The following exchange is in regard to a video titled, Free Will vs. Evil /by YouTube User TaylorX04. Evidently Sarah (unknown to me but YouTube User, kyachris) had been blocked from futher comments and so “she” communicated with me via PM.
Note: I’ve debated with individuals who shared her sentiment enough to anticipate and counter their arguments. Bear this fact in mind while reading the exchange.
In Re: Free Will vs. Evil /video by YouTube User TaylorX04
kyachris: “…why do you reject your creator…”
MENCADO: Atheists do not “reject” any creator of things and beings.
Atheists lack having the belief of there being any existent creator of things and beings.
kyachris: To choose not to believe is rejection.
MENCADO: The idea that any person can or does make a CHOICE to believe or to not believe (or to believe not) is itself only a belief, and is not necessarily a correct belief.
kyachris: Well if you deny God’s full manual of who he is and what he expects then you are creating your own god. and so are rejecting the one true God.
unseenstrings: @kyachris, you “choose” not to believe in Thor–the God of Thunder–in the same sense that an atheist would “choose” not to believe in the god of some ignorant sheep and goat herders that lived/living in the Mid-East. What you perceive is what you believe. And perception is an involuntary reaction, just as MENCADO previously pointed out. You have been deceived. Belief is not a choice. But if you think so, prove it by believing the earth is flat and the center of the universe as was once believed
Date: Oct 01, 2010
The owner of “free will vs evil” blocked me so I thought I would message my response…
Who has deceived me? God is not without a witness. He sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
By the way, the bible said the earth was round long before the rest of the world thought so -Isaiah 40:22
Subject: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 01, 2010
To err is human. To try to achieve status with peers or within the community is human, even if it means wearing makeup, clothing, or hair color that is deceptive by design. To lie to protect one’s posterior is something even children learn to do at an early age. To exaggerate in order to build one’s self-esteem/ego is human. To mislead for the sake of one’s religion or country is human.
We are bombarded on a regular basis with the effects of human err, the deceptive measures of others trying to achieve status, lies of individuals trying to protect their own ass, the exaggerations of individuals trying to boost their own ego/self-esteem, and misleading information for the sake of someone’s religion or country.
Yes Sarah, you have been deceived and you will continue to be deceived by someone as long as you live in the company of other humans.
You know Sarah, if I was to see a column of smoke in the distance while I was traveling. And this column of smoke was not visible at night but a column of fire was. And I followed this column of smoke by day and column of fire at night and came upon a mountain trembling and shaking with smoke and fire coming out of the top. And someone went on the mountain and came down looking all white. Then in this age and because of my knowledge, I would judge the mountain as a volcano and the whiteness of the individual as the result of ash. But primitive people were really ignorant and easily fooled.
Have you been fooled Sarah? Well, you probably say no because The Bible says so. And is The Bible true? Well you probably say yes because The Bible says so. And around and around we go. (That’s called circular reasoning Sarah.)
The Bible also threatens you with all sorts of curses should you find it unbelievable. You better believe or else. Your religion has you in a state of fear and confusion. You have been deluded. And you are afraid to think about the fact or question the main source of your delusion.
Subject: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 08, 2010
You have described sin quite well. We are all born into it and the wages of sin is death.
You know our bodies are made to rebuild and repair. Why do we die? Sin.
Yet, we can be forgiven in Jesus.
Their is history to back up the bible- real people, real places, real timelines, real events, real archaeological artifacts.
Then there’s prophecy, some fulfilled, some yet to come. No prophecy was ever produced by the will of men.
Seek God with all your heart, mind, and soul and he will meet you. You don’t need man to tell you.
Jesus is the shepherd of the flock.
Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 08, 2010
I have no idea what you are talking about. You didn’t seem to read my reply to your PM.
By the way Sarah, you tell me I don’t need man to tell me about Jesus but you tell me about Jesus. By man, I assume you are talking about hu(man)s. That would include both male and female. And as previously stated, “To err is human. To try to achieve status with peers or within the community is human, even if it means wearing makeup, clothing, or hair color that is deceptive by design. To lie to protect one’s posterior is something even children learn to do at an early age. To exaggerate in order to build one’s self-esteem/ego is human. To mislead for the sake of one’s religion or country is human. To lie in order to have someone arrested and/or incarcerated for what is assumed to be criminal activity is human too.” In other words, if it comes out of the human mouth, or from writings that could have been created by the human hand, or comes to me by any way, shape, form, or fashion that could have had human originations, then I know it can’t possibly be rationally considered the Word of God. You have been deceived and you in turn are trying to deceive me.
I have told God and so “He” is well aware that I know humans are mistaken quite often, deceived quite often, and often deceptive towards others. (For instance, lawyers and used car salespeople are liars because they are human and do so for human reasons.) God knew I wouldn’t believe anything you had to say about “God,” because you are human and prone to acting like one. So “He” certainly didn’t have anything to do with your response to me.
Now “God,” supposing “He” wanted to be believed as existing by me, can only communicate “His” message to me in ways impossible for humans to do. For example, “He” can turn back time so that I can relive my life and undo past mistakes (to err is human), bearing in mind that I must remember this life in order to correct past mistakes. Or “He” could tell me all “He” wants me to know through the mouth of my Chihuahua (and the experience must be repeatable and verifiable, so that I will know for sure I’m not hallucinating). Now that shouldn’t be too hard for “God” should it?
Why won’t God heal amputees? After all, every “healing” attributed to God in the past could have been faked. A new leg growing onto an amputee at a prayer-meeting could not be faked. Why should I assume God can cure cancer, heal blindness, make lame people walk and deaf people hear (all of which can be faked), but he can’t regenerate a limb missing from a person’s body? (and which can’t be faked) The question has raised so much concern that a web site has been created and dedicated to the question http://whywontgodhealamputees.com?
Did God, 2,000 years ago, bring a corpse back to life that had been decomposing for three days? Bear in mind the brain starts decomposing into a slush when it has been without blood flow (oxygen) only a short while. Thus God would not only need to regenerate a brain with 10^14 (that’s 10 to the power of 14) synapses back, but also would need to put all the connections between those synapses exactly as they had originally been connected. If you think God did indeed revive such a corpse, then healing an amputee should be mere child’s play.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 12, 2010
I thought my response was completely straight forward.
By saying you don’t need man to tell you about God, I was talking about how God seeks after his people. If you want God, you can know him.
And yes, God did raise Jesus from the dead. If Christ is not raised, then we are all lost. But he is raised.
Healings still happen everyday. Revivals come in cycles and I can tell you another is on the way.
You should read about Charles Finney.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 12, 2010
Your response indicates a high degree of naïveté, especially in regard to a phenomena called “conformational bias.” Many Web Sites are dedicated to helping others understand and be aware of the phenomena. See:
Another fact you don’t seem to realize is that the “personal relationship” you feel you have with “Jesus” was psychological development resulting from you talking to what you imagined was Jesus, just as is in the case of idol worshiper’s “personal relationship” with the stone idol, and just as is in the case of the person who has a “personal relationship” with plants.
And yes, healing still happen every day. And it works regardless of the person’s religious belief or lack thereof. It is called the placebo effect. Plenty of Web Sites are dedicated to helping others become aware of that phenomena too:
However, neither the placebo effect nor the god you imagine can grow the limbs of amputees back on.
James Randi has been offering one-million-dollars for years for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal activity, such as a prayer that actually works.
Science has even tested the effect of prayer. Check out THIS New York Times article concerning the research results.
Medical doctors have declared people dead only to have them later revive while laying in the morgue. Therefore, you can state you BELIEVE Jesus died and then came back to life after rotting for three days. But you cannot state as an indisputable fact that he really did. Sorry but “What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
You may happen to be at a loss should the fact finally creep into your conscious awareness that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. But we would not all be lost. Those parts about being either “lost” or “saved” are sly sales gimmicks used to sell the Christian Religion to unsuspecting pawns.
Muslims don’t believe Jesus died on the “cross” and they use the Bible to prove their point:
No Sarah, I’m not going to read Finney. I’m 63 years old and I’ve read plenty of material over the years by the likes of Charles Finney. Besides, he is a human. And I’ve already explained that some humans may be eloquent and persuasive, but that still doesn’t change the fact that to err is human, to be misled is human, and to mislead in return is human.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 20, 2010
Until you let go of unforgiveness, you cannot be forgiven
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 20, 2010
Sarah, in order for me to let go of “unforgiveness” I would by definition need to be holding on to it. But you see, I look upon all human behavior as the result of causality. The human is a very complex physical system functioning in a physical universe according to physical laws.
My car didn’t crank yesterday. The battery was down. I charged the battery and the car cranked. Should I forgive the car for not cranking? I say the word “forgive” is nonsense that sidetracks the issue and adds nothing but confusion to it.
Sarah choose to act in a particular way. Her choice was the consequence of the history that has made Sarah into who she is. She didn’t choose her developmental history. But her choice was determined by the outcome of such history anyway. What does forgiveness have to do with a choice mechanism within Sarah developing in such a way to be predictable in function?
What is forgiveness other than one human animal expressing that s/he shall not seek vengeance against another? What is forgiveness other than just another way of saying, “Don’t worry, get up and knock the dust off, and get on with life?”
Richard Dawkins stated, “Most scientist today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind. We are the way we are because our brains are wired up as they are; our hormones are the way they are. We’d be different–our character would be different–if our neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry were different.” That is basically my perspective. But Richard goes on to say that scientists are inconsistent. And here I’ll add that humans are inconsistent by nature. In most cases we call the inconsistencies, hypocrisies.
What being “inconsistent” means is that though Jesus said to forgive 70 times 7, and though most scientists today realize forgiveness is irrelevant to the issue, we humans have the tendency of biting back whosoever or whatsoever we feel has hurt us or has the potential to cause harm. In brief, humans are animals as exemplified by their behavior.
I would say I forgive you Sarah, for whatever reason you feel a need to be forgiven, but that would be equivalent to forgiving a tornado for forming and destroying a school. Therefore, don’t worry, get up and knock the dust off, and get on with your life Sarah. Forgiveness is nonsense that sidetracks the issue and adds only confusion to it.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 21, 2010
To sum up what you are telling me, people are not responsible for their actions because everything happens by chance. Very false.
Someone has to create a car, it doesn’t just appear.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 21, 2010
What is your particular definition of chance?
According to Mirriam-Webster online:
Definition of CHANCE
a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause
b : the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings : luck
c : the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence : contingency
: a situation favoring some purpose : opportunity
: a fielding opportunity in baseball
a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation; also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome [a small chance of success]
b plural : the more likely indications [chances are he’s already gone]
a : risk [not taking any chances]
b : a raffle ticket
— chance adjective
— by chance
: in the haphazard course of events [they met by chance]
Examples of CHANCE
This is the chance of a lifetime!
Everyone deserves a fair chance of winning the award.
If you give me a chance, I know I can do a good job.
We didn’t have much chance to talk about it.
There’s a good chance that we’ll finish on time.
If you are free tonight, is there any chance you could join me for dinner?
Which cards you’re given is simply a matter of chance.
Origin of CHANCE
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to CHANCE
Synonyms: accident, casualty [archaic], circumstance, hap, hazard, luck
Now, Sarah, if your definition of “chance” means a thing that happens couldn’t have happened, then you’re obviously wrong. If it happens, then it could have happened. No way around that fact.
A coin toss is commonly used as an example of chance. But a coin toss has causes and effects that result in either a heads or tails, but which a human can’t predict. However, if a scientist knew the original state of the coin, and if s/he knew the force applied to the coin and the point where the force was applied, and s/he knew the forces acting on the coin as it spun through the air, and s/he knew the distance the coin traveled before impact, and s/he knew the density of the table or floor on which the coin landed, then the scientist could predict the outcome of a coin toss with 100% accuracy.
Now if by “chance” you mean you don’t have enough awareness and cognitive abilities to predict some event or phenomena, and so you call it “chance.” Then I’ll accept that definition.
“Someone has to create a car, it doesn’t just appear.” Well Sarah, that’s true; but it has noting to do with the issue. The earth just didn’t appear by magic, as so many religions believe. Earth formed as a result of natural processes. You seem to be a really naïve person in that area. I suspect the preachers, teachers, and holy text of your religion has kept you ignorant and possibly even has you deluded.
Life originated from natural processes. Look up the word abiogenesis for more information.
Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. Viruses are sometimes considered a sort of nonliving life.
Once life got started through abiogenesis, then another process came into play that has been termed evolution. Now if you got your ideas about evolution from your religion, then chances are you are very deluded on the subject. I think some Roman Catholics are pretty scientific. But Fundies are usually nut cases in the matter.
Anyway, again I ask, how would you define “chance?” And how could your ignorance of the causal factors involved, which seem to you like “chance,” prevent phenomena such as galaxies from forming, abiogenesis from taking place, or evolution from happening?
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 22, 2010
With all do respect, please do not pretend to know my background.
A definition of religion is ‘a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe.’ In that sense, you have a religion yourself.
I do not believe the world we see was created by magic. I believe our creator is wise and the ultimate scientist. He set our existence in motion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 22, 2010
I do not pretend to know your background. I can only make “assumptions” based on the questions you’ve asked, the limited statements you’ve made, and your YouTube Profile.
By the way, the term is “with all due respect,” not “with all do respect.” Easy mistake, I know. To err is human for you too, obviously.
I don’t know where you got your definition of religion. At least I was considerate enough to provide you with the source of my definition of chance. Nevertheless, your definition still doesn’t make my perspective a religious one. You see, I don’t fit the definition you provided. The fact is, the universe did not originate for any purpose. But that is not saying we humans cannot invent our own purposes to justify our struggle for survival.
You seem to think the world was created by magic. But then you seem to like to pretend that you don’t believe such. I mean, give me a break. Either you believe a being whom you call “God” created the universe and everything in it with his own special magic; or you believe, like me, that the universe came into being as the result of natural causes and effects.
Of course, even if the universe was created by some super-alien existing outside of the universe, that still wouldn’t make any religion true. Obviously, to err is human, because we have hundreds of conflicting denominations and sects within Christianity alone. And they all use the same book to “prove” each their own version of Christianity “true” and to “prove” other versions “false.” Some will even go so far as to say that they are the only “true” Christians.
Let me guess Sarah: I’ll bet you feel your belief is the correct belief and anything contrary to what you believe is wrong. Am I anywhere near correct in that assumption?
I was a believer for 35 years. I don’t know every single causal force that acted upon my mindset to make me become aware that religions are human inventions. I know reading The Bible from cover to cover played a big part. And when I started becoming skeptical, well, I started grabbing for straws. I felt I needed something to fill the void once occupied by Christianity. I researched Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, and I can’t recall how many others. I even started reading every psychology book I could get my hands on. (But do you know how many different theories of mind there are? Do you realize there is no single science called, “psychology?” My preacher used to teach that psychology is secular humanist religion. And I can now agree that it is, or at least once was, more of a religion than a science.)
Anyway, after my skepticism was stimulated into existence, I stumbled upon an anthropology book titled, Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology. But I can’t recall the edition. Still, the particular story that made me become aware of religion and how it is absorbed by different societies and “evolves” was, God’s Saviours in the Sierra Madre. That story aroused my interest in anthropology; and I have since learned a great deal from that field of science.
In closing I would like to point out that the only absolute in science is that nothing is absolute. Science has no word of God. When a theory is insufficient to explain the phenomena, then it is abandoned. Our lives are so completely saturated with the benefits of science that we are often unaware of the importance science has played in the betterment of human life. As pointed out by the late Carl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World, science is indeed our candle in the dark.
WhyWontGodHealAmputees Sarah? Well, because evidently no god exist to heal them. But at least science has developed artificial limbs and may someday graft used or manufactured limbs on the body.
Religion can hold your hand when you feel sad. Religion can make promises that may result in you feeling glad. Religion can manipulate whole herds of humans into unquestioning obedience. Religion can teach you how not to be reincarnated as a roach. Religion can teach you how to reach the enlightenment of the Buddha. Religion can teach you how to go to a Heaven filled with hot or horny virgins. Religion can teach you how to be saved. But science deals with the real world and with real problems.
I would gladly believe in a god provided I had sufficient reason to do so. (I’ve already explained the necessity of my Chihuahuas telling me about God.) What would it take for you to realize your beliefs are based on illusions? What would it take for you to no longer believe as you presently do? Now if you say that nothing can result in you questioning the beliefs you currently hold, then really, face up with the fact, you are the narrow-minded bigot, not me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 22, 2010
You are certainly an interesting character and thank you for pointing out my spelling error.
What is magic?
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Oct 22, 2010
No doubt you could go to Merriam-Webster Online to learn what the definition of “magic” is. But if you want me to be specific as to my usage of the word, I’ll give you the definition provided by my desktop dictionary (WordWeb 6.1):
Noun: magic – Any art that invokes supernatural powers.
Adj: magic – Possessing or using or characteristic of or appropriate to supernatural powers.
For further clarification note that a stage magician performs magic TRICKS, meaning illusions of magic. Synonyms for magic are preternatural, paranormal, nonnatural, transcendental, and supernatural.
Date: Saturday, October 23, 2010 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
I prefer your own words.
Where did the first stars in space come from? They are beautiful
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
We are the most egocentric of all animals. We like to imagine everything we see was made especially for us. Of course, that logically resulted in us placing ourselves in the center of the universe. And we imagined the tiny shimmering lights observed in the night sky were put there for our convenience and pleasure. Heck, we even invented gods in our image and likeness.
Now we know the tiny shimmering lights in the night sky are not tiny at all. Some are planets orbiting around the sun. Some are suns in our own galaxy. Some are whole galaxies in the distances of the universe. But religion didn’t teach us these facts. We have invented something a lot more dependable for discerning reality than religion. We call our new way of contemplating reality, science.
Science is the study of the physical and natural world using theoretical models and data from experiments or observation and using a method called methodological naturalism. Religion on the other hand is the study of imaginary realms of reality using confirmation bias, anecdotal evidence, and primitive myth. And religion has lots of creation myths in case you are interested in the origins of the stars from that perspective.
Otherwise, stars come from gas and dust that are attracted by gravity to form the prestar/proto-star, which haven’t collected enough material to undergo fusion in their cores, but which turn into full blown stars once the accumulated gravitational pressures for fusing hydrogen into helium have been reached.
Now, if you want anymore information concerning stars than that then get a book. You may be interested in Astronomy Made Simple by Kevin Marvel. And/or you may want to read The Simple Universe by Ian Brewster and Ken Shiwram.
Oh, also, a bit if trivia. The perception of beauty is usually the result of personal observation and experience or cultural forces (the herd instinct). However, should it be determined that practically every person on the face of the planet has the impression that stars are beautiful, then the feeling may have a genetic basis. At that point we would need to turn to evolutionary theory to provide us with an explanation of how such feeling could have developed.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 1:00 PM
We do like to make ourselves priority. Pride is our downfall.
Thank God we can repent and be transformed through Jesus.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 3:30 PM
Well, to make ourselves a priority is understandable. But to presume everything was made especially for us is a form of megalomania or narcissism bordering on a mental disorder. Maybe people who believe we are the image and likeness of God are crazy.
In order to keep a balanced perspective and remain sane you must bear in mind that the virus is the image and likeness of God. And God created all life in order for the virus to have something to infect.
Does the thought of such a god hurt your sense of pride? Are you proud to be part of a race especially created by God to act as a host to the virus?
Yeah, right now I’m just bull shitting. But you do so on a regular basis.
Are you saying I should repent because you worship the image and likeness of yourself?
And who is this Jesus character? Is he Mexican-American? Surely you’re not talking about the dude who was supposedly crucified around 2,000 years ago are you? Listen, if that dude didn’t die while being “crucified,” as is suspected by some historians and by all Muslims, then he would be dead by now anyway.
Remember, you cannot tell me anything about God because you are human. And to err is human, to lie for your religion or country is human, and to deceive others with the same deceptions you have been deceived with is human too.
Repent or Captain Hook will make you walk the plank into the jaws of the Tic-Toc crocodile; and you will never get to go to Never-Never Land to be with Tinker-bell and Peter Pan.
That makes as much sense as the words you spout.
Thank the Great-Ghost of Never-Never Land; we can repent and be filled with the spirit of Tinker-bell, and be transformed through power of Peter Pan.
Wow, religion obviously is a form of crazy.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 9:07 PM
Why is it crazy to believe that complex, living beings are created?
Our bodies are a shell, not who we are.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 10:45 PM
No darling: our body, which includes our brain, is who we are. You sound as if you want to drag the perception of the human back into the spook filled era of the dark ages. I reiterate: The human is a very complex physical system functioning in a physical universe according to physical laws.
Strokes, brain tumors, and dementia are physical ailments that effect the physical brain. No ghost in the machine is necessary to animate living beings. No ghost you can possibly imagine can animate a living being who has suffered sufficient brain damage.
Oh, and of course all complex living beings are created to act as a hosts to the virus, which is the image and likeness of God. Why don’t you get off your ego trip and face up with reality? Face up with the fact that you’re a descendant of something more primitive, sort of a cave-man. And that creature was descended from an ape-like creature. And et cetera, et cetera. And I guess that means the image and likeness of the original life form would be more like a virus than a human.
You would be as stupid as a cow provided you hadn’t been taught human language. Our complex language and the capacity we’ve evolved to use it are what separates us from nonhuman animals. In fact, language can be a curse as well as a blessing. The silliness you keep expressing is the result of language-created mental constructs that were previously placed in your brain (via the senses) and are presently residing therein.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Sunday, October 24, 2010 11:29 PM
The tongue is a restless evil who can tame it
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Monday, October 25, 2010 8:30 AM
Necessity can tame the tongue. And fear is the most potent factor in most cases.
The Bible tells the story of “God” sending two she bears out of the woods to tear 42 children till they die. Now one cannot honestly say the event actually took place, regardless of whether one believes in a god or not. But one can say that by telling children the story, then the story may be so psychologically shocking that children who are told the story may become too afraid to tease strangers. Thus their tongue would have been tamed with fear.
No doubt that in olden days when tongues were publicly ripped out for saying anything against the king or for “blasphemy,” then fear tamed the tongue in those cases too.
You can probably put a gun to someone’s head or threaten him/her with eternal damnation and the resulting fear would likely stay the tongue. Well, let’s put it this way: the treat would have to be believed as real. And the person threatened would have to be normal. A mentally challenged person (according to the mental handicap) may not experience the necessary fear for the tongue to be stayed.
Of course, with proper training the child would likely grow-up not to use the tongue as a flamethrower. And encouragement and reward can be used instead of preying upon the fear factor.
Oh, and when you say, “The tongue is a restless evil,” does that mean your tongue is a restless evil?
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Monday, October 25, 2010 2:08 PM
The bible is not only God’s word but also historical events, letters, and songs.
In the past, God let all nations go their own way, but now he commands all people to repent.
Moses, King David, Solomon all made mistakes.. which goes to show we are all human and should not idolize any man.
The law was intended to show what is right and wrong. It only brings wrath.
Jesus brings salvation.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:40 PM
Mark Twain summed up The Bible pretty well. He said, “It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.”
Albert Einstein said, “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” (Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954)
President Thomas Jefferson used a cut-and-paste technique to recompile the Bible into a 46 page booklet without miracles and that ended with Jesus’ burial instead of resurrection. He too realize most of the Bible was and is bull shit.
One of the Founding Fathers wrote a critique of the Bible titled, Age of Reason. In it he stated, “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon that the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”
My opinion of the Bible is more or less a composition of each of the above. However, I see the Bible as a book that has been used by humans to justify their struggle for survival against others. And the curses and threats in the Bible (for skepticism/doubt) result in the believer being too afraid to critically examine or question. Thus the psychological ploys within the Bible turn the believer into a meme machine.
In the past, the Great-Ghost of Never-Never Land let all nations go their own way, but now he commands all people to repent.
Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Lady and the Tramp all made mistakes.. which goes to show that they were not unlike the humans that created them. And which goes to show we should not idolize any cartoon character.
Laws were written to show Mickey Mouse and the other cartoon characters what is right and what is wrong. But Peter Pan brings salvation.
Seems like we are back to where we started.
You have no choice in what you believe. You cannot go to sleep tonight with the resolution of awaking tomorrow with the absolute knowledge that you’ve been wrong all these years. You cannot start preaching and teaching with absolute conviction that Jesus is dead and God is a phantom. Equally, I can’t believe the wild and crazy tales of your religion. We are just alike in that aspect. We do not freely choose what we believe, what we doubt, and what we totally disbelieve.
This is my last PM to you. I doubt very seriously that I had any affect on your thought about the matter. Nevertheless, someone may read our correspondence and gain some sort of insight out of the experience.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:21 AM
Well I appreciate you taking any interest in talking to me.
I am not sure why you developed such a hatred towards God, but he loves you nonetheless.
Hopefully, you will seek and truly find. Because until we acknowledge we are sinners, we are blind to ourselves.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:58 PM
Either you are a very hateful person, or your reply to me indicates you are either very ignorant or mentally challenged, or maybe even a bit of both or all three.
Albert Einstein didn’t hate your god. I do not hate the Tooth Fairy. Nor do I hate your god. People do not hate imaginary things. I don’t understand why you deny reality unless there is something wrong with your brain.
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins declared with disdain, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” But Dawkins isn’t hating your imaginary god as much as he is hating the character of your god as written in the Old Testament. Got it?
Belief is not a choice. Others have pointed out that fact to you, including myself. Why do you deny reality?
When a person is whimpering and whining down at the altar, asking “Jesus” to come into her/his heart, s/he is already a believer. S/he is not asking the Tooth Fairy to come into her/his heart. S/he is not asking Thor to come into her/his heart. S/he is asking a mental construct that had previously been made to seem real in her/his mind. Got it?
In your Channel profile, your age is listed as 24. If that is the case, only 12 years ago you were a mere 12 years old. I was a Christian for 35 years. I’m soon to be 64. I can tell you with the wisdom of my years that you are not the same person now that you were at 12 (unless there is something very wrong with you). And you will not be the same at 36 as you now are. And you will not be the same at 48 as you shall be at 36. And et cetera, et cetera.
Previously I stated, “I would gladly believe in a god provided I had sufficient reason to do so. (I’ve already explained the necessity of my Chihuahuas telling me about God.) What would it take for you to realize your beliefs are based on illusions? What would it take for you to no longer believe as you presently do?” You never did answer that question.
I sought and I did truly find that the religion I once held dear (The Judeo-Christian Religion) was and is based on illusion. Until you do the same you will be blind to reality.
If you reply with answers from your stupid religious belief–a belief system no longer infecting my mind–then be prepared to be blocked from further acts of stupidity.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 2:36 PM
I was referring to you hating God not Einstein.
Why don’t you tell me about yourself?
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 4:13 PM
Okay Sarah, now I see something is obviously wrong. You don’t seem to have the cognitive abilities of a normal 24 year old woman. You see Sarah, I stated that I did not hate your imaginary god in the same paragraph that I said Einstein didn’t hate your god. You were able to grasp one statement out of the paragraph but evidently your reading comprehension or cognition resulted in you failing to understand the other facts. I’ll break the paragraph down into sentences to see if you can comprehend:
Albert Einstein didn’t hate your god.
I do not hate the Tooth Fairy.
Nor do I hate your god.
People do not hate imaginary things.
As emphasis I quoted Richard Dawkins. And I pointed out that Dawkins isn’t hating your imaginary god as much as he is hating the character of your god as written in the Old Testament.
Do you hate Peter Pan? Do you hate Captain Hook? Do you hate the Tick-Tock Crocodile? Do you hate any character that you are sure is imaginary?
What about belief? Are you free to believe any silliness presented to you even though you may consciously feel the idea is totally absurd? Can you believe right now with all your “heart, soul, and might” that Jesus is deader than a doornail and God is a figment of a vivid imagination?
Now I already know you are a liar, because you keep saying I hate your imaginary god. But if you say you can switch from one belief to a completely contrary and seemingly absurd belief by merely “choosing” to, then I know for sure you are a liar or something is wrong with you psychologically.
I have no interest in learning more about you. And I have no idea why you would want to know more about me–a complete stranger on the Internet, and a 63 year old man at that (not material for a 24 year old woman).
Of course, it would have been easier to relate to you if I had known a little about you. (In the “About Me” on your Channel page, you have nothing about you (except Sarah, 24, U.S.) but a bunch of silliness about the religion you follow.) I probably wouldn’t have been as hard on you as I was, providing I knew a little about your education level and experiences, instead of having to make assumptions about such. My feelings now is that I assumed you were smarter than you actually were.
In my case, all you needed to do was read the “About Me” box on my Channel.
Oh, and since most of my responses to you have been in anticipation of counter-arguments against things I said, allow me to add that you DO follow a religion, even if you deny such. I know the popular comeback for Christians in this age is that they don’t follow religion but have a “personal relationship with God.” However, you are all the time spouting crap out of your holy book. And brainwise (the sensations you feel as a result of previous brain development), the “personal relationship” you have with your “god” is no different than the “personal relationship” people of other denominations and religions have with their gods, even if their god happens to be an idol.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:47 AM
My intention is not to talk down to you. After all, you are my elder. I am just asking questions.
Unlike Peter Pan, God exists.
May I ask your opinion as to where Natural Law derived? How do people as random formations determine what is right and wrong.. when existence is meaningless?
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:10 PM
My Chihuahuas will bark at a plastic bag waving in the wind. I once saw a cat attack a leaf as it tumbled along in the breeze. The most ancient history of every human group known and in all places found around the world indicate humans too tend to personify natural phenomena and events. Gods have always been used to fill the gaps in our knowledge. The tendency comes naturally for us as it does for dogs and cats, or for monkeys that look behind the mirror for the reflection observed. But did the gaps in human knowledge prove or even indicate gods existed? No. Gods and/or magic have always been used to explain the incomprehensible and the unknown. And that tendency hasn’t changed.
You are asking questions without answering the questions I asked. Ignoring a person’s questions while asking questions and getting answers is as bad as talking “down” to the person.
Natural law isn’t a law per se. Natural law is a term used to describe repeatable observable phenomena. We can say humans and cattle obey the natural laws of herd animals, because evolution resulted in humans and cattle acquiring characteristics necessary for herd survival. Or we can say that planets obey the natural law of orbital paths, because of gravity.
You are quite wrong in your claim. You see, you cannot logically state positively that the particular god you imagine exist does indeed exist without offering proof to backup your claim. And remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Now you can say that you believe the god that you imagine exist does exist in reality, just as a person who was raised to imagine Peter Pan is real may believe in Peter Pan’s existence. The perception would not be based on factual evidence but on belief (confirmation bias, anecdotal evidence, and myth).
You are really showing your ignorance of evolution by calling people “random formations.” Of course, I suspected as much. As previously stated, “Fundies are usually nut cases in the matter.”
Humans determine “right” and “wrong” just like they determine what is the “right” food to eat and what is the “wrong” food to eat–observation and experience. And we keep record of what we have been able to determine so that we can teach our children what we’ve learned. Furthermore, we didn’t just swing down from the trees yesterday you know.
So, you say existence is meaningless to you? Interesting. Maybe you need psychiatric help. Surely you’re not going to spew lies by implying or claiming existence is meaningless to those who don’t share your religious beliefs?
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:46 AM
I apologize if I overlooked your questions?
I certainly do not believe existence is meaningless. However, if you think we were not created and we do not have a purpose.. what are you saying?
You do realize the science community lists evolution as a theory and MANY scientists believe in creation. Secular media is good at leaving out information. “Adaptation” is what gave human to human varying appearance. We were and always will be human.
I do not simply have faith, God makes himself evident. Test his promises.
Historical references give credibility to the bible while prophecies show divine inspiration. You should research how many prophecies were fulfilled and the odds of that happening.
What do you do with Jesus?
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:09 PM
Sarah, evidently you’re not reading what I’ve stated or you have a poor memory. I said, “The fact is, the universe did not originate for any purpose. But that is not saying we humans cannot invent our own purposes to justify our struggle for survival.” Got it?
Nonhumans don’t have the language necessary to invent purpose. Nonhumans struggle for survival, they procreate, they cooperate with and help care for each their own, and they just get on with life and live as best they can. But we humans have language. Yet, both individually and as a species we also have lots of gaps in our knowledge. Still, those gaps in our knowledge does not stop us from getting on with life and inventing all sorts or purposes for doing so.
How many is MANY? What percent? I know Roman Catholics are as religious as Fundamentalist Protestants, but the former respect science enough to give evolutionary theory the benefit of doubt. The latter are ignorant beyond comparison. Fundamentalists don’t study evolution in order to understand it; they study anti-evolution propaganda in acts of self-delusion.
Oh, and you really don’t seem to understand the difference between Sarah’s theory and a scientific theory. Your theory is a speculation. A scientific theory isn’t. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data. It starts off as a hypothesis. But after it has withstood discrimination and the test of time, it is advanced to a theory. Darwin actually advanced a hypothesis, which has been revised and is now a theory. A scientific theory is the closest thing you can get to a scientific fact, since there are no indisputable facts in science.
And yes, I know that scientists are members of culture and as such, they are prone to the same misconceptions and beliefs of the culture from which they originate. However, and this is very important, science has no infallible word that must be believed. Scientific discoveries are peer reviewed. One scientist may make a mistake on a finding. But other scientists are going to eventually catch the mistake. Therefore, science is self-correcting.
If Darwin hadn’t come up with the theory of evolution, then some other scientist would have. In fact, another scientist did come up with the theory almost at the same time as Darwin. The discovery was made because the facts were there, not because Darwin invented the facts. And Darwin’s original interpretation of the facts have been modified and adjusted to fit the most recent findings. As stated, science has no “infallible word of god.”
Wow, you claim “many scientists” believe in “creation,” but then you turn around and pretend there exists a “secular” media that leave out that “information.” Well darling, I’ve got news for you: There are probably more religious nuts working for the “secular” media than there are working within science. An education in science tends to make one less of a Fundamentalist. And most media employees are not exposed to heavy science curriculum in school. Your claims contradict reality.
No darling, “adaption” is not inheritable in the sense you imply. Adaptation does not explain kinky hair and near-black skin, or straight hair and near-white skin–evolution does. Now my uncle was a farmer who worked out in the sun all day long. His skin was near-black till he took his hat off and you could see the color of his high forehead. And he was surprisingly “white,” compared to be darkness of his exposed skin. Adaptation is the individual’s body adjusting to existing conditions during his lifetime. Evolution is when a trait – which is acquired by mutation or genetic drift and which is selected by environmental circumstances – is passed on to future generations. The tendency of the body to adapt to circumstances is itself the handiwork of evolution.
My Chihuahuas are descendants of wolves. But human selective pressures have resulted in what started out as a wolf evolving into a Chihuahua. And if a group of Chihuahuas were separated from other Chihuahuas long enough and continually subjected to selective pressures, then that group may evolve to the point of being unable to breed with other Chihuahuas, thereby making the separated group another species.
You are so ignorant about evolution that I hate making the effort and possibly wasting my time trying to introduce you to such basic science–science you should already know, but science your system of belief has evidently alienated you from.
Historical references do not give credibility to the Bible because no such references exists. In fact, so little historical reference are related to your Jesus that his existence can be called into question. Give me exact examples instead of some vague bull shit. Same applies to the so called “prophecies.” I’ve already quit believing the BS. You are the one who needs to do some critical research on the matter. Bear in mind that I can say a hurricane will hit Florida within the next 10 years, but that isn’t prophecy; it’s common sense.
Oh, and by the way, Paul Bunyan may have existed in the late 1800s or early 1900s as a lumberjack working in North American with tall tales to tell. But so much myth now surrounds his life that it would be impossible to determine anything about the real person, or whether he even existed in reality. The same applies to your Jesus.
You may deny such but the fact is you simply have faith; and the god you presume makes himself evident to you is the result of effective indoctrination during previous stages of your psychological development, just as faith in all gods for all people are developed.
You see, no one is born with a belief in any god. Gods are mental constructs created with emotionally loaded language; and mirror neurons play a major role in the acquisition of belief. Your perception is not based on reality but on the system of belief you’ve learned. And when that fact is combined with the human naturally occurring cognitive and confirmation biases, anecdotal evidence, and myth, then you are in a trap from which you may never escape.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:19 PM
Sir you can name call all you want.
I did read your messages, but they are contradictory.
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone thinks he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply
Date: Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:15 AM
Happy Halloween Sarah!
Dealing with someone who is so blatantly ignorant of a basic science, such as evolution, is really frustrating, especially when that person insinuates “she” has knowledge by stating, “please do not pretend to know my background.” (After I had pointed out that I suspected she may be miseducated or ignorant of evolution because of her religion.)
According to the nonsense you are spouting from your holy book, evidently you actually believe you have become wise by being foolish.
Wow, when you think about the impact of such a belief, you see it is a really slick psychological ploy, since people are controlled and manipulated through their ignorance. So if people can be made to believe they are wiser by being or becoming as fools, then they are forever trapped into being potential pawns by that belief.
Of course, the book of Ecclesiastes contradicts 1st Corinthians 3-18. According to Ecclesiastes, “wisdom excelleth folly (aka, foolishness), as far as light excelleth darkness.”
By the way gal, here is a link to a bunch of real contradictions different people have found just for individuals who have made themselves into “fools” like you:
Now if you claim I made contradictory statements, then you are under obligation to provide me with proof of what you are talking about. Otherwise, you may very well be making a misleading or false claim. (I personally suspect you are lying, because I don’t recall making contradictory statements. But I’ll apologize for calling you a liar if you can show me where I am wrong. (Apparently you’re one of those lying humans that have made me skeptical.))
Oh, and where did you get your becoming-a-fool-that-one-may-be-wise quote from? Scripturetext.com didn’t have your exact wording. Did you paraphrase the quote? Your wording seems a bit misleading. I was raised on the King James version and find it a bit easier to understand for that reason.
King James Bible: “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.”
For quotes from other versions of the Bible see:
Yeah, 1 Corinthians 3-18 is a pretty slick psychological ploy.