Eric Hovind Confesses to being an Atheist!!!!


I greeted the materialization of pre-suppositional apologetics with glee. Creationists might as well have shouted it from the roof tops that they have been routed on every argument they have put forward to date, and so they are now reduced to this grotesquely unconvincing and childish argument that if they start with the presumption that god exists, then god exists.

Yup, pre-suppositional apologetics is an ‘argument’ that whatever you suppose exists, exists! I mean damn, it’s not like we can test those suppositions for validity against anything, like their value in reality or some shit.

So I had this PAINFUL discussion with Eric Hovind, in which I told him I assumed the universe exists. Why assume this? well how would you distinguish a ‘matrix style reality’ from reality? Well Eric, how would you?

After you have assumed the universe to exist, you then need to assume that you can create models about it, and that models with predictive capability are better than those that are not. These are self selecting criteria for beings that want to survive in such a universe, that is organisms that don’t assume they can learn something about the universe don’t survive long in an environment with those that do! (Yup, evolution FTW!)

One of the first models you establish is logic, and the utility of boolean operators like ‘true’ and ‘false’. These are all things Eric MUST have done to even pose his ‘killer’ question ‘is there such a thing as absolute truth?’

Merely asking the question implies a model forming approach to reality (implicit assumption), and indeed the very inclusion of the word true means that he has accepted models such as logic are an adequate way of describing the universe.

I guess it’s to be expected of the dogmatic that they will behave dogmatically, but Eric simply couldn’t handle the fact that this is how his brain worked, and how he models reality and thus his response to everything became ‘but you can’t be sure about it’, even after this has been explained to him a dozen time. In the end he made it up to FORTY EIGHT TIMES. Compulsive obsessives, this man is your GOD!

Even better, is if I adopt Erics ‘pre-suppositional’ position, that is whatever I presume is true, then I come to the startling knowledge that ERIC HOVIND IS AN ATHEIST.  Indeed if I start with the pre-supposition that Eric has confessed to being an atheist, then you KNOW that Eric Hovind has confessed to being an atheist! I know this is absolutely true because the Ghost that never lies told me it was absolutely true, further this was confirmed by title that is always accurate! hmmmm, yup, that’s Check-mate Eric!


Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

403 Responses to “Eric Hovind Confesses to being an Atheist!!!!”

  1. noforbiddenquestions Says:

    Thunderf00t, you are an absolute model of patience. I salute you, sir.

    “You don’t need my opinion to tell me what you believe.” This is a very good line that I will have to add to my debating toolbox…

  2. Sir Ian Says:

    You have a blog ? Jesus pun intended Christ!

  3. Ranger Says:

    Hovind, the reason there are still monkeys.

  4. VyckRo Says:

    “they have been routed on every argument they have put forward to date”
    @Thunderf00t
    Yup,Yup, Yup, you assume that Christianity was harmful in the formation of modern civilization, so it must be true.
    This until I come and challenge his theory, and then the great atheist Thunderf00t runs and hides behind his mother’s skirt, as a coward that he is.

    I mean damn, it’s not like we can NOT test those suppositions for validity against anything.

    See here the nightmare of the “scientist” ThunderFOOL
    http://vyckro.blogspot.com/2012/02/open-letter-to-thunderf00t_17.html

    • Adrian Says:

      Uh.. you never heard of the Crusades? Would there be such a thing as “holy wars” were it not for the Abrahamic Faiths? No, Christianity has caused a lot of suffering in the world, as has the other hard line faiths. You will not convince anyone of your arguments through meaningless insults.

      • VyckRo Says:

        First
        ThunderFOOL proposed a false model whit no predictability, “that Christianity was harmful in the formation of modern civilization”.

        ThunderFOOL, asked for a model whit predictability, I given him one namely that Christianity that gave birth to modern civilization.

        He always refuse to put their theories to Peer review so he is a coward & Fool

      • Anonymous Says:

        Why don’t you give us the part of the Bible (that is you post specific passages, chapters and such) that shows a DIRECT and clear link to the scientific method?

      • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

        VyckRo, has it never occured to you that TF actually puts his face on Youtube to denounce religion whereas you hide behind monikers? Maybe you want to ease up on the entire “coward” drivel?

    • totoro Says:

      Sure, religion and science are best buds, except for Copernicus’ teachings being declared heretical by the church. And that Galileo was convicted of heresy for his heliocentric views by the inquisition and his Dialogue was censored and declared illegal (only to lift the ban around 100 years later) , while Galileo himself was forbidden further work on this and sentenced to house arrest until the end of his life. And Giordano Bruno being burned at the stake for his many-worlds theory and Louis Pasteur ridiculed by members of the church who adamantly maintained that disease was of supernatural origin.
      Oh and the pope apologized for these and kinda sorta accepted that maybe the scientists have been right all along only in 1992.

    • Mike Says:

      “Yup, you assume that Christianity was harmful in the formation of modern civilization, so it must be true.”

      It’s not an assumption. It’s an observation based on nearly 2000 years of oppression, bigotry, suppression or reason and science, sexism, racism, and general all-around hateful shit, all fostered and promoted by the church. Don’t hand me this bullshit about how I’m assuming anything. History shows the harm that Christianity has done, and only a willfully ignorant fool could fail to see it.

  5. Adrian Says:

    One thing in this argument cannot be argued, albeit on a subjective level: Though it is often argued that the universe does or does not exist, the individual has to agree that he or she himself exists. In turn, that individual interprets the universe around themselves with what they percieve as “knowledge.” It is from this perception of knowledge we base our realities and this article encourages personal introspection in that regards.

    This perception of knowledge can be derived from supposition or the observance of repeated phenomenon. (And I say “percieved” because there are those who would claim that creationism is based upon knowledge while at the other end of the scale evolution is based upon knowledge.)

    The supposition based perception is often attributed to the creationist theory that God created the world. It is usually based in the readings of one work (usually the Bible or perhaps the Qu’ran, though I have never opened the latter.) It is not observed in experiment over and over again, only in one piece of work. It therefore requires a “leap of faith” to give it substance. However, regardless of the fact that this perception is not based on repeated experimentation, but rather an intrinsic hope or ideal, it is nevertheless a percieved reality that people will base their lives upon. They will act out their lives with this in mind, making decisions on this basis. Those decisions will, in turn, shape the world around them. This will create their reality and their perception of it.

    Like the supposition perception, the observance based perception also shapes the reality of the individual. However, unlike the supposition based perception, the observance based perception requires constant observation of the universe to establish the knowledge it requires. Scientists, by their very nature, rely on this perception to further their understanding of the universe. This perception, as with the supposition perception, shapes their decisions and how they interact with the universe around them.

    Thunderf00t, being a scientist, has observed certain traits in Eric Hovind that indicates to him that Hovind is an atheist. If that is Thunderf00t’s perception, then that is his reality. Hovind may disagree based upon his own perception of reality. In the end, however, there can be no disagreeing with either of them with the intent of changing their minds. The only outcome of Thunderf00t’s perceptions is that those of like mind will agree and those of different perceptions will not.

    The benefit of an article such as this comes from the sharing of ideas that inspires thought in the individual and encourages that individual to make a choice about how they will view their reality.

    • Prelude610 Says:

      I think TF’s statement that Hovind was an atheist was just a demonstration of suppositional apologetics, that if you can suppose something is true, then it is. Like, I suppose that light bulbs prefer the dark, therefore they do.

      • Adrian Says:

        Oh, I am sure you are correct about that, Prelude610. My point is that “reality” is based upon perception. If the fundamental flaw to the Christian argument (the fact that they assume God’s existence and not know it, yet try to pass it off as knowledge) is percieved as being evident on a basic level in all Christians then it could be percieved on the part of atheists that Christians knowingly base their beliefs upon a shaky foundation and are just atheists deluding themselves.

    • Matt Says:

      Very nicely put.

  6. VyckRo Says:

    After seeing this video I am amazed at how Fool is this ThunderFOOL
    Reatard count : ThunderFOOL responded to any simple question whit “Malform question” about 20 times

    This ThunderFooL realizes, how ridiculous he is?

    • Reznor Says:

      He responded that because they were malformed questions. The question “Are chemical reactions true or false” is like asking if they are up or down. If the question is stupid and broken, don’t answer it.

    • Adam Says:

      “Malform question” ??? that’s easy for you to say. You should read what you post dumb ass.

    • Anonymous Says:

      They’re all malformed questions. “Is it impossible for God to exist?” Which God? Define it.

  7. Daniel Says:

    “Yup, pre-suppositional apologetics is an ‘argument’ that whatever you suppose exists, exists!”

    OMG. That is NOT the definition of presuppositional apologetics.

    Presuppositionalism is a form of apologetics that argues from established facts (which are already presupposed) to say that God exists. For example, the TAG argument is an argument of the presuppositional variety.

    I’m not defending this form of argument, and I’m certainly not defending Hovind. But, jeez, get things right if you’re going to criticize them.

  8. Anonymous Says:

    @VyckRo why do you persist to tell lies?
    is it all religion has nowadays?

  9. Aaron Peel Says:

    @VyckRo why do persist with these childish lies, is it all religion has nowadays?

  10. syetenb Says:

    Hmmm, seems at least one atheist is seeing what ACTUALLY took place in this encounter. Check out the video: “Eric Hovind ran circles around Thunderf00t:” http://youtu.be/YJdPspBBXZs

    • Adam Says:

      yea, circles – like a chicken with his head cut off. It was embarrassing – TF just wanted to hit the beer tent and this guy kept going round and round in circles. Eric Hovind is just like is dad.

      • syetenb Says:

        So what is your take on the atheist who says that Eric ran circles around TF? Is he deluded? Seems you can only hurl insults rather than engage the argument.

    • synapticcohesion Says:

      Syetenb: I had a question to ask you regarding Eric Hovind lectures–would you be able to answer it? Thanks.

  11. Aaron Peel Says:

    Eric Hovind is a Parrot, he heard something and just repeats it!
    bird brain!

  12. firebearhero Says:

    While this comment has nothing to do with the content of this particular blogpost, I’d just like to tell you that you are a huge rolemodel for me.

    Be proud of who you are because there are very many who aspire to be like you.

  13. syetenb Says:

    Thundef00t didn’t know what hit him, as this atheist clearly sees. Start at 5:50 of this video: http://youtu.be/B2g8FxNgCRg

    • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

      No, TF knew what hit him: He was talking to somebody who refused to see the illogical stance he was taking. Hovind could not grasp the concept of “assuming” something versus “knowing” something. He claimed that he “knew” God existed yet could not provide substantial proof for his argument. This was one of the many things that frustrated TF. In short, Hovind lied to himself first by claiming his assumptions on the existence of God was fact, and then tried to impose those lies upon TF.

      • syetenb Says:

        Well, just because one atheist gets it, I don’t expect others to. I suspect that Thunderf00t would not formally debate Eric and come up with a lame excuse not to.

        When the atheist is confronted with this argument, I have found though, that they are unable to leave it alone. We shall see.

      • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

        We are not talking about other atheists. Besides, I think it’s a foregone conclusion that there will be those who “get it” on both sides of any debate.

        “When the atheist is confronted with this argument, I have found though, that they are unable to leave it alone.” I have never seen an atheist go door to door attempting to convert others, although the Abrahamic faiths try to subvert entire populations. Also: it was a Christian who went to the “Reason Rally” for atheists preaching in this video. Who isn’t leaving who alone here?

      • syetenb Says:

        Sorry, I thought perhaps you understood what I was saying. I am not talking about people leaving each other alone, I am talking about a form of argumentation that once the atheist is confronted with it, they can’t leave it alone. I speak from much experience with that very thing happening.

      • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

        This is the second time you have referred us to one of your videos. I ask you to present your argument here on this forum.

        What form of argumentation are you referring to?

      • syetenb Says:

        //”I ask you to present your argument here on this forum.”//

        No problem. Scripture teaches us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). Basically, in order to know anything, one must start with God. When asked if he could be wrong about everything he claims to know, Thunderf00t (remarkably) admitted that it was conceivable that the universe might not exist. From there it follows that Thunderf00t conceded that he might not exist, and if he might not exist, then if follows that he could be wrong about everything he claims to know. It follows from there that Thunderf00t does not know ANYTHING, since one cannot know some thing to be true which could be false, and the original point is made.

        Cheers.

      • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

        Okay, first of all, by basing your argument in the Bible you automatically shoot yourself in the foot. It was written, translated, and re-interpreted by man so many times that there are now over 20 different versions of it in the world (I would guess even more than that, but I am only aware of 20 at this time.) With every version differences creep in (much like the genetic degredation one would find in cloning) and the original piece is lost. Even if it did come from God (which I doubt as it has never been proven that the Abrahamic God exists) it certainly isn’t the same piece as it was before and therefore any “widom” found within is suspect.

        However, that point can be ignored for now, if you like. Yes, TF admitted that the universe might not exist. The start of all knowledge is the phrase “I do not know.” From this admission we start to ask questions. Those questions, when properly and honestly asked (as Hovind refused to do in order to try and trap TF in a false statement – dishonesty again) lead to answers. This is a fundamental difference between religion and science. Many religions state it has all the answers in God. Science states it doesn’t know the answers and looks for them. The end result is that science creates medicine and other technologies whereas many religions will sit back after scientists do the work and say; “It came from God.” -Another lie. That is what TF was trying to explain in my views.

        The problem with the argument you and Hovind present is that if TF does not exist and his knowledge is also non-existent then the same applies to Hovind and his philosophy. Neither the existence nor the non-existence of God can be proven beyond rational doubt. (And despite all the cries of “I know God exists,” the Abrahamic faiths have yet to prove this beyond the leap of faith required for its endorsement.)

        However, the one thing that we can all agree on is that until we figure these problems out we have to continue under the assumption (there’s that word again) that we do exist. To do otherwise is to pretty much give up on life and very few of us are ready to do that simply because we cannot prove our own existence.

        Under this assumption of existence people will naturally gravitate towards the aspects of that existence which make their lives better. TF’s point is that religion doesn’t provide any benefit to existence beyond fairy tales whereas science does, and that science comes from understanding based in knowledge.

        In this TF was getting frustrated not because Hovind could not understand, but that he refused to understand simply on the basis of trying to discredit someone of opposing views. It was not an honest attempt on the part of Hovind to engage in honest debate, in other words.

        Cheers.

      • syetenb Says:

        //”The problem with the argument you and Hovind present is that if TF does not exist and his knowledge is also non-existent then the same applies to Hovind and his philosophy.”//

        Um no. Thundref00t is making the absurd claim that he might not exist, neither Eric or I make such an absurd claim. Just because Thunderf00t is making an absurd claim, it does not follow that others agree with it, or that it applies to others.

        Simple fact is that if it is possible that Thunderf00t does not exist, then it follows that he does not know anything, which is the point.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          Let me put this another way, then.

          Thunderf00t was arguing from Descartes assertion that we cannot be truly certain of the existence of our universe. This is the “Matrix” stuff he was demonstrating in the article. If everything we are aware of is simply electrical signals interpreted by our brain, how can we be certain the universe exists? Now take that idea to the next level. If the universe doesn’t exist, how do I know that I exist? The quick answer is that if you are wondering at all then there must be something there to do the wondering, which is where most people leave the question. In other words, maybe the universe is all illusion, but I know that I exist.

          However, does this apply to dead people? There is no way to determine this as nobody has been able to document a cohesive conversation with the dead. Obviously they don’t think, so do they still exist? One possible answer is no, they don’t.

          Now take into account quantum theory which requires thought to create self, the universe, and even our perception of time as a linear equation. Death takes away the thought and removes the concept of time. Without a linear timeline we are all living and dead, unless we are immortal and I am pretty sure nobody is. So, if we are dead, do we exist? (If this seems like it’s stretching things a little, I should remind you that flying machines and long distance communication devices were stretching things at one time as well.)

          Absurd as it may seem, it “could” be considered a valid point. The bottom line is we do not “know” we exist. We “assume” we exist and proceed on that basis. Then we assume a lot of other things and call it “knowledge.”

          The problem with your argument is that you claim to “know” things. You and Eric “know” that you exist. You “know” Thunderf00t is wrong. You “know” God exists. And yet all that was once “known” (facts like the Earth is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, the black death was a curse from the devil, etc.) was disproven by science. When you claim to “know” something you stop learning. How many times did Thunderf00t, in the video have to explain the concept of assumption? If TF does not exist then his knowledge does not exist? There is no such thing as knowledge to begin with. Only assumption. That’s where your argument falls down. That’s what Thunderfoot was trying to explain all the while getting rudely interrupted by somebody with an agenda to prove his theory, not learn and discover.

          You attack TF’s claim that he might not exist, and yet it could have validity and may not be as absurd as you guess. However, if you are going to proceed in a debate where it is possible that one person is subject to certain criteria, the other side of that debate must be subject to the same criteria. You do not “know” you exist. You “assume” you exist. You do not “know” God exists, you “assume” God exists. When Thunderf00t stated that “he did not know he existed” in answering Eric’s question, he automatically put the debate into those terms and Eric had to proceed on the basis that we do not know, we assume.

          When you honestly ask a question you must accept the answer you are given. You cannot tailor it to be something you want to hear.

          Eric could not grasp this basic concept of assumption and failed in understanding. TF gave him an answer that was beyond him and so he tried to argue as though TF was basing his argument from a “knowledge” perspective. This was not TF’s argument, however, and the end result was two people with two different rules of engagement. If the argument that was to proceed was from the standpoint that TF did not exist, as TF was answering a question put to him by Hovind, then Hovind had to base his argument from the point of an assumption and not what he thought he knew in order for that debate to work. As it was Hovind could not make the leap and TF won the debate.

          How can Thunderf00t “know” anything if he doesn’t exist? You, I, Thunderf00t, and everyone else cannot “know” anything, period. We assume it all. Therefore going to a reason rally with the express purpose of trying to debunk atheism is pretty hypocritical as nothing is truly “known” including the existence of God. You can’t just claim something is absurd because you never know. That is the point I was trying to make. Thunderf00t deosn’t know anything and neither do you, myself or Hovind.

          The conflict here, is in the substantiation of “knowledge” versus “assumption” and Thunderf00t established his argument well. The only problem was that he should have used simpler terms to explain the problems with the questions he was being asked.

          (Opened up a whole can of worms here, didn’t you?)

      • syetenb Says:

        //”When you claim to “know” something you stop learning.”//

        Do you know this?

        //”There is no such thing as knowledge to begin with.”//

        Do you know this?

        //”You do not “know” you exist.”//

        Do you know this?

        //”You do not “know” God exists”//

        Do you know this?

        //”You, I, Thunderf00t, and everyone else cannot “know” anything, period.”//

        Do you know this?

        //”nothing is truly “known”//

        Do you know this?

        //”You can’t just claim something is absurd because you never know.”//

        Do you know this?

        Perhaps by now you see your self-refuting nonsense. If all you are doing is expressing your arbitrary faith-based opinion, sorry, but for the purpose of this discussion, I am not interested in your opinion, but in what you know, and you have (self-refutingly) admitted that you can’t know anything, which has been the point all along!

        “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion.” ~ Proverbs 18:2

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          /”When you claim to “know” something you stop learning.”// Do you know this?”// I have observed this and based on the number of times I have observed this, I think it is a fair assumption.

          ”There is no such thing as knowledge to begin with.”// Do you know this?”// Again, I assume this based on repeated observance.

          //”You do not “know” you exist.”// Do you know this? //”You do not “know” God exists”// Do you know this? //”You, I, Thunderf00t, and everyone else cannot “know” anything, period.”// Do you know this? //”nothing is truly “known”// Do you know this? //”You can’t just claim something is absurd because you never know.”// Do you know this?”// Again, this is all observable and contemplative assumption. No, we do not “know” anything. (Now I am really starting to feel what TF went through in the video here, as it seems I am talking to a brick wall.

          Question for you: Did you actually read my post with the intention of completely understanding it, or did you automatically assume I was wrong and look for the weaknesses in my argument?

          //”Perhaps by now you see your self-refuting nonsense. If all you are doing is expressing your arbitrary faith-based opinion, sorry, but for the purpose of this discussion, I am not interested in your opinion, but in what you know, and you have (self-refutingly) admitted that you can’t know anything, which has been the point all along! “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion.” ~ Proverbs 18:2″// That is your opinion.

    • Anonymous Says:

      Just because you want something to be true doesnt mean thats the case 😉 All this poor kid could do was ask broken questions and blindly assert his own ignorance.

    • Mike Says:

      “Thundef00t didn’t know what hit him”

      Lol, yeah, whatever. Enjoy your visit to our planet, and y’all come back real soon now!

  14. iwalrus11 Says:

    Thunderf00t, please don’t equate Obsessive-Compusive Disorder with being an indorcrinated fool like Eric Hovind. I have OCD, and Hovind certainly is not my god. We want to raise awareness about atheism and secularism and not let the fundies misinform people about what we are about, so please too don’t create misinformation about disorders by conflating ignorance and OCD. Other than that, brilliant article and loved your pwnage of that tool.

    • Sfilms Says:

      That is not what he said at all, nor was it implied. People with OCD can be religious but religous people aren’t always diagnosed with OCD. He merely said that Eric Hovind was the king of OCD-like behavior. Thats it. You have read into something and found what was not there by your own hasty assertion, probably at a sub-concious level. I read the same thing and found no such accusation. No worries though, an honest mistake.

  15. Adam Says:

    You crack me up – that’s very good. Well i hate to say it but Eric’s dad’s in jail for being a tax liar basically so i guess… like father , like son. Being a liar seems to run in the family. I really wish i’d been there… next year!

  16. MaryK Says:

    I am so glad you posted this. It reminds me of some of the discussions I have with freshmen in my intro biology course for nonmajors. First day, I always talk “philosophy of science” and begin with our Underlying Assumptions of The Universe. It’s pretty painful.

  17. sirwolf2001 Says:

    Eric Hovind should learn to fully understand his own argument and it’s full implications and limitations before he begins to propound them.

  18. VyckRo Says:

    Come T.F not be afraid

  19. philosophical11 Says:

    Thunderf00t, you don’t understand presuppositionalism, or you are deliberately straw manning it. The argument is that the Christian who presupposes God can make sense out of reality, knowledge and ethics. But on the presupposition of materialistic Atheism, you can’t make sense out of those things, such as immaterial laws of logic. We both use them, but only the Christian worldview can account for them.

    • gb Says:

      Obviously you don’t possess the mental capacity to understand who the strawman here is due to your christophrenia which seriously impedes your understanding of logic and maintains your low intelligence. Belief in supernatural non-existant non-proveable beings is a brainwashed psychosis induced by other braindead psychotics who were indoctrinated to believe the same braindead garbage you insist on following blindly. “Think for yourself” certainly isn’t in your vernacular.

    • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

      philosophical11: Nonsense. You would have us believe, therefore, that only a Christian can be ethical? I would challenge this. There are societies out there that have nothing to do with Christianity (and, indeed there have been societies in history who have never even heard of Christianity) that are what we would consider to be ethical.

      So where do ethics come from? Ethics come from wanting to build the society around you in constructive and meaningful ways. Religion, when it comes right down to it, is not required for that purpose.

      The sense of reality and knowledge you are looking for comes from a sense of productive purpose that is found in the individual, regardless of philosophical standpoint.

      Your argument presupposes a non-existent need for religious guidance.

    • Mike Says:

      philosophical11 Says: “We both use them, but only the Christian worldview can account for them.”

      What a pompous load of horsecrap.

      I love how christians automatically assume that they hold the moral high ground while simultaneously acting as the Gold Standard for bigotry, sexism, racism, hate, and persecution.

  20. Mike Says:

    If Eric Hovind had any less brain activity, it would be legal to harvest his organs.

    But seriously, given what he believes in, why should any of us expect him to be able to think rationally about anything?

  21. nickenstein79 Says:

    Blimey! What an incredible display of patience, TF!

    It was almost as stupefying as watching Dawkings trying in vain to teach that woman about the fossil record.

  22. TheReliquarian Says:

    ‘Is it impossible for God to exist?’
    Yes, the deity Jehovah is an impossibility. The main claim to its superiority and godhood is that it is a perfect sinless being. HOWEVER, in the bible Jehovah kills, is deceitful, teaches its followers that murder, rape, theft, deceitfulness, and child abuse in both physical and sexual contexts are acceptable. Along with this it exhibits the traits of Wrath, Envy, and Vanity, three of the seven deadly sins.
    As it cannot possibly hold these two character attributes at once, as they negate and contradict each other, it must be reasoned that the being never existed in the first place.

    • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

      You want contradiction in the Bible? Lucifer is tranlated as being “the Bringer of Light” from Latin. The first words out of God’s mouth in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Funny how people forget these things…

      • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

        Contradiction? My foot!

        That God brings light does not make him Lucifer. Lucifer means Morning Star, and the office of attending to that heavenly body seems to have belonged to Satan before he fell. The Morning Star is lightbringer in the sense of accompanying the dawn and the new Morning Star has been identified as either Jesus or Mary or St John the Baptist (“Eala Earendil, engla beorhtast” is an invocation of St John the Baptist giving him the title “Earendil” – Old English for Morning Star).

  23. Currahee Says:

    I just watched this whole thing with some hope that Hovind would eventually get a clue. I didn’t know who either of you were before, but I’m a fan now. Well done sir, I would’ve probably punched him in the nose after 30 minutes…

  24. joncinema@gmail.com Says:

    This Eric is the most dishonest person I have ever heard.

    • syetenb Says:

      Naturally I disagree, he is a good friend, but by what absolute moral standard would dishonesty be wrong, and how do you account for that standard according to your worldview? I mean if dishonesty provided a survival benefit, dishonesty would be right, right?

      • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

        I could point out that he never even tried to listen to Thunderf00t’s points and instead tried steering TF’s responses into a position that he thought was beneficial to his argument. (How many times did he ignore the entire “assumption” thing? If he had actually listened to TF he might have seen that all beliefs on the status of reality are just that – beliefs and not knowledge.) Instead he tried to pass TF’s argument off as something it was not to the crowd. That is a lie and joncinema’s statement has validity. (Of course one could not expect a member of the Abrahamic faith to always tell the truth. That would put their argument in a very unstable position.)

      • dougal445 Says:

        If we were all completely dishonest how would any society function?
        Societies require a level of trust. Societal instincts / honesty / trust have evolved because the sociatal behaviour offered a survival benefit.
        It’s not rocket science!

        • syetenb Says:

          //”If we were all completely dishonest how would any society function?”//

          Fallacy of irrelevant thesis. I am asking you by what absolute moral standard dishonesty is wrong, not what would happen if societies were dishonest. If you are saying that dishonesty is wrong because societies would cease to function, you are just moving the goalposts. Why SHOULD someone not be dishonest if they didn’t care whether or not societies function? Again, by what absolute moral standard is dishonesty wrong NOT what would happen if we were dishonest?

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “by what absolute moral standard would dishonesty be wrong”

            Cut to the chase. Your argument is that the only moral authority is God, and his word, the Bible which states “Thou shalt not lie.” However, as many have pointed out over the years, the Bible itself is immoral. It teaches hate and spite. It inspires us to lie (first to ourselves then to others) and ultimately to kill. Your argument is deeply flawed. The Bible cannot be trusted as a moral standard, nor can the concept of “God.”

      • dougal445 Says:

        The closest thing we have to moral absolutes is what works. It is your assertion that moral absolutes exist, but you offer no evidence for such. I have offered an explanation for the moral behaviour that we observe.

        • syetenb Says:

          //”The closest thing we have to moral absolutes is what works.”//

          The problem with pragmatism is that it cannot tell you how something is SUPPOSED to work and you can’t know if something “works” unless you know that proper goals. That is something pragmatism cannot give you and why it fails.

          //”It is your assertion that moral absolutes exist, but you offer no evidence for such.”//

          Sure I do, but you discount it based on your presuppositions. The problem is that YOUR presuppositions cannot justify the reasoning by which you discount ANYTHING, let alone my claim to moral absolutes.

          //”I have offered an explanation for the moral behaviour that we observe.”//

          Ya, but the problem is, you can’t get an “ought” from an “is.” Observation gives you what IS the case, whereas morality is what OUGHT TO BE the case. Apart from God you have zero justification for stating what OUGHT TO BE the case, and therefore ZERO justification for morality.

      • Anonymous Says:

        p.s. Some people are dishonest. The Hovinds for starters.
        Psychopaths / sociapaths or as you put it individuals who dont care if societes function. People who only look out for themselves in the immiediate. This fact fits in with evolutionary framework where variation exists and where other traits in these people offer some benefit to the population overall. Not so if morality is absolute.

        • syetenb Says:

          //”or as you put it individuals who dont care if societes function”//

          Problem is, according to your view this trait would also have to have evolved, and you have no basis for assuming that those who have evolved to be dishonest are “wrong” and those who have evolved to be dishonest are “right.”

          Again, by what absolute standard is dishonesty “wrong” and how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

      • dougal445 Says:

        i guess thats a fundamental difference between you and me. I address what i observe and you address the fairies fluttering between your ears.

        • syetenb Says:

          //”i guess thats a fundamental difference between you and me. I address what i observe and you address the fairies fluttering between your ears.”//

          Erm, good argument! 🙂 Perhaps you could tell me where you have observed logic, or where you have observed that your senses, memory and reasoning are valid?

      • dougal445 Says:

        Like tf. I honestly admit that i have to start with an assumption or two. That i exist and that the universe exists. So long as I thrive / make progress in life / avoid harm based on those assumptions, as long as those assumptions dont contradict what i observe, i continue to hold them. As for where i “observe” logic. Logic is the model we have created to explain and predict what we observe. I observe it everyday when things work according to logic, when i am able to troubleshoot problems using logic, when i create working automated processes for manufacturing the working technological devices that you take for granted, like the phone or pc you are using right now. These things we have because of the mind set of people like thunderfoot.

        • syetenb Says:

          //”Like tf. I honestly admit that i have to start with an assumption or two.”//

          And the definition of an assumption is: “A proposition accepted without proof or evidence as the basis for some further conclusion.”

          See that’s the problem with atheism, you live on blind faith.

          //”as long as those assumptions dont contradict what i observe, i continue to hold them.”//

          But how can you know whether or not they contradict, since one of those assumptions is that your reasoning is valid? For all you know your reasoning could be invalid!

          //”As for where i “observe” logic. Logic is the model we have created to explain and predict what we observe. “//

          That would make logic contingent to that which was observed. Even if I granted that you could justify the validity of your senses, memory and reasoning with which you reasoned about an instance of logic, and even if I granted that you could observe an instance of the law of non-contradiction, which I do not, you have exactly zero basis to applying that law onto anything other than that which was observed.

          //” I observe it everyday when things work according to logic”//

          Again, the problem with pragmatism is that it cannot tell you how things are SUPPOSED to work, and therefore pragmatism fails.

          //”These things we have because of the mind set of people like thunderfoot.”//

          Look, Thunderf00t has admitted that he might not even exist, so the only reason people like Thunderf00t can invent things is because they borrow their foundations for reasoning from the God that they know exists, and live inconsistently with their own worldview.

      • Anonymous Says:

        at the end of the day you can throw up all sorts of contrived arguements regarding ”knowing” but when it comes down to it you offer no proof of your god assertions, dishonestly assert \ claim to know what you cant possibly know (therefore you are liars) and the likes of thunderfoot and I honestly admit our fundamental assumptions but point to the fruits of our way of thinking.

        • syetenb Says:

          //”at the end of the day you can throw up all sorts of contrived arguements regarding ”knowing” but when it comes down to it you offer no proof of your god assertions”//

          Do you know that? If so, how do you know it, and how do your know that your reasoning about it is valid?

          //” to know what you cant possibly know”//

          How can you know what is impossible to know? You are refuting yourself in every sentence!

      • dougal445 Says:

        You are a troll or/and an idiot.

      • Mike Says:

        syetenb Says: Good “argument” there dougal!

        Then we’re agreed- you’re a troll and an idiot.

      • Anonymous Says:

        @systenb. Although i have no expectation of making any impression on your religion addled brain (i might as well engage a solopsist chimp on junk).
        But just to further expose the staggering duplicity of your idiotic arguements. . .
        If it takes god for logic etc to exist as you stupidly assert without evidence. .
        What does it take for god to exist then?

    • dougal445 Says:

      what “is” is what is “ought” thats how we thrive. Like it or not that is reality. Reality (according to all known observations) does not bend to our fancy.

      • syetenb Says:

        //”Like it or not that is reality”//

        Like it or not, God exists. How do you like your argument now?

        //”Reality (according to all known observations) does not bend to our fancy.”//

        But how do you know that your observations and your reasoning about them is valid? Thunderf00t certainly can’t cause he can’t even know that he exists!

      • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

        @syetenb: God does not exist. Prove me wrong.

        You see, you don’t “know” he exists, because you have never seen him live, in the flesh, here on Earth (and if you say you have you are either a liar or delusional.) You merely “assume” he exists. This is why it’s called “faith.” The minute you “know” anything is the minute you lose “faith.” This is why you can’t understand TF’s argument, though you like to pretend you do.

        You’re entire argument continuously falls down around you and you are completely oblivious to it. It’s actually quite sad.

        • syetenb Says:

          //”God does not exist.”//

          Prove this please.

          //” Prove me wrong.”//

          Surely. The proof that God exists is that without Him, you couldn’t prove anything. Proof requires truth, knowledge, and absolute laws of logic, none of which can be accounted for outside of God. Your very question exposes your precommitment to God as you couldn’t make sense of any of those elements of proof without God. God does not send people to Hell for denying what they do not know, but for their sin against the God that they DO know.

          //” You see, you don’t “know” he exists”//

          Prove this please.

          //”The minute you “know” anything is the minute you lose “faith.”//

          That is an incorrect view of faith. Faith in God is the foundation of ALL knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). See, you have faith as well, but your faith is a blind faith in your ability to reason. THAT is why we ask you to justify your reasoning apart from God, and all you can do is spout the viciously circular: “I reason that my reasoning is valid.”

          //’’This is why you can’t understand TF’s argument, though you like to pretend you do.”//

          I understand TF’s argument very well. I have debated many professed atheists, and they argue just like he does:

          http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/multimedia.php

          //”You’re entire argument continuously falls down around you and you are completely oblivious to it. It’s actually quite sad.”//

          Well, if you or Thunderf00t would like to debate, contact me through my website. I’d be glad to engage either of you.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “Surely. The proof that God exists is that without Him, you couldn’t prove anything.”// This doesn’t say anything.

            “Proof requires truth, knowledge, and absolute laws of logic, none of which can be accounted for outside of God.”

            Truth – Truth = There is no God.
            Knowledge – doesn’t exist. Everything is an assumption.
            Absolute laws of logic – If there is a God, and there was to be a second coming of Christ, he’s now 12 years late for his own second coming. (Come to think of it, that’s a truth too…) Logic states that any omni-powerful being would own a watch.

            “Your very question exposes your precommitment to God as you couldn’t make sense of any of those elements of proof without God.” No, my question was meant to illustrate that one cannot prove either way whether or not God exists and therefore science, which is far more reliable than something that may or may not exist, should be given a greater priority in life. Your circular arguments are pretty typical. However the problem with arguments such as these are that if the conclusion is doubted (as I and many others do) then they prove nothing.

            “That is an incorrect view of faith. Faith in God is the foundation of ALL knowledge (Proverbs 1:7).”// This is a ridiculous way of debating. My view of faith is not subject to the definitions of your bible. Your Bible is fiction. You only demonstrate mindless adherence to dogma. If faith in your God supports knowledge and that knowledge is proven false, does that make your God a liar for getting you to have faith in him? Think about the fact that the church refused to believe that the Earth revolved around the sun for a very long time. Faith, for the record, belongs in the same group of words as “belief” which does not require actual fact.

            “See, you have faith as well, but your faith is a blind faith in your ability to reason. ” You make me laugh! I would rather have faith in reason than faith in an imaginary god. Reason comes from reading books, discussing ideas openly without censorship (this is where your religious edicts come in) and the free exchange of ideas. God comes from fantasy. Reason is far less blind than your fantasy. (No matter how simply I put this, I get the impression you just will not get it… Your loss.)

            “THAT is why we ask you to justify your reasoning apart from God, and all you can do is spout the viciously circular: “I reason that my reasoning is valid”// I have justified my reasoning time and time again using a logical progression of thought. Sadly, you just don’t want to see the truth of the matter: Your god, an absolute, does not exist, and until you come to grips with that truth, you will never understand anything outside of your world. (I on the other hand, was once a Christian who saw the faults of the system you perpetuate. You might want to think about that.)

            “Well, if you or Thunderf00t would like to debate, contact me through my website. I’d be glad to engage either of you.”// I see no problems with doing this right here, right now.

    • Mike Says:

      I don’t want to prolong what seems to be an extended round of mental masturbation, but to me there is a significant qualitative difference in this whole thing.

      It seems reasonable to believe that I exist (or who would be here to do the believing about my existence?). My *recognition* of my existence is fair proof that this is so.

      But….it’s a whole ‘nother thing to make the leap to believing in an invisible supreme being with magical powers. There’s *no* proof for such a being, and in fact there is *nothing* that can be shown as “proof” for its existence by any reasonable definition of the word “proof”.

      Just my 2 cents, we now return to our regularly scheduled Mental Masturbation Marathon! 🙂

  25. Mike Says:

    syetenb Says: “Hey Mike, it was an atheist that said that Thunderf00t didn’t get what happened”

    I don’t care who said it, they were wrong. Is THAT clear enough for you?

    Eric Hovind believes in an invisible, telepathic super-creature who (supposedly) created the entire universe in a few days, and who (supposedly) micro-manages it on a second-by-second basis. He believes this super-being exists outside of time and space, and yet (somehow) is simultaneously everywhere in time and space.

    He believes this super-being is “perfect and loving”, but also believes that this super-being has the right to drown the entire world on a whim, including babies still in their mother’s wombs.

    He believes this super-being has commanded us to cut a bit of flesh off the end of our penises. He also believes this super-being condones slavery and forbids us to wear two different kinds fabrics at the same time.

    Better yet, he claims this super-being speaks to him in his head about mundane things like what clothes to wear and what movies are okay to watch.

    Eric Hovind believes all of this without a shred of proof (and in fact he believes it in spite of massive evidence to the contrary). It’s difficult to come up with a more illogical, creepy, baseless, and contradictory set of beliefs.

    Anyone who believes in horsecrap like is displaying a severely impaired ability to reason, and as a result it’s impossible to take *anything* they say seriously.

  26. Nicolas Says:

    I would have lost patience long before. TF did very well, i dont know why some people are disappointed. His only error was trying to have an honest debate with someone who had no intention of doing the same. Eric spent the whole time trying to pigeonhole TF into his simplistic, childish, linear and premeditated series of yes-no questions. He had no intention of hearing out TF, he wanted to make him say what was necessary to arrive to his “gotchya” conclusion.
    Its like the SNL skit where a karate expert gets beat up by his students, and says “no, you attacked me wrong! punch me like this!”. Jim Carrey skit. pretty funny. Anyway, like the karate fraud, Eric wants TF to attack a specific way, so he can show off his great defense. However, like the karate fraud, there is no intellectual talent or reasoning ability in his arguing, and any deviation from his planned attack-defend routine leaves him stumped. So what does he do? He ignores everything TF just said and returns to his routine.
    TF didnt “lose” the debate; the debate never started. Eric kept saying “we’ll get to that later”, talking about definitions that absolutely must be refined before starting to ask a question like “Does God exist?”. Which god? What does “exist” mean in this context? As a figment of your imagination? As a huge ghost floating around in space?. Eric’s insistence on leaving this as non-defined is essential to his argument, allowing him to then fill the huge vague hole with whatever definition he wants, after the fact.
    He was asking TF to sign a blank contract, that he would later fill in.

    • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

      I agree. If there was ever a mediated debate between the two where both sides had a certain amount of time to respond to the other and had to address the issues presented in clear and concise ways, Thunderf00t would win.

  27. antithesis314 Says:

    “Are chemical reactions true or false?”
    I have to say, I didn’t think anybody could be more irritating than Kent Hovind. Eric made me rethink that position after I watched that video. He is crudely attempting to articulate a form of presuppositional apologetics. The main problems with that type of apologetic are 1) It begs the question of why their interpretation of “revealed scripture” is true, and 2) It fails to overcome Descartes’ Demon (and it needs to, since they obviously subscribe to extreme epistemic skepticism). I doubt Eric understands any of that, though.

  28. User'maat're Se'tepen'ra Says:

    For everyone that put your opinion on this comment. For fast and the truth, most want read the truth, sorry. Every THEOLOGY comes from the BOOK OF THE DEAD, made from Ancient EGYPTIANS. On stone and papyrus (paper made 250,000B.C.E.) was the first cilivization on this planet, you call Earth.
    Hmmm, the first book on your planet about religion was HEBREW BIBLE B.C.E.and so called ADAM had a FIRST wife her name was LITITH JEWISH FOLKLORE. Its in that book,sorry. NO JEWS, Hebrews hiding behind that word JEWS. Zionist hiding that word, too. Satanist.
    Ptah GOD made the universe his wife Sekhmet Fire. Then Osirius, Isis, Horus Underworld GODS and over ground, God, Queen, then SON. Opps, no GOD, Holy (Helio) SPIRIT, Jesus never exists the way U think. Eighteen Bibles before King James VERSION opps version. BIBLE= Astrotheological Literary Ancient Egyptain 10,000 B.C.E., Before COMMON ERA, and, no B.C. B.efore C.hrist. No A.D. A.fter D.eath, A.tfer Common. E.ra, and, A.D. Latin anno Domini. Sorry start reafing and more about Etymology.

  29. isthatmycow Says:

    Eric Hovind’s moronicy (if that’s a real word) takes the cake here.

    I’ve never thought people could be this stupid.

    Then people became this stupid.

  30. synapticcohesion Says:

    Am I the only who thinks that that atheist got bitch slapped by Eric Hovind?

    • syetenb Says:

      Nope: http://youtu.be/YJdPspBBXZs

    • Mike Says:

      “Am I the only who thinks that that atheist got bitch slapped by Eric Hovind?”

      No, you and that other bubblehead, “syetenb”, think so. Every other person here is in near-complete disagreement. And frankly, I wouldn’t be shocked to find out that “syetenb” is a sock-puppet account of yours.

    • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

      No, you aren’t. Sadly there are others out there who are just as delusional.

      • synapticcohesion Says:

        I will ignore the petty insult.

        Question: If TF is taking the position that nothing is really known, then why belittle others for their differences in perceptions and assumptions? Why not let Christians be? Why try to say that their views are inferior and erroneous? Even dangerous? He admits that he does not really know so why take any position? What good does that do? Take care of yourself and your own business.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          “Am I the only who thinks that that atheist got bitch slapped by Eric Hovind?” Petty insult for petty insult.

          “If TF is taking the position that nothing is really known, then why belittle others for their differences in perceptions and assumptions?” There are a number of ways I can answer that.

          First off, the Abrahamic faiths have caused more grief and suffering than any political party throughout history. (They have been around longer than any political party and have thus caused more damage.)

          Second, Hovind went to an atheist rally with the express intent not to learn about atheis or extend an olive branch, but to discredit it. It was Hovind that was the aggressor.

          Third, whereas science produces practical benefits to society, Christianity produces ridiculous rules that inhibit it. Then most Christians will try to provide excuses when called on these lies. (Just watch Hovind try to avoid TF’s questions and answers.)

          “Why not let Christians be?” Because Christians (and Muslims) seem to think that the world would be better off if everyone was like them, so they like to preach. They don’t leave others alone. They attack, sometimes brutally (think 9/11, David Koresh, and a host of other examples.) Besides, as I stated earlier, this was a Reason Rally. The Christians were there to attack atheism whereas the atheists just wanted to gather and speak their minds. The Christians were the aggressors here.

          “Why try to say that their views are inferior and erroneous? Even dangerous?” Again you could look at reasons above, but I could also add to the list:

          Inferior: (Who said that? I don’t recall it in the video, but what the hell, I will argue it anyway.) The presumption that one ideal can be less than another ideal can be brought back to practical benefit in society. Science gives us medicine, tools, etc. Religion, it could be argued, gives us emotional comfort, true, but too often that comfort comes at a cost: Holy wars, religious edicts prohibitting freedoms basic to human development (think about education here) and the aforementioned holy wars and violence. Taken pound for pound, reason outweighs the benefits of organised religion.

          Erroneous: The Pope banned condom usage among Catholics because he felt that they would promote promiscuity. In the end, all it did was promote HIV infections. Many religious organisations endorse political figures with the hopes of getting tax breaks or grants for their cause, with no regard for potentially dangerous policies those political parties espouse, and when the political views have nothing to do with their spiritual stances. Yet for all their faults, these religions come with an easy cop out: It’s God’s will. (An excuse they use over and over again, despite the fact that “God’s will” seems to be different in each group and often contradicts itself. If you want real contradictions read the Bible.)

          Dangerous: Jonestown. The fact that certain religious organizations don’t allow blood transfusions. HIV infection rates in Africa, caused by the Pope as stated earlier. The term “Holy War.” Homophobic beatings based on the Bible/Qu’ran. Witch burnings, stonings and other punishments (still going on in Africa, usually to children.) The list goes on.

          “He admits that he does not really know so why take any position? What good does that do?” He says he does not “know” and indeed, nobody does including you and I. That’s how people learn. Look at my responses to syetenb for a complete explanation.

          “Take care of yourself and your own business.” I have the right to speak my mind and am doing so, thank you very much. What goes on in my society is my business.

          Cheers.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            “Petty insult for petty insult.”

            But I wasn’t insulting anyone. If someone really did well in an argument, someone else obviously must get bitch slapped.

            “…the Abrahamic faiths have caused more grief and suffering than any political party throughout history. (They have been around longer than any political party and have thus caused more damage.)”

            So you arbitrarily decided to focus on Christianity because they’ve been around longer? And you blame Christianity and Christians for what others do in their name–even though they are not following the basic “Thou-shalt-not-kill” Christian rule?

            If were were to make the same conclusion as you do using that faulty logic, we could say that atheist dictatorships have slaughtered billions of people in a much shorter period of time (which is much more alarming) and would have to therefore conclude that atheism is dangerous and has caused much human suffering. (IF I were to use your faulty logic, which I would not and do not.)

            “Hovind went to an atheist rally with the express intent not to learn about atheis or extend an olive branch, but to discredit it. It was Hovind that was the aggressor.”

            I would have to agree with you on that, but I also see nothing wrong with a having healthy debate. Both sides seemed to keep relatively calm.

            “Science gives us medicine, tools, etc. Religion, it could be argued, gives us emotional comfort, true, but too often that comfort comes at a cost…”

            That’s the thing; you treat religion and science as though they are mutually exclusive when they are not. There have been many scientists over the years that have befitted humanity that were Christian and often even practicing priests and monks who dedicated their free time to scientific study. Since you BLAME Christianity for wars and killings (which are contrary to Christian teaching), will you also CREDIT Christianity for their contributions to science as well? Will you give other religions credit as well for their contributions to math and science?

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            Why don’t you look up the term “bitch slap” and tell me where it came from. Then tell me if it has any derogatory meanings. It goes well beyond “petty” and I would find it insulting were it applied to me.

            “So you arbitrarily decided to focus on Christianity because they’ve been around longer?” It wasn’t arbitrary. Tell me. Did you happen to see a group of Muslims in the background of the video waving signs? No? They were Christian, as is Eric Hovind. Therefore it is the Christians that are directly relevant to this article.

            “And you blame Christianity and Christians for what others do in their name–even though they are not following the basic “Thou-shalt-not-kill” Christian rule?” Yes. They use the Bible as their basis for their actions and call themselves Christian. If Christianity were at all responsible, it would recognise that the Bible has created so many different interpretations that “being Christian” could actually mean being a violent misguided group of fanatics, (though of course that does not apply to all Christians) and move to correct the problem. However the very fact that the Bible can be interpretted as such and that Christians call the Bible “The Word of God” giving the actions done from it’s interpretations divine sanction (whether those actions prove positive or negative) is irresponsible at best. The same goes for Islam and the Qu’ran.

            “we could say that atheist dictatorships have slaughtered billions of people in a much shorter period of time (which is much more alarming) and would have to therefore conclude that atheism is dangerous and has caused much human suffering.”// There are, as of a few months ago, 7 billion people on this planet. Tell me, when were “billions” killed by atheist dictatorships? When was 1/7th of the population destroyed? China and North Korea? That would be tens of thousands, most likely, and still not near the “millions” mark of Christianity. Not to excuse their actions certainly, but your exaggeration paints an unreal picture. I would also point out that we are not talking about Christian “dictatorships” as a centralized governmental system, but “Christianity” which is a religious movement not tied to one particular government that has spanned the globe. The mindset of Christianity, when the rules of the Bible are set to it, inhibits cognitive devellopment sometimes to the point of insanity and spreads irrespective of governments. (Don’t believe me on the insanity thing? Check out that group in Australia that has themselves nailed -literally- to crosses at Easter to endure the pain Christ went through. I saw it on the news a couple of days ago.) Atheism has no “Bible” to call the word of God and can more easily question itself and the practices of other Atheists as it does not have a “word of God” to fight over, just common sense.

            “Hovind went to an atheist rally with the express intent not to learn about atheis or extend an olive branch, but to discredit it. It was Hovind that was the aggressor.” I would have to agree with you on that, but I also see nothing wrong with a having healthy debate”// Well thank you, but that wasn’t nearly a healthy debate. A healthy debate would have allowed TF to respond to the questions as he saw fit and not have Hovind try to feed answers. Hovind would have tried to understand, and not just attack. That is the difference between “debate” and “debunk.”

            “That’s the thing; you treat religion and science as though they are mutually exclusive when they are not. There have been many scientists over the years that have befitted humanity that were Christian and often even practicing priests and monks who dedicated their free time to scientific study. Since you BLAME Christianity for wars and killings (which are contrary to Christian teaching), will you also CREDIT Christianity for their contributions to science as well? Will you give other religions credit as well for their contributions to math and science?”// Yes. It cannot be denied that there have been scientists that were Christian, Muslim, Pagan, etc. (The early doctors, who knew about herbal medicine -an unexplained science at the time that was mistakenly refered to as “magic”- and who came before universities were established, were called “witches” who were probably the first professionally recognised scientists.) However, the two sides have come to an impass. Reason beyond all else is taking hold and either religion evolves (which, if it sticks to its holy books, it cannot do) or it dies. Reason is taking the place of God, as well it should. If you want to find God in science, be my guest, but if refuting hard facts on the basis of what it says in one 2 thousand year old manuscript that has been translated dozens of times in several different languages is what it means to be “Christian” count me out, and expect criticism.

            “(IF I were to use your faulty logic, which I would not and do not.)”// My logic is hardly faulty. It is, however, easily misunderstood by those defending their faith against it.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            “So you arbitrarily decided to focus on Christianity because they’ve been around longer?” It wasn’t arbitrary. Tell me. Did you happen to see a group of Muslims in the background of the video waving signs? No? They were Christian, as is Eric Hovind. Therefore it is the Christians that are directly relevant to this article.”

            My question is that you deem Christianity “dangerous” simply because it’s been around longer when there should be better criteria.

            “And you blame Christianity and Christians for what others do in their name–even though they are not following the basic “Thou-shalt-not-kill” Christian rule?” Yes. They use the Bible as their basis for their actions and call themselves Christian. If Christianity were at all responsible, it would recognise that the Bible has created so many different interpretations that “being Christian” could actually mean being a violent misguided group of fanatics, (though of course that does not apply to all Christians) and move to correct the problem. However the very fact that the Bible can be interpretted as such and that Christians call the Bible “The Word of God” giving the actions done from it’s interpretations divine sanction (whether those actions prove positive or negative) is irresponsible at best.”

            Who’s “they” you keep referring to? The few leaders that claimed to be Christian while calling for the deaths of others? Would you and atheists in general want to be blamed for the tens of millions killed under atheist leaders? The 60 million killed under Stalin? Or the 70 million killed under Mao? Should I as an American be blamed for what my government does? How about you for what yours does (even though you may strongly disagree with their actions)? Are you beginning to see that what you are against is not really based on logic, but based more on bigotry?

            “Tell me, when were “billions” killed by atheist dictatorships? When was 1/7th of the population destroyed? China and North Korea? That would be tens of thousands, most likely, and still not near the “millions” mark of Christianity. Not to excuse their actions certainly, but your exaggeration paints an unreal picture.”

            That was my mistake. It’s hundreds of millions, not billions. And you DO excuse their (atheists) actions because you only want to be rid of Christians for deaths caused under their name (leaders who pose as Christians), but not for the deaths caused under the name of atheism (leaders who call themselves atheists). Keep in mind that Christians were not only slaughtered for their beliefs but being caught practicing religion was forbidden under many communists regimes–punishable by imprisonment, forced labor, or death.

            “The mindset of Christianity, when the rules of the Bible are set to it, inhibits cognitive devellopment sometimes to the point of insanity and spreads irrespective of governments.”

            Obviously not as there have been many Christians who have made breakthroughs in science and many other areas of academia. This is just more baseless bigotry.

            “(Don’t believe me on the insanity thing? Check out that group in Australia that has themselves nailed -literally- to crosses at Easter to endure the pain Christ went through.”

            Come on. There are crazies in everywhere. If they would abide by God’s rules, they would not mock Christ, not would they engage in blood letting.

            “Hovind would have tried to understand, and not just attack. That is the difference between “debate” and “debunk.”

            Well unlike some atheists that try to blame games saying that nothing is certain, Hovind is declaring that there are absolutes. Why would he try to “understand” atheism if he believes that there are absolutes in the word? Just as you thinking that Christianity is absolutely dangerous and impairs cognitive ability.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “My question is that you deem Christianity “dangerous” simply because it’s been around longer when there should be better criteria” // I deem Christianity dangerous because it perpetuates things like homophobia, sexism, “holy war” mentality, etc. I have illustrated all this to you. Don’t read into my argument only that which you want to hear. Selective hearing is also a problem with Christians, it seems.

            ” Who’s “they” you keep referring to? The few leaders that claimed to be Christian while calling for the deaths of others?”// I believe I was quite clear: Christians. Whether you choose to recognise them as Christians or not is irrelevant. These people use the Bible to justify their sadistic ways and thus the responsibility for their actions sits squarely with those who promote the Bible’s ideaology: Christians in all denominations. If the Bible were the word of a loving God it could not be used to promote the suffering it has. Denying what is obviously stated simply because yo do not like the answer is not going to help your argument.

            “Would you and atheists in general want to be blamed for the tens of millions killed under atheist leaders? The 60 million killed under Stalin? Or the 70 million killed under Mao? Should I as an American be blamed for what my government does? How about you for what yours does (even though you may strongly disagree with their actions” Again you ignore my previous responses to you because it was not what you wanted to hear. Denial of logic does not negate it. I will repeat myself again for some of our slower students: We are not discussing a political movement like Mao or Stalin’s violence under communism. We are discussing a mind set that comes from a brainwashing found within organised religion. If we were discussing religion in politics I would be just as likely to talk about why the Christian George W. Bush invaded Iraq “fighting evil.” However, we are talking about an ideaology that endorses ignorance. That ignorance gives people free reign to attack others like homosexuals and those deemed to be witches. “If it’s God’s will, then burn them at the stake.” It has nothing to do with politics. Is this sinking in yet?

            “Are you beginning to see that what you are against is not really based on logic, but based more on bigotry?” Oh, I see. So I am a bigot because I see violence in the name of God all the time on television and call it for what it is? It cannot be denied that the stem of violence like that perpetuated by the Ku Klux Klan was an interpretation of the Bible. Yes it was sick and twisted, but it still originated from your holy book. This is not bigotry. It is observation. Your labels mean nothing without the facts. Without facts, your labels of me are merely lies, only perpetuating my opinion of Christian ideaology.

            “And you DO excuse their (atheists) actions because you only want to be rid of Christians for deaths caused under their name (leaders who pose as Christians), but not for the deaths caused under the name of atheism (leaders who call themselves atheists).”// You’re as bad as Hovind for trying to tell others what they think. I said their actions were inexcusable, if you’ll read my comments again. Talking to me as though you already know what I am going to say is just telling more lies. First the lies are to yourself then to anyone who listens to you. I never said that Christians should be killed. Don’t try playing that card, unless you want to be seen as a liar and prove many atheists right.

            “Obviously not as there have been many Christians who have made breakthroughs in science and many other areas of academia.” // Yes, some Christians have made scientific breakthroughs despite their belief structure, however you fail to address those who nail themselves to crosses for Christ, deny life giving blood transfusions to their own dying children because of what is written in the Bible, or give their last dollar to a rich televangelist because he’s doing “God” work. All of this has a certain lack of forsight to it and therefore a certain lack of mind usage. The point is that Christianity does not help scientific advancement. History has shown time and time again that it has done the opposite. You don’t have to think for yourself when God (or a priest who thinks he is God’s voice) is doing it for you. That’s why parent were never questioning the priests who were molesting their kids. Lack of cognitive development.

            “Come on. There are crazies in everywhere. If they would abide by God’s rules, they would not mock Christ, not would they engage in blood letting.”// God’s rules? Which one? The one that says: “Go forth and kill every man woman and child?” Or the one that says: “Thow shalt not suffer a witch to live?” Bloodletting is very Christian. Denial won’t change the facts. And yes, there are crazies everywhere. However the Bible seems to give them better reason to feel secure in their insanity and they end up without help they evidently need because it’s all done in the name of God.

            “Well unlike some atheists that try to blame games saying that nothing is certain, Hovind is declaring that there are absolutes.” And in that he was wrong and never understood more than what his blind eyes could see. There are no absolutes. “The earth is flat” was an absolute until science proved that wrong. The second we say that there are absolutes is the second we stop questioning them. When we stop questioning we start doing destructive things like follow religious organizations blindly when they tell us to stop using condoms despite an HIV pandemic. How many millions died because of that edict alone?

            “Why would he try to “understand” atheism if he believes that there are absolutes in the word?” Hovind most likely never will, and that’s his choice. However, when people like him and you demonstrate a lack of willingness to understand, people like myself will be there to question you and hopefully our questions will get those around us to want to understand. If you want to live in ignorance, by my guest, but I will always question you. I will always expose your lies (as mentioned earlier, before you get your knickers in a twist) and I will always ensure that every statement that can be questioned will be.

            Keep trying, synapticcohesion. I am having too much fun to stop now… 🙂

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            “We are not discussing a political movement like Mao or Stalin’s violence under communism. We are discussing a mind set that comes from a brainwashing found within organised religion.”

            So you are selectively saying that political parties and movements can slaughter all they want–as long as they choose not to wear the banner of Christianity. You CAN’T just dismiss atheistic political movements just because you can identity with them. If you blame Christianity for every single thing that happens under it’s name, you must also hold that same standard for ANYTHING else under any other banner–political, ideological, religious, both, or otherwise in terms of ideology. Otherwise you are nothing more that a hypocrite and a bigot.

            And for those who have cognitive defects, let me also reiterate that the Bible teaches that killing is WRONG. Blood letting (of human beings including yourself) is WRONG. People who do this are disobeying the Bible and therefore God according to Christian tenets. These acts would be considered NOT to be Christian at all. But to you, no one murdering while professing to be a Christan could possibly be LYING. No, of course not–murderers have high moral standards and would NEVER lie or deceive!

            “…deny life giving blood transfusions to their own dying children because of what is written in the Bible…”

            You can’t have it both ways. You blame Christianity for people bloodletting by nailing themselves to crosses (even though bloodletting is prohibited by the Bible), AND cite what Christians do that IS actually in accordance to the Bible (NOT allowing bloodletting and the consuming (via drink or IV of another person’s blood). Come on, pick on and be consistent for once! And if you know anything about transfusions you would know that there are other ways to maintain blood volume without using the blood of others. These methods have been proven to be very safe and successful. Look into it and learn something.

            Face the facts: Evil comes in all forms. Maybe it’s in the form of a crazed social Darwinist and eugenicist who wants to get rid of the “inferior races” so he uses politics and/or religion to advance himself in hopes of seeing these goals through once he gains power. Maybe it’s in another guise. The point is that you can’t place COLLECTIVE BLAME for the actions of a few who many not even in reality belong to that group. After all, isn’t that what Hitler and the Nazis did?

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “So you are selectively saying that political parties and movements can slaughter all they want–as long as they choose not to wear the banner of Christianity”// You see, this is the type of lie you guys perpetuate that I am talking about. We both know that my intention was to take the political aspect out of the equation as it bears no relevance to the conversation. However, you saw an opening to twist my words around to try to use them against me. This is another reason why I will never be Christian again: You cannot support your argument without first lying to yourself then others.

            “You CAN’T just dismiss atheistic political movements just because you can identity with them”// Actually, we can. Not because they are atheist, but because they are political. Any political entity that takes on any religious or atheistic viewpoint and applies it to law causes harm. We are not talking about politics, though. We are talking about the use of the Bible, a religious set of rules, to subvert and dominate. If you want to talk about how the church controlled the governments of Europe to push the Spanish Inquisition, or the crusades on Europeans, however, we can talk about that too.

            “Otherwise you are nothing more that a hypocrite and a bigot.” If that’s your opinion, you are entitled to it.

            “And for those who have cognitive defects, let me also reiterate that the Bible teaches that killing is WRONG. Blood letting (of human beings including yourself) is WRONG. People who do this are disobeying the Bible and therefore God according to Christian tenets. These acts would be considered NOT to be Christian at all.”// That is your interpretation of the Bible, a book which is extremely open to interpretation. If you have issues with this, take them up with your fellow Christians. Until then, if somebody commits a crime and recites a passage in the Bible as their reason for doing so, then all Christians share a measure of responsibility as you guys keep claiming it is the “word of God.” I am just demanding that you take responsibility for that claim.

            “But to you, no one murdering while professing to be a Christan could possibly be LYING. No, of course not–murderers have high moral standards and would NEVER lie or deceive! “// Of course somebody could be trying to pass themselves off as Christian. Then again maybe they just interpretted the Bible in a different way. Either way, Christians must come to grips with the fact that the Bible produces many types of Christian and some of them a really sick people. Then these sick people use their interpretations of the Bible (and the justification that they are acting in the name of a higher power) to kill. You just have to be responsible to the truth of the matter, that’s all. Too bad this seems like too much to ask.

            “People who do this are disobeying the Bible and therefore God according to Christian tenets.”// Which Christians? There are thousands of different sects, each having its own interpretation of God’s will and perfectly willing to use that as an excuse to do what they want.

            “You can’t have it both ways. You blame Christianity for people bloodletting by nailing themselves to crosses (even though bloodletting is prohibited by the Bible), AND cite what Christians do that IS actually in accordance to the Bible (NOT allowing bloodletting and the consuming (via drink or IV of another person’s blood). Come on, pick on and be consistent for once! “// There are other Christians who would disagree with your interpretations of Biblical edict here. Consistent? With over 2 thousand groups of people all calling themselves Christian and each interpretting the Bible in their own way the only thing consistent in Christianity is that they each have a book they call the “Bible” that is similar to the other Christian “bibles” You ask for consistency, but my argument is the only thing consistent here. My argument is that if you honestly base your actions, no matter what the interpretation consists of, upon an interpretation of the Bible, you are Christian and all Christians must hold a degree of responsibility for that interpretation of a work all of you claim to be from “God.” In short, if you claim it’s God’s work, then so are the fruits of that work.

            “And if you know anything about transfusions you would know that there are other ways to maintain blood volume without using the blood of others.”// Are you a doctor? If you are not a doctor then you have just passed on medical (scientific) knowledge without actually studying the field. If you are a doctor, then you just made a medical (scientific) assessment from the context of supporting a religious claim and that would put your credentials into question. Besides, I would trust a doctor telling me I need a blood transfusion than to deny myself the chance to live simply over an interpretation of a 2 thousand year old manuscript. When it comes right down to it, my life is worth more than your book.

            “Face the facts: Evil comes in all forms. “// Face the facts: Christianity could very well be the “evil” you describe.

            “The point is that you can’t place COLLECTIVE BLAME for the actions of a few who many not even in reality belong to that group. “// Even if the collective is responsible, if only to a small degree?

            “After all, isn’t that what Hitler and the Nazis did?”// With the blessings of the Pope, yes. He also suppressed those that disagreed with him openly. We are not talking about taking violent action against Christianity though, are we? We are simply questioning it. We are disagreeing with it. If I choose to hold Christianity accountable for what people are doing in it’s name, then I will speak my mind without fear of reprisal from any church or state. Trying to make me out as a villain simply because I disagree with you is another lie. But then, I expect it in these debates.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            @synapticcohesion I should also point out that it is not the “religions” that can take credit for the scientific advancements of their practitioners, but the scientists themselves. I do recognise that there were scientists that were Christian, Muslim, etc. that made discoveries, but it was not the faith. Just to be clear.

      • Mike Says:

        synapticcohesion Says: “I would have to agree with you on that, but I also see nothing wrong with a having healthy debate.”

        By your logic we should be free to drop into church during services, impose out presence, and have a “healthy debate”. Sounds like fun, but I’m betting they would object.

        “and often even practicing priests and monks who dedicated their free time to scientific study.”

        Yeah, religion has been SUCH a supporter of science *cough*. Just look at all the sciency stuff in the bible! And we all know about those weekly science classes at church, immediately after the services, right? Gosh, I can’t even count the number of times the fossil record has been discussed in church, and we all know how keen they are on having frank, open conversations about evolution.

        Yeeeeeeeah, the church is just filled with critical thinking and science fairs, isn’t it?

        “Since you BLAME Christianity for wars and killings (which are contrary to Christian teaching), will you also CREDIT Christianity for their contributions to science as well?”

        We both know that religion (and Christianity in particular) has been a vigorous opponent of nearly every scientific discovery and advance made throughout recorded history.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          Hi Mike.

          Valid points all. I would also add to that that the priests and monks who studied science also had to hide much of what they found from the church if it contradicted church edict for fear of persecution. These scientific studies were the actions of individuals and not the church itself.

      • Mike Says:

        Adrian Lee Magill Says: “I would also add to that that the priests and monks who studied science also had to hide much of what they found from the church if it contradicted church edict for fear of persecution.”

        That’s right. If what they found contradicted the biblical version of events, it was suppressed, often brutally. The church *never* sponsored, promoted, or supported ANY scientific research that went against its teachings.

        “These scientific studies were the actions of individuals and not the church itself.”

        Bingo. And often they paid with their lives or careers or both. It makes me laugh when theists talk about all the supposed scientific research that the “church” has done. That would be about the same amount as the number of synagogues the Nazis helped build during WWII.

        Religion and science are diametrically opposed by their very nature, and the bible is the “Manual For Ignorance”.

        Fun Science Facts from the bible:
        – The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird.
        – Entering the holy place without wearing bells can result in death.
        – Moses promises his people that the Lord will take away all sickness.
        – Fire consumes wet wood, stones, and dust, and “licks up” water.
        – Two of every animal in the whole world once fit on a wooden boat.
        – Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)
        – Slugs and/or snails melt as they move.

        There’s so much valuable sciency stuff in the bible that I’m sure the NASA engineers keep a copy close at hand.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          @ Mike “Religion and science are diametrically opposed by their very nature” Science deals with the factual. Religion deals with the mystical. The difference between the two is honest study of the universe around us, taking the mystical (or the unkown reasoning behind an unexplained phenomenon) and offering plausible realistic explanations thereby making it factual. For example, going back to my herbal medicine/witchcraft analogy, before we knew about medicinal properties in plants, an herbal mixture or poultice that relieved symptoms of disease were considered “magical” because nobody knew why it worked. Now, we have science to tell us why this works and it is no longer “magic.”

          The problem with canonized/organised religion, with respect to it’s opposition to science, is that it claims that it already has all the answers in God (as “evidenced” in Holy scripture.) This eliminates the need for independant scientific study to attain the knowledge personally, if their holy books are accepted at face value.

          The problem between organized religion and science is that once science offers explanations that contradict what is written in the holy books, it is evident that the holy books were written, in fact, by humans and not God. Once this happens, the whole framework of the religion starts to crumble. Faith is lost and people start to disbelieve. The “mystical” becomes the “unexplored” and that part of religion which espouses imagination as fact is exposed as a lie.

      • Mike Says:

        synapticcohesion Says: “The few leaders that claimed to be Christian while calling for the deaths of others?”

        Yes, not only did they “claim” to be christians, they WERE christians, often operating with the full support of the church.

        The church has caused the deaths of untold millions in the name of Jesus and christianity. We all know this, to deny it is to deny thousands of years of recorded history.

        “Should I as an American be blamed for what my government does?”

        That would depend on your involvement, wouldn’t it?

        “Obviously not as there have been many Christians who have made breakthroughs in science and many other areas of academia.”

        Bullshit. The number of Christians who have done hard science under the auspices of the church is near zero. They did it in spite of the fact that they were Christians, not because of it.

        “Come on. There are crazies in everywhere.”

        Yes, and most of them are in church, busy believing in an invisible, telepathic super-being. They’re busy eating crackers and claiming that it turns into Christ’s ACTUAL flesh the moment they ingest it. But that’s not crazy, oh no!

        “Hovind is declaring that there are absolutes.”

        Who cares? The point is that he believes in things that cannot possibly be true.

        “Just as you thinking that Christianity is absolutely dangerous and impairs cognitive ability.”

        I don’t think that. I *know* that.

      • Mike Says:

        Adrian Lee Magill said: “Once this happens, the whole framework of the religion starts to crumble.”

        It’s already well underway. Religion is dying. Church membership is down, the old generation of believers are dying off and not being replaced, and this newest generation for the most part flatly refuses to buy into the whole “god story”. Almost no one gives a shit what the pope says these days, and few people find religion believable, practical, or useful in their lives anymore.

        It’s dying, and it ain’t coming back. And it can’t happen too soon.

        This is, I believe, the dawning of the “Age Of Reason”, when mankind finally recognizes religion for the toxic nonsense that it is and abandons it altogether.

    • OfTheGaps Says:

      Which atheist? Thunderf00t or Eric Hovind?

    • Mike Says:

      “…pretending that his teachings belong in science when it’s primitive, fantastical racist jibberish”

      Referring to Darwin that way is actually pretty funny, since the bible is probably the gold standard for “primitive, fantastical racist jibberish”.

      • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

        “Referring to Darwin that way is actually pretty funny, since the bible is probably the gold standard for “primitive, fantastical racist jibberish”.”//

        Yeah, but he would never acknowledge that. It would require a certain degree of honesty.

  31. Sir Ian Says:

    Don’t know if you’ll read this but Tf00T. Please get more people to blog on wordpress. It will increase literacy.

  32. Mike Says:

    synapticcohesion Says: “Why not let Christians be?”

    I will, as soon as they let me be. As soon as they stop trying to alter laws to their favor, influencing schools to teach their nonsense, and forcing politicians to pass their laws.

    “Why try to say that their views are inferior and erroneous?”

    Because they ARE. Believing in an invisible sky-fairy is NOT the way to find the truth about how the world works. Basing your morals on a hateful book like the bible is NOT the way to coexist with other people or better the human condition.

    “Take care of yourself and your own business.”

    Take care of my own business? You have a lot of balls to say something like that, considering how the church has meddled in everything imaginable since they began. You have a LOT of fucking balls to tell me to “mind my own business”, or haven’t you been paying attention to what your fucking church has been up to for the last 2000 years?

  33. -_- Says:

    The debate with hovind was a real waste. I think thunderfoot gave that dude far too much time. Soo….. Who do you guys think will win the NBA championship this year.

  34. dutch heretic Says:

    Why didn you just say, if god exists, he must be a mad scientist looking down on us trhough a microscope..
    This guy just worked through his list of questions ..
    Warped questions require warped answers

  35. synapticcohesion Says:

    “Adrian Lee Magill Says: “I would also add to that that the priests and monks who studied science also had to hide much of what they found from the church if it contradicted church edict for fear of persecution.”

    That’s right. If what they found contradicted the biblical version of events, it was suppressed, often brutally. The church *never* sponsored, promoted, or supported ANY scientific research that went against its teachings.”

    Proof of this? Or is this more baseless propaganda? Christian religious institutions DO encourage academic studies including the sciences, you know. I even know ATHEISTS who send their children to Christian schools because of the “quality” of the eduction. You can worship God and study science. How difficult is that to understand?

    • Mike Says:

      “Proof of this?”

      Read history for the last 1000 years or so… you’ll find all the examples you want.

      “I even know ATHEISTS who send their children to Christian schools because of the “quality” of the eduction.”

      Not for hard science subjects, they don’t. Show me some Christian schools who teach Master’s level courses in evolution, geophysics, paleontology, astronomy, or quantum mechanics. You can’t, because all these things *directly* contradict the bible and therefore aren’t taught at any serious level in “Christian schools”.

      “You can worship God and study science.”

      Not for long. 🙂
      Most people who worship God and study science stop worshiping their imaginary sky-buddy.

      The fact is that our species has had thousands of religions, none any more supported by evidence than the next. The only honest thing to do is to apply the same standard of evidence to all of them, with the result that you accept them all or reject them all.

      But since most of them are mutually contradictory, the only honest + rational thing to do is to reject them all. No “faith” required.

    • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

      Proof? You never heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Or of how Galileo was punished for his findings? Or how about Leonardo Da Vinci who had to hide many of his inventions for fear of being branded a witch? How many great minds were suppressed thanks to the church? Please. Give us a harder task than this. You only embarass yourself.

      The only propoganda here is the stuff you are trying to push on us.

  36. synapticcohesion Says:

    The “Father of Genetics” Gregor Mendel did all of his experiments at St Thomas’s Abbey. After entering the monastery, the was sent to the University of Vienna to study physics. He also studied astronomy and meteorology.

    Are you claiming that cases like Mendel’s is some strange anomaly? Why don’t you just admit that much of the contributions to science DERIVED from these religious institutions! Belief in God and interest in the sciences (real proven/provable science, not pseudoscience) are NOT contradictory as we are increasingly brainwashed to believe.

    • Mike Says:

      “Are you claiming that cases like Mendel’s is some strange anomaly?”

      In general, yes.

      “Why don’t you just admit that much of the contributions to science DERIVED from these religious institutions”

      Because overwhelmingly, it’s not true. Yes, there have been religious people who have made great discoveries, but for the most part religion has worked to suppress science, not promote it. Stop trying to deny this.

      “Belief in God and interest in the sciences are NOT contradictory as we are increasingly brainwashed to believe.”

      Bullshit.

      • synapticcohesion Says:

        “Belief in God and interest in the sciences are NOT contradictory as we are increasingly brainwashed to believe.”

        Bullshit.”

        That’s not a very logical answer, is it? Your bigotry is showing. Yes, atheist can be bigots, too.

    • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

      Mendel’s work was not recognised until after his death at around the turn of the 20th century. With that lack of support within the scientific community, I doubt it even popped up on the church’s radar, unlike Darwin whose book on similar studies got him in hot water really quick. However, Mendel’s recognition by the church is supposition. What is not supposition regarding Mendel is that after he was promoted to Abbot he was too busy with church duties to continue scientific study. If he had continued with his science instead of tending to church bureaucracy maybe we could have learned a lot more. His work, I should point out, was his own and not derived from church edict.

      “Belief in God and interest in the sciences (real proven/provable science, not pseudoscience) are NOT contradictory as we are increasingly brainwashed to believe.” Then scientifically prove God exists. You can’t. Why? Because it is a BELIEF (your words) and not knowledge. It is an assumption based upon faith whereas science is an assumption based upon observable phenomena.

      Your own words have just proven my earlier point perfectly.

      • synapticcohesion Says:

        The Church only SPONSORED his studies at the University. *sigh*

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          Yes, but if he didn’t make a big splash with his scientific findings, the church would not have noticed anyway. The point is that he was dismissed as being a small player when he was, in fact, a ground breaking scientist. The church attacked Darwin’s claims, and left Mendel alone because Mendel did not do anything to call attention to the faulty logic of the church during his life. Then, when he was Abbot, he had no more time for science. He was percieved as harmless by the church and left alone but not because his findings were harmless. Just because they were unknown.

      • synapticcohesion Says:

        “The problem with Christian “free will” (and I know this from personal experience as well as having seen it in Christian actions) is that with the shame that’s implied, as well as applied directly on those who break the rules of the group, the free will doesn’t exist in a practical sense.”

        Don’t get me wrong. By “free will” I mean that that is what (if we are to speak of Christianity here) God gave all people is a free will to do as they choose–but as I mentioned before it doesn’t mean that there will be dire consequences and punishment for doing the wrong things. “Free will” does not imply permissiveness. Yes, humans also dole out punishment based on these teachings–imprisoning people for murder, cheating, stealing, etc. Do I agree with that? Yes, in certain cases where the rest of society would be protected from certain people: for example, wanton mass murders. Do I think that they should step in in every case? No. Human beings often prove to be bad at playing God and doling out justifiable punishment.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          But I am not talking about blatantly destructive actions like murder. If you read my comments again, I am talking about things like homosexuality, blood transfusions, and other benign actions that Christians condemn based on their Bible. There is less free will than you imagine in Christianity.

          “Do I think that they should step in in every case? No. Human beings often prove to be bad at playing God and doling out justifiable punishment.”// And yet you have a whole book of rules that cannot be followed to the letter as they contradict themselves time and time again. The same book that Christians claim come ‘”from” God and is therefore beyond reproach in their eyes, so any punishment doled out in its name is the work of God. Regardless of the benign nature of the “offence.” Witch burnings, gay bashing, allowing people to die instead of giving them blood transfusions, etc.

      • synapticcohesion Says:

        “The church attacked Darwin’s claims, and left Mendel alone because Mendel did not do anything to call attention to the faulty logic of the church during his life.”

        Hasn’t it occurred to you that maybe a church that encouraged scientific study opposed Darwin’s claims because DARWIN used faulty logic?

        Some Christian sects actually embraced Darwins racist claims as they, like Darwin, wanted desperately to believe that black people are lower beings that were literally closer to the supposed “ape ancestors” of humans.

        While many Christians fought for abolition of slavery (citing that we are all perfect human beings created by God who deserved to be treated equally and with respect, not some treated as animals) and even died as martyrs for the cause, Darwin and the evolutionary theory was introducing a new concept that basically said that we are all animals–let the fitter ones, do as they choose to win supremacy and resources over the the ones who are weaker (i.e., without weapons). Darwin’s “logic” was not only faulty, but was dangerous to the peoples he deemed inferior.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          “Hasn’t it occurred to you that maybe a church that encouraged scientific study opposed Darwin’s claims because DARWIN used faulty logic?”// Of course it has, but that idea was dismissed in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Darwin offered substantiated evidence for his claims and the church just said: “No, you’re wrong because the Bible tells us so.” This is the same Bible that was written, re-written, translated and re-interpreted over and over again by humans for hundreds of years. Darwin’s theory wasn’t half as problematic as the religious concept that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old.

          “Some Christian sects actually embraced Darwins racist claims as they, like Darwin, wanted desperately to believe that black people are lower beings that were literally closer to the supposed “ape ancestors” of humans.”// Now who’s spreading propoganda? The bastardization of Darwin’s theories by Hitler (which is where those theories come from, BTW) was based in a pre-supposition of the outcome of the logic, not actual open minded thought. In other words, Hitler twisted Darwin’s work around to suit his political needs in his book “Mein Kampf.” Now you are perpetuating that lie that Hitler told to suit your argument. Which brings us, again, to the fact that Christians cannot follow their own rules and contradict themselves.

          “While many Christians fought for abolition of slavery (citing that we are all perfect human beings created by God who deserved to be treated equally and with respect, not some treated as animals) and even died as martyrs for the cause, Darwin and the evolutionary theory was introducing a new concept that basically said that we are all animals–let the fitter ones, do as they choose to win supremacy and resources over the the ones who are weaker (i.e., without weapons). Darwin’s “logic” was not only faulty, but was dangerous to the peoples he deemed inferior”// Again, that was Hitler taking a few points out of context from Darwin and twisting them to his agenda. Now you are doing the same thing, only for Christianity and whereas Hitler was using selected pieces to promote, you are using selected bits to detract. In other words, you are telling a lie.

          How many scientists who support Darwin’s theories are of African descent? Did you even consider that before posting your lie?

          And if you are trying to tell me that atheists have not fought for freedom, visit a veterans memorial one day and see how many gravestones are those of atheists.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            No, Darwin’s racist work speaks for himself. Don’t tell me you really don’t know.

            “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break [between humans and non-humans] will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian [aboriginal] and the gorilla.”

            -Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 156.

            Translation of his racist babble: In the future when all the dark skinned anthropomorphous (human-like) apes (black, aborigines, and gorillas–yes, he’s treating the these three as the same) are completely exterminated, the difference between humans (whites) and apes will be even more apparent. And you wonder why Hitler was an admirer.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            Okay, I stand corrected: Darwin was a racist. Along with everyone else at the time, including Christians. (Or are we forgetting that the “savage races” also included those who had not yet been converted, like those who practiced Islam? Or Asian cultures?)

            However, I should point out that because Darwin started the evolutionary ball rolling, the path to reason had begun. True, he had very little understanding of what “race” actually was, but he did get us thinking about it in the first place.

            I should also point out something else: this turn in the conversation only illustrates what I was saying previously: There is no knowledge. Only assumption. Once you admit that you could be wrong the possibility for growth exists. I assumed Darwin was not racist, you illustrated the mistake, I accepted the mistake and learned.

            Too bad the Bible, whose “truths” are written in stone, is unable to do the same thing. Too bad Christians, who are constantly presented with valid arguments about why Christianity is flawed, cannot do the same thing as I have done at the start of this reply.

            You see, the fundamental difference between you and I is that you assume that all the answers are in God so much so that you call it “knowledge” and give it the immovable attitude of permanence. By so doing you limit your own growth and understanding and cannot admit when you are wrong for fear of shaking your own faith.

            That is why there is no knowledge. Only assumption.

            Tell me: How many times have you admitted that Christianity is wrong on any issue, or that your God made mistakes?

            I, however, am willing to make mistakes and grow from them. I do not assume that I have all the answers. It is not written down for me in some “holy book.”

            I do not make the arrogant “assumption” that I “know” anything.

            In fact, I have a lot of questions. Many of these questions cannot be answered by Christian doctorine. Thunderfoot, in his exchange with Hovind, tried explaining this simple truth, but found himself talking to one who would rather not see things that way and blocked that line of explanation with childish antics.

            Now as far as Darwin and Hitler goes, they both had a lot to learn. However, Hitler, like many Christians, Muslims and others, claimed he “knew” a lot as well. He dictated and wrote a book on what he “knew.” It was that refusal to believe that he might be making a mistake that lead to mass murder. Much like many religious movements today.

      • Mike Says:

        synapticcohesion Says: “By “free will” I mean that that is what God gave all people is a free will to do as they choose–but as I mentioned before it doesn’t mean that there will be dire consequences and punishment for doing the wrong things.”

        There can be no free will if god already knows what we’re going to do. It’s nonsensical.

        “Free will” does not imply permissiveness.

        Well, it certainly implies that we do in fact have choices in our actions, but again, if god *already* knows what we’re going to do (which christians claim is indeed the case) then there cannot be free will. You can’t have it both ways- either he already knows what we’re going to do or he doesn’t.

        Your god supposedly made us like clockwork beings, unable to deviate from within his Master Plan, so he is ultimately responsible for everything that occurs, including all of the rapes, murders, etc etc.

      • Mike Says:

        synapticcohesion Says: “While many Christians fought for abolition of slavery”

        Many more christians wholeheartedly supported slavery than fought to abolish it. Stop rewriting history, you liar.

        The bible gives explicit instructions on how to treat slaves, and “Thou shalt not commit slavery” doesn’t seem to be in the Ten COmmandments last time I looked. So don’t hand me this bullshit about how “Christians fought for against slavery”. They loved it and engaged in it with abandon. Churches were against the abolition of slavery, and that’s a well-documented historical fact.

        It’s amazing to me how theists like you twist reality and suddenly come up with the assertion that christians were against slavery. They were not.

        “Darwin and the evolutionary theory was introducing a new concept that basically said that we are all animals–let the fitter ones, do as they choose to win supremacy and resources over the the ones who are weaker”

        Like it or not, that is indeed pretty much exactly how it works. You may not like it, but it’s the truth. We *are* animals, and fitter species DO tend to win supremacy and resources over the the ones who are weaker.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          I think synaptccohesion’s argumentative problem lies in the fact that humans, regardless of skin colour, are the dominant species on the planet and do tend to take over all resources for their own ends irrespective of the place they are in, and in that respect there is no difference between us. However, he is arguing from the point of view that skin colour and facial features have such a significant relevance to being “a fitter species” in Darwin’s theories thus giving racism credibility.

          In other words, we, all humans, are the dominant species. We are the fittest animal. By trying to pretend that evolution sees skin colour differently (playing the “racism” card) he inadvertently highlights those differences as being significantly relevant to evolution wheras they are not as important.

          There is one race: The human race. Bringing skin colour into the conversation only presupposes a difference that doesn’t exist in this conversation.

      • Mike Says:

        “There is one race: The human race. Bringing skin colour into the conversation only presupposes a difference that doesn’t exist in this conversation.”

        Well said, and exactly correct.

      • Mike Says:

        “so any punishment doled out in its name is the work of God”

        Yes, and this is the scary part- christians often see themselves as agents who are just “doing god’s work”…and that lets them do any sick, hurtful, dangerous, or blatantly discriminatory thing with no qualms whatsoever. After all, “god” has given them the go-ahead.

        If god says to murder an entire city, do it. If god says to keep black people from holding government jobs, then don’t hire them. If god says to kill unbelievers, put ’em to the sword.

        And so on and so forth.

      • Mike Says:

        “An automatic sliding door in a supermarket would look “supernatural” to somebody in the middle ages because it would appear that a glass wall was moving of its own
        accord. However it is easily explained by a scientist or engineer.”

        That’s a fun example, Adrian, I may have to steal that and use it from time to time!

        Frankly, to someone from the middle ages, almost everything we do would appear supernatural. From cars to phones to parachutes to ballpoint pens, it would all seem quite astounding. The things an iPad can do would be so mind-blowing that you would probably end up ruling the world if you played your cards right, lol. But as you said, it would all be easily explained by a scientist or engineer. No magical sky-daddy necessary. 🙂

        But with guys like synapticcohesion, anything that can’t be explained yet is happily labeled “proof of god”. Could there be a sorrier example of a dogmatic, hopelessly brainwashed theist?

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          Thanks for the compliment, bro.

          Yeah, I maintain that all things “magical” and “supernatural” are merely unexplained. If we take synapticcohesion’s approach and just chalk it up to “God’s work” or “the devil’s work” we will never really understand it.

          It is quite sad, really.

  37. Mike Says:

    synapticcohesion Says: “That’s not a very logical answer, is it?”

    It may not be logical, but it’s certainly true. If you believe in god, you are indeed at odds with science. There is no way to reconcile the two.

    “Your bigotry is showing. Yes, atheist can be bigots, too.”

    Of course they can, no one ever said they couldn’t.

    But this isn’t about bigotry. This is about believing in things that cannot possibly be true, like invisible super-creatures who you speak to telepathically. Or that saying magical incantations over a glass of wine transforms it into the blood of a 2000-year old zombie. Or that most of the people that have ever lived will writhe in eternal agony for not believing in the fairy tales written by ignorant, desert-dwelling sheep herders.

    However, if discriminating against the toxic drivel known as “religion” makes me a bigot, then yes, I’m a bigot, and I’m proud to be that kind of bigot.

    • synapticcohesion Says:

      At least you are honest enough to admit it.

      • Mike Says:

        “At least you are honest enough to admit it.”

        I’m proud to oppose the harmful crap that the church has fostered and supported for the last 2000 years, just as I’m proud to oppose other forms of racism, bigotry, and discrimination.

        Atheists can be assholes too, no one says they’re perfect or without blame. But when an atheist acts like an asshole it’s because he (or she) is an asshole…not because he’s claiming to be following the orders of some higher power or an imaginary god.

        Frankly, most of the atheists I know are actually pretty good people. I cannot say the same for most of the supposedly religious people I know. The believers generally think they have some supreme authority who’s given them the absolute right to discriminate, pass judgement, or meddle in other people’s lives.

        The atheists on the other hand have to face the fact that if they act like assholes, it’s because that’s who they are. They realize that they can’t lay the blame on a higher power as justification for things they do that are cruel, wrong, or anti-social. And when they realize that the ultimate source of their actions come from within them, they generally try to be as inoffensive and as socially cooperative as they can be.

        They understand that the things they do- good or bad -are credited to them- they can’t point to some old book of fairy tales as justification for their actions.

        They just want to live and let live, they don’t feel the need or obligation to tell other people what they should and shouldn’t do, who they may love, or how they should treat others.

        That, unfortunately, is not the case with most religious people, who *literally* believe they have the “god given” right to decide what’s right and wrong for everyone else.

        • synapticcohesion Says:

          “The atheists on the other hand have to face the fact that if they act like assholes, it’s because that’s who they are. They realize that they can’t lay the blame on a higher power as justification for things they do that are cruel, wrong, or anti-social. ”

          Christians also believe this. It’s called “free will” and Christians certainly don’t blame God for what others choose to do to each other. They blame the individual; the individual who will have to suffer the consequences of their actions.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            The problem with Christian “free will” (and I know this from personal experience as well as having seen it in Christian actions) is that with the shame that’s implied, as well as applied directly on those who break the rules of the group, the free will doesn’t exist in a practical sense. Sure, you can break the rules, but sleep with another man? That’s grounds for public condemnation! Eat meat on the wrong day of the month? Excommunicate him! There is always an implied threat in not towing the line. People are often chastised for not going to church, or even publicly stating that they are atheist. There are certain areas of the world where they still burn and stone witches. No, I am afraid your “free will” does not, in fact, exist.

            “Christians certainly don’t blame God for what others choose to do to each other. They blame the individual; the individual who will have to suffer the consequences of their actions.” That much is true, even if what is being done harms nobody. Judgemental lot, those Christians, considering they, according to their Bible, should “judge not lest ye be not judged.” But I guess you only have to obey the parts of the Bible you like, right?

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          Bravo! Extremely well put!

      • Mike Says:

        “Christians also believe this. It’s called “free will””

        You’re missing the point. Christians feel free to tell other people what to think, how to act, who they may love, etc etc etc because they can point back to their Holy Book Of Fairy Tales as justification for meddling in other people’s lives, and also as a way to deflect any personal responsibility for the way they act…after all, they’re just “obeying god’s commandments” and acting “in accordance” with god’s plan, etc etc.

        And if you believe in the god story, you can’t believe in freew ill. If god knows what I’m going to have for breakfast next week then it’s all preordained and I don’t really have any choice.

        In other words, it’s impossible for me to have a real choice if god *already* knows what I’m going to do…and if you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god then you have to accept that inconvenient bit as part of it.

        “and Christians certainly don’t blame God for what others choose to do to each other.”

        Of course not, they simply judge other people as wrong, bad, evil, sinful, immoral, etc etc. God is NEVER to blame for all the awful shit that christians do in His name. That would just be too damn easy, now wouldn’t it?

        God is also never to blame when bad things happen or when things go wrong… it’s always man’s imperfect nature at fault or maybe satan’s fault, but it’s never god’s fault, oh no. And that’s a load of neatly packaged bullshit if I ever saw one.

      • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

        …and your purpose for coming to this blog, a known atheist blog, wasn’t to try and convert anyone from atheism because it’s “bad?” Seems to be a little bigotry on your side of the fence too.

        • synapticcohesion Says:

          I just happened upon this blog and the video caught my attention. I never once tried to preach anything to anyone or try to convert anyone. Kudos to the person who created this blog for allowing free speech and debate by the way–and I didn’t even realize at first that the person in the video is the creator of this blog.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            Ok, cool. But you do realize that you are putting forward ideas, presumeably with the intent that they are to be accepted if given sufficient substantiation, that others, including myself, do not accept on the basis that there is no substantiation that has yet been presented?

      • Mike Says:

        synapticcohesion Says: “Kudos to the person who created this blog for allowing free speech and debate by the way”

        Unlike most christian/religious blogs and forums, atheist venues aren’t afraid of free speech. Try and post this kind of debate on ANY religious forum or blog and watch how fast you get banned.

        That’s because christians/theists have painted themselves into a corner with their unsupportable and impossible-to-defend beliefs. They can’t tolerate any real examination of their tenets because they’re quickly exposed as utter bullshit- “turtles all the way down” if you will.

        As a general rule atheists are *far* more supportive of free speech and open discourse than theists, and as I said above, you can prove that anytime you want by going to virtually any religious forum, blog, or site and expressing a contrary opinion. Then watch the ban hammer drop, and then ask yourself, “Why are theists SO afraid to allow someone to question their beliefs?”

        Shameless plug: feel free to spout whatever religious nonsense you like on http://atheistroundtable.com…you may be mocked, but you won’t be banned unless you actively disrupt the forum (and what constitutes disruption is defined pretty clearly). That’s because atheists aren’t afraid to have their beliefs (or lack of them) questioned as rigorously as possible.

        You can’t do that on mormom.com or any of the christian sites.

        And for all the hungry atheists out there, feel free to use the Atheist Baby Locator: http://atheistroundtable.com/babies.htm

        Yum yum! 😉

      • Mike Says:

        “No wonder a lot of people call evolution and atheism religions!”

        That’s because a lot of people are stupid. Anyone that classes evolution or atheism as a ‘religion’ clearly doesn’t understand either of them.

        As I said before, atheism is a “religion” in the same way that not collecting stamps is a “hobby”. It’s merely a position that says that one doesn’t believe there is a god.

        Evolution is a process that results in changes in a population spread over many generations.

        Neither of these are remotely like religion. Neither requires belief in an invisible deity and neither has a ridiculous set of moral rules that people are exhorted to follow upon pain of everlasting torment.

      • Mike Says:

        “There’s theories about ancient bodies of water having been on Mars but clearly not at the present time considering the obvious environment there (lacking oxygen for one).”

        There IS water on Mars. Nice selective quoting of Wikipedia, but you forgot this part:

        “Water on Mars is much less abundant than it is on Earth, at least in its liquid and gaseous states of matter. Most of the water known is locked in the cryosphere (permafrost and polar caps)”

        and…

        “Besides the visual confirmation of water from a huge collection of images, an orbiting Gamma Ray Spectrometer found ice just under surface of much of the planet.”

        FInally…

        “There are a number of direct and indirect proofs of water’s presence either on or under the surface, e.g. stream beds, polar caps, spectroscopic measurement, eroded craters or minerals directly connected to the existence of liquid water (such as goethite), grey, crystalline hematite, phyllosilicates, opal, and sulfate.”

        Notice the word “proofs”.

        So you’re wrong, plain and simple. There is indeed water on Mars, and possibly quite a lot of it. Like Adrian, I would put my trust in NASA scientists on this matter over your hypothesis.

        As for oxygen, it’s there but not as an atmosperic gas. The oxygen in the atmosphere exists as carbon dioxide, CO2. Oxygen does exist on the surface, however, bound in oxidized minerals. There is quite a bit of it there, as you’d know if you bothered to research this yourself, but you’d rather lie and ignore the evidence.

        It’s not surprising that you would lie when your ignorant beliefs are challenged and shown to be bogus.

    • synapticcohesion Says:

      “Your god supposedly made us like clockwork beings, unable to deviate from within his Master Plan, so he is ultimately responsible for everything that occurs, including all of the rapes, murders, etc etc.”

      What?? You’re reading the wrong Bible. We’re not robots–we’re people with free wills.

      • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

        “Wrong Bible” Which of the 20 or so versions do you support?

      • Mike Says:

        Lol, Adrian beat me to it. 🙂

        synapticcohesion Says: “You’re reading the wrong Bible.”

        Really? Which bible is the “right” one?Pick the “right” one from the list below. Also, please explain why your selection is the “right” one and the others are wrong.

        American Standard Version
        American King James Version
        Amplified Bible
        An American Translation
        ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament)
        An American Translation
        Berkeley Version
        Bible in English
        The Bible in Living English
        Bishops’ Bible
        Catholic Public Domain Version
        Children’s King James Version
        Christian Community Bible, English version
        Clear Word Bible
        Complete Jewish Bible
        Contemporary English Version
        Concordant Literal Version
        A Conservative Version
        Coverdale Bible
        Darby Bible
        Douay-Rheims Bible
        Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision)
        EasyEnglish Bible
        Easy-to-Read Version
        English Jubilee 2000 Bible
        English Standard Version
        Ferrar Fenton Bible
        Geneva Bible
        God’s Word
        Good News Bible
        Great Bible
        Holman Christian Standard Bible
        The Inclusive Bible
        International Standard Version
        Jerusalem Bible
        Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament)
        Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament).
        Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
        King James 2000 Version
        King James Easy Reading Version
        King James Version
        King James II Version
        Knox’s Translation of the Vulgate
        Lamsa Bible
        A Literal Translation of the Bible
        Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament)
        The Living Bible
        The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament)
        Matthew’s Bible
        The Message
        Modern King James Version
        Modern Language Bible
        Moffatt, New Translation
        James Murdock’s Translation of the Syriac Peshitta
        New American Bible
        New American Standard Bible
        New Century Version
        New English Bible
        New English Translation (NET Bible)
        New International Reader’s Version
        New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
        New International Version
        New Jerusalem Bible
        New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament)
        New King James Version
        New Life Version
        New Living Translation
        New Revised Standard Version
        New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
        Quaker Bible
        Recovery Version of the Bible
        Revised Version
        Revised Standard Version
        Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
        Revised English Bible
        Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible
        The Scriptures
        Simplified English Bible
        The Story Bible
        Taverner’s Bible
        Thomson’s Translation
        Today’s New International Version
        Third Millennium Bible
        Tyndale Bible
        Updated King James Version
        A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures
        Webster’s Revision
        Westminster Bible
        The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible[4]
        Wycliffe’s Bible (1380)
        Wycliffe’s Bible (1388)
        Young’s Literal Translation

        • synapticcohesion Says:

          Simple, the King James Version. I could make a new version, too. Doesn’t make it valid.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            And all the other versions of the Bible are invalid? What gave James the right to change God’s word? Or for that matter, anybody who decided to come up with any of the other Bibles listed?

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            “Okay, I stand corrected: Darwin was a racist. Along with everyone else at the time, including Christians. (Or are we forgetting that the “savage races” also included those who had not yet been converted, like those who practiced Islam? Or Asian cultures?)”

            That’s the thing–Christians during that time wanted everyone around to the world to join them because they are all considered to be “God’s children.” Instead of seeing other people as ANIMALS to be exterminated, they knew perfectly well that all human beings could learn to read and write, learn the sciences and other subjects, and of course, learn the Bible. I’m sure many of the missionaries were likely to be arrogant and imposing as well, but they certainly never had genocide on their minds–in fact they’re often caught up in the genocides against the “savages” by secular governments. Christianity is open to the world–it’s not exclusive to a certain race of people like in some religions. Sects that do discriminate on race are deterring from Christian teachings.

            No, “everyone” did not think like Darwin did.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “That’s the thing–Christians during that time wanted everyone around to the world to join them because they are all considered to be “God’s children.” Instead of seeing other people as ANIMALS to be exterminated” Really? And the KKK didn’t see it that way? Like it or not, they did base much of what they thought on an interpretation of Christian values.

            “No, “everyone” did not think like Darwin did.”// This is what I mean when I say it is more difficult for you to admit you made mistakes. You prove my point perfectly.

            Now consider this:

            Exodus 11:

            4 So Moses said, “This is what the LORD says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt-worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. 7 But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal.’ Then you will know that the LORD makes a DISTINCTION between Egypt and Israel.

            Deuteronomy 7:

            1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations-the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

            Numbers 31

            1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”

            3 So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD’s vengeance on them.

            13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle.

            15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

            These examples of racism and genocide are taken straight from your Bible, and you have the audacity to tell me Christianity accepts all? Please.

            From the 1705 Virginia Slave codes:

            All servants imported and brought into the Country…who were not Christians in their native Country…shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion…shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resist his master…correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction…the master shall be free of all punishment…as if such accident never happened.

            Here, again, Christianity is the perpetrator of slavery and descrimination.

            Oh! And before I end this response, I did some research. You see, I wasn’t entirely sure you had given me an accurate quote earlier when you stated that Darwin was racist. Guess what I found?

            From Darwin’s “The Descent of Man”

            Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the “Beagle,” with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.

            I was right the first time. A racist would not have sexual relations with a woman of African descent.

            You lied. Darwin was no racist.

            From here on in your statements will be recieved with an even more extreme amount of skepticism on my part.

            Now you see what happened here again? I learned and grew through this exchange because of two primary factors: 1) The ability to admit that I do not “know” anything, and 2) I ask questions, do the research and get results. It would appear as though research is not needed if you trust in “God.”

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.

            As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters.
            – The Descent of Man; Charles Darwin; 1871

            I found this too. You are a liar.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            So you go from admitting in your own words that Darwin is a racist to saying he’s not because you found some passage that was not blatantly racist? Do you even know what you are talking about? How does that excuse the racist drivel that he spewed? No one else had the audacity to deny it, only you.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            The “racist drivel” he spewed was likely taken out of context. I have provided the sources of my quotes. Please give me yours.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            I gave you my source first, but here it is again since you do not pay attention (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p.156). Note that the exact page may vary due to varying sizes of copies. And yes, I have gone go through his work to find that very passage. You do know the full name of Darwin’s “The Origins of the Species,” don’t you? Or are you blissfully ignorant about that as well? Face it, your hero Darwin is nothing but a racist pseudoscientist. A quack.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “Face it, your hero Darwin is nothing but a racist pseudoscientist. A quack.”// Oh, as if you would acknowledge the justifications for racism I found in the Bible?

            If I find evidence that supports what you have said about Darwin in my readings, I will admit that your argument holds validity. I have proven that I am willing to admit that I make mistakes.

            Are you? You haven’t even acknowledged the points I made about racism in Christianity.

            However, evidence supporting your claim has not appeared as yet. In fact, I have found evidence to the contrary.

            …and there is a difference between “appreciating” and “admiring” the work of another. You might want to consider this.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            “I was right the first time. A racist would not have sexual relations with a woman of African descent.”

            Are you SERIOUS??!! Tell that to the slave master who rapes and impregnates his female slaves! I take it back–you’re definitely intellectually inferior.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “Are you SERIOUS??!! Tell that to the slave master who rapes and impregnates his female slaves!”// You might be correct if it weren’t for the other quotes from Darwin I have posted. Contrary to that, however are the other quotes I have discovered from Darwin detailing friendships with Africans, arguments with slavers over the moral grounds of slavery, scientifc basis for equality, the list goes on.

            You say the quote you gave is from “The Descent of Man p. 156.” but I am having trouble finding it. What chapter did you say that was?

            “I take it back–you’re definitely intellectually inferior.”// You’re opinion, and it really doesn’t matter to me what you think of my intelligence, but at least you admit to making a mistake. You don’t hear Christians do that too much in these posts.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            I can’t do your research for you. All I can say is check it out for yourself–the PDF version of “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.” You’ll have no problems finding it and there are a lot more damning statements in relation to “the savages.” He evens delves into eugenics. Have fun.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            No, I am not asking you to do my research for me, I am asking you to provide the source of the quote you provided.

            I have now gone over chapter 7, 8, 9, and 10 (8-10 deals with sexuality as you suggested.) It was in Chapter 6 entitled “On the Affinities and Geneaology of Man” and I have to admit that I did make one mistake: I should have read your quote better. That mistake will not happen again as I see now you have no intention of engaging honestly here.

            The entire paragraph looks like this:

            “The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. ”

            retrieved from http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-06.html 10/04/2012

            …and all it says is that Caucasians are as seperated from the baboon to the same degree as Africans and Aborigional Australians are separated from the gorilla. The “savage races” he refers to are apes, not humans.

            There is no racism here. Only in your imagination. Your point is not valid.

            Darwin was not racist, but the Bible is.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            Wow. The way you ignore the obvious and defend this clown to the end–it’s like a crazed, religious fundamentalist! No wonder a lot of people call evolution and atheism religions!

            No, if you actually READ Darwin’s work, he uses the word “savage” several dozen times in reference to PEOPLE. DARK people. His quote is clear–he refers to the prediction that in the future, there will be a growing cleave between Caucasians (which he “hopes” will evolve to an even more evolved state) and “lower apes”–after the “anthropormorphic apes” (including the dark peoples he mentioned) are eradicated. What he was saying is that the in-between “link” of many species of animals can no longer be found and that the same links in between humans and lower apes will also be missing after the higher, “anthropormorphic apes” are “exterminated.”

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “Wow. The way you ignore the obvious and defend this clown to the end–it’s like a crazed, religious fundamentalist!”//

            Interesting analogy, as any movement that would have me believe (notice who we are not using the word “know”) that there is a being up there in the sky watching over all of us, has varying degrees of insanity attached to it, as I have illustrated already.

            “No, if you actually READ Darwin’s work, he uses the word “savage” several dozen times in reference to PEOPLE. DARK people… “anthropormorphic apes” (including the dark peoples he mentioned) “//

            As I have said, I went over Darwin’s writings repeatedly last night (and much of the rest of that book trying to find the passage in the wrong chapter you sent me to.) This passage you have outlined is a reference to the divergence between, among other things, man and ape. Here he outlines two groups: “Civilised man” and “savage races.” Given the fact that he does, by your own admission, tend to classify all groups as animals there is a certain amount of familiarity between the two in his writings. However as you point out, he uses the term “anthropomorphic apes”, “anthropomorphic” being a term used to describe an animal with human characteristics. To further illustrate his meaning he then compares different apes to different humans (Caucasians to baboons and Africans or Aborigines to gorillas) in an effort to draw comparrisons and highlight the differences. Both humans and apes have opposable thumbs, for instance, but only humans (regardless of skin colour as he repeatedly points out in his writings) have higher reasoning. (Too bad organized religion is trying to contest this, too, by buying into the “higher power” idea along with it.) The term “anthropomorphic” is used to describe apes who have human characteristics, like baboons with the larger noses of caucasians for example, but he does lump all humans in together. This is not a racist exerpt, though you would blindly believe it to be so.

            The “extermination” of the anthropomorphic apes you refer to is a reference to the increasing divergence between man and ape. His theory is that humans, all humans, will evolve faster than the apes and eventually cause their extinction. If you don’t believe this, watch “Gorilla’s in the Mist” or read some studies on the ape populations in the world. We, as humans, are doing exactly as he predicted (unlike the Bible which supports the theory of a second coming of Christ that never happened) and endangering entire species in our bid to control an increasing amount of resources. Why? Because we, all humans, are the dominant species. If you doubt Darwin, read some reports on the habitat of the gorilla or orangutan.

            If you had actually read Darwin yourself (without the pre-supposed inclination to debunk somebody who opposes the church’s teachings) you would realize that he found a certain equality in the mental processes of all humans. However, you only wish to defend your belief that there is a God, and will do anything, even tell half-truths or lies evidently, to defend your stance.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            Oh, BTW, I noticed how you quietly avoided talking about the racism in those bible passages I brought up…

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            Being that God knows all, if he tells a people to avoid another, he must know something really bad will happen–unlike regular people who are just plain ignorant and racist. Like your deceased cult leader Darwin.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “Being that God knows all, if he tells a people to avoid another, he must know something really bad will happen”//

            1) You base your argument on a non-existent being, making your argument pointless.

            2) So, when your non existent God said he descriminates between people, it was all just telling his “chosen” that something bad was going to happen?

            3) Being that you are part of one sect of thousands, you think that you are so special that your “god” told you this?

            Also:

            Define “cult.” I bet you can’t while simultaneously justifying your use of the term in this context.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            It’s p.84 in the PDF version.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            Oh, and if you come across any evidence that Darwin ever had a slave that he had raped, show the evidence. Also, if you read the whole quotation, you see that he was enamored with her intellect and “traits of character.” This isn’t the typical attitude of a slaver.

            Your false insinuations only further my disdain for your argument.

      • Mike Says:

        synapticcohesion Says: “Simple, the King James Version.”

        Lol, do you have ANY idea how incredibly stupid that statement is? 🙂

        Also, you didn’t explain why that one is right and all the others are wrong. If it’s so simple, then please explain why the King James Version is the only valid one? Why are ALL the others wrong? How do you know this?

        “I could make a new version, too. Doesn’t make it valid.”

        None of them are valid (and many of them predate the KJV, too). Only an idiot would fail to see the silliness in picking one of those and holding it up as the One True Bible. 🙂

        I’d bet you could fill a stadium with theologians who would disagree with you vigorously on which bible is the “right” one.

        • synapticcohesion Says:

          And by the way, many of the different versions are very similar–save for some minor changes in the words used. Since different countries and regions speak differently. The ones that stray off into something completely different are basically not the Bible anymore.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “And by the way, many of the different versions are very similar–save for some minor changes… The ones that stray off into something completely different are basically not the Bible anymore.”// You mean like the ones translated from language to language? Over time, the original Bible was lost centuries ago. 2 thousand years is a long time to make a whole bunch of “minor” changes to God’s word.

            For instance:

            “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” was originally “Thou shalt not suffer a thief to live.” Is that what you would call a minor change? Because now somebody is being burned at the stake who has done nothing wrong.

            Again, you claim to “know” based on the Bible and yet it is all merely assumption.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            I’ve never said this before, but I think I’ve met my match. I’ve actually run out of responses to give. 🙂

      • Mike Says:

        I noticed that you’re still unwilling to answer the question of why the KJV is the “correct” bible and all of the others are wrong.

        Are you unwilling, or unable?

        • synapticcohesion Says:

          It is the correct version because it is the most historically accurate and has the most literal translation of the original Hebrew and Greek text.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            HIstorically accurate? The KJV was started in 1604! It is based on material that had already undergone the translation/interpretation process for over 1600 years! Good grief…

        • synapticcohesion Says:

          Satisfied?

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            I’m not. In fact, I am more disgusted than anything else.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            “I’m not. In fact, I am more disgusted than anything else.”

            What is this in reference to? What I asked, “Satisfied?” That was posed to Mike who insisted that I tell him why to choose the KJ version of the Bible.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            Yes, it was in response to the question you asked Mike about being satisfied. I am not satisfied with your response regarding the KJV. It lacks all kinds of justification, but don’t take my word for it. Ask a Catholic what they think of the KJV.

            The point is that you base your beliefs (not knowledge) upon a text that is an unsubstantiated source of information. All versions of the Bible are in contention with each other and therefore all are susceptible to criticism.

      • Mike Says:

        “It is the correct version because it is the most historically accurate and has the most literal translation of the original Hebrew and Greek text.”

        According to who? You do realize that there are lots and lots of theologians who would gladly dispute this with you at length, and who could show you all sorts of reasons why you’re “wrong” and they’re “right”, don’t you? Maybe you know better than all of them?

        “Satisfied?”

        Lol, no, not even close. All you’ve done is drop anchor in some convenient place that *you* think is right, but your reasoning is bereft of any logic or defensible position.

        But of course, *your* religion is the “right” one and *your* holy book is the *correct* one. All the others are just fairy tales, right?

        LOL!!

        And this, my friends, is why religion is dying. Even the theists who claim to know The Truth can’t agree amongst themselves about which imaginary friend is the Real One. 🙂

        Maybe you guys should do a blind taste test and settle it once and for all.

        God, or God Lite? Zero Calorie God, or the Rich, Full-Flavored God? 🙂

        lolololol

      • Mike Says:

        Adrian Lee Magill Says to synapticcohesion: “You are a liar.”

        I think that’s been pretty well established at this point. 🙂

        Like most theists, when confronted with pesly facts that show what they believe in is utter nonsense, they have no qualms about lying to keep their faith alive or to “prove” some point they’re trying to make.

        Not very christian of them, is it? Well…I think maybe it is, since christianity is founded on lies. Maybe lying and deception are indeed “christian” values.

        • synapticcohesion Says:

          Keeping the faith is very Christian.

          “…when confronted with pesly facts that show what they believe in is utter nonsense, they have no qualms about lying to keep their faith alive or to “prove” some point they’re trying to make.”

          Sounds a lot like you, doesn’t it?

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            @synapticcohesion:

            “Keeping the faith is very Christian. “…when confronted with pesly facts that show what they believe in is utter nonsense, they have no qualms about lying to keep their faith alive or to “prove” some point they’re trying to make.” Sounds a lot like you, doesn’t it?”//

            No, actually, scientific study backs up what it states with observable facts. Atheists, without a god to predetermine what those facts are, are actually free to question and admit mistakes. Religious study does not require facts and cannot admit it doesn’t know certain answers. To do so would be to admit that god is ignorant, and therefore non-existent.

            It only sounds like there is an equality there because you refuse to open your eyes. I have been on both sides of this fence. They are not equal in the manner in which you suggest.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            No one’s pretending that God and religiousness is a science. Science is separate and beneficial to everyone regardless of their belief system. But Darwinists are pretending that his teachings belong in science when it’s primitive, fantastical racist jibberish that should be classified as a religion as well. Your being one of his most ardent followers.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “Darwinists are pretending that his teachings belong in science when it’s primitive, fantastical racist jibberish that should be classified as a religion as well. Your being one of his most ardent followers.”//

            Funny that you should call it “primitive fantastical racist jibberish” when you can’t even tell me what chapter you found that quote in. I am sure you didn’t even pay attention to it, or maybe your attention span wasn’t up to the job. In any event, the context of the quote would not have been found in any chapters about sexuality, which is obvious to any who have actually read it. You see, the subject matter actually deals with the physical traits and characteristics of living beings and their transference to subsequent generations, not sexuality, though for someone who just skims over the text, hoping to find something useful in there to justify their argument the alternate might seem the case.

            Was the text too difficult for you to actually read?

            “Your being one of his most ardent followers”// What would you say if I told you that I only knew the basics of what Darwin was all about until I went over his written work for the first time the other night? You see, everything that I knew about Darwin came from documentaries and conversation until you presented me with a direct quote. His theories made sense on the surface but when you presented me with a direct quote and claimed he was a racist I made the mistake of taking you at your word. Then when you brought the quote up again I decided to do a little more serious rinvestigation and found that I was correct in the first place: Darwin was no racist and that you had lied to prove your argument. (Education for the win, as Thunderf00t says.) At best your claim was a misunderstanding of the text, however I do not believe this.

            I think it was sloppy research on your part (and mine too, initially.)

            Am I a follower of Darwin? Well, I am now, thanks to you. I found his writings fascinating the other night. I stayed up well into the night reading and loved it! I may not agree with everything he writes, but I am willing to give it an honest look.

            Thank you for that.

            Doesn’t that just burn you? I honestly wouldn’t have looked twice at Darwin’s writings, and never gave him much thought, but you had me pegged as an ardent follower simply because I disagreed with your theories. You thought you “knew” something but now see that it was an “assumption.”

            Is TF’s point in the video making any sense yet?

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            Right. You did not read anything. You are clearly too lazy or too inept. You just Googled Darwin and racism and looked at a non-credible “ask a question” section of a site where no doubt an evolutionist was there to say “nah Darwin wasn’t racist” and gave some lame snippets of quotes where he was not as offensive while failing to mention any of the offensive things that he said–like the quote I gave you. They never brought it up because the wouldn’t be able to explain it away. You tried and failed miserably.

            Never mind that Derwin thought that some races were “favored;” that gorillas and dark, “primitive” peoples are between Caucasian and baboons; and that he hoped that man in the future would be even more evolved that the superior “Caucasian.” Oh, and never mind that he whined that society shouldn’t provide aid to “inferior” people who happen to be mentally or physically challenged–lest they multiply and pollute the gene pool. What a moron. HIS gene pool was clearly polluted; producing an idiot savant with a superiority complex who did nothing but travel around the world sketching pretty nature scenes and “savages” with his endless free time and financial support.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “Right. You did not read anything. You are clearly too lazy or too inept. You just Googled Darwin and racism and looked at a non-credible “ask a question” section of a site where no doubt an evolutionist was there to say “nah Darwin wasn’t racist” and gave some lame snippets of quotes where he was not as offensive while failing to mention any of the offensive things that he said–like the quote I gave you.”//

            READ my comment again. I told you that I spent a good while reading Darwin and loved it. It doesn’t matter where I found it, the fact is the work is interesting.

            This is why Christianity is losing ground daily. You are only reading the parts you want to hear and accepting it as whole fact when it is not. It is a lie. You don’t have to take my word for it, and I really don’t care if you do or not, but anybody else reading along is getting a clear picture of both our arguments.

            The only way you could misunderstand what I have written is if you didn’t read my comment properly the first time.

            To highlight this:

            “”…nah Darwin wasn’t racist” and gave some lame snippets of quotes where he was not as offensive while failing to mention any of the offensive things that he said–like the quote I gave you”//

            Failed to mention the quote? Uh, no, I actually posted the whole paragraph in a response to you, including the quote you gave me. I then restated it in plain English. I also stated my source.

            Or did you even read either the whole paragraph when you quoted it to me OR my response? That would not surprise me considering you haven’t directly addressed the racist quotes from the Bible I posted.

            “What a moron. HIS gene pool was clearly polluted; producing an idiot savant with a superiority complex who did nothing but travel around the world sketching pretty nature scenes and “savages” with his endless free time and financial support.”//

            This is an opinion of yours, and given that I am pretty sure you are not in possession of a sample of Darwin’s gene pool I would have to assume that you are without validity in this assessment.

            I feel I should point out that you are now arguing from emotion and not rational thought. Hence you have gone from attempting to make valid points to using insults. This is making you look bad and if it continues I will not back down in my assertations.

            You have lost this debate. Let it go.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            I got tired of your tenuous arguments a while ago (which was why I was trying placate you and call it a “tie”). Admit you lost and that you are a sore loser.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            How did I lose? I am not tired and am enjoying this.

            I have made several points (review the whole conversation if you like) that have gone unanswered whereas I have answered all your points directly.

            Given the fact that you cannot respond to half my points I find it difficult to believe I lost anything here.

            However I have no doubt that, in your mind, you feel like I was “bitch slapped.” Such is the mindset of the Abrahamic faiths when reason is beyond them.

            If you want to believe that you won this exchange, much as you believe in your fantasy “God”, you go right ahead.

      • Mike Says:

        “Sounds a lot like you, doesn’t it?”

        No, it doesn’t. Show me where I’ve lied here about anything I’ve said. Go on, show me.

      • Mike Says:

        “Being that God knows all”

        Yeah, whatever. Can god make a sandwich so big that even he can’t eat it?

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          “Can god make a sandwich so big that even he can’t eat it?”//

          Well, the hardest thing to swallow about God would be the Bible, unless you have a big mouth. (For the spewing.)

      • Mike Says:

        “No one’s pretending that God and religiousness is a science.”

        That’s good, because that would be utter bullshit. 🙂

        “pretending that his teachings belong in science when it’s primitive, fantastical racist jibberish that should be classified as a religion as well. Your being one of his most ardent followers.”

        See, now you’re just getting all pissy because we’ve carpet-bombed your kooky beliefs into a smoking crater of silliness…and as a result you’re going off on these little rants, trying to be provocative. 🙂 That’s a sign of intellectual frustration if I’ve ever seen one, lol.

        Frankly, I’m about done with you…you’ll have to be a more worthy opponent for me to spend much more time on you. 🙂 Beyond that and you’ll just start to bore me.

        • synapticcohesion Says:

          Just because God is not “science,” does not make it BS. Science cannot explain everything and is not the answer to everything. Science has limits.

          • TheReliquarian Says:

            Science actually Can explain everything, as it is both a philosophy and a tool with which to view the natural world and the way in which it works. Just because we humans haven’t worked out all the kinks in the math and mechanics doesn’t mean we Can’t, just that we haven’t Yet. I’ll put it this way – Gravity worked fine before Isaac Newton conceptualized it, the cells of living beings divided and propagated before the invention of the microscope witnessed them dividing, and black holes would have existed whether or not we discovered them.
            Like I said, while science may not be able to explain some things currently because of limited human understanding, doesn’t mean it Cannot.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “Just because we humans haven’t worked out all the kinks in the math and mechanics doesn’t mean we Can’t, just that we haven’t Yet.”//

            Damn.

            I just went off on a half hour rant and you summed it up in one paragraph. LOL! 🙂

            Cheers.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “Just because God is not “science,” does not make it BS. Science cannot explain everything and is not the answer to everything. Science has limits.”//

            Oooooh! I’ve been waiting for somebody to say this! *big grin*

            Got a second? I feel a joyous rant coming on….

            “Just because God is not “science,” does not make it BS”// What makes it BS is that it is a belief (assumption) being passed off as a fact (knowledge.) What makes it worse is that anyone who accepts this belief as fact, cannot be shown that it is belief , and not a fact, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

            Again, this goes back to what Thunderf00t was saying in the video: you cannot honestly say that you “know” anything because you, with or without the approval of your “god”, are a human being with limitations. Everything is an “assumption” based upon gathered information derived from observational evidence.

            Read this carefully: You are not your “God.” (I say this because too often Christians seem to get confused when they think they are speaking in his name.)

            Clear?

            Got that?

            Honestly (this time?)

            Good! Because it is vitally important that you remember that you, too, have limitations if you are going to go on to the next part.

            The part I have been waiting for:

            “Science cannot explain everything and is not the answer to everything. Science has limits.”//

            Yes it does! Science has not YET found out what is beyond this solar system beyond a few photographs. Science has YET to determine the cure for HIV (though it may be close). Science has YET to allow us to map out the entire brain system in a detailed manner.

            That is the beauty of it. Science allows it’s practitioners to DISCOVER for themselves the answers they seek by working at it! Science encourages growth and gain. It does not claim to have all the answers. If it did (and I will get to this soon) it would not be discovery. It would not be growth.

            If it claimed to “know” it would cease to be, and growth would be lost. It is the growth that science (and I would argue the arts as well) gives us that rational human beings embrace.

            The problem with the concept of “god” is that it is all “knowing” and theoretically imparts that “knowledge” to humanity via holy scripture, prophecy, etc. The trouble is “God”, if he has been here since the start of time as it is said, then “God” has had plenty of time to impart the “knowledge” that gave us medicines, communication and transportation equipment, machinery, etc.

            However, this did not happen. “God” failed to impart this knowledge, especially when it was needed most. “God” did not provide anything tangible that had an effect upon the immediate situation.

            “God” did not help cure the bubonic plague. Priests did not “know” how to cure it. “God” did not impart knowledge. Medicines derived from science would have.

            “God” did not prevent the Titanic from sinking. “God” did not tell the ship’s crew there was an iceberg ahead. Sonar built by scientists would have.

            “God” did not take us to the moon and back. He had from the beginning of time to do so and failed. Science did, however.

            “God”, that being that you claim exists and has “all knowledge”, does not impart that knowledge and so his very existence comes into question due to a lack of effect in the real world. “God” has proven to be ineffective.

            Apparently, your “God” has real world limits as well.

            Your “God” is unreliable at best. I would not be surprised if there were “miracles” occuring once in a while if such phenomena can be considered as being without apparent explanation, but rest assured that just because an explanation is not apparent does not mean we can’t find it if we look.

            Science will teach us.

            The same cannot be said about your “God.”

            So what we can conclude thus far is that both science and “god”, based upon observable evidence, have limitations. The difference comes from the reliability of the source of the effect that is desired. In short, science, though limited, has delivered. “God”, whom you claim to be “unlimited” and “all knowing” has not.

            So who do you want to perform your lobotamy? A neural surgeon or a priest? Ask yourself who is the most limited in that role.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            If something is “supernatural,” how would science ever be able to “explain it” with science? Face it, Science may your God, but it’s not the tool that can be used in every situation.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “If something is “supernatural,” how would science ever be able to “explain it” with science? Face it, Science may your God, but it’s not the tool that can be used in every situation.”//

            “Supernatural” becomes “mundane” when analized and scientifically explained.

            An automatic sliding door in a supermarket would look “supernatural” to somebody in the middle ages because it would appear that a glass wall was moving of its own accord. However it is easily explained by a scientist or engineer.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            So what if there’s an engineer superior to all others? Are you that arrogant to believe that just because YOU can’t explain how living beings came to be (example: an engineer with abilities far beyond anyone here on Earth today), then someone postulating (under the name of science) that we came to be spontaneously and gradually must be right? There can be an engineer who engineered us who has abilities beyond your comprehension. To this day, no one can even figure out how the Great Pyramid was built (again involving engineers with abilities beyond your comprehension most likely), but somehow you KNOW how WE came to be (evolution) and didn’t (God, aka, superior engineer) come to be. Just because WE can’t design things that can replicate and think in such abstract and complicated ways (or build the Great Pyramid), does that mean no one can/could?

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            @ synapticcohesion

            Every time you post a response I feel like a piranha in a river when God goes skinny dipping.

            “So what if there’s an engineer superior to all others?”//

            He would have to show that he was the “superior” engineer by providing evidence to support that claim. As I have stated, your fictional “God” has not done that, so you won’t find this engineer in the Bible. Science, however, has done exactly that.

            You fail.

            “Are you that arrogant to believe that just because YOU can’t explain how living beings came to be (example: an engineer with abilities far beyond anyone here on Earth today), then someone postulating (under the name of science) that we came to be spontaneously and gradually must be right? “//

            Are you that ignorant AND arrogant to believe that just because it says so in a two thousand year old manuscript that cannot be verified (for several reasons) as being accurate that it must be true and all people must accept it, just because you can’t accept the reasoning that there is no God? It makes no sense.

            Your argument depends on the concept that God is an engineer. However, if your fictional sky friend is an engineer he is a poor one as he never helped out when needed.

            “There can be an engineer who engineered us who has abilities beyond your comprehension”//

            Note the words “CAN BE” indicating theory or hypothesis. Without substance your hypothesis of God has no validity.

            “To this day, no one can even figure out how the Great Pyramid was built “//

            Incorrect. A group of Japanese scientists built a miniature one in Egypt in the ’80’s then dismantled it to show how they were created. (So much for knowing things, huh? See what happens when you learn beyond the Bible?)

            “but somehow you KNOW how WE came to be (evolution) and didn’t (God, aka, superior engineer) come to be. Just because WE can’t design things that can replicate and think in such abstract and complicated ways (or build the Great Pyramid), does that mean no one can/could?”//

            Again, you did not read my earlier posts and that throws your whole argument against mine down the tubes. Do you recall me using the word “YET” at all? Of course not. That would require the ability to pay attention. Science does not claim to have all knowledge. It is a means to acquire more insight. God claims to have “all knowledge” and is typically proven to be wrong over time as science begins to question the teachings of your “god” and the followers of your fictional friend sit back in their intellectually lazy world telling others what to do with no real authority to do so.

            (How do I know that they are intellectually lazy? You are the perfect example of them: You do not acknowledge the debates you cannot win. Have you acknowledged the racist remarks in the Bible I posted yet? Have you acknowledged the fact that I tore apart your interpretation of Darwin effectively? Have you acknowledged the fact that I never claimed that science had all the answers, just a better means from which to acquire more insight? No. You haven’t. It would be too difficult for you. Hence you ignore that which contradicts your views. Keep sticking your head in the sand.)

            Keep trying. Keep failing.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            Are you kidding me? They don’t even know how to go about constructing something that massive and heavy with TODAY’S latest equipment! The the problem with many of you people–you think you are intellectually superior to the “dumb theists” when you ironically severely lack critical thinking skills. You just blindly (blind faith) accept any media claim without asking yourself whether or not it makes sense. Yes the media can lie. Yes people purporting to represent science CAN lie. Especially those who can’t admit they don’t know something or that they are WRONG (like you).

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            *heavy sigh*

            They dragged the stones much the same way they did back in the times of ancient egypt and put together a small replica. They even showed how it was done, why it was a mystery and how the mystery was solved.

            You don’t have to accept this, but if you really want to gain credibility you have to at least investigate the claim without automatically calling the source of the information into question without actually looking into it.

            Here’s (an unrelated to the Japanese example) website detailing the way it was done. It is perfectly plausible. http://www.touregypt.net/construction/

            This is why your argument is unreasonable. You assume based on emotion, not reason.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          @Mike:

          Well argued, sir. I tip my hat to you.

      • Mike Says:

        synapticcohesion Says: “I can’t tell anymore.”

        There’s a lot of things you can’t tell. Like the truth, lol.

        You also can’t tell fact from fiction, but we knoew that already. 🙂

      • Mike Says:

        “Too bad you don’t knoew (sic) how to spell.”

        Yes, clearly my typo proves that god exists and I am utterly wrong. 🙂

        Seriously, if this is the best you can do in response to my argument, then I’ll take that as an admission that you have no cogent response. Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

        “YOU can’t explain how living beings came to be”

        Yes and no. Combine a few gases (nitrogen, CO2, methane) with water in an oxygen-free sealed container and expose to electricity with a spark gap, and a few days later you have a variety of amino acids in solution. Others have performed slightly more complex experiments to create nucleotides (the precursors to RNA & DNA).

        But frankly, it doesn’t matter- just because something can’t be explained doesn’t automatically mean that “GOD DONE IT!”

        “To this day, no one can even figure out how the Great Pyramid was built”

        Wrong. There have been a number of people and groups that have worked out ways in which it could have been constructed. No unknown, magical technology was required. Claiming this as part of your “argument” shows you just haven’t done your homework at all.

        Like I said…you’re beginning to bore me. Your arguments would go over well in a 2nd grade classroom, but here they just seem kind of limp and silly.

        • synapticcohesion Says:

          That experiment is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard and you’re just exposing yourself and your cause to more ridicule.

          First of all, in real life, how would there be an environment with water, but without oxygen???

          Second, only CHILDREN see some protein concentrated in some water and say, “Look mommy, I created LIFE!” Those very same KOOKS said that spontaneous life (supposedly proving abiogenesis) was created when flies came out of a bag of flour that were there before (if they couldn’t see the larvae, then they didn’t exist). There were many other experiments that impressed these “scientists” because they knew nothing about microorganisms.

          You can try, but you can never create a perfect environment devoid of any microscopic airborne particles and in the water getting in the way. I can even boil some water that’s supposed to be free of impurities and find sediment at the bottom of it. I didn’t create the sediment, that junk was ALWAYS there in the water.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “First of all, in real life, how would there be an environment with water, but without oxygen???”//

            Wow. You never heard of water being on other planetary bodies, huh? Perhaps an environment like the moon? Or Mars where the environment is not oxygen based?

            “Second, only CHILDREN see some protein concentrated in some water and say, “Look mommy, I created LIFE!”//

            Well if you don’t understand the nature of proteins in the life process, I guess it would look pretty strange. Good thing science can explain this, huh?

            “Those very same KOOKS said that spontaneous life (supposedly proving abiogenesis) was created when flies came out of a bag of flour that were there before (if they couldn’t see the larvae, then they didn’t exist).”//

            I am unfamiliar with this experiment. If you choose to use it in this debate, please provide your source of this information.

            “There were many other experiments that impressed these “scientists” because they knew nothing about microorganisms. You can try, but you can never create a perfect environment devoid of any microscopic airborne particles and in the water getting in the way. I can even boil some water that’s supposed to be free of impurities and find sediment at the bottom of it. I didn’t create the sediment, that junk was ALWAYS there in the water.”//

            Now who’s trying to be a scientist?

            Your anaology is presumptious at best. “you can never create a perfect environment devoid of any microscopic airborne particles and in the water getting in the way.” Regardless of whether or not that is CURRENTLY true, which I honestly doubt, other similar expressions from history include: “The Earth is flat.” “Man will never fly.” and “Man will never walk on the moon.”

            No, neither Mike nor myself are looking bad here.

            However, I am honestly a little worried that you might be having an aneurysm. Please take a deep breath and try to calm yourself. I don’t want to be known as the first person in history to use overwhelming reason as a lethal weapon.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            “Wow. You never heard of water being on other planetary bodies, huh? Perhaps an environment like the moon? Or Mars where the environment is not oxygen based?”

            No, actually because there ISN’T. You’ll believe anything, won’t you? There’s theories about ancient bodies of water having been on Mars but clearly not at the present time considering the obvious environment there (lacking oxygen for one). Same with the moon. Don’t just take any conflicting report at face value. Use your critical thinking skills.

            “Liquid water cannot persist at the Moon’s surface”–Wikipedia

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            So you’re saying then that it is a theoretical impossibility that water exists on any other planetary body? Give me a break. NASA seems to think that there is a possibility that water is frozen on the dark side of the moon. (They are not saying for sure, but the very fact that they even consider it a possibility speaks volumes about the validity of your argument.)

            My point is this:

            Water, being composed of two parts hydrogen, and one part oxygen, is actually quite bountiful in the universe. It is not a difficult compound for the universe to create. It stands to reason then, that it could be found anywhere, even in the situations you say it could never be.

            I, for one, am willing to believe NASA scientists on this matter over your hypothesis.

            “Use your critical thinking skills.”//

            Yeah, I keep doing that when we talk about racism in your Bible but you keep ignoring it, along with other evidence of your faulty arguments.

            “No, actually because there ISN’T. You’ll believe anything, won’t you?”//

            Anything? Like a make believe all knowing invisible sky buddy? You are hardly one to play the “naivete card” against another. At least I back my points up with evidence whereas you seem to think derogatory remarks will validate your argument.

            Guess again.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            “>>>Inconclusive<<< evidence of free water ice at the lunar poles was accumulated from a variety of observations suggesting the presence of bound hydrogen." –Wikipedia

            How Orwellian is that? If you can't draw a conclusion, it is NOT evidence! That's like saying that they proved who the killer is using "inconclusive evidence." WHAT??! You need to improve upon your critical thinking skills. I can't stress that enough.

            George Orwell was right about the government being easily able to so easily misinform and dumb down the people. *shakes head*

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “>>>Inconclusive<<< evidence of free water ice at the lunar poles was accumulated from a variety of observations suggesting the presence of bound hydrogen." –Wikipedia"//

            You want inconclusive? Try asking any scientific university professor if they'll accept a quote from Wikipedia as a credible source on a term paper. Wikipedia, in case you didn't know, is not recognised as being conclusive on what it publishes for the simple fact that anybody can publish there and the articles do not have to be documented for them to be put on the site. Yes, they ask for it, but little, if any, follow up actually needs to be done for the piece to be published.

            Now, who's not using critical thinking skills?

            However, let's take your quote at face value for the sake of argument and say that it is inconclusive about whether or not there is evidence of free water ice on Mars. By the same token, the existence of God doesn't even have that much, yet you suppose he exists.

            I could easily say that the existence of water ice on Mars is likely, due to the fact that water is abundant (check out the NASA information on this) in the universe.

            They even found it on the moon.

            Source: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/moon20090924.html

            information retrieved 11/04/2012 (and I would trust the NASA website over Wikipedia any day.)

            If it can be found on the moon, a much smaller planetary body, then it can certainly be found on Mars. This lends credibility to the whole argument presented against yours.

            However, you are willing to accept the existence of God on the premise that "He must exist because the universe does." This is hardly anything conclusive and certainly lacks critical thinking skills. If you can accept that God exists on this basis, then you must accept the possibility that water exists on Mars and definitely elsewhere in the universe.

            Your derogatory comments mean nothing, as you are hardly one to cast the first stone.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          “To this day, no one can even figure out how the Great Pyramid was built” Wrong. There have been a number of people and groups that have worked out ways in which it could have been constructed. “//

          Lol! Now it’s your turn to beat me to it! 🙂

      • Mike Says:

        synapticcohesion Says: “That experiment is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard”

        Really? The dumbest thing I’ve ever heard is that man was breathed into existence out of mud by an invisble sky-daddy, and then women were made from one of his ribs. Then they were tricked by a talking snake into eating a magic piece of fruit. That’s your “explanation”, right?

        Lol, yes, compared to that, my explanation sure seems dumb…

      • purplewurple Says:

        @ synapticcohesion

        I love how you ignore the plethora of racist remarks that God has made in the bible. By comparison, if Darwin was racist, your god would be the king of racists. And to make matters worse, because God is racist (just read your bible) Darwin was only following in the footsteps of God. 😀

        Last time I checked god disliked or eternally damned descendants of Ethiopian, Babylonian, and other groups of people from various Middle Eastern and African decent.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          @purplewurple: “I love how you ignore the plethora of racist remarks that God has made in the bible.”//

          He may not have even read them. He never read half the stuff posted here.

      • Mike Says:

        purplewurple Says: “I love how you ignore the plethora of racist remarks that God has made in the bible. By comparison, if Darwin was racist, your god would be the king of racists”

        Now don’t be gettin’ all truthy and stuff or synapticcohesion will become offended and run away. 🙂

  38. John Dibble Says:

    I’m impressed with your restraint thunderf00t – numerous times I had to pause the video to resist the urge to strangle something. I’m pretty sure I would have strangled him to death and used self-defense as my legal justification. After all, he was trying to murder our brain cells.

  39. Gwm Says:

    I’ve watched all 5 of these videos several times. I would have liked Thunderf00t to have answered direct questions with direct answers, but alas he was unable to do so without drawing an elongated statement which he felt was an adequate response, but never a YES or a NO answer ‘epic fail’ in a great opportunity for a heralded atheist to nip this apologetic in the bud. One would assume it is because he really didn’t have an answer, and for those disagreeing with me, you could be wrong about everything, so not much retort nor need for your objection unless you can absolutely assert that you are absolutely correct…

    Bottom line, Thunderf00t was the epitome of talking a lot and saying nothing productive because everything he believes is observed by his own senses that may not be valid unless there is a knowledge that could be derived from those senses, but where was the original source of that knowledge? Did Knowledge exist before the human stood upright and conked the first female on the head with blunt object and began thinking, if so humans are the main source of knowledge, therefore knowledge much like humans can be changed based off of the humans’ perception of knowledge, I submit that Thunderf00t tests this model and jumps from a 10 story building, testing the theory that since knowledge came from a changeable source, the very process and physics of knowledge can be altered and he can alter the knowledge of gravity and defy that which isn’t absolute. Absurdity? I totally agree! What’s your excuse?
    If this whole atheistic reality doesn’t pan out for you, Thunderf00t, you have the gift of nonsensical gab and thus could have a bright career in politics… btw, what does ‘thunder’ mean… ‘thunder’? 😉

    It’s amazing to me how atheists say atheism isn’t a religion, however, each one of them have ‘faith’ in the past observations and edifications of others like themselves, thus believing in their own system of religion, after all as Thunderf00t said multiple times, we assume our models are correct through our observations, but there again since all of us could just be mythical imaginations and perceptions of an alternate reality that doesn’t exist, it would require us to believe only through faith in said models and observations, thus making atheism a religion. (Plot thickens)

    Its ok, all, calm down, I know you all think I am bashing atheism or being arrogant, not at all, just merely pointing out the stink of the story the atheists can’t seem to smell for themselves… If you’re bitter and you’re angry please I employ you to use your reasoning to comfort your minds… I’m not really typing this and you’re not really reading this because you’re trusting in a visual cortex that may not exist, and reading the blog of a character that you, perhaps, conceived in your own mind or perhaps a character that is just a perception or a projection on your monitor.

    If you think all of this is absurdity, I would agree with you, I don’t’ believe in atheism either… Take the Blue Pill, you’ll feel much better!!! 🙂 Please don’t misunderstand folks, I’m not bashing atheists, just atheism, it’s a practice that you all have to work at to believe, rather than the alternative.

    In all honesty, I pray for you atheists everday, if that offends you, its not my prayers that offends, but the knowledge of God’s existence he wrote on your heart which is convicting you, simply repent sincerely, ask Christ, the son of God to forgive you of your sins, pardon you from wrath, and turn your heart of stone to flesh. Romans 10:13.

    • Mike Says:

      “It’s amazing to me how atheists say atheism isn’t a religion”

      FFS, not this drivel again…atheism is a “religion” in the same way that not collecting stamps is a “hobby”.

      “however, each one of them have ‘faith’ in the past observations and edifications”

      No, and this is where you really go off the rails. Atheists don’t have “faith”, because faith is, essentially, believing in things without any proof. The things we believe in are based on past experience, scientific observations, and rational thought. Yes, we rely on the work of people who have done the heavy lifting before us, but that’s *not* faith, that’s based on the validity and verification of the things those people have done, not just because they say so.

      “In all honesty, I pray for you atheists everday”

      In all honesty, you’re wasting your time and most of us find it amusing. 🙂

      You go right ahead and whisper into your hands to your magical, invisible, telepathic sky-daddy if you think it’ll do any good. We know it won’t, but we’ve no interest in interfering with your delusional behavior. We have better things to do in the real world.

      “ask Christ, the son of God to forgive you of your sins, pardon you from wrath, and turn your heart of stone to flesh. Romans 10:13.”

      Blah-de-blah-de-blah. This is where you become tedious.

      “You make people miserable and there’s nothing they can do about it, just like god.” -Homer Simpson

    • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

      Your answer is as long and drawn out as mine and we are both worse than TF.

      “but never a YES or a NO answer”// You can’t answer in black and white when the question is in colour. In other words, it wasn’t a “yes” or “no” question. It was an attempt to confine TF into a situation based upon pre-supposed limitations that did not apply to what was being asked. TF gave an educated response to somebody not educated enough, evidently, to ask a question that can properly be answered.

      “and for those disagreeing with me, you could be wrong about everything, “// The “black and white” mentality again. Sorry, but the universe doesn’t work that way.

      “Bottom line, Thunderf00t was the epitome of talking a lot and saying nothing productive because everything he believes is observed by his own senses that may not be valid unless there is a knowledge that could be derived from those senses”// You epitomize Hovind’s lack of understanding quite well. Everything you believe to be knowledge is an assumption. This is what TF was explaining. Read the other posts here.

      Knowledge has never existed. Do I know that? No. I assume that based on the fact that what we once “knew” has turned out to be false.

      “If you’re bitter and you’re angry please I employ you to use your reasoning to comfort your minds”// I am sure you mean “emplore.” So much for sounding like the voice of reason.

      You call atheism a religion, that’s your perception however I would point out that even a religion does not require God, a Bible, or knowledge.

      “In all honesty, I pray for you atheists everday, if that offends you, its not my prayers that offends, but the knowledge of God’s existence he wrote on your heart which is convicting you, simply repent sincerely, ask Christ, the son of God to forgive you of your sins, pardon you from wrath, and turn your heart of stone to flesh. “// You think my heart is made of stone? This is reasonable to you? Flesh is required to pump blood, my friend, and I assure you I am not a statue. Oh, wait! You’re speaking figuratively! No, you are quoting figuratively from your Bible! Do you get my point? You can’t base your entire life upon a book with so many interpretations that it’s meaning is unclear. (If it was clear there wouldn’t be so many Christian sects, would there?) Again, there is no knowledge. Especially in your Bible.

      Oh, and if you want to pray for me go ahead. You are, however, wasting your time while many atheists are out there scientifically discovering the world you “know” so well because of your god and benefitting society with their accomplishments. But do go ahead…

  40. Mike Says:

    Adrian Lee Magill said: “You don’t hear Christians do that too much in these posts.”

    Of course not, they have the backing of “god”, so they can always claim they’re right even in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary.

    It must be so nice to be a Christian and know more than all the scientists in the whole world. Just think, as a Christian they have the Ultimate Answer To Everything: “God done it!”

    • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

      Yeah, I hear you. At this point that fact cannot be argued. It’s too bad, as I was hoping this guy (synapticcohesion) was going to actually at least attempt to present his argument without playing dirty.

      Oh well. I guess lies and half truths are the only way to maintain certain points of view.

      • Mike Says:

        “I was hoping this guy (synapticcohesion) was going to actually at least attempt to present his argument without playing dirty.”

        I had no such expectation. Seeing where he was coming from, I knew that inevitably he would have no choice but to descend into lies and deception in an attempt to keep his bankrupt “arguments” alive.

        And it didn’t work. Nearly everything he’s said has been refuted soundly, and his folly at picking one of the dozens of available bibles and labeling it the “One True Bible” points out the built-in silliness of his position in the clearest possible way. 🙂

        The internet is where religion goes to die, and synapticcohesion has finally arrived. 🙂 He’s come to one of the few places where he cannot get away with lies and distortions. He’s can’t craft a viable argument here because the weight of truth, science, logic, and reason are overwhelmingly against him.

        I think you can pull the fork out of him; he’s done. 🙂

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          “his folly at picking one of the dozens of available bibles and labeling it the “One True Bible” points out the built-in silliness of his position in the clearest possible way.”//

          Yeah, that’s usually a good indication. Though I don’t think all religions will die on the internet. Just the organised ones that base their belief structure on holy books and the dependence of gods. That’s good enough for me.

  41. Mike Says:

    synapticcohesion Says: “I’ve never said this before, but I think I’ve met my match. I’ve actually run out of responses to give.”

    You managed to run out of fantasy? Just read your bible and get a refill.

  42. Mike Says:

    Adrian, it’s painfully obvious that ‘synapticcohesion’ will never admit that nearly every point he’s tried to make here has been shot to pieces. He’s going to believe in his magic sky-fairy regardless of whether or not there’s any validity to it. Trying to reason with him is pointless.

    But he and his kind are fading fast. 🙂

    Like I said before, religion is dying. Church membership is down, the old generation of believers are dying off and not being replaced, and this newest generation for the most part flatly refuses to buy into the whole “god story”. Almost no one gives a shit what the pope says these days, and few people find religion believable, practical, or useful in their lives anymore.

    Religion is dying, and one day people like ‘synapticcohesion’ will only exist in history books. 🙂

    • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

      Oh I agree entirely!

      His argument has come apart to the point of no return. Anyone reading these posts will most likely agree as well. 🙂

      I was raised on debate and to question by my father (it was my step father that introduced me to Christianity) and this debate ended a long time ago.

      People like synapticcohesion will probably never see the reality around them. I have no problems if that is the life they choose, but will not stand idly by while lies are being presented as fact.

      You are correct, however. His argument is decimated and any further debate would be overkill on our part.

      Hopefully he’ll let it go.

      It was a pleasure! Hope to run into you online again!

      Peace. 🙂

      • Mike Says:

        “His argument is decimated and any further debate would be overkill on our part.”

        It was like the Tumble Tots going up against the 5th Marines Battalion, lol. 🙂

        “It was a pleasure! Hope to run into you online again!”

        Same here! I sometimes hang out on the atheistroundtable.com site, you can usually reach me there (I’m the user “Mike” there as well).

  43. Sean Faulkner Says:

    TF you have been a hero to me since I discovered your channel shortly after the passing of George Carlin. By the by have you in your constant war against ignorance stumbled across one Neal Adams? He was a big time comic artist for DC but now spends his golden years furiously defending his Growing Earth speculations and selling his own art. I guess a prestigious art high school is no substitute for a PhD (or at very least a masters) in astrophysics & chemistry. I haven’t seen a new TF-VS-Conspiracist video breakdown in a good while 😉 … “Conspiracy of Science – Earth is in fact growing” http://youtu.be/oJfBSc6e7QQ

  44. Rafferty13 Says:

    It’s almost impossible to debate with someone like Hovind. The evidence is in the wording of his questions. While I wish Thunderf00t had been a bit more snappy about how ridiculous Hovind’s phrasing was, it is very difficult to have an intellectual conversation with one whose questions are haughtily phrased to assume that something is fact before the question has been asked.

    “How much knowledge out of the entire universe does Thunderfoot have?” (a nice equally pointless answer would’ve been a deadpan “36.2%”)

    “Is it impossible for a God to exist?” (Since the human brain is not omniscient, this is also redundant. I pose the response “Anything is is possible. God could not only be real, he could be a 12-legged, gay hippo named Gladys.”

    “If all atheists believe God didn’t create the world, then why are all atheists racist?”

    “How much do atheists hate America?”

    These last two were not uttered by Hovind, but would not have been out of place given his rhetoric.

    His style is like many other “smart” Christians. They know the bible doesn’t hold up to any logical criticism, so they try to bring the regress of the universe all the way back and argue theoretical questions where, presumably, theists and atheists are closer to the same plane.

    What every atheist needs to keep on hand is an open hand to carry trusty Ockham’s Razor.

    If they wish to take that route of discussion, it must be hammered home that even if they want to postulate a divine creator at the supposed beginning of time (again, no evidence anyway), then there would still be no reason to affirm that said creator made only this planet habitable, made us in his image (since many other animals were here before us), that any story in the bible (written by mortals) is true, that Jesus was divine and was resurrected, that he performed miracles, and that he now cares what he eat, who we fuck, and what color we are. Too much is trying to be “proven” with a shitty argument to begin with.

    The only confected “proof” I ever hear are supposed miracles of prayer healing hospital patients, though not only is this subjective in it’s wording, but it’s much like telling someone you were visited by a UFO. So much feeling in the story, yet bubkiss to show for it.

    • Mike Says:

      “The only confected “proof” I ever hear are supposed miracles of prayer healing hospital patients”

      Prayer has been tested repeatedly in all sorts of ways and it’s never been shown to have any positive effect. (In one case it was shown to have a small negative effect, but that was probably due to “perfomance anxiety”. The book “The God Delusion” has details on that study.)

      Here’s a simple litmus test for whether or not something is real, i.e., “does it work?” The test is, “Does the US Army use it?”

      No matter how expensive, unwieldy, impractical, or difficult to deploy, if it works then the US Army uses it. Period.

      Whatever it is, they’ll paint it olive drab, screw a handle on it and put it into service. If not, they won’t use it.

      If prayer really worked, if it had any effect at all, I promise you that there would be battalions of “Prayer Warriors”, and “Benediction Assault Squads” would be training night and day. Every soldier would be issued a cross and a bible with a camoflage cover.

      But they aren’t. And that’s because prayer doesn’t work- it’s all a load of utter bullshit. And the reason prayer doesn’t work is because no god exists to be prayed to.

      And for those that will come back and say, “But the Army has chaplains!”, why yes they do. One or two for an entire base. If they were worth their weight in dog shit, there would be thousands of them.

  45. synapticcohesion Says:

    Show me an example where there’s place where there’s an absence of oxygen but liquid water is readily available. If you can’t then you lose because your point is mute.

    And if amino acids are signs of “life,” they I better stop taking those amino acid pills–I don’t want to consume something that is living (or is the beginning signs of life).

    ALM at first admitted he was wrong, and then went back and said, “Forget it, I’m right and I’m never wrong!” That’s a shame and is not an admirable stance to take. It also perpetuates the stereotype that atheists are arrogant, “know-it-alls” that can never be wrong.

    • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

      @synapticcohesion

      Dude, we were giving you the chance to bow out of this, but if you want to keep going, ok.

      “ALM at first admitted he was wrong, and then went back and said, “Forget it, I’m right and I’m never wrong!” That’s a shame and is not an admirable stance to take. It also perpetuates the stereotype that atheists are arrogant, “know-it-alls” that can never be wrong.”//

      Yes, I admitted my mistake was taking you at your word without actually paying attention to the quote you gave. Once I looked at it I realized that I had made a mistake in not looking too closely at what you were saying and that you had misunderstood (either deliberately or honestly) Darwin’s point. Then I pointed out your error… and a number of other problems with your argument you conveniently ignored.

      So my only mistake was trusting your analysis of scientific material. It won’t happen again.

      …and I never said “I am never wrong.” (Go through my posts here and highlight those words if you want to claim this.) I merely said that the basis of your argument is faulty. In fact, I did admit that I made a mistake: believing your analysis.

      “Show me an example where there’s place where there’s an absence of oxygen but liquid water is readily available.”//

      I would say that there are very few planetary bodies we are familiar enough to provide conclusive evidence about water in liquid form, but considering that water is abundant in the universe it is not improbable that it could be liquid in an environment without oxygen.

      You see what’s happened here? You’ve gone from saying “Darwin was a racist” and being proven wrong to “We don’t know how the pyramids were built,” and being proven wrong, to “We don’t know that water exists on the moon and Mars” and being proven wrong.

      And now you sit here and point fingers with no basis for your argument.

      Let it go, dude.

      • Mike Says:

        “Let it go, dude.”

        If only he were that graceful, lol. But his magical sky-daddy can’t be wrong, so he’ll continue to blather away and change the subject every time he’s shot down. He should start packing a parachute when he comes into this blog.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          “He should start packing a parachute when he comes into this blog.”//

          Ain’t that the truth. The problem is he isn’t jumping out of the sky, he’s base jumping into a really deep pit.

      • synapticcohesion Says:

        Bow out of what? If you want to stop your incessant whining at whatever I say, no one’s stopping you. I certainly can’t argue with myself. But no, you’d cry if I got the last word so you continue on forever making futile attempts to regain your dignity.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          LOL!!! My dignity is fully intact. Nice try.

          Ok, if you wish to continue I guess it only proves my point to Mike about Darwin’s theory applying to this debate.

          However you might want to consider acknowledging the counter points we have made against your arguments. You see, I don’t think anybody is deluding themselves into believing any differently than when this debate began, however by not addressing them, you concede.

          1) It has not been proven that Darwin was a racist by the quote you provided.

          2) I have acknowledged that my mistake in point #1 was attributed to my not reading your quote sufficiently and have adjusted my views after doing so. (Much as you did after I decided, after all, that I disagree with you. I would remind you that you said you had “met your match” then reverted to

          3) We have established that the Bible has been used to justify racist sentiments.

          4) I can acknowledge that I make mistakes (as science has that ability and your religion cannot if it is to survive) and have done so. (You’re just bothered because I changed my mind after doing a little reading. Bummer, huh?)

          5) It has been established, despite your claim to the contrary that we have figured out how the pyramids were built and that using the fallacy that this is not true in your argument only weakens your case.

          6) We have established that there is water on both the Moon and Mars despite your views to the contrary.

          7) We have established that you view the King James Version of the Bile as the only correct version out of dozens on the basis that it is the most historically accurate despite being written 1600 years after the fact and subject to revision all the while.

          8) It has been established that you seem to be losing control of your side of the debate, as the personal insults from you have really started coming full steam now wheras in the begininning you were at least making an attempt. This is a signal that you have again “run out of things to say” (see your earlier post) and have attempted to substitute debate with a demeaning “turn up your nose at the atheists” tactic in the hopes that it will somehow save you from the facts of the above points. (Or did I read it wrong when you suggested that I regain some dignity by bowing out of a debate that I have not lost?)

          No, my dignity is fully intact, thank you very much. In fact, I am enjoying this! My only concerns are that others reading along might get bored with the constant substantiated refutes of your verbal abuse and baseless argument, as well as the annoyance of recieving constant emails from this blog only to read these exchanges we’re having.

          However, as I have said before, I will question everything I percieve to be in error and will enjoy doing it. If you wish to keep going, bring it on.

          (My apologies to those who are getting tired of reading these exchanges. However the freedom of speech sometimes goes beyond a right and becomes a duty.)

          “If people always said what they thought, people like Hitler could not exist.” -A lesson passed down in my family from a WWII veteran and his wife.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            “Retard, it’s not meant to be an exact quote”//

            Gone from the petty insults straight to the direct ones have you? This is another sign of losing a debate, as is denial of the points I make against your argument that you have no rebuttal against.”

            See? Even YOU are doing it. While I defend MYSELF and my own views, you and you friend there have to defend and comfort each other. If two Christians started ganging up on Thunderfoot, I would say “That’s low and unfair–two against one!” Same, if in the video another atheist joined in with Thunderfoot to argue against Hovind.

            Instead of learning from the those two debating ONE-ON-ONE, you both have no problem arguing with me not only on what I say to you, what I say to the “other guy.” Can you two not win/fight/argue your OWN battles? I’m up to the challenge of arguing with two against one (not much of a challenge, but that’s beside the point), but I WON’T argue when both of you want to focus on EACH OTHERS arguments as well.

            Come on you two, get some PRIDE–argue on your own behalf, defend YOURSELVES.

    • Mike Says:

      “Show me an example where there’s place where there’s an absence of oxygen but liquid water is readily available.”

      Oh, I get it. If I can’t, the GOD MUST BE REAL, right? 🙂 lol

      “And if amino acids are signs of “life,” they I better stop taking those amino acid pills–I don’t want to consume something that is living (or is the beginning signs of life).”

      No lie- your stupidity is actually becoming painful to listen to. It must be so cool to be like you and know EVERYTHING, more than all the scientists in all the world throughout all of recorded history!

      “It also perpetuates the stereotype that atheists are arrogant, “know-it-alls” that can never be wrong.”

      That’s actually the classic christian stance, because after all, you have The Word Of God on your side and the Great Magical Sky Ghost can’t ever be wrong, can he?

    • Mike Says:

      “ALM at first admitted he was wrong, and then went back and said, “Forget it, I’m right and I’m never wrong!”

      Now you’re just lying like the deceptive little shit you really are. He never said that, it’s nowhere on this page, and you, pal, are full of crap.

      • synapticcohesion Says:

        Get a life. It’s called saying someone admitted that they were wrong and didn’t know Darwin had racist ideas–and they going back on that admission. Retard, it’s not meant to be an exact quote–even he knew that. Get a life and let him use his OWN brain and argue for himself. He doesn’t need his “mommy” to help him.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          “Retard, it’s not meant to be an exact quote”//

          Gone from the petty insults straight to the direct ones have you? This is another sign of losing a debate, as is denial of the points I make against your argument that you have no rebuttal against.

          For instance: You continue to take the stance that I admitted Darwin was a racist and went back on that yet refuse to admit that I only agreed to your assessment because I didn’t read your quote thoroughly enough and retracted it based on further investigation.

          I admitted I was wrong to agree with you and yet you refuse to see this as an admission of the ability to make mistakes.

          Changing a stance in an argument based upon further or more complete understanding of evidence is perfectly acceptable and even necessary for growth. You just don’t like it because it conflicts with your world view but not because it is based upon a faulty premise. Quite the opposite in fact.

          Also: Anything you have posted that I have taken issue with has been accepted as a direct quote. How many times have I asked you to justify your statements? I have even done so in the response I sent you.

          Again, your argument fails. Big time.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            What happened to your “everyone was racist at time time” argument? You just decided to throw that out and say that Darwin wasn’t racist period–even though according to you just earlier that’s how everyone was back then. That’s why your credibility and any respectability you had went down the drain. At least I admitted and agreed with certain aspects against Hovind–such as when you said that he was the aggressor. And I never went back and said, No, actually he wasn’t the aggressor at all.”

            No side is right all of the time and at least I will admit it, unlike you.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “What happened to your “everyone was racist at time time” argument?”//

            Ah! Finally! You have read one of my posts! Excellent! (Even though you didn’t copy it properly.)

            The meaning of that statement comes from the fact that racism was a larger part of acceptable practice back then and it happened at all levels of society. Remember, in the States slavery was a legal practice, whereas today it would be unthinkable.

            This is not a statement of acceptance of racism, naturally, but it acknowledges the fact that even the Christians of the time felt justified in their racism due to the group mentality (the same group mentality that exists in organised religions, I might add.) In this respect, Darwin, (and the church), was no better or worse than the society they both shared.

            That argument, should you wish to continue it, was based upon the original point of the video: There is no “knowledge” only “assumption.” “Knowledge” presupposes no error whereas “assumption” acknowledges the possibility.

            Again (for the umpteenth time) I say that the only way to learn is to first admit “I don’t know” (along with the occaisional “I have made a mistake” which I have done and you have not.) From there we start looking for answers.

            However, as you have so painfully demonstrated, Christian thought cannot afford to be wrong for fear of losing credibility. After all, when one is perfect, as you claim God to be, making mistakes is not permissable. This is why you refuse to acknowledge the points in our exchange that you had no answers for.

            And yet, Christianity at the time of Darwin and even in lesser ways today, has endorsed racism. (Remember those Bible quotes I gave you?) However, you cannot admit this. Thus you embrace the lie that it never happened.

            Christianity cannot grow as fast as scientific advancements when unencumbered by canonized religious dogma.

            Now, I have no doubt that you are about to disregard half of what I have just posted and focus again on Darwin or some other point instead of acknowledging Christianity’s shortcomings. However by so doing, you prove me right and again concede defeat.

            (Now you have a choice to make. What’s it going to be?)

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            If “Mike” comes to your defense yet again (or you to his), I will not respond anymore. I already responded to your Bible quotes. Once again “Mike” chimed in for you and started arguing with me on my response. Do you remember this?

            If not, I just summarize what I had already addressed to YOU (not Mike): If God is all-knowing and gives people a warning about another, what does that have to do with racism? Racism had to do with irrational hatred and ignorance. How would an omnipotent and all-knowing God be ignorant? I’m not trying to get you to accept an omnipotent, all-knowing God–I’m just stating the obvious of hat God is supposed to be and what racism is supposed to be and how that would affect my conclusion on that issue/question.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            “Retard, it’s not meant to be an exact quote”//

            Gone from the petty insults straight to the direct ones have you? This is another sign of losing a debate, as is denial of the points I make against your argument that you have no rebuttal against.”

            See? Even YOU are doing it. While I defend MYSELF and my own views, you and you friend there have to defend and comfort each other. If two Christians started ganging up on Thunderfoot, I would say “That’s low and unfair–two against one!” Same, if in the video another atheist joined in with Thunderfoot to argue against Hovind.

            Instead of learning from the those two debating ONE-ON-ONE, you both have no problem arguing with me not only on what I say to you, what I say to the “other guy.” Can you two not win/fight/argue your OWN battles? I’m up to the challenge of arguing with two against one (not much of a challenge, but that’s beside the point), but I WON’T argue when both of you want to focus on EACH OTHERS arguments as well.

            Come on you two, get some PRIDE–argue on your own behalf, defend YOURSELVES.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “If two Christians started ganging up on Thunderfoot, I would say “That’s low and unfair–two against one!” Same, if in the video another atheist joined in with Thunderfoot to argue against Hovind. Instead of learning from the those two debating ONE-ON-ONE, you both have no problem arguing with me not only on what I say to you, what I say to the “other guy.” Can you two not win/fight/argue your OWN battles? I’m up to the challenge of arguing with two against one (not much of a challenge, but that’s beside the point), but I WON’T argue when both of you want to focus on EACH OTHERS arguments as well. Come on you two, get some PRIDE–argue on your own behalf, defend YOURSELVES.”//

            If you will recall, this debate started with syetenb in your corner. He left early. Really early.

            Besides, if I were in a two on one situation (and I have been, many times) where I was the single man out, I would welcome it. If my belief structure cannot withstand the onslaught of overwhelming logic, a logic that I had no answer for, I would be forced to admit my mistake (as I have demonstrated I am capable of doing) and change.

            That argument has yet to be presented to me.

            I’ll tell you what:

            I will present something of myself that you and my fellow atheists can try to debate about me (to change me if you and the other atheists here would like to try, or merely debunk my theories) and see if you can change my mind. That way I will be the only person to defend my stance and accept the challenges of all comers. (If, what I have in mind is actually going to put me on the outside of atheistic circles, which for some, it acually might.)

            There are some conditions I would like to apply to this exchange, however:

            1) The understanding that everything I have posted up until now have been honest debates and I recant nothing.

            2) The use of direct insults and name calling is deemed as a concession to the point in question. The point may still be debated, but the perpetrator must admit that he or she “lost his cool” from frustration and admits that at the time had no effective response.

            3) Any inclusion into this debate by any third party is preceded with the acceptance of these terms before they make their points. A simple “I have read the terms of this exchange and agree to them.” will suffice.

            I will stand alone and not complain.

            Are we agreed?

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            “2) The use of direct insults and name calling is deemed as a concession to the point in question.”

            That coming from some who started the debate by calling me “delusional” and called me “slow” when you were repeating yourself to me. I know that I did belittle you right back–that why I said nothing more about your insulting me anymore (because I did it in response as well).

            But it certainly didn’t stop you and your friend “Mike” for mentioning any time I said anything that could be construed as insulting. Hypocrites.

            “If you will recall, this debate started with syetenb in your corner. He left early. Really early.”

            As I already said, I couldn’t care less that there’s two atheists against myself here. And by the way, when the other Christian was making his arguments/points I never chimed in at all–I wasn’t even following that conversation (none of my business). No one ganged up on you and both of you (you and syetenb) were speaking up for YOURSELVES. What’s between the two of you should be FAIRLY debated between the two of you; no one else. So you can’t even mention that because he never defended me and my arguments, not did I ever defend anything he said.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            Dude, I am trying to give you a chance to have “allies” if you feel you so desperately need them. I am also addressing your concerns that I need help with my debating.

            The points I will make, if the discussion sticks to them, will definitely give you some attack angles and will probably allow some atheists here to attack my belief structure as well.

            Are we agreed?

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            So what you’re saying it that you can have a fair, one-on-one debate with only the person being ADDRESSED? So you’re saying you are that INSECURE that, unlike me who did not get involved with your one-on-one (assuming Mike didn’t horn in as usual) with syetenb that you and Mike have to come to each other’s rescue and responsd to what I say even though the person I was asking for the opinion of was YOU? The person I was addressing was YOU? Wow, you two are really insecure.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            “So what you’re saying it that you can have a fair, one-on-one debate with only the person being ADDRESSED? So you’re saying you are that INSECURE that, unlike me who did not get involved with your one-on-one (assuming Mike didn’t horn in as usual) with syetenb that you and Mike have to come to each other’s rescue and responsd to what I say even though the person I was asking for the opinion of was YOU? The person I was addressing was YOU? Wow, you two are really insecure.”//

            So insecure I just offered to have you and all my fellow atheists attack some of my values that I have not presented yet.

            Slow down and think.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            I never asked for you to do that. And I think you would admit that you would be shouting “unfair” if a couple of Christians were debating thunderfoot at once. But I will hear what you have to propose nevertheless.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            I have already proposed it. And I would not shout “unfair” at any number of Christians who posed their questions to Thunderf00t as long as they gave him a chance to respond to each question fairly.

            (That has already happened on a number of occaisions, BTW)

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            If two Christians started coming at TF with insults and arguments at once, you know that would be unfair because not only does he have to try to respond to twice as many arguments as either Christians arguing has to, but two heads are always and advantage. Why do you think that debates are one-on-one to begin with? Because here’s always an advantage to two brains coming up with arguments/answers over one.

            “And I would not shout “unfair” at any number of Christians who posed their questions to Thunderf00t as long as they gave him a chance to respond to each question fairly.”

            I wouldn’t have a problem with that either. That’s not what we’re talking about and you know it. What I’m talking about is when two people AT THE SAME TIME lob their arguments at one person all at once. You weren’t simply “posting” questions for me to answer in a patient and orderly fashion–you were both arguing, seething, and name calling at once. And just because I can’t respond to two people at once, (when it’s so easy to just respond to one person) you pat each other on the back and declare yourselves winners. That is pitiful.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            …and yet I just tried to give you the chance to turn the tables and you refused to take it.

            I would have stood alone against you and other atheists.

            Forget it. Offer retracted. You’re on your own.

            Only now you can’t play the entire “they’re ganging up on me” card.

          • synapticcohesion Says:

            Lame. I didn’t even understand your offer anyway.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            That’s because, evidently, you have trouble reading.

          • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

            It looks like my response to you did not get through. Luckily I copied it and will post it again now.

            “If two Christians started ganging up on Thunderfoot, I would say “That’s low and unfair–two against one!” Same, if in the video another atheist joined in with Thunderfoot to argue against Hovind. Instead of learning from the those two debating ONE-ON-ONE, you both have no problem arguing with me not only on what I say to you, what I say to the “other guy.” Can you two not win/fight/argue your OWN battles? I’m up to the challenge of arguing with two against one (not much of a challenge, but that’s beside the point), but I WON’T argue when both of you want to focus on EACH OTHERS arguments as well. Come on you two, get some PRIDE–argue on your own behalf, defend YOURSELVES.”//

            If you will recall, this debate started with syetenb in your corner. He left early. Really early.

            Besides, if I were in a two on one situation (and I have been, many times) where I was the single man out, I would welcome it. If my belief structure cannot withstand the onslaught of overwhelming logic, a logic that I had no answer for, I would be forced to admit my mistake (as I have demonstrated I am capable of doing) and change.

            That argument has yet to be presented to me.

            I’ll tell you what:

            I will present something of myself that you and my fellow atheists can try to debate about me (to change me if you and the other atheists here would like to try, or merely debunk my theories) and see if you can change my mind. That way I will be the only person to defend my stance and accept the challenges of all comers. (If, what I have in mind is actually going to put me on the outside of atheistic circles, which for some, it acually might.)

            There are some conditions I would like to apply to this exchange, however:

            1) The understanding that everything I have posted up until now have been honest debates and I recant nothing.

            2) The use of direct insults and name calling is deemed as a concession to the point in question. The point may still be debated, but the perpetrator must admit that he or she “lost his cool” from frustration and admits that at the time had no effective response.

            3) Any inclusion into this debate by any third party is preceded with the acceptance of these terms before they make their points. A simple “I have read the terms of this exchange and agree to them.” will suffice.

            I will stand alone and not complain.

            Are we agreed?

      • Mike Says:

        “If “Mike” comes to your defense yet again (or you to his)”

        Oh, how dreadfully cruel of me, what a scaliwag I am! I bet you’re clutching your pearls and heading for your fainting couch right now.

        I don’t respond well to ultimatums or threats- I’ll comment on whatever the hell I want to whenever the hell I want to, and you’ll just have to deal withit.

        What a classic christian technique, to threaten to “stop debating” if someone dares to express their own opinion. Well, fuck you, I’ll respond as I see fit. If you want to take your little ball and run home to mommy, that’s fine with me.

        What a wussy. I think I’ll come to Adrian’s “defense” just to show you up for the petty little dick you are. (Although Adrian hardly needs me to “defend” him, he’s been bending you over like a drunken prom date nearly every time you open your fool mouth.)

        “If two Christians started ganging up on Thunderfoot…”

        Oh please, they do it all the fucking time. Stop whining like such a little bitch and grow a pair.

        I’ve seen people like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and VenomfangX and NephillimFree ganging up on Thunderf00t for years now, and he’s stomped the crap out of every single one of them, every single time.

        There, now that I’ve DARED to chime in alongside Adrian, you can have your little hissy fit and piss off, you disigenuous little wanker.

      • Mike Says:

        “That coming from some who started the debate by calling me “delusional”

        You ARE delusional!

        You believe in an invisible, telepathic super-dude who supposedly created the entire universe in a few days.

        You believe a 2000 year old book of fairy tales is 100% factual and that it is completely infallible.

        You believe that 2 of every animal IN THE ENTIRE WORLD once fit on a boat only 450 feet long, including all their food and water. Really?

        You believe that man was made from mud, and woman was made from this man’s rib. Really?

        And you believe that a talking snake tricked this woman into eating a piece of magical fruit and by doing so, she turned everyone on Earth into “sinners” the moment they’re born!

        You believe that saying magical incantations over a glass of wine transforms it into the blood of a 2000-year old zombie.

        You believe most of the people that have ever lived will writhe in eternal agony for not believing in the fairy tales written by ignorant, desert-dwelling sheep herders.

        Yes, if you really believe this bullshit, damn right you’re delusional.

      • Mike Says:

        “As I already said, I couldn’t care less that there’s two atheists against myself here.”

        What? You just said that if Adrian and I didn’t stop commenting on each other’s posts against you, then you’d leave.

        Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

    • purplewurple Says:

      @ synapticcohesion

      “But no, you’d cry if I got the last word so you continue on forever making futile attempts to regain your dignity.”

      Now if this isn’t irony I don’t know what is! 😀

  46. synapticcohesion Says:

    Typo (above) –“moot,” not “mute.” I can’t believe I made that mistake. 🙂

    • Mike Says:

      “Typo (above) –”moot,” not “mute.” I can’t believe I made that mistake.”

      Gee, should we jump all over you for it, like you did when I made a typo earlier? That wasn’t very *cough* christian of you, was it?

      Nope, we won’t make a big deal of it like you did. You’re wrong about nearly everything you’ve said here, but not because of a typo. You’re wrong because you believe in ridculous shit that can’t possibly be true, but it has nothing to do with you misspelling something.

      • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

        Mike, to the best of your knowledge, is there a certain masochism in Christian minset? Synapticcohesion certainly seems to be displaying a fair deal here.

      • Mike Says:

        “Mike, to the best of your knowledge, is there a certain masochism in Christian minset?”

        Oh, hell yes. Look at the sick, twisted, and utterly impossible rules they setup for themselves to try and live by. Only the truly demented and/or masochistic would willingly buy into that shit.

        And that’s just mainstream christianity- then there are all the goofy-ass offshoots like Opus Dei, where part of their gig is to wear a “cilice”, a metal chain with sharp, inwardly pointing spikes. (Why? Because god wants you to!) That *definitely* borders on masochism, no doubt about it.

        Christianity demands denial of many normal desires that harm no one, branding them “sinful” (the catch-all term for ANYTHING they don’t want you to do). Masturbation, blasphemy, pre-marital sex, drinking alcohol, looking at unclothed bodies, lusting after someone you find attractive, etc etc etc.

        These are all *normal* things that most people like to do (and they’re generally not harmful to anyone), yet the church labels them “sinful” in order to control the drones. They even tell you that you can have sinful thoughts, although I’ve never seen a thought actually harm anyone.

        The whole thing is just a sick exercise in self-harming behavior, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

        • Adrian Lee Magill Says:

          That’s pretty much my assessment as well.

          I asked because it seems that Synapticcohesion seems to keep coming back for more whenever the fault in his arguments are made plain and it got me to thinking:

          Being that the Christian argument is lacking in substance after prolonged debate yet Christians nevertheless cling to it with reckless abandon, and the numbers of the Abrahamic faiths keep falling, could it be that Darwin’s theory holds sway here? I mean, after all, any reasonable individual would relent and give the next step in the debate some decent thought, but to keep coming back for punishment shows a certain lack of self preservation on an intellectual level.

          Take synapticcohesion, for example. He posted, online and for everyone to see, a near complete argumentative breakdown. Certainly this does more against his cause than for it. Others reading his posts, if walking the line between two concepts akin to Christianity and Atheism, will be making assessments largely on the basis of the arguments presented in blogs such as this.

          Nobody wants to live a life of servitude to a faulty argument and therefore Abrahamic numbers fall while other lines of thinking increase. Masochism to the point of self defeatist attitudes may be a marker for a dead line of thinking, if you get my point.

          In a sense, Synapticcohesion is proving Darwin’s theories by denouncing them.

          Huh. Avante Garde Darwinism. Who’d have thought?

      • Mike Says:

        Synapticcohesion couldn’t tell the truth if he wanted to. First he claims to quote Adrian (actually using quotes!) and now he says “it’s not meant to be an exact quote”.

        What a dick. And people wonder why christians are viewed as deceptive, lying, weasels….

      • Mike Says:

        Ooops, my mistake, I guess that proves god exists. 😉

        lol

      • Mike Says:

        “Mike, did you see my challenge to Synapticcohesion? I’d like to hear what you think.”

        What I think is that the day someone like Synapticcohesion ever responds openly and honestly to any challenge is the day we see squadrons of pigs flying out my butt in formation, playing John Phillips Sousa music on finger cymbals.

        He’s already throwing a fit because we *dare* to *both* respond to his lies, distortions, and outright fabrications. We really must be evil atheists, lol! 🙂

  47. synapticcohesion Says:

    “Synapticcohesion couldn’t tell the truth if he wanted to. First he claims to quote Adrian (actually using quotes!) and now he says “it’s not meant to be an exact quote”.

    What a dick. And people wonder why christians are viewed as
    deceptive, lying, weasels….”

    See? Even YOU are doing it. While I defend MYSELF and my own views, you and you friend there have to defend and comfort each other. If two Christians started ganging up on Thunderfoot, I would say “That’s low and unfair–two against one!” Same, if in the video another atheist joined in with Thunderfoot to argue against Hovind.

    Instead of learning from the those two debating ONE-ON-ONE, you both have no problem arguing with me not only on what I say to you, what I say to the “other guy.” Can you two not win/fight/argue your OWN battles? I’m up to the challenge of arguing with two against one (not much of a challenge, but that’s beside the point), but I WON’T argue when both of you want to focus on EACH OTHERS arguments as well.

    Come on you two, get some PRIDE–argue on your own behalf, defend YOURSELVES.

    • Mike Says:

      “See? Even YOU are doing it.”

      Hey, it’s not my fault that people like you are viewed as deceptive, lying, weasels.

      “If two Christians started ganging up on Thunderfoot…”

      Oh please, they do it all the fucking time. Stop whining like such a little bitch and grow a pair.

      I’ve seen people like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and VenomfangX and NephillimFree ganging up on Thunderf00t for years now, and he’s stomped the crap out of every single one of them, every single time.

      If you can’t defend your beliefs against more than one person at a time, maybe there’s something wrong with your beliefs.

      • synapticcohesion Says:

        You are annoying, Mike. It had to be said.

        “I’ve seen people like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron…”

        We can stop right there. They are JOKES. There I said it. Yes, there can be “Christian” quacks and kooks too that do nothing by give ammunition to atheists. Are YOU willing to say the same about certain atheists? I think not.

      • Mike Says:

        “You are annoying, Mike. It had to be said.”

        Oh please, lots nicer people than you don’t like me.
        Ray Comfort certainly doesn’t think that he’s a joke, and Kirk Cameron is held in great regard by many christians. Who are you to call them “jokes”?

        As for atheists, you bet, there are lots of whacky, nutty, downright crazy atheists. But…

        Atheists don’t fly planes into buildings because some magical sky-daddy tells us to.

        Atheists don’t force our women to dress in burka’s because god says we should.

        Atheists don’t tell our children that they’re going to burn in hell forever and ever because it says so in some 2000 year old book of fairy tales.

        Atheists don’t shoot abortion doctors and hate gays because someone else says we should.

        Atheists don’t suppress science because it’s “against god’s will”.

        Atheists don’t lock people up for claiming that the Earth goes around the Sun (which it does, by the way).

        So yeah, I’ll take our brand of god-free nuttiness over your hateful, destructive crap any day of the week.

    • Mike Says:

      “While I defend MYSELF and my own views, you and you friend there have to defend and comfort each other.”

      How can you lose when you have the “Word Of God” and all we have are logic, reason, and science? What are you worried about?

      I mean, it’s you and Almighty god against Adrian and I…clearly we’re outmatched, right? 🙂

      • synapticcohesion Says:

        “I mean, it’s you and Almighty god against Adrian and I…clearly we’re outmatched, right? :)”

        You are correct. Which was while I was still able to prevail and expose your foolishness, despite your tactics. Congratulations–God has no doubt blessed you with that epiphany.

      • Mike Says:

        “Which was while I was still able to prevail and expose your foolishness, despite your tactics.”

        See? You really ARE delusional.

        When are you going to “refute” the points I made to you about your nutty beliefs (talking snakes, Noah’s ark, etc etc)?

        I’ll tell you when: Never. You can’t, which is why you haven’t. 🙂

        You’re afraid to even try, because you know you can’t. lol

        I guess your god is pretty lame, huh? Letting two atheists mop the floor with you must be very shameful.

        Lol, your god is a weakling. If he showed his face around here I’d slap the crap out oof him. I’d hit him so hard his momma would have a bruise. I’d hit him so hard I’d void his warranty. 🙂

        So c’mon, defend your whacky-ass beliefs and tell me why they make perfect sense. Surely god will guide you to victory!

        lolololol

  48. synapticcohesion Says:

    “You ARE delusional!

    You believe in an invisible, telepathic super-dude who supposedly created the entire universe in a few days.

    You believe a 2000 year old book of fairy tales is 100% factual and that it is completely infallible.

    You believe that 2 of every animal IN THE ENTIRE WORLD once fit on a boat only 450 feet long, including all their food and water. Really?

    You believe that man was made from mud, and woman was made from this man’s rib. Really?

    And you believe that a talking snake tricked this woman into eating a piece of magical fruit and by doing so, she turned everyone on Earth into “sinners” the moment they’re born!

    You believe that saying magical incantations over a glass of wine transforms it into the blood of a 2000-year old zombie.

    You believe most of the people that have ever lived will writhe in eternal agony for not believing in the fairy tales written by ignorant, desert-dwelling sheep herders.

    Yes, if you really believe this bullshit, damn right you’re delusional.”

    Wow…so full of hate, resentment and anger. I pray you will find peace and overcome your bigotry and anger issues.

    • Mike Says:

      “I pray you will find peace and overcome your bigotry and anger issues.”

      I notice you didn’t deny any of the things I mentioned. 🙂

      Lol, definitely delusional. Aren’t you embarrassed to admit that you believe these things? Isn’t is galling to have to try and defend all this nutty shit?

      Seriously, “Hello Crazytown, population: synapticcohesion”

    • Mike Says:

      This just in:

      New Study Suggests Mars Viking Robots Found Life

      “New analysis of data, now 36 years old, from the Viking robots, suggests that NASA had found life on Mars. This conclusion was published by an international team of mathematicians and scientists this week.

      The Labeled Release experiment looked for signs of microbial metabolism in soil samples in 1976. The general thinking was that the experiment had found geological not biological activity. However, the new study approached things differently. Researchers broke the data into sets of numbers and analyzed the results for complexity.

      What they found were close correlations between the Viking results’ complexity and those of terrestrial biological data sets. Based on this they concluded that the Viking results were more biological in nature than just geological processes.”

      If they’re right, then everything synapticcohesion said has just been invalidated. Those pesky scientists, always discovering stuff!

      Can’t wait to see if this turns out to be real, or just some odd data artifacting. You’re right Adrian, it’s an interesting and amazing time to be alive.

    • Mike Says:

      Synapticcohesion, I’d like to invite you to have some discussions on the atheistroundtable.com site, if you’re willing (and I hope you are).

      Although we certainly have different ideas about a lot of stuff, I think you’re well-spoken and intelligent, and I’d welcome your views there. It’s generally a polite place and differing opinions are not just welcome, they’re actively sought-after.

      It’s a lot easier to discuss stuff there than on this blog, and I hope you feel comfortable enough to take part in some of the discussions.

      Cheers

  49. Adrian Lee Magill Says:

    (This is a little off topic, but still has relevance when you consider that this is a religious government dictating the artistic expression in other countries. Yes, I am pissed off.)

    I would like to address the issue in this article:

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/muslim-womans-bra-photo-sparks-controversy-180652213.html?bcmt_s=e

    Since when do we, as a free society allow others to dictate what we can and cannot take pictures of in our own countries? I would like to see similar pics of this, if not this pic itself, placed all over the internet and the Saudi government can bite me.

  50. hglundahl Says:

    After you have assumed the universe to exist, you then need to assume that you can create models about it, and that models with predictive capability are better than those that are not.

    Predictive models of lesser things – like sicknesses and heavy loads falling or fastmoving bodies crashing – are quite enough for survival value.

    As for truth about universe, one with less predictive value – like not being able to predict if God will do another sun miracle after Joshua, Crucifixion, Fatima 1917, like not being able to predict when God will stop finally the daily movement of the heavens around earth, is quite as likely to be true as a model predicting actually the laws of Kepler.

  51. Steve Says:

    Thunderf00t, this is the first time I have ever been able to tell you anything and in particular, 1 thing.

    I have watched all you you-tube contributions, twice (at least).

    You are my hero!!!

    Thank you mate, for all you have done for science, truth, logic, and reason, and thank you for all you have done to help open the eyes of the blind.

    You have touched far more lives than you will ever know!!
    .

  52. Kervin Says:

    God is the judge of all men. What we say about others does not affect Him.
    He will judge us for our own personal life, whatever that may mean.

    • TheRel Says:

      You’re right, but for the wrong reason; what we say about God/Jehovah/Yaweh/He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named doesn’t affect it, because it doesn’t exist.

    • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

      What we say about others is judged by Him, since it relates to the Commandment we Catholics number as VIII: thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

      • Anonymous Says:

        You and Kervin are entitled to your beliefs. Just don’t ask me to share them.

        • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

          I am not presuming you share them.

          God has his rights on you, not I.

          That said, for us Christians speaking unnecessarily or falsely against another person is a sin that God abhors.

          How is it that you avoid it? Does, on your view, evolution avoid it or abhor it? Or is it a question of dignity?

          • Adrian Says:

            Sorry, I forgot to leave my name the last time I posted.

            If you are not asking me to share your beliefs, I am thankful and send the same respect to you.

            If you are asking how I avoid the concept of sin, my answer lies in the simple argument that if God does not exist, then there is no sin. There can be wrongdoings against your neighbour, for example, which will lead to some sort of backlash in the society in which you live, but wrongdoings against a concept like God oftentimes have no backlash save for whatever punishments a society that believes in God would mete out. In this case it is not God doing the retribution, but misguided people believing they are working for God. A prime example of this is the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Therefore, if God is not punishing me directly (which in my views will never happen as he does not exist) the concept of sin does not come from the concept of God but is a tool of man more than anything else.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            If so, how do you decide what is wrongdoing?

          • Adrian Says:

            What prevents anyone from robbing a bank, for instance? Or killing someone in the street? Living in a society entails acceptance of certain consequences for our actions. Before taking a course of action, consideration of the consequences within the society you live in dictates which action is the most intelligent.

            The terms “right” and “wrong” are abstracts that vary from society to society and cannot, therefore, be considered absolutes that apply to all human beings. So to answer your question, I would look at the factual results of the choices I make, not the supposed outcomes that are based upon belief.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            That was exactly the basis of any abortionist now or any camp guard under the Third Reich.

            They looked at “right” and “wrong” as conventions, as something where one has to obey society for realistic reasons.

            We consider any particular wrongdoing wrong even if we think we can get away with it by confessing after doing but before dying, and abstaining from it right even if it does not save one from Hell due to other sins.

            To us it is not any speculation on the outcome that decides which is which.

          • Adrian Says:

            …and yet the crusades were considered “right” by Christians without considering the long term consequences of their actions. (If you are wondering what they are, look at the middle east today and its religious wars. These are all carry overs from the time when it was “right” to kill non-Christians.) The same goes for witch burnings or even today’s Pope who refuses to endorse the use of condoms even though his endorsement will save lives. (And, ironically enough, reduce the amount of abortions in society.)

            The terms “right” and “wrong” are not as black and white as your argument supposes. Your use of issues like abortion and Nazi crimes ignores the fact that these people, too, (in the case of abortion I speak to both sides of the argument) have not considered the long term destructive consequences of their actions, nor does it acknowledge that there are benefits to even the Nazi’s. (Just to be clear: I am not a Nazi supporter. Far from it, but I cannot label the Nazi movement as being “bad” or “wrong.” Rather I would label it “idiotic” and “short-sighted” based on the results of the movement. However, the return of the German economy after WWI cannot be dismissed easily. Would you label the employment that the Nazi’s offered as “wrong”? How about the Pope? He did bless the Nazi movement, after all. Was he “wrong”?)

            Being that “right” and “wrong” cannot be easily identified, it has to be understood that the terms do not exist universally, but subjectively and therefore cannot be applied to any moral argument based upon the concept of one divine law applying to all. “God” therefore, does not exist as a universal force but rather a subjective one, existing only for the individual as opposed to the masses. This being the case, the concept of organised religion fails, as does its interpretations of the concept of “God.” In short, if God exists for you, fine. However, I consider the traditional views of God’s existence as being shortsighted.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            and yet the crusades were considered “right” by Christians without considering the long term consequences of their actions. (If you are wondering what they are, look at the middle east today and its religious wars. These are all carry overs from the time when it was “right” to kill non-Christians.)

            It was not considered right to kill non-Christians unless they actually attacked the faith – usually in battle. Or tyranny over Christians.

            However, the return of the German economy after WWI cannot be dismissed easily. Would you label the employment that the Nazi’s offered as “wrong”?

            Noone succeeds in being wrong about exactly everything. Employment does not excuse killing of innocents.

            How about the Pope? He did bless the Nazi movement, after all.

            No, he blessed one or two other fascisms (Spain, Austria), which were not into killing innocents, but not Nazism. The Concordate was not a blessing of nazism, it was an internetional agreement between the Vatican and Germany.

            I am not a Nazi supporter. Far from it, but I cannot label the Nazi movement as being “bad” or “wrong.” Rather I would label it “idiotic” and “short-sighted” based on the results of the movement.

            So, if Hitler had succeeded, you would have been in favour?

          • Adrian Says:

            “It was not considered right to kill non-Christians unless they actually attacked the faith – usually in battle. Or tyranny over Christians.”

            What is tyrrany? Modern day muslim extremists consider the world under a perverse western tyrrany and so feel justified in attacking innocents. You see, your statement contains the magic word “unless” which automatically blurs the perception of “right” and “wrong.” This takes us back to the point I made about there being no absolutes, such as the concept of “God” which must be absolute in order to exist.

            “Noone succeeds in being wrong about exactly everything. Employment does not excuse killing of innocents.”

            You are missing the point. You have labelled the Nazi movement as “wrong” by pointing out that they considered “right” and “wrong” to be conventions of thought without basis in reality. However, by so doing you ignore the fact that the Nazis were more of a problem in the reality (as opposed to the ideals of philosophical conundrums,) despite the benefits of the movement. (You’re right, employment does not excuse the killing of innocents, but it is not an excuse my argument is looking for. My argument illustrates that the concept of “right” and “wrong” becomes irrelevant when presented with the concepts of “action” and “consequence.”)

            “No, he blessed one or two other fascisms (Spain, Austria), which were not into killing innocents, but not Nazism. The Concordate was not a blessing of nazism, it was an internetional agreement between the Vatican and Germany.”

            So, in your view, it is “right” to bless fascism then? Remember, the fascism of Hitler did not start murdering innocents until the final days of the war. Fascism seemed “right” when it first began, but ultimately lead to bloodshed. Is it “right” to start on the path to bloodshed?

            “So, if Hitler had succeeded, you would have been in favour?”

            Hindsight is always 20/20. As I have stated, I consider Hitler’s bid for power “idiotic” and “shortsighted.” Hitler could never have succeeded. The lessons learned from the mistake of attempting to control the population as he did illustrate the shortcomings of his philosophy. If I were a German in the 1930’s (a point I believe your question was meant to convey) I would still oppose him, as I question all authority or statements I find poorly thought out. For instance, I would question the entire idea of a German world order simply on the basis that the supply lines for troops meant to enforce this world order would be too long. Also, the lies Hitler told came to the forefront eventually, as all lies do. You cannot base a philosophy on lies. This is why the internet today is so important. Is it “right” and/or “wrong” that I am questioning? No. It is a more realistic approach. I question the real world results of action. Hitler fails because of reality, not “right” and “wrong.”

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            Hitler failed because of reality, not because of right and wrong. Is failure right or wrong? Is it the only wrong? Or is killing innocents wrong as well?

            Spanish Fascism did not lead TO bloodshed but away FROM it, to a more peaceful democracy than the one Azaña stood for.

            Austrian Fascism led to failure, but not to bloodshed, except if you consider its Heimwehr as having provoked the rising which was quelled in the blood of 300 – 500 streetfighting workers. Since its second leader Schuschnigg sat in Dachau with socialists, it ultimately led to post-war great coalitions between Conservatives and Socialists.

            Both of them led to better conditions for workers than during 19th C. (and Nazism did that as well, but that is no excuse for its … precisely: wrongs).

          • Adrian Says:

            “Spanish Fascism did not lead TO bloodshed but away FROM it, to a more peaceful democracy than the one Azaña stood for.”

            You are aware that it came about from the murder of Jose Castillo and several years of war, yes? What about the execution of 130,000 civilians by the fascist elements? You also don’t acknowledge the fact that Franco himself was not Fascist and reduced the power of the fascist Falange by combining it with the Carlists to form a new party that was not, in fact fascist. He actually eliminated the fascism that brought about so many deaths. The facts do not support your argument here.

            But what were the consequences of Franco’s rule that was supported initially by fascists? Well, aside from the thousands of executions, suppression of women’s rights (which continued until the 1970’s), the decolonization of several parts of the former Spanish Empire, and the suppression of democracy. So, in your mind, this is “right” because it was supported by the Pope?

            “Austrian Fascism led to failure, but not to bloodshed, except…”

            Except the capital punishment crimes that forced judges to mete out death penalties for crimes like property damage within three days? Instead of being anti-Semetic the Austrofascists focussed on the Turks, promoting a sense that the “Cultural Bolsheviks” posed a threat to Austria, much like the Jews were targetted in Germany. Given the chance do you not believe that the Austrofascists would not have put Turks into similar death camps as the German Nazis did to the Jews? The only reason there was no bloodshed was because it failed in the face of German Nazi threats.

            “Both of them led to better conditions for workers…”

            Uh… no. Under Franco worker’s wages went down, unions were made powerless, strikes forbidden, and worker’s health and state provisions were unheard of. In Austria unemployment was at 25%, unemployment benefits were cut off and they even banned international trade. How does any of this benefit workers?

            You support the Papacy without question, and that is why you cannot see the consequences of your blind loyalty. The Catholic church supported these movements because the Fascists supported a rise to power for the Catholic church. It was political support that the church endorsed, not idealogical. It was a huge mistake on the part of an organization that claims it does not make mistakes. Action: Support the church without question and make excuses for its shortcomings. Consequence: Be forced to ignore facts, hide them, or blatanly lie about them and thus further discredit the Catholic organization, which in turn leads to more people turning away from the faith.

            In all honesty, there are only two consequences open to Catholicism after all that the church has done: Change or fall.

          • hglundahl Says:

            1) By Spanish Fascism I refer primarily to Franco’s rising – which is what the Pope blessed and where Carlists participated. I consider myself a Carlist in principle.

            The Spanish War started when Azaña failed to punish murderers of Monarchist Parlamentarian Calvo Sotelo and of Fascist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera.

            I do not know what kind of “womens’ rights” Franco is supposed to have abolished but f it includes either abortion or a right to state paid day care for children so ma can get a work, I am for Franco’s abolshing it.

            2) Where the heck do you get your info on Austrofascism from? If it was the wikipedia, it must have been a damaged moment. Austria had really no Turkish minority whatsoever when Dollfuss and Schuschnigg were ruling, and the Gipsy minority was not threatened by them but by the Nazi and probably Protestant (he came from a city with Calvinist majority in former Hungarian parts of Austria) Tobias Portzschy. Now, Tobias Portzschy was put into jail for Nazi rallies, and he was not liberated till the Anschluss.

            Turkisch “Gastarbeiter” have only existed far later, when the successors of Christlich Soziale Partei were ÖVP – Österreichische Volkspartei, one part of Große Koalizion along with the SPÖ, Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs. When I was a child a Turk could stay exactly so long in Austria as was possible for doing a work without getting Austrian citizenship or social rights like old age pensions along with the wage – and then his visa expired.

            “a sense that the ‘Cultural Bolsheviks’ posed a threat to Austria”

            As they did. The reaction was simply forbidding the social democratic party. No death camp tactics from Austrofascism.

            “Both of them led to better conditions for workers…”

            Uh… no. Under Franco worker’s wages went down,

            You forgot the part of “…as compared to 19th C.” It is possible that parts of Spain had better wages in 36 than in 46. Especially as Spain was initially starving after the war. But probably they were better again in 56 and certainly by 66 (though in return small farms had been brought out of business).

            unions were made powerless, strikes forbidden

            In return for which one chamber was elected by representatives for the lines of business.

            and worker’s health and state provisions were unheard of

            Totally a lie. Mussolini and Hitler would not have given the help unless Franco had agreed to do sth for the social welfare of the workers. And he did promise and he did keep his promise.

            In Austria unemployment was at 25%

            Just possible, if it was even higher in the 20’s.

            unemployment benefits were cut off …

            But begging was perhaps no offense?

            and they even banned international trade

            Maybe to help workers by ridding them of foreign competition, if so. (Were do you get that info from? Your take on “death camps for Turks” does not recommend your source as reliable). Do you think US workers could use tolls on “made in China”?

            You support the Papacy without question, and that is why you cannot see the consequences of your blind loyalty.

            Nonsense. I do not support the latest Popes very much at all – unless when they continue earlier doctrine.

            It was a huge mistake on the part of an organization that claims it does not make mistakes.

            When and where does the Church claim that? On exactly what level? Only on the doctrinal level. I link here to an extract from St Robert Bellarmine with my translation:

            http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.fr/2009/10/pseudoquote-identified-what-de-romano.html

            (Scroll down below the blog header, which is about optical equivalence of two astronomic theories as far as our observations are concerned.)

          • Adrian Says:

            “By Spanish Fascism I refer primarily to Franco’s rising – ”

            This is irrelevant. It was supported by fascists. The bottom line is that it was blessed by the Pope and resulted in the executions of thousands of civilians. Tell me, is the execution of innocents “right” or “wrong” in your book?

            “I do not know what kind of “womens’ rights” Franco is supposed to have abolished ” Under Franco, who espoused a traditional view that women were meant to be keepers of the home, women could not serve in positions of authority, such as judges for example, women could be imprisoned for leaving abusive relationships and could not even have a bank account without the permission of their father or husband. Look it up.

            “Austria had really no Turkish minority whatsoever ” I never claimed they did. I said the Fascists were using the Turks as a demonified people in order to unite the Austrians against something under the Fascist flag. The Nazis in Germany did the same thing with the Jews. If it had been allowed to continue (and bear in mind this is a hypothetical question) do you think it would have been any different for the Turks if Austrian Fascists got a hold of them?

            “As they did. The reaction was simply forbidding the social democratic party. No death camp tactics from Austrofascism.” There were no death camps becdause there wasn’t any opportunity. Germany took over Austria before that could happen. It’s incredibly naive to believe that a group of people who have been identified as a threat (as you have done here) would not be eliminated to prevent that threat from becoming a real “problem.”

            “You forgot the part of “…as compared to 19th C.” Ok, let me rephrase it for you then. Under Franco wages increased somewhat, but against the rising costs of living, the standard of living went down. All wages everywhere increased. That’s how economies work. The trick for governments is to make sure the wages increase enough to allow for a decent standard of living. Franco failed in this.

            “unions were made powerless, strikes forbidden (my post)

            In return for which one chamber was elected by representatives for the lines of business.”

            So in other words, it’s “right” to remove the right to defend your rights to protest, strike and stand up for yourself if you allow a bureaucracy to do it for you? So much for democracy.

            “But begging was perhaps no offense?” So what is the point you are trying to make here? Please clarify.

            “Do you think US workers could use tolls on “made in China”?” If you arbatrarily and immediately make changes to any system you run the risk of collapsing that system entirely. By suddenly cutting off international trade, the Austrian fascists demonstrated complete ineptitude at handling economic crisis. In relation to what we should do today about China, I think an incrementally increasing import tax should even things out. It’s far more responsible than heavy handed fascist tactics. So tell me, then, is it “right” to have people in charge of a country that cannot handle its economic problems?

            “I do not support the latest Popes very much at all” Yes, I went over your blog, (just a suggestion: I realize it’s a blog, but you might want to remove all the references to yourself as it detracts from the facts) and because you differentiate between a subjective validation of who is entitled to be a pope and the acceptance of who the church says is the pope, you only strengthen my argument that there is no “right” and “wrong.” After all, who is “right”? You for rejecting some Popes from your point of view, or the church, who from their point of view have the sole monopoly on the recognition of God’s workers on Earth? You see it gets muddy. Trust to “action” and “consequence” over “right” and “wrong” and the facts will support you a lot better.

          • hglundahl Says:

            The bottom line is that it was blessed by the Pope and resulted in the executions of thousands of civilians.

            No. It was blessed by the Pope, it resulted in executions of a lot of war criminals.

            Women’s rights situation under Franco – not quite ideal, but acceptable.

            I said the Fascists were using the Turks as a demonified people in order to unite the Austrians against something under the Fascist flag. The Nazis in Germany did the same thing with the Jews.

            Except that Germany as well as Austria had a very clear and important Jewish minority – unlike the England of Shakespear, when he wrote about Shylock.

            If it had been allowed to continue (and bear in mind this is a hypothetical question) do you think it would have been any different for the Turks if Austrian Fascists got a hold of them?

            The point is, Austria had no Turks to get hold of, and Austrofascism had no expansionist views to the places where there were Turks to get hold of. And even if – no, Austrofascism was not quite OK with the ways Jews showed in diverse positions, but were no where near persecuting them.

            Reason: Austrofascism was Catholic and took the Catholic Catechism seriously. Nazism was secularist.

            There were no death camps becdause there wasn’t any opportunity. Germany took over Austria before that could happen. It’s incredibly naive to believe that a group of people who have been identified as a threat (as you have done here) would not be eliminated to prevent that threat from becoming a real “problem.”

            Terribly naive to a secularist. Which is why it was secularists in Germany and not Catholics in Austria who set about “eliminating” in order to “prevent the threat from becoming a real ‘problem’.”

            Which is precisely the difference between Catholicism and Secularism that set me asking the question that started our debate in teh first place.

            Under Franco wages increased somewhat, but against the rising costs of living, the standard of living went down.

            Not according to the histories I have consulted, except the first decade or so. It went up again, thanks to support from Argentina and trade therewith, and thanks to tourism.

            So in other words, it’s “right” to remove the right to defend your rights to protest, strike and stand up for yourself if you allow a bureaucracy to do it for you? So much for democracy.

            The chamber in question was elected by democratic processes. But of course, if you do prefer the right to defend oneself rather than be defended by laws in Parliament … that is not quite wrong and it applies to more things than just trade unions.

            So what is the point you are trying to make here? Please clarify.

            The point is: between two jobs workers were not starved to death.

            You clarify your points about:
            – Austria cutting off international trade ineptly – with source as to what you claim Austria did
            – my blog having too much references to me – each of my articles is signed, but apart from that it is not very much of me in it

            Oh, you mean the hglwrites blog? I used two three messages to go about one theft and other kinds of persecution against a homeless man – and it is not my main blog.

            As to your last point:

            because you differentiate between a subjective validation of who is entitled to be a pope and the acceptance of who the church says is the pope, you only strengthen my argument that there is no “right” and “wrong.”

            It is precisely because there IS a right and a wrong that one can say that such and such a ruler of whatever community – including Church – deviates too much from what is right to be a true ruler of anything. So, though the validation is “subjective” in the sense that I have no authority to bind anyone else’s conscience about such and such being no real Catholic and tehrefore no real Pope, it is not subjective in the sense of having no objective basis.

            or the church, who from their point of view have the sole monopoly on the recognition of God’s workers on Earth?

            You use the muddy category “recognition of God’s workers on Earth” as well as the very undifferentaited category “God’s workers on Earth”. Be somewhat precise.

            God’s workers can be used as a parallel – for earthly lands – to official and as a parallel to good patriot.

            One can say that such and such is not an US official because the post requires birth as US citizen and the birth certificate is a forgery. That is saying the situation of relevant levels of US is muddy, but that is not saying one has oneself a muddy view of US citizenship. Similar about the Church.

          • Adrian Says:

            “it resulted in executions of a lot of war criminals.”

            And here, again, you prove my point. I identify them as citizens with opinions, you identify them as criminals. Who is “right?” Who is “wrong?” It’s all a matter of opinion. The end result is that thousands were killed needlessly under Franco (who, by your own words was blessed by the Pope, who in turn is supposed to be upholding the commandment of “Thou shalt not kill” as an example of what “right” is) and as a result of those deaths under an iron fist, Spain lagged behind other countries. For instance, Spain was never in the running to be a member of the G-7, but if you look at the countries who are members, you will notice they all abandoned right wing extremism in favour of democracy.

            “not quite ideal, but acceptable”

            If you consider the suppression of half the population, and therefore half the productivity acceptable. Again, this is action and consequence. However, embracing weakness like this only accellerates demise.

            “Except that Germany as well as Austria had a very clear and important Jewish minority” Nobody is denying this. The point is that right wing extremism’s main strength and simultaneously its greatest weakness is the fact that it unites people under the guise of oppression by a group easily percieved as the “others.” In short, this gets people moving, but takes them in a direction of self destruction. Action and consequence.

            “The point is, Austria had no Turks to get hold of.” Sure they did. They were just across the border. Do you think that fascism really cares where they are? How many countries did Hitler invade?

            “Austrofascism was Catholic and took the Catholic Catechism seriously. Nazism was secularist.” What does that mean? You yourself have declared that you do not recognize the structure of the church (in your case,it was the Pope) in some cases. Being “Catholic” therefore has little meaning if the structure of the title has no bearing on the life of the individual.

            “Terribly naive to a secularist. Which is why it was secularists in Germany and not Catholics in Austria who set about “eliminating” in order to “prevent the threat from becoming a real ‘problem’.””

            Are you trying to say that Catholics would never go about eliminating a group of people they percieved as a threat? Have you forgotten about the crusades? Or the witch burnings? My views are hardly naive to those of us who view history from a free thinking point of view.

            “Not according to the histories I have consulted, except the first decade or so. It went up again, thanks to support from Argentina and trade therewith, and thanks to tourism”

            Compared to which country? Britain? The U.S.? Canada? According to the CIA world factbook Spain’s economy didn’t start booming until 15 years ago, long after Franco’s death. (Funny, after he died there was a peaceful transition to democracy. What does that say, considering he had to kill to get into power?)

            “The chamber in question was elected by democratic processes.”

            In a country where women were not allowed to vote? How is this democratic?

            “But of course, if you do prefer the right to defend oneself rather than be defended by laws in Parliament ”

            So you honestly believe that laws always defend everybody? Hitler had laws that segregated and killed Jews. The right to question these laws is more than a right. It is a duty. Funny you can’t see that. Action: Let the government make the decisions for you. Consequence: See our rights and freedoms erode.

            “between two jobs workers were not starved to death.”

            People can work two jobs and still be hungry. Have you been watching the news lately?

            Let me clarify: Cutting off international trade abruptly is inept economical practice. How do I know this? I have the qualifications to be a stock broker.

            “each of my articles is signed, but apart from that it is not very much of me in it”

            Uh, then why did you sign it if they aren’t your words?

            “It is precisely because there IS a right and a wrong”

            This is an assumption. If there were a “right” and “wrong” Borneo headhunters would have stopped their practice almost immediately after it started.

            “such and such a ruler of whatever community – including Church – deviates too much from what is right” Who is to determine what is “right”? You? Me? Osama bin Laden’s ghost?
            The determination of “right” and “wrong” cannot be applied from the perspective of one individual to another’s conscience. The fight against (or for, for that matter) abortion highlights this. From your perspective it is wrong to kill an unborn child, from the perspective of the pro-choice camp (I am not affiliated with either, just FYI) it is wrong to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. These two sides have been going at each other for decades, both sides convinced of their own monopoly on what is “right” with no clear answer either side.

            “You use the muddy category “recognition of God’s workers on Earth” as well as the very undifferentaited category “God’s workers on Earth”. Be somewhat precise.”

            Ok, the church, in its precepts and teachings purports that 1) Christianity is God’s chosen path for us mortals. 2) The church itself, using the Bible as its basis, is the world’s foremost authority on God’s teachings, and 3) all other religious practices, whereas they might come close, are not as close to God as Catholicism. Therefore, the church recognises it’s own clergy alone as being authorities on God, and subsequently, “right” and “wrong.” This entire theory collapses in the wake of all the scandals the church has been through recently, with child abuse and faulty book keeping coming to mind. Catholicism telling the world what is “right” and “wrong” rings hollow to many ears, including my own. This is a consequence of the church’s actions. Nobody likes hypocrisy.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            Scroll down a bit for my answer.

  53. Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

    simply forbidding the social democratic party … I said.

    Actually they had forbidden Communist and Nazi parties before targetting Social Democrats.

    And though there were no death camps, there were camps for … Communists, Nazis and Social Democrats.

  54. Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

    Sure they did. They were just across the border. Do you think that fascism really cares where they are? How many countries did Hitler invade?

    Point can be restated: Hitler was an invader (in Austria too, though part of the populace – all who showed one day – greeted hism as liberator).

    Dollfuß was not an invader, and Turks were not across the border.

    Czechs were – and Czechs are whom they sometimes called “cultural bolsheviks” – and the worst thing done to Czechs was simply getting them sacked from farm works and replacing them by Heimwehr men as new farm hands. About a bit less harsh than governor of Arizona is to Hispanics.

    • Adrian Says:

      “Dollfuß was not an invader, and Turks were not across the border.”

      You miss the point entirely. Once you highlight a certain group of people, in this case the Turks, as being the source of a nation’s problems, which is what the Austrofascists were doing, you target them for attack. Wherever they are in the world, they are automatically wronged by their accusers. That, if you actually look at history, usually snowballs into atrocities committed against that group. (Think witch burnings and crusades. In the case of the crusades, which happened at a much earlier time and with less technology, the enemy did not need to be across one border, because they crossed several to get to them.) This applies to your comment regarding the Czechs too.

      “About a bit less harsh than governor of Arizona is to Hispanics.” I wouldn’t know about that. I am not from there.

      “When Nestorius of Constantinople said St Mary was not “Mother of God” but “Mother of Christ”, the first voicing of the Church’s upcoming condemnation (at Ephesus) was one laymen in the pew crying out “heresy”.”

      Arguing interpretations of scripture does not constitute a denial of authority. Tell me, did the church believe it had God given authority during the inquisition? Or the burning of the Templars? They did what they did because they believed that they were the authorities on what was “right” and what was “wrong.”

      “Child abuse was dealt with very quickly earlier.” Nonsense. If that were true, the Vatican would have allowed the authorities access into their records. They did not.

      “One monk or priest or seminarian touch one but, he was defrocked”

      It was far more than one priest, and getting defrocked is hardly a punishment. You’re just making excuses for them, and I find that disturbing.

      “The problem comes in when the Church changed its discipline to accomodate modern views of responsibility and of what is too harsh.” What about civil responsibility? Does the church acknowledge that, too? It certainly resists it. What gives the church the sole right to mete out justice? Could it be a sense of what is “right” and what is “wrong” based on how the church operates as an autonomous entity, seperate from what is applied to the rest of us mortals? The decision is the decision of the society, but the church usurps this. Is this, in your opinion, “right?”

      • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

        Once you highlight a certain group of people, in this case the Turks, as being the source of a nation’s problems, which is what the Austrofascists were doing, you target them for attack.

        That is not what the Austrofascists were doing with the Turks. That problem was a resolved one, thanks to God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, King John III Sobieski and Eugene of Savoy. Turks were not highlighted as a present source of Austria’s problems, but as a historic parallel to troublemakers like Stalin – much like some leftists use fascism, sometimes not distinguishing Austrofascism from Nazism (like here).

        This applies to your comment regarding the Czechs too.

        The Czechs were highlighting Germans as a cause for 1000 years without national independence. Neither Austrofascists nor even Nazis were into atrocities against Czechs – and Austrofascist policy against Czech Union leaders was retaliation for similar Czech one.

        Arguing interpretations of scripture does not constitute a denial of authority.

        If one calls one’s own patriarch a heretic, it does.

        Child abuse was dealt with very quickly earlier.

        Nonsense. If that were true, the Vatican would have allowed the authorities access into their records. They did not.

        THey saw themselves as competent authority and laicisation as a very diffaming ecclesiastical punishment. And dealt with pederastic and homosexual tendencies very quickly.

        What gives the church the sole right to mete out justice?

        God did. He said “unto me is given all power etc.” and after that He gave the Church the power to make nations His disciples.

        • Adrian Says:

          “Turks were not highlighted as a present source of Austria’s problems, but as a historic parallel to troublemakers”

          That’s just a fancy way of saying it’s ok to look at somebody else as a troublemaker today. In effect all this does is shift the focus from modern day possible solutions to problems over to a perception of people based upon past involvement. In short, you’re making a weak excuse for pointing fingers.

          “– much like some leftists use fascism, sometimes not distinguishing Austrofascism from Nazism (like here).”

          I was wondering when the “leftist” comments were going to start flying. It usually happens when one questions authority to the point that those defending that authority have no argument left and try to alienate the other side by thrusting political references at them. In other words, my argument that the Fascists of Germany and Austria were both attacking third parties to gain popular support with their respective people has merit and could come from any source, but instead of acknowledging that merit, you are choosing to attack the source of the argument, not the argument itself.

          “The Czechs were highlighting Germans as a cause for 1000 years without national independence. Neither Austrofascists nor even Nazis were into atrocities against Czechs – and Austrofascist policy against Czech Union leaders was retaliation for similar Czech one.”

          So, in your argument then, it stands to reason that 1) there is “right” and “wrong” in the world and 2) Two “wrongs” make a “right?”

          “Arguing interpretations of scripture does not constitute a denial of authority.

          If one calls one’s own patriarch a heretic, it does.”

          Not really. Name calling is a far cry from doing anything substantial, like taking active steps to remove the authorotative entity from power.

          “THey saw themselves as competent authority and laicisation as a very diffaming ecclesiastical punishment. And dealt with pederastic and homosexual tendencies very quickly”

          Most criminals see themselves as their best judges. When the crimes were committed, it was a reflection on the whole church, and it was the society the church should answer to, not the church itself.

          “What gives the church the sole right to mete out justice?

          God did. He said “unto me is given all power etc.” and after that He gave the Church the power to make nations His disciples.”

          Now we come to the point in which we will ultimately disagree, and is the basis of this entire conversation. In your views, and correct me if I’m wrong (I know you will, but it’s polite to say so anyway) God is the ultimate authority on what constitutes the perceptions of “right” and “wrong” and yet is limited to (and I use the term “limited” because if he is only working through the Catholic church, then all other faiths only have partial access to the concepts of “right” and “wrong”) the teachings of Catholicism. Yet Catholicism itself is limited in scope, both in population and in philosophy, as its numbers are decreasing all the time and therefore limiting your God’s message.

          You claim that “right” and “wrong” exist, and yet cannot adequately claim what these concepts actually mean outside of your religion’s teachings, a religion that does not relate well universally. (If it related well universally I and many others like me, would be Catholic. I can assure you I am not. In my views there is no God as you describe him.) We have gone back and forth for a couple of days now (and I have enjoyed it a lot) but if either of us are looking for what the answer actually is, all we have to do is wait. If you are correct, then Catholicism will make a remarkable recovery and if I am correct, the concepts of “right” and “wrong” will make way for a more well thought out approach to decision making.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            I am saying that the on pointing fingers is you.

          • Adrian Says:

            Like I said, you are entitled to your beliefs, just don’t ask me to share them.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            I am not as much asking you to share them as explaining that you are wrong.

            Not just about Austrofascism, but about there being no War Criminals in Spain to punish for Franco. Do look up Red Terror – anyone!

          • Adrian Says:

            I am not incorrect in what I say. If you choose not to believe me, that is your choice too, just as you choose to overlook inconvenient points that contradict your beliefs and your defence of fascism.

            Quite frankly, I don’t really care what you choose to believe, nor do I care what you think of my beliefs. I just enjoy getting people with strong opinions to talk about their beliefs as publicly as possible to allow any readers to make up their own minds on the topic at hand. You have done so very well. Thank you.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            I give sources. Do you?

            To me you sound like an echo of a teacher to whom all that mattered about “fascism” was:

            1) Franco and Hitler
            2) Teruel and Staligrad, but assigning the culprit role for long protracted battle and great loss of human blood differently
            3) Auschwitz and killing of Jews but not the killing of priests by Reds
            4) Auschwitz again and killing of gipsies but not Austrofascism protecting the gipsies from the Nazis.

            In other words a very unbalanced type, like a lot of teachers of history when it comes to presenting earlier epochs they do not like.

            And if he was working class he might have been more upset by Franco and Dollfuss actually shooting at workers during their uprisings and less by Hitler killing civilian Jews and Gipsies than an upperclass teacher.

            Some people only repeat what they learnt in school.

            And insofar as you did research yourself, it was partly erronoeous, and partly flawed by your attaching it to the general idea of what fascism was that you get from such a teacher.

            What unites fascisms for me is the common struggle against both Socialism and (though to a lesser degree) Capitalism as it existed in the XIXth C. What mars some of them was precisely attacks on innocent civilians, first by Hitler, then though less by Mussolini and some but not all other allies he had during WW-II.

            And Austrofascism and Franquismo (as well as Estado Novo) were not even allies with Hitler in WW-II.

          • Adrian Says:

            Hmmm… I was wondering why you didn’t respond. It looks like my last post was eaten. Ok. here it is again.

            Without looking up many of the the actual URL’s again, here are my sources in a nutshell:

            The History Channel, whose sources have to be credible as if they weren’t, they would go out of business. Check out their website.

            I found a few articles on Pope Pius XII that detailed how he supported the atrocities committed in the name of fascism. Here’s one: http://articles2u.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/pope-pius-xii.pdf

            My history books from my high school and university days also played a role in my opinions on this matter, but don’t ask me for publishing info as I never read that part of the books.

            And yes, I even consulted Wikipedia, who lists a number of sources. The information in Wikipedia supported the other articles I found, so I see no reason to automatically dismiss the information there.

            You also might want to check out the freetruthwebsites and their sources as well.

            Now, I have no doubt in my mind that you will refute my sources, presented as they are (like I said I have no interest in presenting them to you as I would if this were a university paper, as there is no point) as you have no inkling of listening to reason when it is presented to you.

            “To me you sound like an echo of a teacher to whom all that mattered about “fascism” was:

            1) Franco and Hitler”

            I am sure to you I sound like a lot of things, but if I am an echo it is only an echo of questioning. That is why you are having difficulty with me. You can’t take the questioning of what you are teaching.

            If your teachings cannot handle the questions brought on by rational thinking, perhaps you should rethink your stance.

            As for Franco and Hitler, you do debate supporting Franco, I should point out. Dismissing this is only an example of blind obedience to a cause. Rational thinking will always question. By putting the two side by side you concede my point that the Pope himself, who supported Franco, cannot define “right” and “wrong” and therefore has no idea of the concept.

            “2) Teruel and Staligrad, but assigning the culprit role for long protracted battle and great loss of human blood differently”

            Did I state that there weren’t atrocities on the other side of the battle lines? No. Why not? Because the focus of the conversation was on the Pope and the fascists, not their enemies. By trying to deflect attention from the atrocities of one to the atrocities of another you are, in effect, attempting to cover up the fact that there were wrongs committed by the side you support. This is a lie, and what I have come to expect from those who do not think their stances through adequately enough.

            “3) Auschwitz and killing of Jews but not the killing of priests by Reds”

            Again this is about deflection as the previous point was. I am curious, however. You claim to support the concept of “right” and “wrong” yet this argument you present here seems to support, (being that you defend Fascism) the idea of “two wrongs make a right.” Is that the case?

            “4) Auschwitz again and killing of gipsies but not Austrofascism protecting the gipsies from the Nazis.”

            Which went the way of the dodo as soon as the Austrian Fascists welcomed Hitler with open arms during the Aunschluss.

            “In other words a very unbalanced type, like a lot of teachers of history when it comes to presenting earlier epochs they do not like.”

            Or people who teach history, as you presume to do, from a political/religious point of view that are presented with more modern facts they don’t like?

            “And if he was working class he might have been more upset by Franco and Dollfuss actually shooting at workers during their uprisings and less by Hitler killing civilian Jews and Gipsies than an upperclass teacher.”

            Who is “he” here? The teacher? Do you have issues with a teacher in your past or something? Besides, shooting and killing innocents upsets a number of people. What point are you trying to make? Please attempt to be clear.

            “Some people only repeat what they learnt in school.”

            Some people only repeat what they learned in church or Fascist literature. Given the choice, I’ll choose school because there, at least with a good teacher, one learns to question what one has learned and not accept it idly.

            “And insofar as you did research yourself, it was partly erronoeous, and partly flawed by your attaching it to the general idea of what fascism was that you get from such a teacher.”

            This is just your opinion, and like I have stated, it doesn’t matter to me at all.

            “What unites fascisms for me is the common struggle against both Socialism and (though to a lesser degree) Capitalism as it existed in the XIXth C. What mars some of them was precisely attacks on innocent civilians, first by Hitler, then though less by Mussolini and some but not all other allies he had during WW-II.”

            Well, perhaps you should look into other aspects of your concept of “right” and “wrong” and ask yourself these questions from your own perspective:

            “Is God absolute good or absolute evil?”
            “Is the Devil absolute good or absolute evil?”
            “Who am I following when I lie to myself?”

            “And Austrofascism and Franquismo (as well as Estado Novo) were not even allies with Hitler in WW-II.” Irrelevant. They were dangerous and also supported by a church who should have known the difference between “right” and “wrong” if such concepts existed.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            Looked up the link:
            http://articles2u.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/pope-pius-xii.pdf

            “A Vatican Clergy blessing the Italian Fascist Army on its way to commit war crimes in Ethiopia”
            ________________________________
            Church men do bless troops. Because they are risking death. Just as teh Church blesses other dying people. Or such risking martyrdom.
            ________________________________
            “The Vatican is in the process of beatifying Pope Pius XII to sainthood despite the well known fact that he was part and parcel of the Italian Fascists who perpetrated untold crimes including genocide in Ethiopia. It is also a matter of public record that the Pope had sided not only with Mussolini but also with the Nazis who committed the holocaust against six million Jews.”
            _________________________________
            The phrases “known fact” and “a matter of public record” are pure lies.
            Pope Pius XII sided with Truman, secretly, and saved Jews, also secretly. He was successor of Pius XI who had condemned Nazi atrocities already before the War (Eugenism, Euthanasia for instance) in Mit brennender Sorge – which actually is a matter of public record.
            _________________________________
            “Authors of high repute including Avro Manhattan, Sylvia Pankhurst, Paulos Gnogno, and many others have put on record that the Vatican was fully complicit with the Italian Fascists in the crime against Ethiopia.”
            _________________________________
            Avro Manhattan is a fraud. The Anti-Serb death Camp Jasenovac was not run with Cardinal Stepinac’ blessing, as Avro Manhattan claims elsewhere, but by an excommunicated ex-Franciscan among others, whom Avro characterises as a Franciscan without mentioning he was thrown out of both Church and Franciscan order.

            One proof that Pius XII was not in full cooperation with Mussolini in Ethiopia is that one of Mussolini’s excuses was Ethiopian atrocities against women (recognise that from Afghanistan propaganda?) and one of them was taking brides by force.

            A tradition in which eventually the bride is usually given a chance to give real consent or really refuse. Though refusal is usually frowned on.

            Now in 1943, during war in Ethiopia, Vatican got cases for marriage annulations, more than one coming from Ethiopia on account of forced marriage.

            Pope Pius XII or his rota (marriage court) said “no, annulment cannot be given since forced marriage cannot be proven”.

            That is very much not cooperating with Mussolini’s propaganda against Ethiopian “barbarism”.
            __________________________________
            … And Austrofascism and Franquismo (as well as Estado Novo) were not even allies with Hitler in WW-II.
            ______________________________________
            ” Irrelevant. They were dangerous and also supported by a church who should have known the difference between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ if such concepts existed.”
            ______________________________________
            “Dangerous” does not mean wrong, by itself. Depends on to whom. Like good policemen are dangerous to bad criminals. And your attitude of lumping together those with Hitler is precisely the result of a teacher who gives a very lopsided account of Fascism, concentrating only on Hitler and Franco and when it comes to Franco only on how much blood was shed. Probably painted Azaña as legitimate too, even though he was an usurper as recently as 1931 and even then a declared and since then provenly dangerous but also unjust and bloody enemy of the Church.

          • Adrian Says:

            Like I said, I have no doubt you were going to refute my sources, and you have done so based upon your opinion.

            In your rebuttal you prove two things:

            1) You have an opinion that is justified in your mind by the perception of fact, whether or not that fact exists is a point for debate, but is off topic for this discussion.

            and

            2) The issue of the existence of “right” and “wrong” are not so clear as you would have them made out to be. (You spent your entire response to me making excuses and expressing opinions, which is what your political affiliations are purely based upon. None of this proves the existence of “right” and “wrong” and accomplishes, in fact, the opposite.) However, it cannot be denied that the “actions” of the Pope during the time period in question have lead to “consequences” for the church.

            Nothing more.

            Here’s a piece of free advice: Stop trying to justify yourself and your views to the world. Those of us who agree with you already do and those of us who don’t never will.

          • hglundahl Says:

            Oh, sorry, but I just looked up Italy’s engagement in Ethiopia today.

            It seems that in 1937, from February to November, there were atrocities such as the document alluded to, even to Ethiopian clergy.

            However, that was due to an attempt by two patriots to murder Vice-Roy Graziani. It is not at all likely that the Vatican had anything to do with it.

            What I said about annulments in 1943 is not a question of opinion either, I had looked it up in AAS for that year (AAS = Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and back then annulment cases were so few that they got about a page or two per year or sometimes half a page. No, was not a matter of opinion either.

            I also stated Pius XII helped save Jewish lives, if you will google Eugenio Pio Zolli or Israel Zoller or Israel Zolli, you will get a witness, not an opinion of mine:

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

            If you want a Jewish journalist for that, take Allessandro Ramati, take his book The Assisi Underground, he plays down the part of the Pope but does state what the bishop of Assisi and the Franciscan Padre Ruffino Niccacci did.

            And if you will look up at least one of the biographies of Raoul Wallenberg, you will know that Franco’s Spain gave visas to any Jew who claied to have ancestors expulsed from Spain and who either shew a fluency of Judezmo/Ladino or a Key from a Spanish House (the ambassador would of course know what XVth C Spanish keys looked like). No, that is no opinion of mine, it is fact. However, Ashkenazim may not be eager for this fact to be known, since Franco did not extend the same favour to them.

            I have not been making excuses. I have been attacking your knowledge of facts about Fascism as well as about Pius XII as inadequate.

            I do say right and wrong exist. But my last post was not trying to prove the fact, it was about answering your immense prejudice.

            I do also say that your labelling of certain régimes as “dangerous” (even in absence of any wrong done by them) shows how you go wrong by wanting to replace “right” with “farsighted” and “wrong” with “shortsighted”.

            Those are not any easier than right and wrong to tell apart in any given case, furthermore they depend on right and wrong in order to be told, logically.

            But even more, they help you to excuse doing actual wrong to memories of actual people by your own supposed duty to be farsighted for them in hindsight.

            Neither of us is now dealing with an Austrofascist or Franquist régime and trying to decide whether it is right or wrong, shortsighted or farsighted to keep it. We are posterity and in a position to judge Dollfuss and Franco for what they actually did rather than for what they might do in the future, and you bungle it by speculating on what they would have done in a non-realised previously futurable that did not become the real future of that past.

            One more advice, for free if you are bright enough to take it, do not give credit to allegations from Avro Manhattan or any other Chick Tracts writer about the Roman Catholic Church.

            You may take some hints from John Todd about Illuminiati if you like, even though it was Chick Tracts that published his testimony, but not from Chick Tracts any writer about Roman Catholicism. And that includes very much Avro Manhattan. Look him up.

          • Adrian Says:

            Okay, the first half of your response is all about refuting the fact that what you are presenting is your opinion, supported by statements that may or may not be accurate all in the name of supporting your claim that the Pope was justified in supporting fascism. All of this is besides the point. You have yet to prove the existence of “right” and “wrong.”

            “I do say right and wrong exist. But my last post was not trying to prove the fact, it was about answering your immense prejudice.”

            Immense prejudice about what, exactly? Catholicism (a large number of my family is Catholic, btw) or Fascism, which as you have admitted, will highlight certain ethnic groups, be they Jewish or Turkish depending upon the style of fascism? A fascist calling another prejudicial about their views on fascism is hypocritical. Crying foul over my stance simply because you disagree with it is one thing, but irrational accusations only hurt your credibility.

            Besides, this entire debate was about the existence of “right” and “wrong” as concepts, not your love for fascism or the Pope. Quite frankly, your argument focusses more on these issues, which are quite personal to you but not relevant to the discussion at hand. By attempting to divert the focus of the conversation to one you are more passionate about, you display a typical tactic used so often by those who are out of points to make on the subject at hand.

            “wanting to replace “right” with “farsighted” and “wrong” with “shortsighted”. The terms “right” and “wrong” are subjective analysis whereas the terms “farsighted” and “shortsighted” convey the concept of people actually thinking ahead to possible outcomes of their actions. There is a big difference between the two, which is why I use them. A pity you do not understand this.

            “Those are not any easier than right and wrong to tell apart in any given case,” Tell that to an economist. Or a meteorologist. Or any scientist, for that matter. You see, these people think in terms of actions and consequences. However, if you were to ask them if it were “right” that Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast or if it were “wrong” that the recession hit in 2008, you would get funny looks.

            “furthermore they depend on right and wrong in order to be told, logically.” Please clarify this point.

            “But even more, they help you to excuse doing actual wrong to memories of actual people by your own supposed duty to be farsighted for them in hindsight.”

            How so?

            “and you bungle it by speculating on what they would have done in a non-realised”

            Ah, but the atrocities of Franco are documented, and Austria did welcome Hitler with open arms. Non- realised? Are you saying that we have to give fascism another chance to kill innocents to see that it is far too destructive to allow again? Tsk. So much for learning from history, pal. (Again, the conversation focusses on your attempted justification of fascism and not the real debate, but what the hell…)

            Being that you ignored my advice in the last post, I’ll ignore yours as well and make up my own mind about who to believe.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            “Immense prejudice about what, exactly? Catholicism (a large number of my family is Catholic, btw) or Fascism, which as you have admitted, will highlight certain ethnic groups, be they Jewish or Turkish depending upon the style of fascism?”

            About both. About Fascism for including Austrofascism in the ethno-targetting fascisms. Austria had been allied to the Turks recently (WW-I, remember) and Turkey was no longer under The High Porch any more than Germany is still udner Hitler.

            And about Catholicism for talking about Pius XII “supporting Fascism” which in the Italian case he did not quite do, and especially for taking the word of a notorious Anticatholic like Avro Manhattan about it. He was for certain fascisms and against others. Notably he was very much against Hitlerism.

            “Besides, this entire debate was about the existence of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ as concepts, not your love for fascism or the Pope.”

            It started out that way. Hitler’s atrocities against civilians are relevant for that debate. Lumping Franco and Dollfuss with Hitler – which I have seen you do – makes to my mind a debate on historical exactitude more urgent with you, and that is the debate I have been taken the last few days of it.

            “but the atrocities of Franco are documented”

            No. The atrocities he revenged are documented. Being severe in punishment of atrocious crime is not necessarily an atrocity.

            “Austria did welcome Hitler with open arms.”

            Austrofascists did not. Not people like the von Trapp family singers. Not people like Kurt von Schuschnigg (successor of Dollfuss), not … a lot of others either. Austrians who shouted hail that day included very many Nazis, some of whom the Austrofascists had previously put into prison.

            “Are you saying that we have to give fascism another chance to kill innocents to see that it is far too destructive to allow again?”

            Franco and Dollfuss were not about killing innocents. Hitler’s régime was, and Azaña’s régime was. Dollfuss opposed Hitler, Schuschnigg opposed Hitler. Franco opposed Azaña. Some of the other generals on his side (Yagüe, Goering) headed troops some of which committed atrocities, his troops did not. Azaña started the war by allowing atrocities against Catholics and Conservatives or presumed such to go on. After 39, atrocities against civilians not engaged in war crimes on Azañas side nor engaged in plans of bringing Azaña and his likes back to power ceased.

            “the conversation focusses on your attempted justification of fascism”

            No, not of fascism. Of Austrofascism, of Franquismo but more so Carlismo, and partly, but only partly of Italian Fascism. I am not a fan of Graziani, for instance.
            _____________________________
            Those are not any easier than right and wrong to tell apart in any given case, …

            “Tell that to an economist. Or a meteorologist. Or any scientist, for that matter. You see, these people think in terms of actions and consequences.”

            Economists are not dealing with science. Meteorologists are hardly all that scientific. And they are not dealing with human decisions.

            furthermore they depend on right and wrong in order to be told, logically.

            “Please clarify this point.”

            If you don’t know what IS wrong, you don’t know when something GOES wrong and cannot judge the value of consequences.

          • Adrian Says:

            “Austria had been allied to the Turks recently ”

            Austria yes. The fascists in Austria, no. Don’t deliberately confuse the two. It’s the same as lying.

            “And about Catholicism for talking about Pius XII … very much against Hitlerism.”

            You reject sources, as I said you would, from an emotional standpoint, not factual. Again.

            “makes to my mind a debate on historical..” Yes, you argue from your point of view, not always seeing the whole picture yet trying to present it as such.

            “Austrofascists did not.” Oh, no, of course not. Those were actually the girl guide glee club.

            “Franco and Dollfuss were not about killing innocents” This is an excuse for those that died under Franco. You just answered my question, btw. According to you, the answer is that we should give a failed system a chance to kill innocents.

            You notice how this debate is going in circles?

            “No, not of fascism. Of Austrofascism, of Franquismo but more so Carlismo” I don’t really care what you want to talk about, in all honesty, if you don’t want to stick to justifying your beliefs of “right” and “wrong.” I am not going to change you and you will never change me.

            In my mind, you support a backwards system that I and many others will not adhere to.

            “Economists are not dealing with science. Meteorologists are hardly all that scientific.” No, they deal with “action” and “consequences” not “right” and “wrong.” For instance: Action: polar ice caps melt. Consequence: The saline content of Earth’s oceans is put off balance and hurricanes result.

            “And they are not dealing with human decisions.” Economists would tend to disagree, and considering the results of human decisions on the environment (think about pollution) so would most scientists.

            You see the problem with your argument? You choose not to see the whole picture, and instead focus blindly on political points that most people see right through. A pity you cannot.

            “If you don’t know what IS wrong, you don’t know when something GOES wrong and cannot judge the value of consequences.”

            Something “going wrong” implies a direct result of action, not subjective valuation. You do understand the difference between being morally “wrong” and making a mistake, do you not? From your argument it does not appear so.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            * Austria had been allied to the Turks recently

            “Austria yes. The fascists in Austria, no. Don’t deliberately confuse the two. It’s the same as lying.”

            You just did that about the Anschluß. You said Austria welcomed Hitler with open arms, as if that condemned Austrofascism, which did not do so.

            However, who in Austria had been allied to Turkey? The Emperor. Now, the Austrofascists, unlike Nazis, unlike Communists and unlike Social Democrats were “Emperor Faithful” – “Kaiserstreu”. Therefore they were the least likely to go to war against Turkey. You also failed to adress that “Turks” (in that particular context) to Austrians mean more like an army under a Sultan who recruited Christian boys by force and by forcing them to become Muslims, when that army invaded or dominated Christian countries, than it ever did a complete ethnicity identifiable in peacetime.

            Never mind the fact that German Austria (for N Italy and Bohemia and Moravia that were W/mid Czechoslovakia were also “Austria”) was much smaller than Turkey (even after it lost its Arabic, Persian and most of its Kurdish dependants). Not in any position to invade.

            You also fail to adress that the Turks had very recently committed a real genocide against Armenians!

            * And about Catholicism for talking about Pius XII … very much against Hitlerism.

            “You reject sources, as I said you would, from an emotional standpoint, not factual. Again.”

            You gave me a source citing Avro Manhattan (!!!) as a source and written by clergy who have lived for decades under the anti-fascist Communist régime, themselves of a Confession having centuries old quarrels with Rome. It’s about like citing Serbians citing Avro Manhattan. They accept Avro Manhattan as a source for emotional reasons that are, not because emotional but in this case, very divorced from fact.

            I read up in Cambridge University Press History of Africa, volumes 7 and 8 (1905 – 1940, 1941 – present or to date of publication), chapters about Ethiopia and Somalia and other parts of “Horn of Africa”.

            A more reputable source than Avro Manhattan, whose belonging or not to Order of Malta is among other things a doubtful point about him, and who was published by Chick Tracts (you know Jack Chick the very anti-Catholic fundie) and who is being resumed by reformation.org and by Eastern non-Catholic clergy from Communist dictatorships or very recently such.

            * makes to my mind a debate on historical..

            “Yes, you argue from your point of view, not always seeing the whole picture yet trying to present it as such.”

            My precise charge against you and your history teachers.

            Not always seeing that other Fascisms were not bloody and that the bloodiness of Fascism in Spain was bloodiness of retaliation. Not at all seeing the parallels between Azaña and Hitler. Not seeing that Franco had no direct control only overcommand over Yagüe and over Mola with Goering and could not stop them from atrocities because he was not there at Badajoz or close to Guernica. Not seeing that the Red Army’s order at Teruel was a precise parallel to Hitler’s order at Stalingrad.

            But presenting what you see as the whole picture. And blaming me for doing so when I point out your errors.

            * Austrofascists did not.

            ” Oh, no, of course not. Those were actually the girl guide glee club.”

            Did I ever say that? They knew how to fight and once in a while they were too eager to pick one. I would say part of the reason why after the Civil War of Austria the Heimwehr was more regulated was to prevent its doing more provocations like the one outside the Hotel of the Social Democrats, which in their view provoked the rising.

            But I said they did not kill innocent people. A group of workers trying to overthrow the government by violence is not innocent. 300-400 dead, and some socialists to this day won’t either forgive or forget. But they were not innocent in my book.

            * Franco and Dollfuss were not about killing innocents

            “This is an excuse for those that died under Franco. You just answered my question, btw. According to you, the answer is that we should give a failed system a chance to kill innocents.”

            People who had killed priests, raped nuns, desecrated altars and terrorised neighbours (sometimes also killing them, like in Paracuellos or Cárcel Modelo) hardly count as innocent. The people who died in battle under Franco’s fire were not innocent. The people who sweated to build Valle de los Caídos were perhaps overmuch punished, but they were not innocent, they were convicted for their crimes during the Spanish War.
            According to those who wanted Franco overthrown, the answer was they should give a failed, red, system another chance to kill innocents. That is why these agitators did not count as innocent before Franco.

            * No, not of fascism. Of Austrofascism, of Franquismo but more so Carlismo

            “I don’t really care what you want to talk about, in all honesty, …”

            In other words, you don’t really care if your accusations stick or not. As long as you can malign me and Pius XII, malign you want to … never mind who is innocent and who is guilty …? Is that it?

            “…if you don’t want to stick to justifying your beliefs of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.”

            In case you have not noticed I took the historical part as first part of my answer, then the justification of concepts right and wrong as second part. I am not ignoring it, I just had fewer things to answer about it than about the historic side.

            * Economists are not dealing with science. Meteorologists are hardly all that scientific.

            “No, they deal with ‘action’ and ‘consequences’ not ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ For instance: Action: polar ice caps melt. Consequence: The saline content of Earth’s oceans is put off balance and hurricanes result.”

            Sounds scientific, right? Except that they have no direct way of observing polar ice caps melting (ok, they can see area covered by them from satellites, but a shrinking area could by melting and refreezing in thicker and less broad icebergs) and only samples of Ocean’s saline content. And as for how hurricanes would result from that is to the best of my knowledge pure speculation. Meteorologists are often not quite right, they are hardly scientific. It is rather an art at the edges of science than a real science by itself.

            * And they are not dealing with human decisions.

            “Economists would tend to disagree, and considering the results of human decisions on the environment (think about pollution) so would most scientists.”

            Economists are dealing very onesidedly with human decisions.

            A scientist studying the effect of Harrisburg, Chernobyl and Fukushima can say it is wrong to build too much on nuclear power – but he is telling the exact effects as a scientist, he is drawing the conclusion as one informed by science but also about right and wrong: it is wrong to risk more hardmelts. It is wrong to expose innocent people to loads of Becquerel.

            * If you don’t know what IS wrong, you don’t know when something GOES wrong and cannot judge the value of consequences.

            “Something ‘going wrong’ implies a direct result of action, not subjective valuation. You do understand the difference between being morally ‘wrong’ and making a mistake, do you not? From your argument it does not appear so.”

            First of all, I do very much see the difference between doing wrong and making a mistake. If you shoot at what you know is your uncle, you do wrong. If you shoot at what looks to you like a deer, you make a mistake if it is your uncle. Either way you are not doing the right thing at a hunt as in shooting only deer and not your uncle.

            But back to the debate: the going wrong implies a direct result of an action insofar as the “going” is concerned. It implies there is a right and a wrong insofar as description of result is concerned. If there were no right or wrong about innocent lives, there would not be even any “going wrong,” only “going in a specific direction”, as far as killing innocent lives is concerned. That is I hope a certain clarification of the previous point.

            And third, man can do right, man can make mistakes that just “go wrong”, but man can also go wrong by deliberate choice. Euthanasia of mentally handicapped or forced sterilisation of people with hereditary diseases (as Nazis and in second case Swedish Socialists did), is not something just going wrong, it is doing wrong deliberately.

          • Adrian Says:

            My comment about Austrians welcoming Hitler was in reference to the Fascists in Austria and you know it. Trying to twist words around is just another tactic of deception. Doesn’t your religion frown on that?

            I am going to address paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of your response as I have in previous statements that you have chosen to ignore. I guess the truth hurts too much. With these paragraphs, again you make excuses for supporting fascism and again you do so by pointing the finger at others instead of accepting responsibility for the actions of the cause you support. Will you ever man up to those responsibilities, I wonder?

            Then you go on a diatribe against one of my sources. (You completely ignored sources like the History channel, which is convenient for you, I am sure.) Again and like I said, I don’t expect you to accept anything I say, but I will say it over and over again. I don’t require your understanding or concurrence to do so.

            My accusations will be either proven or disproven as more and more people (beyond just you and I) are made aware of history. You may not approve of history teachers, (which is indicative of one who would prefer a more politically inclined method of teaching, evidently) but I would rather hear what they have to say and make up my own mind after listening to them than listen to someone like you who would rather try to cram your version of history down other’s throats through half truths and deception, as I have illustrated.

            “shrinking area could by melting and refreezing in thicker and less broad icebergs)” Wrong. Thermal imaging scans can determine the thickness of ice flows in the arctic. You then go on to mention that the measure of saline in the oceans is wrong because they only use samples? How is it, then, that we are getting more and more high powered hurricanes? Is it God or saline content in our oceans?

            You know, the more you post your ideas, the worse your side of the argument looks to any who think for themselves.

            I am enjoying this! 🙂

            “A scientist studying the effect of Harrisburg, Chernobyl and Fukushima can say it is wrong to build too much on nuclear power – but he is telling the exact effects as a scientist, he is drawing the conclusion as one informed by science but also about right and wrong: it is wrong to risk more hardmelts. It is wrong to expose innocent people to loads of Becquerel.”

            Ah. See, I like this paragraph. I can see your point of view. However, the conclusion of nuclear power being “wrong” is based upon the consequences of a meltdown. A scientist could easily use the term “destructive” or “shortsighted”. The difference in the two is that one has a vague moral meaning and the others have concrete result oriented meaning. (Can I take it from your argument that we both agree on the disadvantages of nuclear power outweighing the advantages?)

            I think as far as the “right and wrong” debate (as well as the others, for that matter) goes, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            Political part first.

            My comment about Austrians welcoming Hitler was in reference to the Fascists in Austria and you know it. Trying to twist words around is just another tactic of deception. Doesn’t your religion frown on that?

            Precisely the Fascists (i e Christlich Soziale, as opposed to Nazis) did NOT welcome him.

            My accusations will be either proven or disproven as more and more people (beyond just you and I) are made aware of history.

            Yes, thanks. By the way, they are disproven.

            You may not approve of history teachers, (which is indicative of one who would prefer a more politically inclined method of teaching, evidently)

            Not at all. I disapprove of their lopsidedness due to political bias. I prefer a less politically inclined method of teaching Twenties, Thirties, WW-II.

            but I would rather hear what they have to say and make up my own mind after listening to them than listen to someone like you who would rather try to cram your version of history down other’s throats through half truths and deception, as I have illustrated.

            You are confusing the roles entirely. Between me and them. I am an ex-teacher. I know colleagues – in Sweden, but that is not far from US/UK politically – who think a Bavarian Catholic is what they would least want to be. That is not historic facts, that is political and religious bias. From their side, not mine.

          • Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

            Second part:

            A scientist studying the effect of Harrisburg, Chernobyl and Fukushima can say it is wrong to build too much on nuclear power – but he is telling the exact effects as a scientist, he is drawing the conclusion as one informed by science but also about right and wrong: it is wrong to risk more hardmelts. It is wrong to expose innocent people to loads of Becquerel.

            “Ah. See, I like this paragraph. I can see your point of view. However, the conclusion of nuclear power being “wrong” is based upon the consequences of a meltdown. A scientist could easily use the term “destructive” or “shortsighted”. The difference in the two is that one has a vague moral meaning and the others have concrete result oriented meaning. (Can I take it from your argument that we both agree on the disadvantages of nuclear power outweighing the advantages?)”

            I did not specify how much was “too much” on nuclear power, did I?

            And, more importantly, while the conclusion is based in results of a meltdown, it would not have been reachable unless I could have presumed the wrongness of a result such as at Fukushima. The badness of too much Becquerel. I e there being an objective standard of right and wrong, of good and bad.

            And scientists and technicians exposing innocent civilians to health hazards being on the side called “wrong”. If you don’t assume that, you do not reach the conclusion, see?

            I said nothing about “outweighing advantages” for the reason that the advantages we have are not as needful as avoiding too much becquerels.

  55. Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

    Ok, the church, in its precepts and teachings purports that 1) Christianity is God’s chosen path for us mortals. 2) The church itself, using the Bible as its basis, is the world’s foremost authority on God’s teachings, and 3) all other religious practices, whereas they might come close, are not as close to God as Catholicism.

    Basically true, but stated in a very ecumenical manner.

    Therefore, the church recognises it’s own clergy alone as being authorities on God, and subsequently, “right” and “wrong.”

    Not quite. When Nestorius of Constantinople said St Mary was not “Mother of God” but “Mother of Christ”, the first voicing of the Church’s upcoming condemnation (at Ephesus) was one laymen in the pew crying out “heresy”.

    This entire theory collapses in the wake of all the scandals the church has been through recently, with child abuse and faulty book keeping coming to mind.

    Child abuse was dealt with very quickly earlier. One monk or priest or seminarian touch one but, he was defrocked. The problem comes in when the Church changed its discipline to accomodate modern views of responsibility and of what is too harsh. George Gheoghan was recycled not according to immemorial Catholic Tradition, but according to then modern psychological advice.

  56. Hans-Georg Lundahl Says:

    Third:

    “You then go on to mention that the measure of saline in the oceans is wrong because they only use samples? How is it, then, that we are getting more and more high powered hurricanes? Is it God or saline content in our oceans?”

    I said we were not sure saline content was completely right.

    You have done nothing to explain what saline content has to do with hurricanes.

    • Adrian Says:

      First:
      No, the fascists that did not support the fascists in charge welcomed Hitler, but they were all fascists. Calling one group “good” and the other “bad” is pure naivete.

      My accusations are only disproven in your mind, and, I hate to break it to you, but you do not speak for everyone though you would like to think you do.

      “I disapprove of their lopsidedness due to political bias.”

      You can go ahead and continue thinking that, if you prefer, but that is not the impression you have given thus far. Your political bias is towards Austrofascism and support of Catholicism, both of whom are political entities. You can tell lies to yourself all you want, but few others will believe you when you repeat them in a public forum.

      “I know colleagues…”

      Like I said, you have a problem with a teacher in your past and you are projecting your issues with them onto this forum. You are too transparent, my friend, to everyone but yourself. I would guess that they took issue with Catholicism in front of you, possibly sharing their views with their students, and engaged in a debate with you where the students sided with them. But that’s just a guess.

      You used to be a teacher. What happened?

      Part 2:

      “I did not specify how much was “too much” on nuclear power, did I?”

      No, you took the absolute stance on something (nuclear power) and labelled the whole thing “wrong.” Absolute thinking like this is what leads to witch burnings. After all, the witches in the 1600’s were labelled “wrong” as well, weren’t they?

      “And, more importantly, while the conclusion is based in results of a meltdown, it would not have been reachable unless I could have presumed the wrongness of a result such as at Fukushima. The badness of too much Becquerel. I e there being an objective standard of right and wrong, of good and bad.”

      You claim objectivity on one hand in this statement yet state that it is “you” who are making the presumptions. “The conclusion (of the “wrongness” of nuclear power) is based in the results… would not have been reachable unless I “presumed” the wrongness of a result such as at Fukushima.” So, your entire argument is “It exists because I presume it exists?” That’s a little egocentric, don’t you think?

      “And scientists and technicians exposing innocent civilians to health hazards being on the side called “wrong”. If you don’t assume that, you do not reach the conclusion, see?”

      And yet, you don’t assume that Fascism has its problems, despite the meltdowns caused by Hitler and Franco. You expose your own double standard here.

      “I said nothing about “outweighing advantages” for the reason that the advantages we have are not as needful as avoiding too much becquerels.’

      Lol! Think about that for a second.

      Part 3:

      “You have done nothing to explain what saline content has to do with hurricanes.”

      Ok, I can see I have you at a disadvantage. Saline, or the amount of salt, in the world’s oceans directly effects the properties of the water. In short, the less saline to water ratio, the lighter the water. This makes it easier for winds to absorb the water in hurricane conditions and therefore makes a hurricane stronger. Scientists have been studying this for years. It came to fruition in Katrina, Wilma and just this past year, Sandy.

      I do not expect you to believe one word I say, and I really think you allow your emotions to dictate too much of what you say, but at least I have the right to say it. In times past, and even in certain parts of the globe today, I would have been burned at the stake or sent to prison for doing so.

      Think about that.

  57. stephen breatnach Says:

    Eric Hovind put it up to you face to face and you got whooped. Get over it.

  58. why people fail in network marketing Says:

    Hello there I am so happy I found your blog page, I really found you by mistake, while I was browsing on Digg for something else, Anyhow I am
    here now and would just like to say cheers
    for a remarkable post and a all round entertaining
    blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to read it all at the moment but I have saved it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read more, Please do keep up the great job.

  59. tips for confidence Says:

    I’ve been browsing on-line more than three hours these days, but I never found any fascinating article like yours. It’s pretty value sufficient for me.
    In my view, if all webmasters and bloggers made excellent content material as you did, the
    net will likely be much more useful than ever before.

  60. glenalbri.xanga.com Says:

    Of course, it is also possible for medical problems to result in an anxiety attack without the presence of anxiety disorder at all.
    All of the negative and catastrophic thoughts we have which lead
    to our symptoms can be reversed or greatly minimized by simple reinforcement techniques.
    I decided to write an article about anxiety because it
    not only effect millions of people but it also effects us in relationships.

  61. webcam sexy live Says:

    What’s Happening i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I have found It absolutely useful and it has helped me out loads. I am hoping to contribute & assist different users like its aided me. Great job.

  62. nannettem Says:

    Lbs . Eliminate Reduce Lbs . Speedy Easy Fat Reduction Guidelines
    At the current time the breed destinations in the best 10 breeds in acceptance of the
    AKC breeds. It continues to maintain a selection-just one rating as a Toy puppy in America.
    Throughout all time the Yorkshire terrier has remained a favourite of the public.

    Soon after 7 days the fat loss gravitates from fifty percent-a-pound to 1 pound per
    day, dependent on the stage of activity and amount
    of juice you consume (we will speak much more about
    this in a tiny though).
    The issue and the entire position is however, how lengthy will
    it just take you to double your revenue the first time and how will you do it.
    Also, the dilemma is regardless of whether the procedure you
    came up with is scalable. It is comparatively straightforward to double $300 dollars.
    quickly but how will you double $500,000 dollars.
    Different approaches to attribute work out into your existence consist of walking all around commonly the block during food and making use of the techniques somewhat
    than escalators. Consuming physical workout, any time you get the likelihood, travels you towards your goal involved with
    getting rid of 10 body weight.
    If you are one of those people individuals who have declared ‘I want to reduce 10 Visit quickly,’ your ideal likelihood is to make sustainable and healthier life-style modifications.
    Adopt a nicely-rounded, wholesome and wholesome food plan and integrate some workout into your
    regime. This way your metabolic rate will get a spur, your health will make improvements to and
    your body weight loss will be continual and regular. 6 months down the line you will have reason to feel happy of yourself.
    Losing weight will be a sweet memory.
    Prior to we go into element permit me just say
    that detoxing has been around for many years and is a very well recognised and documented way to
    reach a very rapidly pounds decline.
    In society nowadays, a range of persons anticipate to find an successful
    rapid diet program procedure which can aid with slimming
    down instantly. This unique point is the rationale trend or speedy diet methods keep on
    to exist. Anytime a rapid dropping fat plan seems way too superior to be correct then the
    system in all probability will be. Bodyweight lowering plans endorsing laxatives,
    potions or drugs will be not effective as well as unsafe to a body.
    No person will obtain a magical tablet about weight reduction, just superior judgment.

    Just about every year an elite range of truckers are jeopardizing their
    lives to sign up with haulage providers and receive what amounts to a year’s salary in the place of two or three months. Delivering materials to remote mining communities in the Arctic Circle throughout a 350 mile man-made ice street, the brave and the ridiculous are voluntarily heading into severe and perilous conditions to a single of the coldest frontiers on Earth. her response

  63. Carole Says:

    I visit everyday a few sites and sites to read
    articles, but this webpage presents feature based writing.

  64. How To Get A Fast Small Business Loan Says:

    hello there and thank you for your info – I’ve certainly picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise several technical issues using this site, since I experienced to reload the website a lot of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading instances times
    will sometimes affect your placement in google and can damage your
    quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords.
    Anyway I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for a lot more of your
    respective fascinating content. Make sure you update this
    again very soon.

  65. http://www.thisishowweparty.com/ Says:

    This is my first time visit at here and i am really pleassant to read everthing at
    alone place.

  66. hemorrhoids xray Says:

    You really make it appear really easy together with your presentation however I in finding this
    topic to be really one thing which I believe I’d by no means understand. It sort of feels too complex and extremely vast for me. I am looking forward in your subsequent submit, I’ll attempt to get the cling of it!

  67. Anonymous Says:

    In a court of law, where there is an attempt to find truth in situations there is no “innocent” or “guilty”, “true” or “false”. There is “guilty” and “not guilty”. The video argument should have included “true” or “not true”. True and false is not a proper logical framework. If A is not true it doesn’t, by default, mean that A is automatically false. It means that A is simply not true.

  68. Anonymous Says:

    Forget all this semantical garbage and word chess.
    For god to exist one needs to demonstrate evidence.
    Demonstrate it visually, audibly, or tacitly. OR through a device that can observe things we cannot pick up with our own senses, like a microscope is used to observe cells. Or with mathematics perhaps.
    These are the tools we use to determine reality around us. One can argue that we can use philosophy to determine reality. This is true, but to be more certain of things brought up in philosophy we need to be able to test them in some way. Otherwise they remain floating in the domain of the philosophical umbra. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra)

  69. Zachery Says:

    Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you writing this write-up and also the rest of the site is also really
    good.

  70. uzqymncare@gmail.com Says:

    Additionally because, to make our years as a child memories appear stylish as well as occurring, hoola-hoops are actually hulu hoops, based on auto-correct.

  71. Richard Says:

    Hovind is an idiot. Ignore people like him; they don’t represent believers in the true God of heaven.

  72. parquet floor restoration Says:

    Thank you for another informative website. Where else could I get that type of
    information written in such an ideal manner? I have a undertaking that I’m
    just now working on, and I’ve been on the glance out for such info.

  73. tcm.co.za Says:

    Hey there! Do you know if tey make any plugins to safeguard against hackers?

    I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve worked hard on.
    Any suggestions?

  74. khackbarth Says:

    I’m a subscriber to your YouTube channel and I think you do a great job of presenting ideas and explanations in the videos. Unfortunately, I think you struggle a bit in interviews like the one with Eric. I also think you are smart enough to come up with prepared, simple yet correct, responses to questions like the ones he posed. In the responses you can’t use words like “malformed” and “flying spaghetti monster”. You also can’t appear to be refusing to answer a question or allow the interviewer to label you as “doesn’t believe that knowledge exists”. Ask yourself, who are you trying to communicate with (and the answer isn’t Eric). Then ask yourself, what is a simple, correct response that your audience will intuitively understand. And that means keeping your answers to 20 words or less. Also, you refer to using the Socratic method. I think that’s effective but you need to keep your questions of the interviewer simple and short as well.

  75. Anonymous Says:

    I must say I found this to be very funny & did nothing but laugh. I needed a good belly laugh today:>)

  76. fast business loans for bad credit Says:

    It’s actually a cool and helpful piece of info.
    I am satisfied that you simply shared this helpful information with
    us. Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for
    sharing.

  77. Anonymous Says:

    praise yhwh’s holy name

  78. Sethopy Says:

    виагра дженерики купить в москве дженерик левитра купить в москве купить дженерики виагра сиалис левитра сиалис дженерики купить в аптеке софосбувир дженерик купить Купить дженерики

    http://stoyak.men

  79. Setyqap Says:

    http://infoblog.win/

  80. Settftt Says:

    http://potenciaru.website

  81. Wetksxk Says:

    erection pills that work fast best erection pills uk erection medication list erection pills vigrx plus erection pill ratings erection pills from gas stations erection enhancing drugs

    http://edtreatblog.site/

  82. Weteavb Says:

    erection pills uk boots erection pills for females erectile disorder pills quick erection pills erection pills generic

    http://menshealthon.website

  83. Memvwdo Says:

    Pharmacy Equipment Pharmacy Fellowship Pharmacy Reviewer Pharmacy Compounding Pharmacy Guam Pharmacy Rite Aid Pharmacy Robbery Pharmacy Healthcare Solutions
    hi!

  84. Pemlpgr Says:

    Payday loans in PA Payday loans near me Best payday loans Payday loan near me Payday advance loans Payday loans in GA Payday loans in AZ Payday loan companies Bad credit payday loans
    http://bestpaydayloanss.org

  85. Zemcomc Says:

    http://getcashyesterday.gdn

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: