Boeddha, vir Mohammed, Horus en die oorgrote Egiptiese oortuigings, maar glo jy al daardie ook? Baie van die mense en plekke is werklik en baie van die geskrifte wat in die Bybel aangehaal word is werklik. Maar dit beteken nie noodwendig dat die bonatuurlike aansprake van die wat in die Bybel aangehaal word alles waar is nie.

    Balanced Truths

    August 14, 2011 at 09:18

  218. This bloke doesn’t actually read anything besides his Holey Babble. He’s made that clear by resorting to all the usual cretinist and IDiot canards out there. He prides himself on thinking for himself. What a hilarious little joke that is! Significantly, thinking entails the ability to locate and to recognise reliable sources of information.

    The bottom line is that lengthy explanations and links to extensive such reliable information are wasted on this dupe. It’s entirely predictable that he’ll just retort with a new barrage of baloney that completely misses the point, and continue to ask oh-so-clever questions culled from other ignoramuses without answering any directed at him.

    Con-Tester

    August 14, 2011 at 09:08

  219. soois
    August 13, 2011 at

    “… gotte wat tussen rondtes vir jou aanspoor deur ‘n spul leuens in jou reeds-benewelde brein in te prop …” Om wat presies daardeur te beryk??

    Wat bereik ons deur sogenaamde leuens te versprei?

    Kom ek pluk n hartsnaar…

    Soois was jy daar toe die Russe die lugruim oorgeneem het, toe ons ouens teen mach2 moes wegkruipertjie speel met die nuwe mach3 manne. Toe die Kubane met minder as die helfte van hulle mag teruggekeer het Kuba toe, so hard op hulle moer gegee dat hulle Generaal op aankoms in die kop geskiet is deur sy eie mense. Ek wonder of ons Rekkies, wat in die donker nag van die duikbote af kilometers ver geswem het om te voet in Angola in te sluip, gedryf was deur die NG Kerk of God?

    Rekkies, Suid-Afrika se spesiale magte, die mees verhelderende militêre operasies tydens n tyd van ekstreme politieke dinamika, die teenoffensiewe operasies in Namibië in 1966, die kommando klopjag op Dare-es-Salaam, die Fox Street Siege, Suid-Afrika se ingryping in Angola in 1975 en die daaropvolgende ontrekking, die opkoms van’ n opstand in Mosambiek, Suid-Afrika se terugkeer na Angola, die SWAPO basisse in Zambië, die opleiding en hulp aan UNITA, die stryd teen ZANLA en ZIPRA in Rhodesië (nou Zimbabwe) en hoe die Rekkies Rhodesië se ‘D’ Eskader SAS beman het, die val van Rhodesië, die aanval teen die ANC by Matola in Mosambiek, Suid-Afrikaanse hulp aan die RENAMO en Rekkie bedrywighede in Mosambiek, Lesotho, Cabinda, Botswana en Zambië. Die laaste dae van apartheid Suid-Afrika verduidelik hoe naby die land aan ‘n regse staatsgreep was.

    Ek wonder of dit die NG Kerk was wat, in die harte van die Afrikaners, hulle tot die besef laat kom het dat hulle magte en Generale die slagting te realisties en effektief sou kon afhandel? NG Kerk of te nie, hulle het tot die besef gekom dat hulle dit net nie kon laat gebeur nie. Dalk het die NG Kerk ook in die harte van die Broederbond gewerk om hulle te beïnvloed om die regte manne in die regte plekke te kry sodat die sterkes kan oorgee aan die flodder, weens morele redes, nie bereid om so n groot monster te word nie. Was dit die NG Kerk wat veroorsaak het dat ons land eerder oorgegee het aan n immorele opponent wat met propaganda en leuens en terroristiese politiese vuilgat metodes hulle eie kinders soos skulde voor hulle AK47’s uitgestoot het?

    Hoeveel voorbeelde in die mens se geskiedenis toon n soortgelyke lyn waar die sterke oorgegee het aan die swakkes, nie omdat die swakkes die morele hoë grond geneem het nie maar omdat die sterkes nie bereid was om so vuil te speel nie?

    Die Afrikaners het van die dae van ‘kitchen dutch’ af uit die stof uit opgestaan teen hulle aggressors en geworstel, eers om te bestaan, en toe om n formidabele mag te verteenwoordig, n mag wat self tot die besef gekom het dat hulle die pad byster geraak het. Wapens is neergelê en die hoofde is gebuig. So word n land wat na regte aan die steentydperk Hottentot, San, Khoi Khoi en Strandloper mense behoort het deur die Xhosa en die Zulu gesteel.

    As dit nie vir die boere was wat destyds teen die Britte opgestaan het nie sou ons Xhosa en Zulu maatjies dieselfde roete gevolg het as die Rooihuide, Māories, Aboriginies en al die ander inboorlinge wat op een mooi warm dag in die groen gras die rooi baadjies raakgeloop het.

    Die apartheid regering het verseker verkeerd gedoen, maar hulle het nie oorlog gevoer op soveel komplekse fronte omdat hulle daarvan gehou het nie, hulle is nie in oorlog gedryf deur die NG Kerk nie en hulle het nie eers naastenby die vlak van korrupsie en wreedheid van die huidige Zulu en Xhosa regering bereik nie. Op hulle slegste was hulle niks in vergelyking met die Spanjaarde, die Britte of die Amerikaners nie.

    Hottentot, San, Khoi Khoi en Strandloper sal op waglyste bly, in areas waar hulle al geslagte lank gevestig is, maar swartes van ver kry huise voor die wat eerste hier was.

    Om die Kerk of geloof in n God vir politiese swakhede soos selfsug en hebsug te blameer is om die ware probleem te vermom.

    Geld en mag, en die institusies wat hulle daaraan toewy soos banke, versekerings maatskappye, groot korporatiewe groepe en ons politieke meesters is n baie groter dryfveer, vernietig baie meer lewens en indoktrineer baie meer jong mense as geloof in n God. Ons oorloë is nie vir geloof redes gevoer nie, maar weens selfsug en hebsug en plein eenvoudige internasionale magsbeheptheid.

    Een ding is seker, ten minste in ons geval, dat ons manne aangespoor en versterk was deur hul geloof in n God soos voorgelê deur die NG Kerk.

    Dat geloof n gemaklike kandidaat is vir blaam is duidelik uit die gemak waarmee dit ook aangewend kan word om goeie mense te kry om slegte dinge te doen.

    Balanced Truths

    August 14, 2011 at 08:40


  220. soois
    August 13, 2011 at 11:07

    Is dit so dat Darwin se evolusie-teorie ‘n wetenskaplike teorie is, maar nog nie in die praktyk bewys is nie?

    No

    Balanced Truths

    August 14, 2011 at 07:46

  221. Yeah, that’s right. Carrying on regardless as if nothing was amiss is what you fundie numbskulls do best…😉

    You’re obviously too much of an intellectual poltroon to answer five simple questions and will just pretend that you answered them without being able to show any evidence that you did. That would be because there is none and you’re just lying to us. Again.

    Nonetheless, here’s a hint: Even if I had no answers whatsoever to your questions concerning evolution, thermodynamics or your fairytale book (which is not the case at all since I could expand on them at length — you clearly haven’t the first clue about what you are dealing with here), even if I had no answers whatsoever, it would not lend a single, solitary shred of credibility to your position. That is, unless you’re one of those oh-so-common religiots who is stuck on false dichotomy. Look up “false dichotomy” if, as is certain to be the case, you have no idea what it means.

    Con-Tester

    August 13, 2011 at 22:31

  222. Good night to you my dear and “well-read” friend. Chat some more another day?!

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 22:09

  223. Let’s see if you can earn my respect: How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 22:08

  224. Baby steps, CT, baby steps. A few simple questions that should not be challenging tgo the almighty Con-Tester.

    Next question, and may I point out that you are falling way behind? Let’s mix a little bit of that other science, math, in with the Bible: How do you account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ?

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 22:06

  225. I told you: Answer mine and I’ll answer yours. You’re just too full of your own shit to read what is right before you properly. 😳😳😳

    Con-Tester

    August 13, 2011 at 19:01

  226. Just to even things out and while you are chewing on that one, another question on the Bible: How do you explain David’s graphic portrayal of Jesus’ death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years before Christ lived?

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 18:38

  227. My my, who is dodging questions now? Next one: How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with naturalism and the Law of Entropy? Here is a link iof you do not know this law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 18:36

  228. 😆😆😆 Oh, taking a nap with your wannabe zombie god, are we? Myabe you should see a medical professional about that (not a faith healear now, mind!) ’cos you coulda fooled me ’cos you’re fast asleep all the time.😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    August 13, 2011 at 15:13

  229. There, you see? You know nothing about evolution, and you simply ignore any facts that show it to be so. Just what you’d expect from a dimwit godiot whose mouth is a thousand times the size of his brain. Evolution says precisely nothing about the origin of life; it says everything about the origin of species. Catch a wake-up, you faintly amusing little religiot retard.

    😀 So once again, liar, liar, pants on fire!😀


    Hey respect-wise, we’re on the same page at least. Maybe that’s a start, you faintly amusing little religiot retard.

    You answer can my questions first, then I’ll oblige you. Or you can try reading a book or other source with REAL science and REAL facts in it instead of your fairytale anthology. It’s entirely up to you, you faintly amusing little religiot retard.

    Con-Tester

    August 13, 2011 at 15:09

  230. Racking your excuse for a brain eh? While you are frantically searching for answers, I am going to take a nice long afternoon nap. Just to keep your Saturday interesting, the next question. You can have the whole day to answer. As you expect me to read up on and be knowledgible on your science, I reckon you should be at least a little-bit clued-up on the greatest Book ever, thus the next question: How do you explain that Daniel prophesied the exact year in which Christ would be presented as Messiah and also prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterwards over 500 years in advance (Daniel 9:24-27)?

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 15:05

  231. “I’ve told you many times what you need to do for me to treat you with respect.” No respect required from you my friend. I do not respect you, thus I cannot expect it from you.

    Next question, again one for an expert just like yourself: How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 14:56

  232. Correction, the Sabbath (Old Testament law) was on Saturday, taken away by Jesus Christ, as He is the new Sabbath (Sabbath means – to be made holy).

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 14:48

  233. While you are thinking, or GOOGLING an answer, just the following question pertaining to your previous answer, life origins are not proven (cannot be seen, cannot be verified, or falsified), how does the theory of “evolution” amount to anything more than just another faith system?

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 14:46

  234. You yourself explicitly stated in one of this blog’s entries a few weeks or months ago that Saturday is your Sabbath. Shall I dig it up for you to remind that sorry mess of yours you call a brain?

    😀 So, liar, liar, pants on fire!😀


    You know nothing about science and even less about evolution, yet you presume to elevate yourself above tens of thousands of experts who have dedicated lifetimes to studying those matters that threaten your stupid beliefs.

    😀 So, liar, liar, pants on fire!😀


    I answered your question. You still spinelessly dodge the ones I asked you despite your insistence that you have, a simple thing for which you have no proof. Don’t expect me to play by your rules if you won’t reciprocate.

    😀 So, liar, liar, pants on fire!😀


    You say I want you to shut up, eh? I’ve told you many times what you need to do for me to treat you with respect.

    😀 So, liar, liar, pants on fire!😀


    Your side has had the ball for near enough two millennia now. You won’t acknowledge that you fucked it up royally because it would mean that others who disagree with you have a point and you can’t face that.

    😀 So, liar, liar, pants on fire!😀

    Con-Tester

    August 13, 2011 at 14:44

  235. O and your question has been answered. Tell me if you need it in layman’s terms.

    Next question, and you may elaborate: “As someone who embraces science, how do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 14:36

  236. No!? Who is the liar now?

    Sabbath, first find out what the word “sabbath” means before you tell me it is my Sabbath.

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 14:25

  237. Oh, before I forget, it’s your Sabbath today. You should be reflecting on your imagined relationship with your fictional skydaddy today, not fighting the good fight with atheists. Or do you only obey your fairytale book’s admonitions when it suits you? Turning the other cheek and all that tired I’m-a-better-person-than-you rot not on for today, say what old chap?

    Con-Tester

    August 13, 2011 at 13:42

  238. Ha ha ha ha ha ha! What a comedy act you have wrought for us! All fantasy and slapstick.

    The answer to your question is a resounding “No!”

    Your turn to answer my questions, chickenshit.

    Con-Tester

    August 13, 2011 at 13:35

  239. Trouens, ek stel die vraag oop vir almal. Daar is valse profete en dies meer wat sektes stig en hulleself verryk, maar in ‘n ware Christelike gemeenskap, soos die een waarin ek beweeg, is daar niemand wat enigsins iets win behalwe geestelike vreugde en vrede nie. Armes en minder bevoorregtes, wat meestal self nie ‘n geestelike lewe volg nie, is die enigste ontvangers van kos en hulp. Wat bereik ons deur sogenaamde leuens te versprei?

    Jy hoef egter net na baie van die plasings hierbo te kyk om te sien hoe word daar na elke grashalmpie gegryp om Die Bybel verkeerd of vals te bewys. Hoekom? Omdat die atheis eenvoudig nie glo nie, omdat hy/sy nog niks ervaar het om hom/haar te oortuig van ‘n goddelike figuur nie, en dit is “fine”, maar nou is daar die vraag by hom/haar; “se nou net ek is verkeerd, en daardie “godioot” is reg, en hy/sy het ‘n hiernamaals om na uit te sien wat ek nie het nie?”

    Jy sien, daarom voel ons jammer vir die ongelowige, en verneder ons onsself omdat ons vir daardie persone lief en jammer is, en wil he hulle moet ook gered wees. Daardteenoor kan die ateis dood eenvoudig nie die Christen in vrede respekteer nie, maar haat hulle ons. Kyk maar die doring in die vlees is ek vir CT. Was ek ‘n vlieenier en later boer met geen geloof, is daar na my verwys op ‘n ander manier, heel waarskynlik met respek, maar net omdat ek glo en die bosoorlog verdedig het, of liewer die miskonsepsie dat die kerk vir die bosoorlog verantwoordelik was, is ek nou “meneer die godbefokte grensvegter boer “. Die feit is, dat buiten drie toere as Ops Offisier, ek eintlik die grens net uit die lug uit gesien het, terwyl duisende outjies daar onder in die bos die werklike aksie gesien het, en ja, meeste van hulle het in God geglo en op Hom vertrou, en is deur Hom daardeur gedra. Is hulle nou ook “godbefokte grensvegters”, of jong helde wat net die taak uitgevoer het wat hulle land van hulle gevra het? Moes bliksems swaar en vreesaanjaend gewees het om nie te glo nie, om ‘n oorlog te veg met die vrees dat jy as 19jarige mag sterf, sonder die hoop op ‘n hiernamaals.

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 11:37

  240. Malherbe, hierdie een is vir jou, en ja, jy mag maar ‘n ordentlike antwoord gee, nie net ja of nee nie.

    “… gotte wat tussen rondtes vir jou aanspoor deur ‘n spul leuens in jou reeds-benewelde brein in te prop …” Om wat presies daardeur te beryk??

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 11:12

  241. Nee my liewe Malherbe, ek het al male sonder tal myself verkleineer en erken ek is nie ‘n Einstein” nie, maar dit beteken nie dat ek moet gaan le nie. Boonop kon CT my nog nie eenkeer verkeerd bewys nie, ek kon nie die Bybelwaarheid aan hom bewys nie, maar hy kon ook nie dit vals bewys nie. Verder het ek ook agter gekom dat die Boek wat hy so probeer afkraak ver bokant sy verstand is, en dit is juis hoe die Bybel werk. Al is jy ‘n genie, sal daardie boek vir jou onverklaarbaar bly totdat jy jou hart vir Hom gee, werklik gee, dan sien jy hoe onsluit daardie Boek homself selfs vir dom ouens soos ek.

    Ek haal aan: “That’s exactly what the godiots and religiots are counting on. They want to wear you down with their incessant droning nonsense in the hope that they’ll eventually drown out all opposition so that they can spread their kakstories unhindered.” As jy mooi gaan kyk sal jy sien dit is eintlik wat CT doen, maar hy staan agter die deur. Hy is die een wat nog boggerol bewys het nie, maar elke pos van my aanval dood eenvoudig omdat hy my deursettingsvermoee verpes en hoop dat ek uiteindelloik sal opgee voordat iemand, “god forbid”, dalk tot bekering mag kom.

    Hy kom met vrae wat ek blykbaar net mag ja of nee antwoord, dus soek hy nie eintlik ‘n antwoord nie. Wel, hier is een ja/nee vraag vir CT:
    Is dit so dat Darwin se evolusie-teorie ‘n wetenskaplike teorie is, maar nog nie in die praktyk bewys is nie?

    soois

    August 13, 2011 at 11:07

  242. Soois skryf “Malherbe, you are just some more of the same old CT kak. Get yourself an IQ and you might begin to understand my answers, as CT’s intelligence has obviously abandoned him long ago.”
    Dankie vir die kompliment Soois, maar nee, ek is nie naastenby op CT se intellektuele vlak nie. Die verskil egter tussen my en jou is dat ek is slim genoeg om dit te besef. Jy, aan die ander kant, herinner my aan ‘n papgeslaande bokser wat na elke rondte terugkeer kryt toe om verder opgevoeter te word….. met jou gotte wat tussen rondtes vir jou aanspoor deur ‘n spul leuens in jou reeds-benewelde brein in te prop.

    Malherbe

    August 13, 2011 at 10:44

  243. rick wrote (August 12, 2011 at 16:13):

    Ek het eenvoudig nie die deursettingsvermoëns om daagliks met die godiete op hierdie blog te redeneer nie.

    That’s exactly what the godiots and religiots are counting on. They want to wear you down with their incessant droning nonsense in the hope that they’ll eventually drown out all opposition so that they can spread their kakstories unhindered. Just look at our meneer die godbefokte grensvegter boer and his approach. When the red flags start going up that his beliefs are maybe not as kosher as he pretends, he pulls yet more fanciful crap out of his arse and proudly holds it up as though it was somehow deeply profound instead of the transparent and anaemic crap that it is. It’s not hard to see that he hasn’t addressed most of the simple questions I put to him. Equally, it’s not hard to see the grave logical flaw in the “God’s plan is superior to our understanding” argument within the context it is made in, which argument is supposedly too difficult for atheists to comprehend. When this is pointed out, he throws his toys out the cot and goes all churlish and petulant. It’s just too funny for words.

    But one thing’s for sure: Our resident god-moron will just carry on spouting horseshit as if nothing happened. Another thing that’s for sure is that I’ll continue to call him on it. You may have noticed that his intellectual sibling, one Hanswors, seems to have thrown in the towel for now. Expect him back, though. These twits never lean any new tricks. It’s miles too far beyond their capacity.

    Con-Tester

    August 13, 2011 at 09:47


  244. Malherbe
    August 12, 2011 at 10:47

    Its like trying to explain gravity to a flat-earther.

    It’s merely like tying to explain gravity…

    Balanced Truths

    August 13, 2011 at 08:47

  245. 😆😆😆 Yeah, yeah, we all know that tu quoque is the full extent of your ability to defend your crap. I mean, you’ve proven it often enough that you’d much rather snivel, “You too! You too! So nyah nyah-nyah nyah nyah!” than give some kind of half-decently reasoned argument. That’s why you cowardly religious retards are so entertaining. 😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    August 12, 2011 at 18:01

  246. Spinelessness, ahem, and that from a yellow bellied master bullshitter.

    soois

    August 12, 2011 at 17:54

  247. Rick,

    oulike stukkie daardie, en ja, ek het skoon terugverlang na daardie dae. Om godsdiens die krediet vir die goeie te gee mag dalk verkeerd wees, maar interessant genoeg is dit juis godsdiens wat die krediet gegee word vir al die slegte dinge wat vandag gebeur.

    soois

    August 12, 2011 at 17:53

  248. 🙄🙄🙄 I see, so now I’m persecuting you with my “stunted intelligence.” How deliciously ironic, that.🙄🙄🙄

    The fact that it is you who is making preposterous claims here and then lack the ability and courage to defend them properly obviously doesn’t bother you. Nor does your patent avoidance of typing five simple yes-or-no answers. Nor does your telling great big bullshit tales and calling them “answers” that supposedly defend your avoidances. Nor does your manifest intellectual spinelessness and dishonesty.


    😛 In future, I’ll diligently refer to your sliminess you have put on display here.😛


    😀 So much for “stunted intelligence.”😀

    Con-Tester

    August 12, 2011 at 16:27

  249. Ek het eenvoudig nie die deursettingsvermoëns om daagliks met die godiete op hierdie blog te redeneer nie.

    Maar, het vandag hierdie e-pos ontvang wat my onmiddelik aan ons “meneer die godbefokte grensvegter boer” laat dink het:

    “Aan al die “kinders” wat die 1930’s tot 1970’s oorleef het!

    Eerstens het ons die rokery en drinkery van ons moeders oorleef terwyl hulle
    swanger was.

    Hulle het aspiriene gedrink, blou kaas en vis uit ‘n blik ge-eet en is nooit
    getoets of hulle diabeties was nie.

    Na al die trauma was ons in ons bedjies gesit op ons magies in ‘n kot wat
    oorgetrek was met helder kleurige lood basis verf. Ons het geen “kindvaste”
    deksels of proppe op medisyne bottles, deure of kaste gehad nie en geen
    kopskerms gedra as ons fietry nie… Om nie te praat van die risiko’s toe ons
    duim gery het nie.

    As kleuters en kinders kon ons agter op die sitplek sit sonder veiligheids
    stoele, veiligheidsgordels of lugsakke.

    Om agter op die bakkie te ry was groot pret en ons het water uit die
    tuinslang gedrink en nie uit bottels nie.

    Ons het ons koeldrankies met vier vriende gedeel uit een bottel en niemand
    is dood daarvan nie.

    Ons het sjokoladekoek en wit brood geëet met regte botter en “kool aid” met
    suiker gemaak om te drink, maar ons was nie oorgewig nie want…..

    ONS HET ALTYD BUITE GESPEEL!

    Ons het die huis verlaat in die oggend vroeg en het heeldag gespeel. Solank
    ons terug was as die straatligte aankom of voor die kerse aangesteek was.

    NIEMAND kon ons kontak deur die dag nie en ons het almal veilig teruggekeer
    huistoe.

    Ons het ure spandeer deur kaskarre te bou uit afval hout en yster en het dan
    teen die steilste bulte afgejaag, net om uit te vind ons het vergeet van die
    brieke. Nadat ons ‘n paar keer die kaskar omgegooi het en tussen die bosse
    ingejaag het, het ons geleer om die probleem op te los.

    Die dogtertjies het die rokkies in hul broekies gesteek om ook in al die
    prêt te kon deel en niemand het iets daarvan gedink nie.

    Seksuele molestasie was nie aan ons bekend nie en tiener swangerskappe was
    nie van gehoor nie.

    Ook was daar nie tyd vir dwelms nie want ons ouers het nog genoeg vir ons
    omgegee om ons boude aan die brand te klits as ons iets ongehoords sou
    probeer doen.

    Sondae het ons almal ons beste kleertjies aangetrek en kerk toe gegaan. GEEN
    verskonings om tuis te bly was aanvaarbaar nie. Braaivleis en partytjies op
    Sondae was uit. Ons het geweet wat “ses dae moet jy arbei en al jou werk
    doen en die sewende dag moet jy rus” beteken. Daar het ons geleer van
    liefde, respek, hoe om God te vrees en te vertrou. Dat vaders en moeders
    ge-eer moet word en ons monde met seep uitgewas SAL word wanneer ons vloek
    of teëpraat.

    Boeke vat saans na ete was ‘n werklikheid en ons almal het aandagtig
    geluister want vrae is gevra oor die stukkie wat gelees was.

    Ons was ook geleer hoe om elke aand voor ons bedjies te kniel en te bid.

    Ons het nie “playstations”, “ninetendo’s”, “X boxes”, “wii”, of enige video
    speletjies gehad nie. “Shopping” vir ontspanning was nie aan ons bekend nie,
    en “label” klere was toe ook nog nie eers in “China” gemaak nie. Snobisme
    was ‘n galbitter vrug wat net in die Amasone “gegroei” het en sakgeld was
    “iets” wat net die Staatspresident van geweet het.

    Ook nie 150 TV kanale, DVD’s of video flieks, selfone, persoonlike rekenaars
    met internet, facebook of chatrooms nie…

    Ons het VRIENDE gehad… en as ons hulle gesoek het, het ons net buite toe
    gegaan.

    Ons het uit bome geval, was gesny en het bene gebreek en daar was geen
    geregtelike eise vir hierdie ongelukke nie.

    Ons het wurms en modderpasteie ge-eet en die wurms het nie vir altyd in ons
    geleef nie.

    Ons het windbukse en poppe gekry vir ons tiende verjaarsdag, speletjies
    opgemaak met stokke en tennisballe, ou komberse en peule en al het niemand
    ons gewaarsku dat dit kan gebeur nie, het ons min oë uit gesteek.

    Ons het met ons fietse gery of pop gespeel of sommer net geloop na ons
    vriende se huise, aan die deur geklop en sommer ingeloop en gesels. “Oom” en
    “tannie” was nog aan die orde van die dag en “jy” en “jou” was net op
    rondloper honde van toepassing.

    Rugby en tennis spannetjies het proewe gehad en die wat nie die span gehaal
    het nie, moes maar vrede maak daarmee – Verbeel jou dit!!

    Ons het gereeld die bed natgemaak en ons ouers het ons ‘n pak slae gegee,
    nie na sielkundiges toe geneem nie omdat hulle nie geweet het wat om met ons
    te doen nie.

    Die gedagte om jou kinders by die polisiestasie te gaan uit borg het nie
    bestaan nie. Ouers was aan die polisie se kant! Sien, kinders was daai tyd
    nie gehoor, of gesien, in geselskap nie want die ouers was nie bang vir hul
    kinders nie!

    Tande tel was uit want ons het geweet hoe om te speel. Ons ouers en
    grootouers se grootste taak was definitief nie om ons te “entertain” nie.

    Terugpraat was die grootste euwel en ons ouers het nie toegelaat dat ons
    kinders hulle met mooi woordjies kon manipuleer nie. Ouers was nog ouers en
    kinders was nog kinders, en kinders het gedoen wat vir hulle gesê was.

    “Skoolsiekte” was nie toegelaat nie want ons ouers het geweet hoe om te
    “cope” met die daaglikse stres in hulle lewens. Al wanneer jy by die huis
    kon bly was wanneer jy half dood was. Termometers was ook nie onder jou tong
    of in jou oor geplaas nie……

    Skoolsertifikate is aan almal uitgegee wat nooit afwesig was gedurende die
    jaar nie en snaaks genoeg, ons almal het altyd een gekry.

    Elke oggend was met gebed en sang ge-open en die oudste onnies het altyd die
    Bybelperiode aangebied. Seker omdat hulle die Bybel die beste geken het.

    Daardie generasie het van die beste risikovatters, problemoplossers en
    uitvinders OOIT geproduseer.

    Die laaste 50 jaar het bestaan uit ontploffings van uitvindings en nuwe
    idees.

    Ons het vryheid, verlies, sukses en verantwoordelikheid gehad en ons het
    GELEER hoe om dit te hanteer.

    As jy een van hulle was.. Baie geluk!!!

    Jy wil dalk hierdie deel met die wat gelukkig was om groot te word soos
    kinders, voordat prokureurs en regerings jou lewe “vir jou eie beswil” begin
    reguleer het.

    Terwyl jy besig is, Stuur die aan vir jou kinders sodat hulle kan sien hoe
    dapper (en gelukkig) hulle ouers was.

    Laat jou voel asof jy deur die huis wil hardloop met ‘n hamer en ‘n sker is
    dit nie?

    nou vra ek…

    Met tornado’s, siklone, vure buite beheer, modderstortings, vloede,
    geweldige donderstorms wat die land uitmekaar skeur van hoek tot kant… en
    met die dreigende siektes en terroriste aanvalle, ….

    Is ons seker dit is die regte tyd om God uit ons skole, werksplekke en
    lewens te haal?

    Vir die wat dink God pas ons nie op nie… ignoreer hierdie…

    Vir die ander?…stuur dit asb aan”

    Klink asof die ouer generasie baie pret gehad het, maar die gedeelte waarin ek beslis nie glo nie, is die ”ons het vryheid gehad”. Nie vir ‘n fok nie. Wat dink julle?

    Verder is dit verstommend dat die skrywer God wil betrek ten einde hedendaagse probleme aan te pak. Geloof in God gaan geen ontsnapping bied aan “tornado’s, siklone, vure buite beheer, modderstortings, vloede, geweldige donderstorms wat die land uitmekaar skeur van hoek tot kant… en met die dreigende siekte” nie. Die wetenskap kan wel.

    En om God nog meer by terroriste aanvalle te betrek is myns insiens ‘n resep vir ‘n totale fokop!

    rick

    August 12, 2011 at 16:13

  250. And old CT is at it again, believing that I am on trial and he the prosecutor and I am limited to yes/no answers. You can go and play with yourself my dear self-apointed god.

    Malherbe, you are just some more of the same old CT kak. Get yourself an IQ and you might begin to understand my answers, as CT’s intelligence has obviously abandoned him long ago.

    soois

    August 12, 2011 at 14:34

  251. No meneer die godbefokte grensvegter boer , you haven’t answered my direct and simple yes-or-no questions. You have — typically — dodged them not very artfully with a pile of ex recto fundie twaddle, and now you wish blatantly to lie about it (ho hum, what else is new?) by publicly asserting that you have answered them. Moreover, I have already responded to Balanced Truths’s dissection of your stance, and your reply doesn’t even begin to address what Balanced Truths wrote. So, you still owe some straightforward yes-or-no answers to my questions (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8). If you decide to answer them, we can then proceed onto the next batch of questions and the next after that. If, on the other hand, you’re too much of an intellectual coward to pursue this and face the logical absurdity of the rubbish you believe, you just need to say so, okay?😛

    
    ------------------------------------------------------
    
    

    Malherbe, I have often repeated the widely-held atheist/agnostic contention that it is not possible to have any coherent and/or fruitful discussions with godiots and religiots about their beliefs because their reasoning abilities are severely impaired. As House, M.D. once said, “If you could reason with religious people, there wouldn’t be any religious people.” The fact remains, though, that our cerebrally defective and stubborn friend here is providing an ongoing excellent case study for the pervasive validity of that contention. It is a point that needs constant reinforcement otherwise we might become as deluded as our pigheaded detractors.

    Con-Tester

    August 12, 2011 at 11:35

  252. Soois, your “answers” to CT questions evades me. Obviously we do not hold the same definition for an answer.

    Con-tester, consider BT’s statement of “In short soois, God is a matter of belief, not knowledge, and every person that claims knowledge when it comes to God is deceitful.” This sums up the shortcomings of godbots’ “reasoning” perfectly. These guys’ brains are simply wired differently – I mean – where do you begin when reacting to the above? Its like trying to explain gravity to a flat-earther. Impossible. Even more disheartening is Soois’s infantile response of “I think I mentioned before that Christianity is a road that you take and as you travel on it, you gather gnowledge of His ways along the way, but you are never complete on this road until His return.” Utter nonsensical drivel.

    Malherbe

    August 12, 2011 at 10:47

  253. Read my answers to B-T and you will see that I have answered.

    soois

    August 12, 2011 at 09:45

  254. Tosh and falderal, as always.

    Hey, are you going to answer my questions? I did say we’d take this in baby steps and I’m hardly finished yet. Or are you ignoring me again so that you can carry on pretending that your beliefs are logically coherent?

    Con-Tester

    August 11, 2011 at 19:40

  255. Balanced-Truths.

    “Honestly soois, if you placed a kitten in a room with a bullterrier and proceeded to watch the dog maul the baby cat, can you claim to be innocent, having given the dog and cat free choice to make their own decisions?
    If it was within your power to stop the outcome and if you were aware of it then you either didn’t care to stop it, or you couldn’t, or you had another outcome, however dubiously benevolent and beyond our understanding, in mind. As a theist you should discredit the first two and embrace the latter.”

    – Honestly BT, you are wishing for a god busy playing a boardgame, and I wander what the atheist response would be if it was like that? I can merely refer you back to some comments regarding National Service to refresh your thinking. Most were totally against being forced te serve. Now if God manupilated us like puppets, what would you think of that?

    “Although I am inclined to agree that God, in as much as a benevolent all-knowing omnipotent God that has chosen to provide a creation populated with sentient creatures and free will and a condition – something that must exist for something else to happen – to not interfere in particular ways, must inevitably be in a state of utter sadness, you, however, seem to claim absolute knowledge of this, like so many theists do. Does God speak to you soois? If not, are you not, perhaps, a little arrogant in your assumptions about God?”

    – What do you think of a nature loving person who films a pride of lions tearing apart a still living buck, and does nothing to prevent this, because it is nature? I believe, no, I know that He is very sad as to the way His creation turned out, but as an Entity with utter discipline He has to leave it to us as was His intentions in the first place. As for communication between myself and Him, yes there is, but CT will tell you that it is all in my head.

    “It is my experience that the kitten will almost always give a pathetic little meow followed by an ineffectual little hiss before those muscular jaws crush it. It does not take a God to know the first is a very sincere cry for help, understanding or sympathy and the last is another ineffectual attempt to help itself, or perhaps an equally ineffectual protest at the perceived injustice of it all.
    I agree with you that God will not intrude, that much is clear from watching the news, but I disagree with you about asking, it seems not to have had the desired effect for so many, I would advise you, again, to argue that God’s plan is bigger than our understanding and that we poor souls must be completely oblivious of the finer nuances of the bigger picture, hence, we cannot comment. Unless, of course, God speaks to you, soois.”

    – I wonder with how much faith are most asking. It is my experience that He does in fact answer if asked with utmost faith in Him, however, I do not claim to know God’s will completely, and apologise if I gave such an impression. You are correct in saying that God’s plan is superior to our understanding, but try to explain that to an atheist?? It will automatically seen as proof of His non-existence, as their little brains cannot come around these facts. “If you cannot explain, it must be false. If you can explain, it is true without having to prove.”

    “In short soois, God is a matter of belief, not knowledge, and every person that claims knowledge when it comes to God is deceitful.”

    – I think I mentioned before that Christianity is a road that you take and as you travel on it, you gather gnowledge of His ways along the way, but you are never complete on this road until His return.

    soois

    August 11, 2011 at 14:47

  256. Balanced Truths wrote (August 6, 2011 at 08:46):

    … had another outcome, however dubiously benevolent and beyond our understanding, in mind. As a theist you should … embrace the latter.

    … I would advise you, again, to argue that God’s plan is bigger than our understanding and that we poor souls must be completely oblivious of the finer nuances of the bigger picture, hence, we cannot comment.

    That’s the stock theist approach to “answering” these questions. In other words, “mysterious ways” again. I was hoping that our ex-fighter-pilot-now-farming-godiot would raise this “argument,” but it seems that intellectual cowardice got the better of him and he ran away, refusing to answer any more questions that lead inevitably to the same conclusion of his religious beliefs’ fundamental absurdity.

    Balanced Truths wrote (August 6, 2011 at 08:46):

    … God is a matter of belief, not knowledge, and every person that claims knowledge when it comes to God is deceitful.

    I’ve made this point before. Our resident biological guru of course wouldn’t have any of it and just stuffs his fingers in his ears and shouts, “La-la-la-la-la! I can’t hear you! I know my ‘god’ exists and I know s/he is like I say s/he is! My experiences tell me so. La-la-la-la-la!”

    Con-Tester

    August 6, 2011 at 09:20


  257. (1) Can your “god” do whatever he wishes to? Yes or no?


    1. Yes, and doing evil is not one of them.

    Honestly soois, if you placed a kitten in a room with a bullterrier and proceeded to watch the dog maul the baby cat, can you claim to be innocent, having given the dog and cat free choice to make their own decisions?
    If it was within your power to stop the outcome and if you were aware of it then you either didn’t care to stop it, or you couldn’t, or you had another outcome, however dubiously benevolent and beyond our understanding, in mind. As a theist you should discredit the first two and embrace the latter.


    (2) Does your “god” know everything? Yes or no?


    2. Yes, and a lot of it pains Him.

    Although I am inclined to agree that God, in as much as a benevolent all-knowing omnipotent God that has chosen to provide a creation populated with sentient creatures and free will and a condition – something that must exist for something else to happen – to not interfere in particular ways, must inevitably be in a state of utter sadness, you, however, seem to claim absolute knowledge of this, like so many theists do. Does God speak to you soois? If not, are you not, perhaps, a little arrogant in your assumptions about God?


    (3) Is your “god” everywhere at all times? Yes or no?


    3. He knows everything, but will not intrude unless asked.

    It is my experience that the kitten will almost always give a pathetic little meow followed by an ineffectual little hiss before those muscular jaws crush it. It does not take a God to know the first is a very sincere cry for help, understanding or sympathy and the last is another ineffectual attempt to help itself, or perhaps an equally ineffectual protest at the perceived injustice of it all.

    I agree with you that God will not intrude, that much is clear from watching the news, but I disagree with you about asking, it seems not to have had the desired effect for so many, I would advise you, again, to argue that God’s plan is bigger than our understanding and that we poor souls must be completely oblivious of the finer nuances of the bigger picture, hence, we cannot comment. Unless, of course, God speaks to you, soois.


    (4) Is your “god” absolutely against evil? Yes or no?


    4. Yes, as you are, but when your adult daughter follows evil, you can but try to stop her, as He does, but in the end your daughter will decide and you will lose her if you interfered.

    You should use the word persuade rather than stop, then, the next time you repeat the experiment with the kitten and the bullterrier, instead of stopping the dog from killing the kitten, you can persuade it to be gentle instead, let me know how many kittens you sacrificed before it worked, then I will calculate how many cats would have to be sacrificed before it, theoretically, would have changed this particular disposition of all the dogs on Earth.

    In short soois, God is a matter of belief, not knowledge, and every person that claims knowledge when it comes to God is deceitful.

    Balanced Truths

    August 6, 2011 at 08:46

  258. No, the only people running in circles here are the godiots who are incapable of grasping the arguments put before them, never mind addressing them adequately, whereafter they proceed to concoct fatuous gobbledegook about what motivates atheists, which they later contradict, before telling a bunch of lies for their three-in-one-wannabe-god-zombie-who-got-nailed-to-a-pair-of-planks-for-being-a-naughty-pretender Jeeeeeebussssst! about being interested in science.

    Some of the answers you gave are the typical slippery crap expected from godiots. You want that your “god” must be a fixed-point absolute but you won’t commit absolutely to that supposedly absolute standard by providing unqualified yes-or-no answers. How revealing that you mean already to install just-in-case escape hatches in your answers. They won’t help you, though. (1) If, as you say, your “god” can do anything, s/he can also do evil. Whether s/he actually does evil or not is totally irrelevant to the question of whether s/he can (or, if you prefer, conceivably could) do evil. (2) If total knowledge pains your “god”, s/he has only him-/herself to thank for it. Not that that’s important. His/her feelings about parts of that total knowledge are irrelevant to the point that s/he has that total knowledge. (3) Try again because you haven’t answered this question, which was whether “your ‘god’ [is] everywhere at all times,” not whether s/he knows everything or in what circumstances s/he’ll intrude. (4) Being absolutely opposed to evil says precisely fuck-all about what actions might be taken when faced with evil, so again my hypothetical druggie daughter is entirely irrelevant.

    But never mind most of that. Just try to live up to that absolute standard of yours by confining yourself to yes-or-no answers, just as I am confining myself to simple yes-or-no questions.

    Right, on to the next batch of questions. You agree that your “god” can do absolutely anything s/he wishes (Premiss A). You agree that your “god” knows absolutely everything (Premiss B). You also agree that your “god” is absolutely opposed to evil (Premiss C). So far, so good.

    (5) Premiss A logically implies that your “god” can make a perfect world with perfect creatures in it — in short, a world fitting for a “perfect god.” Yes or no? (6) Premiss B logically implies that your “god” knows the entire history of everything, including him-/herself, from the beginning of time to its end, and in perfect detail. Yes or no? (7) More specifically, Premiss B logically also implies that your “god” knows in perfect detail the consequences of his/her own actions. Yes or no? (8) Premiss C logically implies that your “god” would not knowingly make anything with evil it. Yes or no?

    Con-Tester

    August 4, 2011 at 10:23

  259. 1. Yes, and doing evil is not one of them.

    2. Yes, and a lot of it pains Him.

    3. He knows everything, but will not intrude unless asked.

    4. Yes, as you are, but when your adult daughter follows evil, you can but try to stop her, as He does, but in the end your daughter will decide and you will lose her if you interfered.

    As for being watched, don’t worry, He does not watch over you unless invited.

    Anyhow, I think we both agree that we will keep on running in circles here. Go ahead, keep on reassuring yourself by lying to yourself, no skin of my hide.

    Adios Amigo.

    soois

    August 4, 2011 at 09:07

  260. 😛😛😛 BTW, nice fishing expedition. I don’t reject your “god” because I’m afraid s/he exists. That would be of the same order of brain-dead absurdity that religiots and godiots so consummately manage to conjure up at the drop of a hat.😛😛😛

    Con-Tester

    August 3, 2011 at 16:34

  261. So since minutes were taken, it “proves that it was an actual occurence [sic] that took place.” Really, hey? My goodness, we should tell all historians about this remarkable discovery because it means that much of classic fiction actually happened! Even if it could be independently corroborated to have been one rendition of an actual event, what of it? It hardly establishes the rest of your Holey Babble as factual. Oh wait, you don’t actually read anything besides your Holey Babble despite claiming otherwise. You just let your eyes roll over any non-Holey Babble words without absorbing anything. And I have studied that book, which is how I came to conclude that it’s a loose anthology of sometimes charming fairytales. Shock, indeed! Also, there isn’t a laugh emoticon big enough to do proper justice to your professed interest in science. Go on, try pulling the other one, you ol’ jester, you! Jeeeeeebussssst! would be so proud of you and your ability to lie for him.

    Rob you of your answer? How so? What I did, which you obviously missed, was to sketch the reasons why certain types of answer would be a waste of effort. If you think you can present a coherent case, please go ahead and present it, but don’t expect me to treat you with kid gloves if it’s just a rehash of long-discredited hooey.

    But whatever, your “answer” is a total failure from start to finish because — predictably — it does not address what was asked. You clearly did not bother to read what I wrote with the attention it deserves. I’m not really surprised, given your history of dodging. In fact, you completely missed the central point. So let’s take this in baby steps: (1) Can your “god” do whatever he wishes to? Yes or no? (2) Does your “god” know everything? Yes or no? (3) Is your “god” everywhere at all times? Yes or no? (4) Is your “god” absolutely against evil? Yes or no?
    😀😀😀 Yeah, I’m afraid of being watched constantly. I mean, besides being illegal for good reasons, what sort of sick fuck would derive pleasure from intruding upon every moment of every person’s life? The same sort of sick fuck who thinks that’s a good thing, I guess…😀😀😀

    Con-Tester

    August 3, 2011 at 16:27

  262. Anyway, you will now retort with words like “drivel”, “he/she”, “holey babble” etc. etc.

    No need to. If there is one thing I have learned it is that atheists are afraid of the possibility of a godly creature watching their every move and therefore dismiss it altogether, like a guy afraid to go for a doctor’s checkup just in case the doctor might find cancer or the like. He would rather not know than to face the inevitible.

    soois

    August 3, 2011 at 16:13

  263. You ask a question and then also answer it, sort of, hoping to rob me of my answer.

    God invented a perfect world, creatures that will react and act the way He intended it to, but He also had a desire to replace what was lost, a third of His gerubs, who had the free will to follow Him or reject Him, and chose to abandon Him. These creatures has almost godly powers, and decided that He and His Son was no more powerfull than them (head angel or gerub called Lucifer and his followers) and they fought God and the rest of the angels and lost(yes, Jesus was there before creation and long before being born as a Human Child to save this world. Study the Bible and you will find out that the Bible describes what happened before creation and what lay ahead long after). He created some of them in His form and to be in charge of His creation, to protect and work it, but as you pointed out, made them have a free will, because even He needed love from those who wanted to and not because He made them love Him. If you are satisfied to have people loving you because they are “forced” it is your business, but I require love from people who chooses to love me.

    He did however build into our whole structure the need to love, the need to have a god to look up to, therefore I guarantee you that if somebody discovers some long lost island with human inhabitants, these inhabitants will have a god.

    Oh, and as for my intentions on that piece I quoted, that was a random example of many such cases. The message was not my point, but rather the fact that “minutes” were kept of a meeting that took place, so accurate that the writer deemed it necessary to name all the people partaking in this meeting, people that was not mentioned before, or thereafter. It proves that it was an actual occurence that took place and these people were in fact “known” by the people of the time. In a modern day story or any other “fiction” you will not find such “unneccessary” detail penned down. Names that nobody of our time will remember or even be able to pronounce. I can give loads of examples. My point is that contrary to your belief I do actually read books, I am very interested in science (my DSTV was purchased for only that reason as I am not a Sport fanatic) and I do not simply cast aside things without reasoning about it, especially if it makes sense, but you on the other hand dismisses The Holy Bible without studying it first. You would get quite a shock if you did, but maby that is exactly what you are afraid of, finding the truth and having to admit to yourself at least that there is another story to concider.

    soois

    August 3, 2011 at 15:31

  264. Not that your intentions are of any consequence to me, but you’re trying to say that you can cite your Holey Babble which you consider to be infallibly true. And that you’re smug intellectual pipsqueak because anyone who disagrees with your interpretations lacks understanding. It’s more of that “breathtaking detail and precision” in your Holey Babble, the book that must be true because it says so itself.

    As for the problem of evil you touched on earlier, you religiots and godiots just keep sweeping it under the carpet by vomiting up stupid excuses. Almost invariably, they all boil down to the same essential deception, namely that your “god” is perfect and all-powerful, so s/he can do anything s/he chooses, irrespective of whether we are able to understand it or not. Yep, it’s those “mysterious ways” that are invoked whenever tough questions arise. But here’s the thing: It’s a childish copout, and a bad one at that, for the very simple reason that it negates the sum total of what is said about your “god” because those “mysterious ways” can validate anything and everything anyone might want to say about him/her. That is, we can say whatever pleases us about your “god” and call up some “mysterious ways” when someone disagrees. This “god” of yours can be whatever you want it to be, and we haven’t a clue what it is that we’re actually talking about.

    See, that’s the type of infantile “logic” you godiots subscribe to. It keeps you happy because you can merrily invent shit on an as-needed basis. So invent me some shit on this question: What reason would a perfect, supremely benevolent, all-wise, all-powerful creator “god” have for creating an imperfect world inhabited by imperfect creatures? Such a creator could easily have created a perfect world with perfect creatures in it that aren’t mindless robots because, after all, s/he could do anything, right? And don’t try pulling crap out of your arse such as that man destroyed a perfect world by sinning because the capacity for sin, via your stock “free will” evasion, is very clearly already an imperfection, and especially so because an all-wise creator would know in advance that it would happen. Those same perfect creatures could easily have free will and yet never choose to sin because their creator can do literally anything, not so? So, once again, what possessed your “god” to create this flawed world we live in when s/he could have done hugely better?

    It’s normally a fuckin’ hoot watching you morons pretending to be consistent and consequent, all the while subverting sound reasoning. I have no doubt that this time will be any different.

    Con-Tester

    August 3, 2011 at 11:20

  265. “1 all the people came together as one in the square before the Water Gate. They told Ezra the teacher of the Law to bring out the Book of the Law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded for Israel.
    2 So on the first day of the seventh month Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand. 3 He read it aloud from daybreak till noon as he faced the square before the Water Gate in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand. And all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law.
    4 Ezra the teacher of the Law stood on a high wooden platform built for the occasion. Beside him on his right stood Mattithiah, Shema, Anaiah, Uriah, Hilkiah and Maaseiah; and on his left were Pedaiah, Mishael, Malkijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah and Meshullam.
    5 Ezra opened the book. All the people could see him because he was standing above them; and as he opened it, the people all stood up. 6 Ezra praised the LORD, the great God; and all the people lifted their hands and responded, “Amen! Amen!” Then they bowed down and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.
    7 The Levites—Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan and Pelaiah—instructed the people in the Law while the people were standing there. 8 They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear[a] and giving the meaning so that the people understood what was being read.
    9 Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and teacher of the Law, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, “This day is holy to the LORD your God. Do not mourn or weep.” For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law.
    10 Nehemiah said, “Go and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks, and send some to those who have nothing prepared. This day is holy to our Lord. Do not grieve, for the joy of the LORD is your strength.”
    11 The Levites calmed all the people, saying, “Be still, for this is a holy day. Do not grieve.”
    12 Then all the people went away to eat and drink, to send portions of food and to celebrate with great joy, because they now understood the words that had been made known to them.
    13 On the second day of the month, the heads of all the families, along with the priests and the Levites, gathered around Ezra the teacher to give attention to the words of the Law. 14 They found written in the Law, which the LORD had commanded through Moses, that the Israelites were to live in temporary shelters during the festival of the seventh month 15 and that they should proclaim this word and spread it throughout their towns and in Jerusalem: “Go out into the hill country and bring back branches from olive and wild olive trees, and from myrtles, palms and shade trees, to make temporary shelters”—as it is written.
    16 So the people went out and brought back branches and built themselves temporary shelters on their own roofs, in their courtyards, in the courts of the house of God and in the square by the Water Gate and the one by the Gate of Ephraim. 17 The whole company that had returned from exile built temporary shelters and lived in them. From the days of Joshua son of Nun until that day, the Israelites had not celebrated it like this. And their joy was very great.
    18 Day after day, from the first day to the last, Ezra read from the Book of the Law of God. They celebrated the festival for seven days, and on the eighth day, in accordance with the regulation, there was an assembly.”

    Come on my clever and well educated friend, please see if if you can spot what I am trying to say by quoting the piece above.

    soois

    August 3, 2011 at 10:38

  266. Typically, and for the most part, a potpourri of conveniently manufactured bullshit and twisted facts. Like I said, read something other than your Holey Babble and the laughable drivel posted by cretinists and IDiots. Darwin was dismissing special creation as unscientific and — perhaps — insoluble. Moreover, it obviously hasn’t occurred to you that there’s a reason for just three out of every 2,000 scientists in the biological and related sciences questioning evolution as the mechanism of speciation, and that the other 1,997 debate its inner workings. Nor does it bother you in the least because, after all, the Great soois is by far the greatest specialist expert on these matters the world has ever known. I mean, who could possibly beat the keen and foolproof view afforded by direct observation of a tiny part of nature, a view that is informed by the breathtaking detail and precision contained in the Holey Babble…🙄

    Con-Tester

    August 3, 2011 at 10:27

  267. No CT, that quote was part of a larger piece in which he stated that it “pained him to sound like an atheist” (remember his religious upbringing?) but as a person who studied nature he personally could not believe that a Creator could create “a wasp that would lay it’s eggs inside a catterpillar” or that “lightning could strike a man to death unless it was an act of nature”. Basically he said that he lost his faith mostly because of these things, but that it all is so above us all, that each man has to decide for himself and that each man’s belief should be respected. Reading most posts from guys like Verifanie etc. I also picked up that the sorrows and pains of this world is the one thing that keeps them away from religion. You will also find believers who asks the question, “why did God do this or that”, or closer to the truth, “why did God allow this or that to happen.

    It took even me a long time to discover how thing works, how God created and how Adam and Eve in fact handed this world over to the Devil to do as he pleases. You see, God never does anything bad, but sometimes He will intervene, and sometimes he will allow, but when He allows, there is always a reason. You will just have to look a little deeper and you will find the reason. I usually do. I say usually, because a Christian keeps on growing and will only be finished at the end of his life. There are always new things to discover, unlike you guys who believe they know everything.

    soois

    August 3, 2011 at 09:13

  268. 😆😆😆 How droll that you clearly haven’t understood that Darwin was dismissing the entire notion of special creation with that quote, not giving it support. 😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    August 3, 2011 at 08:57

  269. 😆😆😆 Oh please man, go read something other than your Holey Babble. Maybe then that most illustrious intellectual giant of the 21st century, one soois, might discover that he doesn’t know one hundredth of what he presumes. 😆😆😆

    Con-Tester

    August 3, 2011 at 08:50

  270. Let me rather quote something wise said by your great master:

    “I feel most deeply that this whole question of creation is too profound for human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton! Let each man hope and believe what he can.”

    Even he admitted that this is above human understanding and that “intelligent” speculation is all one could hope for. According to myself, especially for the non-believer.

    soois

    August 3, 2011 at 08:50

  271. Ok, I guess you deserve a better response in exchange for your answer.

    The first? I merely wanted to answer a question posed a while back asked by someone during the “evolution theory” versus “intelligent design fact”, who asked the question; “if Noah and his ark existed, how could he fit so many species and breeds into it?”. I basically stated that most breeds came after the “great flood”.

    As for the second? I guess a question of opinion, don’t you think?

    soois

    August 3, 2011 at 08:42

  272. And you, once again and as expected, haven’t answered anything. Your gratitude is not required, nor your agreement.

    Con-Tester

    August 3, 2011 at 08:39

  273. At least you tried. Thank you.

    soois

    August 3, 2011 at 08:32

  274. Okay, okay already, I’ll bite. (See, unlike you, I can adjust my stance.) Your inanity of a “point” being what, exactly? That finches are subject to Mendel’s genetic laws? Or that Darwin was blind?

    To the first: So fuckin’ what? To the second: Brainlessly fabricated fundie twaddle.

    Con-Tester

    August 2, 2011 at 12:17

  275. Whatever delusion does for ya.

    Con-Tester

    August 2, 2011 at 11:16

  276. …but quite above your ability to refute or disprove…

    soois

    August 2, 2011 at 10:24

  277. No, because unlike you, I care about scientific and factual accuracy. As for your so-called “point”… well, suffice to say that it’s up to your usual standard.🙄

    Con-Tester

    August 1, 2011 at 18:32

  278. As usual you will concentrate on small language imperfections, totally ignoring the point being made. Why? Because you have no better answer. Replace “species” with “breed” if it makes you feel better. You still cannot ignore my point.

    soois

    August 1, 2011 at 16:48

  279. 😳😳😳 There, you see? Just cannot help yourself inventing kak the whole time. The biological term “species” has a precise definition (though not one that is universally agreed to by biological scientists) that hinges on a crucial point. This definition is entirely distinct from that of “breed” or “subspecies” in one crucial way. Will you be bothered to rectify your mistake? Will you even know what it is? Will it even bother you in the slightest? No, no and again no. That’s why you’re such a constant source of amusement. 😳😳😳

    Con-Tester

    July 31, 2011 at 17:30

  280. Corne wrote an interesting piece, I see it was written back in 2008. I do believe that species can “evolve” to adapt to their specific needs and circumstances over a period of time by mutating (changing of physical form). It is not a one-celled organism, becoming a complex organism over time, but rather the same animal that changes form. Then there is also cross-breeding of two or more genetically compatible animals that can create a brand new species. Back in the 50s scientists from Middelburg in tha Cape Province cross-bred two species of sheep, the Dorset Horn and the Black Headed Persian and a new species, the Dorper was created. The truth is that by accident they created in fact two species, the Dorper (black headed sheep) and the White Dorper (all white sheep). If you breed the Dorper with another dorper, you get a Dorper lamb, if you breed a White Dorper with a White Dorper, you get a White Dorper lamb, but interestingly enough, the Dorper and White Dorper are genetically the same (scientists won’t know the difference if they look at the DNA). If a third species was involved, anything from 9 to 27 different species could be created.

    Thus old Darwin’s finches was possibly created by mutating to adapt to their surrounding area, but why would you get so many diffrent species if food or anything else was a factor, unless they mutated differently to ensure that they had different eating and nesting habits etc. to utilize the available recources fully. It is more probable however that they cross-bred into many species.

    soois

    July 31, 2011 at 16:40

  281. Yeah, that’s another quite a neat summary of the straw man rendition widely punted by those who fail to grasp what science is all about. They will only be satisfied when scientists can create something from nothing (whatever the fuck that might be) simply by speaking a magic spell, either because these detractors of science genuinely have a cognitive defect or because they have an agenda (read: cretinists and IDiots). Mind you, the latter is also a genuine cognitive defect.

    Con-Tester

    July 31, 2011 at 16:28

  282. Let old Craig Venter create a “big bang” or “little bang” and show me the living creature that resulted from this and we can talk again.

    soois

    July 31, 2011 at 15:59

  283. To “manipulate” indeed. Again, intelligent hands at work. The Greatest Scientist of all did this a million times better thousands of years ago.

    soois

    July 31, 2011 at 15:56

  284. One scientist, Craig Venter, says he and his team are on the verge of creating an artificial organism, and some rumours say that his team has actually created the organism and is merely waiting for a scientific paper to be published to reveal their work.

    Venter says the artificial organism would be simple, consisting of only a few hundred genes, yet he goes on to tell Business Week, “it will be one of the bright milestones in human history, changing our conceptual view of life.”

    Venter also stands to make fantastical sums of money with patents that he and his company have filed that are generating lots of controversy. Venter imagines creating organisms covered by these patents worth billions or trillions of dollars.

    Proving that mutations and evolution occurs in bacteria is a far cry from dethroning God, just like when, some time ago, a kid used the process of natural selection to come up with Sphingomonas and Pseudomonas as plastic munchers effectively capable of reducing a plastic sample with 43 percent within six weeks, he had not, in fact, made a synthetic organism.

    Just so, Venter, and many others, have indeed used available organisms and their machinery to create artificial organisms that can be very useful, or extremely dangerous, he has not however created artificial life by any stretch of the imagination.

    ———————-

    “Yeah, that’s quite a neat summary of the straw man rendition widely punted by those who fail to grasp the full significance of what Venter and his team have accomplished, either because these detractors of Venter’s genuinely have a cognitive defect or because they have an agenda (read: cretinists and IDiots). Mind you, the latter also reveals an underlying genuine cognitive defect.”

    Stick to Maths CT. On my part there is no attempt to reduce the quality or importance of Venter’s scientific work, quite the contrary actually (I also still hold Watson in high regard, it is not his fault that some scientific facts are embarrassing), I do not, however, think you fully grasp what they did if you somehow think their work has dethroned God. Honestly, I don‘t think this militant Atheistic notion of attacking religion every time a scientist makes slight headway is healthy at all, just like it wasn’t healthy for George to take on the fight against the schools, and just like the atheistic notion that Evolution debunks God has had the undesired knee-jerk reaction from Creationists.

    Where do you see the straw man now?

    Balanced Truths

    July 31, 2011 at 15:23

  285. Yeah, that’s quite a neat summary of the straw man rendition widely punted by those who fail to grasp the full significance of what Venter and his team have accomplished, either because these detractors of Venter’s genuinely have a cognitive defect or because they have an agenda (read: cretinists and IDiots). Mind you, the latter also reveals an underlying genuine cognitive defect.

    Con-Tester

    July 31, 2011 at 13:03

  286. Thus, at long last, man has succeeded in a long standing dream — the creation of artificial life. It has been done using the efficient molecular tools that nature has evolved (enzymes). Using these tools in vivo to create target vesicles and cloned DNA, a new era of bioengineered artificial organisms is launched.

    So to sum it all up, man used the enzymes that were created by nature in vivo to create…to manipulate existing processes to do the work they we doing all along…and so, I presume, as a logical consequence, God becomes dethroned indeed…

    Balanced Truths

    July 31, 2011 at 12:02

  287. The propositioned atheistic drive to coin science and rationalism for the ‘our side’ group could turn out successful. Imagine, with the opium of the masses, if studying science became like coming out of the closet to say you are gay…

    Balanced Truths

    July 31, 2011 at 11:37

  288. It was inevitable: J. Craig Venter dethrones god.

    Con-Tester

    October 26, 2009 at 19:31

  289. Nathan, the Bible is not a book of science and science is about this universe ect. The Kingdom of God is not of this world and therefore the Bible is also not about this world. In the Bible, the things of this world are used, to show us the things of God’s Kingdom, which is not of this world.
    For Science to try and prove the Bible wrong, have not got the message and for Christians to try and prove Science wrong, have the wrong message.

    Hans Matthysen

    June 23, 2008 at 21:53

  290. Darwin in a Nutshell

    Today, the predominant worldview is built on the belief that we are all the product of chance. The Biblical notion of a transcendent Creator is therefore ridiculed as being unscientific. The Bible, once revered, has been cast aside. The roots of this change in outlook can be traced back to the year 1859 and the publication of Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species.

    In his book, Darwin sought to explain the origin of all life through the process of natural selection. The birthplace of this theory is the Galapagos Islands off the coast of South America. Darwin observed that there was a great deal of variation among the species on the islands, especially among the islands’ finch population. Darwin noticed there were many different sizes of finches, in a variety of colors, some with different sizes of beak. Some had thick heavy beaks, others had thin long beaks. Darwin viewed the different types of finches as distinct species that had evolved, over time, from a common pair or small number of finches. Darwin felt that the various traits he saw in the finch population were the result of mutations. He believed that the inherited traits of all animals are mutable. Darwin proposed that periodically a mutation would arise that would be beneficial to an organism. These beneficial mutations would then be passed on to the next generation. Over time these mutations would create an entirely new species.

    Upon returning from the Galapagos Islands, Darwin began to formulate his theory of evolution. According to Darwin’s theory, all life forms on planet earth began as a single celled organism such as an amoeba. Therefore, all the variation of life on earth arose through gradual evolution by way of mutation, adaptation, and survival of the fittest.

    The Probability of Chance

    With the discovery of DNA our understanding of biology and genetics has grown. Modern science has proven that it is impossible to produce an entirely new organism or organ system (such as the cardiovascular, immune, and digestive systems) by random mutation. Random chance cannot account for the complex design of DNA. It is statistically and mathematically impossible. The chances of winning the state lottery every week of your life from the age of 18 to 99 are better than the odds of a single-celled organism being formed by random chance. Likewise, the probability of spontaneous generation is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein. It’s impossible. The evidence all points to the unavoidable conclusion that we not the product of chance or evolution, but the result of intelligent design.

    In recent years the debate over intelligent design has intensified. School districts all across the country are debating the question: should evolution be taught as a scientific fact? Some scientists and educators and parents say that the study of evolution is necessary for understanding many biological processes. Others argue that evolution is a humanistic belief system that has been promoted as science. Both statements could be considered correct, even if you believe Bible’s account of creation, it all depends on what people mean by the term “evolution”.

    The word “evolution” is generally used in a broad sense to describe various scientific processes that have contributed to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Because of this, educators and parents and students can easily misunderstand one another. Below are the definitions of some of terms that usually fall under the broad umbrella of “evolution.” Sorting these out can help one communicate clearly when discussing the topic of teaching evolution in public schools.

    Change over time: The most basic definition of evolution is simply “the process of change or development over a period of time”. Hence, music, cultures, sports teams all “evolve”. In biology, classes of animals and plants have experienced marked change over dozens or hundreds or thousands of years. Over time, groups of animals diversify, as shown by the fossil record and common observation. This definition is extremely broad, and says nothing about what caused the change.

    Descent with Modification: This term that Darwin used basically means that living creatures have the ability to create offspring like themselves, but with the potential for variation. Today, descent with modification is explained through the field of genetics and studies involving DNA, the coding mechanism of life. Through the code of DNA, creatures can produce offspring like themselves, yet with room for variation. Brown-eyed parents who have recessive gene coding for blue eyes can produce blue-eyed children. Cats can give birth to kittens with a range of characteristics, all in one litter, depending on the specific DNA coding passed on to each kitten by its mother and its father.

    Adaptation: Sometimes an offspring receives certain traits or characteristics from its parents that allow it to survive in certain situations better than in others. Large-beaked finches adapt better to eating hard, large seeds, because their beaks are strong enough to crush them. Finches with long, thin beaks adapt better to getting food out of hard-to-reach places.

    Survival of the Fittest: This basic concept promoted by Darwin argues that those organisms that are best able to adapt to a particular environment will live to produce more offspring. For instance, when there is plenty of food, all the finches on an island can do well. However, during times of drought, only the finches with the strongest beaks will be able to eat the hardest seeds, enabling them to survive and reproduce. If other finches with longer, thinner beaks can get seeds from places the rest of the finches can’t, these will survive and reproduce. The other finches that can’t compete for the food supply will die out. Soon, the “specialized” finches are reproducing more “specialized” offspring like themselves, so that obvious variations start showing up between the different groups of finches.

    Natural Selection: Adaptation and Survival of the Fittest work together to create success among certain groups of creatures with certain genetic variations. “Nature” selects which ones survive based on which ones are best adapted to their environment and best able to overcome the competition. Natural Selection includes both ecological selection (overcoming competition for food, safety, shelter) and sexual selection.

    Genetic Drift: This refers to the way small populations of creatures end up reproducing and passing on their genetic information and becoming specialized even if they are not the best adapted to an environment. If all the competition got killed by a lightening storm or flood or avalanche, those left behind would continue to reproduce and survive, whether or not they were the best suited to survive otherwise.

    Most of the above concepts can be seen regularly in nature and are largely beyond dispute. However, the following ideas start creating heavy debate:

    Speciation: This term refers to the formation of new “species” over time, generally through the mechanisms of natural selection and survival of the fittest. When many people talk about “evolution”, they often mean “speciation”, arguing that through natural selection; entirely new species have been formed. Whether this can be proven actually depends on the definition of the term “species” (there is still a great deal of arguing among scientists on this subject). Usually, a species is considered to be a group that does not reproduce with other groups. Finches may become so specialized that they no longer mate with other kinds of finches. These can be considered a new “species” of finch. Yet, evolutionists often extrapolate to argue that through these processes thousands or millions of years ago, finches evolved from some more generic form of bird, which evolved from some more generic form of vertebrate. The line should be drawn at the DNA evidence. What does the DNA allow for? How much genetic variation was originally available in the DNA of the earliest finches, and how can we determine it? Natural Selection can only work with the DNA code already present, and cannot create new DNA coding that did not previously exist. The specialized finches are still finches, and are not turning into some other kind of bird.

    Mutation: To deal with this obvious problem of DNA coding, some evolutionary scientists have argued that through small mutations, new information can be added to the genetic code. However, there is much debate over this issue. Mutations are naturally destructive and cause damage, and evolutionary scientists have been hard pressed to find “beneficial mutations”. On rare occasion, a mutation can help a creature survive when it would otherwise not be able to, but only because the mutation has caused a malfunction. For instance, children with sickle-cell anemia are more resistant to malaria, but this is because their red blood cells are not functioning properly, (and large numbers still die from the sickle-cell anemia). Many “super bugs” in hospitals are immune to antibiotics -because they are actually mutated, sickly bacteria and can’t function properly to take in the antibiotics. When put in competition with normal bacteria outside of a hospital setting, these “super bugs” can die off quickly.

    The General Theory of Evolution: This is the popular but controversial idea that all life on earth started in a primordial soup, and that all the variation of life on earth arose through gradual evolution by way of mutation, adaptation, and survival of the fittest. This is where the heavy argumentation over “evolution” is often focused. The general theory that all life on earth evolved from primordial microbes is based on philosophical beliefs about the nature of nature, on models, on extrapolations, and on guesswork – because it deals with theories about things that cannot be directly observed or reproduced. The best scientists can do is create models and work to fit the observable evidence to their models. In this sense, evolutionary theory is absolutely a “work in progress”.

    While many concepts in evolutionary science are useful in understanding genetics and the variations between species, it is important to recognize where observation ends, and where extrapolation and theorizing begin. Those in the information sciences recognize the vital importance of focusing on information and the genetic code, and of determining where the DNA code originated in the first place. Without a mechanism for adding information to the genetic code, natural selection and adaptation can only produce more specialized finches or dogs or horses, but they cannot tell us how finch or dog or horse DNA was programmed in the first place.

    (The above is a combination of two articles in Chuck Missler’s K-House eNews, dated August 29, 2006)

    Observation

    It has often been said that it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution as the answer to the beginning and advancement of life than it does to believe in the existence of God for the same. It has been this writer’s observation that more and more within the scientific community, after a fair and comprehensive examination of the theory of evolution, are coming to this conclusion. Statistically they simply cannot become convinced that evolution can produce a different species from an entirely different one.

    Additionally, they are realizing that life evolving from a primordial soup is beyond reason; and, if that is not enough, there is no answer for the origination of that “soup.” Even those who seek to advance the concept that life as we know it today comes from aliens outside our universe can offer no rational explanation as to the origination of this alien life.

    Something simply cannot come from nothing.

    Corne

    May 14, 2008 at 14:31

  291. The following from Chuck Missler’s K-House eNews is provided so that the reader may have a better understanding of the subject of evolution:

    Scientists working in the Galapagos Islands have observed changes in a type of bird made famous by Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species. A decades-long study of Galapagos finches has documented a change in the beak size and eating habits of a specific species of finch. Peter Grant of Princeton University led the team of researchers, who reported their findings in a recent issue of Science magazine.

    According to the report, a medium-sized species of finch has evolved a smaller beak in order to take advantage of an alternate food source. The changes were the result of a decrease in the food supply due to drought, and an increase in competition for the same food source among multiple species of finches.

    The study has been touted by some as confirmation of the accuracy of the evolutionary theory – verifiable evidence that Darwin was right. However, while the study is a clear example of adaptation and the survival of the fittest, it is not adequate proof to explain the origins of all life on planet earth.

    Corne

    May 14, 2008 at 14:28

  292. Evolution is and always has been a theory that was first made popular by the English naturalist Charles Darwin. His 1859 book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (usually abbreviated to The Origin of Species) established evolution by common descent (i.e., a group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool) as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.

    Jan

    May 14, 2008 at 14:25

  293. Does science, using a presuposition of Naturalism, have any Quantitive answers to the Begginings of Man?? Any respectable Scientist knows that Evolution is a joke…..

    Then what theory other than Creationism makes sense…. there is too much perfection on the planet to believe that it is random luck….

    If you are so against religion, and act so “Mightier than the Mighty”(exscuse the pun) then please your Super Inteligentness, please help me understand….

    Jan

    May 14, 2008 at 14:23

  294. I qoute this from your article…..

    ****Science does not have all the answers. But this fact does not indicate that religion has any answers at all. In deference to Darwin, it has often and confidently been asserted that man’s origin, for instance, can never be known… but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.[7]

    There is an expanding universe between science and religion. I choose science. Not for answers, but for progressive explanation, in pursuit of the voussoir of evolving insight…******

    Jan

    May 14, 2008 at 14:19


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: