Response To "Two Quick Questions For Christians"

In an earlier post I asked two questions aimed at Christians (although they could apply to people of any religion). I received a response from a Christian and I am posting said response here. I guess this speaks to the idea that smart people are less likely to be talked out of their religion when faced with questioning, contradictory evidence, etc as they can better justify their beliefs. Trying to weave through this web of logic and rationales would be an exhausting task. Not only that, but it really exemplifies just how difficult it would be to try and eradicate religious belief via debate, no matter how compelling the argument/evidence against. 

Question 1: Is there any non biblical, supporting evidence for what you believe ? If so, what is it? If no, and your beliefs are based solely upon what is contained in the bible, what then compels you to believe the book, especially as opposed to all of the other similar books upon which other religions are based, if, and I assume this is true, you believe that none of those other books are supported by extraneous evidence?

Two Quick Questions For Christians

1) Is there any non biblical, supporting evidence for what you believe ? If so, what is it? If no, and your beliefs are based solely upon what is contained in the bible, what then compels you to believe the book, especially as opposed to all of the other similar books upon which other religions are based, if, and I assume this is true, you believe that none of those other books are supported by extraneous evidence?

2) Do you think you'd be a Christian if you were raised in say India, or would you be a follower of the Hindu religion? Does the fact that religiosity is so highly correlated with culture/geography ever occur to you and if so, does that not strike you as a fairly compelling counterargument to your claims of truth?

The Inherent 'Evil' Within Christianity

This is a comment left by someone named Glen on Ray Comfort's stupid blog:

The better question is have you lied? Have you stolen? Have you hated someone? Have you prostituted? Have you ever born false witness? Have you ever used God's name as a dirty filthy cuss word? And better would you used your mamos name that way? Have you ever had sex with more than your spouce? Have you ever dishonored your parents? Thats right both of them together or independently.
Hitler was just as bad off as anyone living on the plannet including you. He may have done more nasty symptoms of the disease but that very same disease affects you; to your very core.
Ray treats the disease not the symptoms.

I responded to him:

@ Glen:


"The better question is have you lied? Have you stolen? Have you hated someone? Have you prostituted? Have you ever dishonored your parents?"


Have you ever told the truth? Have you ever given? Have you loved someone? Have you not prostituted? Have you honored your parents?


If by your logic, a yes to those means you're a "sinner," then logic dictates that a yes means you're the opposite of that.


So much for your little "disease." Sounds mor elike human experience.


Btw, I feel sad for you. Your religion has taught you to think that you are no better than somone who was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. I cannot even begin to express how unfair that is.


This is why the only sin is belief in your religion. It teaches you to be ashamed of your very nature and to equate lying with murder.


Btw, lying can be positive, parents don't deserve to be honored if they do not honor their children, hate can be justifed (Hitler, anyone?), and prostitution is not inherently wrong. If you think it is, explain how.

See, this is one of the main problems with christianity. Teaching people that they are born dirty, bad, sinful, wrong, evil, etc. All 'sins' are equal. The logical conclusion derived from these two ideas? "I'm a horrible, corrupted person who deserves to be punished and is in need of redemption. In fact, I'm no better than Hitler."

That fills me with so much despair. Such guilt, and for what? FOR NOTHING!! FOR FUCK'S SAKE IT IS PREDICATED UPON BULLSHIT!!!!!!

GAAAAHHHHH!!!! 

Thoughtcrime in Christianity

Anyone who has read the seminal dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell will be familiar with the concept of thoughtcrime, which is quite simply illegal thought. In Orwell's portrayl of a dystopian future, the totalitarian government surveys the thoughts of the people via 'psychology surveillance' (should have been called psychological surveillance imo).

Contrary to popular belief, however, the concept of thoughtcrime is not original to Orwell and his great piece of fiction. The concept actually appears in another piece of fiction, about 2000 YEARS before the release of his novel!

Theist PWND on Gamefaqs

Note: This is an older post that was sitting in my drafts.

Theist PWND on Gamefaqs.

In a discussion on the inclusion of JFK in the upcoming Call of Duty game (something I knew/know nothing about, since I don't follow the games, but this discussion was being had by others and I chimed in) the following ridiculous, frustrating, saddening, angering exchange (more like an ownage session) (with someone I have never spoken to online prior to this) was had:

Pagan Origins of (Aspects of) Christianity

NOTE: This blog is about the pagan origins of Christian rituals and holidays. This is a compilation of information I had saved on my hard drive, the origins of which are unfortunately unknown. I wish to make clear that I have NOT done much research into this area, and so I must preface this with a GRAIN OF SALT warning. Any errors made here, I take full responsibility for. If you spot any, please inform me of them. And if there are none, well, great, let me know that as well.

Okay, so, let's get to it: The pagan origins of (aspects of) Christianity. To be more specific, I will be looking at the origins of Christmas and Easter, specifically. Then the question of whether or not any of this disproves or casts doubt upon the veracity of the religons' claims is (very ) briefly examined.

Biblical Contradictions!

Time to examine a fraction of the myriad of biblical contradictions to be found with the slightest of investigation.

Bible contradictions, here we come!

-Jesus born in Bethlehem
-Jesus born in Nazareth

-God is omniscient, YET:
-Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

-Christians assume the Bible god only had one son, Jesus. If this is so, then why does Job 1:6 and 2:1 say "the sons of God"? This contradicts John 3:18 which says Jesus is God's only son. Why does Luke 3:38 say Adam was the son of God?

-Like many other topics, the Bible is ambiguous about dancing. It seems to be ok if done to celebrate "a very great slaughter" of Israel's enemies as is the case in Judges 11:32-34. Many Christian sects consider dancing to be lasciviousness and revelings which are outlawed in Galatians 5:19-21. Reveling is defined as "taking great pleasure". Contrary to Galatians, Ecclesiastes 3:1-4 approves of dancing when it plainly says there is a time "for every purpose under the heaven", including dancing.

-Is Jesus God? Jesus himself seems confused about this. In John 10:30 the Bible says he said "I and my father are one" while John 14:28 has Jesus saying "..my father is greater than I".

-When did Jesus fly up to heaven? Luke 24:1-51 and Mark 16:9-19 both say it was the same day he came back from the dead while John 20:26 says it was 8 days after his resurrection but Acts 1:3-9 says it was 40 days later.

-Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible, YET:
-Judges 1 :19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

-Joseph and Mary return for Roman census
-Joseph and Mary never return for any census

-Genesis 1, animals before man
-Genesis 2, man before animals

-One god? OR
-Multiple gods? (ex's: Gen 1:26, Gen 3:22, Exodus 12:12, Deut 10:17)

And there you have a small list of some bible contradictions.

Is there free will in heaven?

Is there free will in heaven?

If yes:

Are there bad deeds done in heaven?

If no, why not? Is it that no one chooses to sin because heaven is so amazingly awesome that they have no need/desire to commit evil? If there is free will in heaven, but no one acts on it (to do sin/bad works) because heaven is so amazing, then that means god has the ability to create a perfect place devoid of evil, without violating our free will. If that's the case, why was Earth not created in such a way, or what's the point of Earth at all?

If yes, bad deeds are done in heaven, then doesn't that mean heaven is, well, no longer heavenly? Some might say that the difference would still be that in heaven, you're with god, but if god is omnipresent, he's with you on Earth anyways (usually in people's aortic valves, if the christians are correct) which means that heaven is no different than Earth (unless of course you do not attribute omnipresence to god). Also, what happens to those people who do sin in heaven? Do they get sent to hell?

If no, there is no free will in heaven, then that means god has no qualms with us being devoid of free will, which means the free will defense for the problem of evil goes bye bye, since god clearly has no problem violating our free will.

Thoughts? Am I missing something?

Christians embarrassed about/ashamed of Satan? (Silence on the Satan(ic) front).

Christians embarrassed about/ashamed of Satan? (Silence on the Satan(ic) front).

I'm Canadian, and here in Canada there's not a whole lot of public god talk. Some, sure, but it's sparse and mostly negligible. Down south however, in the good ol' US of A, it's ubiquitous. It's just god god god. Politicians, athletes, celebrities, televangelists, news anchors, radio hosts, television personalities, basically everyone pimps their god in public. And of course, the majority of them are referring to Yahweh, the god of the Bible, when they speak about this god character.

Interestingly however, very few of them ever mention Satan.

Ever notice that? If so, ever wonder why?

9 Reasons Why We Don't Believe in Religion

Here are a collection of 9 reasons to help the religious understand why we don't buy into their belief systems. This is neither all encompassing nor to be taken as some finalized mission statement. I wouldn't consider this the most compelling list I could write, but it hits a fair number of things and does a few of them decently.

Lauren Rose's Election Experience, and A Moron's Response(s) to Her.

Lauren Rose's Election Experience, and A Moron's Response(s) to Her.

Link to the Story

Lauren Rose is an atheist who was perturbed to have to go to a church to cast her vote in a federal U.S. Election. She wore a tshirt expressing her displeasure at this concept (voting for a public election in a christian church) as well as identifying herself as an atheist.

Eternal Torment and a Just God

As you read this blog, please keep in mind that while this does not take into account the idea/doctrine of repentance, it's not relevant here, so please ignore that and focus on the people that DO end up in hell. Including nonbelievers, which, according to the bible, commited the only unforgiveable sin (nonbelief). Also, this is only directed at the subset of christians who believe in eternal hellfire. Those who prettied up their theology need not apply.

So, allow me to ask you a series of questions:

Two New Youtube Videos Up: Death Metal Baby and 2 Questions Re: Heaven

Enjoy....or not :)

Ongoing Debate With Rhology, the Christian Apologist: Special Pleading and Hypocrisy?

EDIT: Here is his response to this post.  I will be responding to it in time. It's headache inducing, so I may have to do it bit by bit ;)

This is a response to THIS POST, which itself was a response to MY RESPONSE to THIS POST by the user Rhology. That post of his is a response to my Initial Post which was a response to an older post of his (linked to in my original response post).

This might be starting to get confusing. Just follow the links, it's not nearly as confusing as it may sound. Basically, this is the thrid or fourth round in an ongoing debate of sorts with the Christian Apologist Rhology from the RHOBLOGY BLOG.

This response is definitely the most heated of what has thus far been a very civil, but strident, debate. I think I may have just opened the gates to some anger and perhaps even insults, although this was certainly not my intention. Sometimes, to be honest, you have to ruffle some feathers. Regular readers of mine may be scratching their heads at this point, wondering if perhaps I have sustained a head injury or something, as I am known for my fiestiness and proclivity to 'let someone have it' if they, in my estimation, deserve it. I only make these disclaimers in this case because this is someone who, up until this particular comment of his that I am responding to, was open and honest, with a respectful demeanor. Well.....I am afaid the demeanor may have remained intact, but the intellectual honesty seems to have taken the night off.....Let's get into it, shall we?

Response to the Response to my Response by a Christian Apologist

This is a response to THIS POST by the user Rhology (who I accidentally refer to as Rhoblogy in this...sorry man). That post of his is a response to my Initial Post which was a response to an older post of his (linked to in my original response post).

Here goes.

Response to a Christian on the topic of Atheist Morality

I have been engaged in a discussion with a christian apologist, who seems to have been at it for a long time. After some back and forth (during which he was refreshingly honest about his opinions, specifically those relating to the issue of morality in the Old Testament) this was the message directed at me, regarding atheist morality, atheistic inconsistency, and the accuracy of atheistic claims in the comment section of this person's blog (THIS is the post in question).

Ray Comfort Week Continues!! Comfort PWND?

I am not sure if pointing out simple logical deductions to a retard (sorry) is considered pwning as much as it is beating up on a hapless retard (sorry again), but this hapless retard (sorry, really) is manipulating people into believing lies, making them feel guilty for being human, and making big money off of doing so, so fuck it, it's a pwning.

So, on to what I will, perhaps tentatively (you decide!) call Ray Comfort being PWND.

Ray Comfort: Atheists Evolved From Chickens

Well, apparently it's Ray Comfort week here on The Thoughtful Gamers :)

Back in Januray of 2008, Ray Comfort ruminated over the idea that perhaps atheists evolved from chickens.

(I just came to find out about this idea of his yesterday, courtesy of the Non Prophets radio show (I'm working through the podcast archive, and I am in the 2008 season). )

Ray Comfort on John Lennon's Murder-er, rather, on how Justice Means No Food, Sleep, or Sex

Wow. I visited Ray Comfort's blog for the first time ever, and this is what I was confronted with:

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2010/07/john-lennons-murderer.html

He's in a tiff at the fact that Mark David Chapman (John Lennon's killer), who is coming up for parole this year, has been able to sleep, eat, and fuck in the 29 years that he has been in jail. I guess solitary confinement and sensory deprivation would be more fitting for Mr. Comfort?

Myth Busted: William Lane Craig Is Rational

William Lane Craig, the poster boy for post hoc rationalizations and bald assertions based on outdated cosmologi- er, sorry, rather, the poster boy for Evidence Based Christianity, had this to say:

"And my view here is that the way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart and this gives me a self authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit."

''a self authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. ''

Wow, talk about circular.