If “"JC" is one of 23 potential series” and its stage of development is only a “thumbnail sketch of the idea,” then how is this newsworthy?

Odd thing is that if you type “Jesus” in google news this silly story comes up first. Stranger still is the second story, it is about Jesus being struck by a car in Southampton. He was transported to Cooley Dickinson Hospital in Northampton if anyone wants to send flowers, or loaves and fishes.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/05/lord_jesus_chri.html

Positive stories about Jesus and Mohammad should be encouraged. American children have become less religious and more materialistic and MTV Types with limited patience or respect for elders.
School children have no idea about Islam or Judaism as completely connected to Christianity.
Muslims must be asked to explain, Why they have a problem with even positive depictions of Prophet Mohammad. The only reason for the ban was to prevent Idol worship.

The big difference is, if Christ is ridiculed on the show, there wont be any bombs left in Times Square. The bomb will go off when the producers stand in front of Christ to be judged.

I don't think so Clay.

He was much more than ridiculed two thousand years ago. No bomb went off. All he said was: “Father,
forgive them; for they know not what they do."

Consider this quotation Clay. And let me know if you believe it to be a Godly comment:

"Now - and this is daunting - this outpouring of mercy cannot penetrate our hearts as long as we have not forgiven those who have trespassed against us. Love... is indivisible; we cannot love the God we cannot see if we do not love the brother or sister we do see. In refusing to forgive our brothers and sisters, our hearts are closed and their hardness makes them impervious to the Father's merciful love; but in confessing our sins, our hearts are opened to his grace."

Please let me know what you think Clay.

I agree with the quotation, although it could be or isnt necessarily Christian. It needs to mention the Son as well as the Father. My point is I am not forgiving or refusing to forgive anyone. If the producers of South park change, fine. People who mock Christ and dont make an effort to reform are not going to be sent to heaven when they stand before Christ. And I dont see Christians leaving the bombs in Times Square. My mentioning the sins of another isnt something that we should never do. If we can never say that it is wrong, we arent being a proper witness to these people. We shouldnt let people do whatever they wish without saying that it opposes what God wants, whether someone says that we are "judging" or not. Thanks.

Does it really have to mention Jesus Clay. It comes from 1, John, chapter 4: (20) “ If anyone says, "I love God," but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. (21) This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.”

The entire quote does include Jesus though. I should not have shortened it. Here it is the way it is supposed to be:

“Now - and this is daunting - this outpouring of mercy cannot penetrate our hearts as long as we have not forgiven those who have trespassed against us. Love, like the Body of Christ, is indivisible; we cannot love the God we cannot see if we do not love the brother or sister we do see. In refusing to forgive our brothers and sisters, our hearts are closed and their hardness makes them impervious to the Father's merciful love; ...”

I hope that is better Clay. Please tell me what you think.

Ah Clay--the blind zeal of the witness--bombs will go off on judgment day? Where did you glean that? Revelation according to Clay? What type of bombs? Are Jesus and Vulcan sitting together with Zeus up there and Allah's 72 virgins mixing up explosives in a big vat, while the angels stomp up a storm of glee that so many non believers will be massacred on Judgment day? And you Clay, a halo over your head, imagine that you will be on the right hand side of the lord, a grin plastered on your face, as the body parts of the non believers scatter far afield, shredded by celestial bombs--and that Christian certitude of yours is less abhorrent than what you claim, is the Muslim propensity for violence? You are positive proof that religion breeds insanity.
Ravensfan Anon

Clay when the producers stand in front of Christ to be judged I think the issues will be the hardness of their hearts at the time of death.

That said, I think these guys are just making sport of God to make a few dollars. We could argue about how evil that is but it really isn't my intention to argue. I think the greater evil, though, is the will of people who truly hate God to use these childish cartoons to feed their Satanic agenda. We have a tendency in our world to think that evil is an old fashioned concept and the “devil” is just a metaphor.

The French poet, Charles Baudelaire, wrote in a preface to his book of poetry “Les Fleurs du mal” (The Flowers of Evil), that men no longer believe in the Devil but that they have no problem following him. That was in a period of French history (1857) that was marked by decadence, similar to our current culture. I think the folks that produce and fund these childish cartoons are followers of Satan in that sense. They just “go with the flow” thinking that they are just “entertainers.”

In a sense, their guilt is small. I'm not saying they are innocent. That is not my point. In a sense they are like a fourteen year old drug dealer on the streets of Baltimore. He finds a great way to make a lot of money very fast. He has no idea that it will cost him his life and he will never reach adulthood. And he doesn't know that he is feeding a beast that is killing his neighborhood. Nobody likes youthful drug dealers. But we all know the real beast is the guy with a big house in the suburbs with no visible means of support.

In this case the producers of South Park, J.C., and their ilk are mere pawns. The real enemy is at best atheism, at worst Satanism. Though the latter often masquerades as the former, as I am sure you have seen.

The bible says that everything we have done will be revealed in that day, not just what we feel at time of death. Thanks.

Dana - I find it interesting that you can say with all seriousness that " ... the will of people who truly hate God to use these childish cartoons to feed their Satanic agenda. " Atheists do not have gods, so how could their agenda be to feed an agenda of another one of YOUR gods, Satan? Or, as I suspect, is this point of clarification going to be 'interpreted' by you as just another bigoted manifestation against a rationale you cannot prove, or defend, requiring you to attack rather than be accountable for the bilge you spill in service to delusional fairy-tales?

Ah LaRocca,
We finally have it from the great one--atheism and satanism one and the same--a lot of people at the time of their death have hard hearts--that is called arteriosclerosis--and there is no god out there to punish them for this inescapable fate. There is absolutely no culture that did not have decadence and virtue, both, going on simultaneously--virtue is not the sole province of the religious, neither is vice the sole province of the atheists or the irreligious, or the irreverent. There is nothing at all to show that the producers of South park are atheists--that is another figment of your anti atheist sentiments LaRocca--and then the extrapolation into drug pushing by youthful innocents being the equivalent of religious parodies in cartoon forms by South Park producers-- that is truly a stretch and shows the level of disturbance in your head LaRocca. A lot of very religious Christians are raking in the dough and plenty of it, by evangelizing on TV, like the Pharisees Jesus condemned, and not to be for gotten are the apocalypse stories that have brought several million dollars into the grasp of guys like Tim Laheye--not the work of the devil of course--but the work of god, a perfect potion to get drunk on and get addicted to by Clay's standards! If the producers of South Park want to shake hands with a very human Jesus let them--and if their work is not so profound or important as told by you LaRocca why such condemnations and damnations on the imagined source head of atheism? They are comedians out for a load of laughs, the producers of South Park-- and yes, audience and money--just like their starchy Christian brethren-and as Christianity goes--may be they are even true Christians who kneel to Jesus at night and say, "Thank you lord for giving us such a neat idea--thank you for letting us make sport of you--you are a sport like none other--we love you lord--bless our set, our actors and our story lines--and bring us fame and fortune--forgive us our trespasses!" The point here is this: the producers of South Park are atheists and satanists only in the anti atheist vituperations of LaRocca.
Ravensfan Anon

Recently we became aware your area may have been the target of break and enters, theft and other low level crimes.

Unfortunately some of these crimes may have been carried out by survivors of priestly abuse as it has now become the only means available to them to provide for their families as a means of survival.

On behalf of those sexually abused, forgotten and abandoned by the Catholic church and your government we offer our most sincere apologies.

rgds

JohnB

Clay: I don't dispute “that everything we have done will be revealed in that day, not just what we feel at time of death.” But if the final judgment does not allow for the condition of our heart at our death, then what hope is there for salvation?

Robert: Please go back and read what I said:

“I think the greater evil, though, is the will of people who truly hate God to use these childish cartoons to feed their Satanic agenda.”

I am not talking about atheists in the quote you mentioned. I mentioned only “people who hate God.” Obviously they believe that God exists. One does note “hate” someone who does not exist.

Atheism is the enemy too, I said. But I obviously mentioned them separately from the people who hate God. Your question: “Atheists do not have gods, so how could their agenda be to feed an agenda of another one of YOUR gods, Satan?” is close to the answer but it misses the point in only a minor way. And that would be that atheist do in fact have a God, they simply do not believe in him. Kind of like the bratty child who proclaims to mommy, “You're not the boss of me!”

So I don't put atheists in that category of “people who hate God.” That would be as silly as saying that the bratty little child “hates mommy.”

Nope. Just a bratty, disobedient child!

Dana - That would be like your having a cognitive brain , but choose not to believe in it. Really, you put yourself through contortions a circus mother would be proud of in her child, all to maintain your fantasy environment. Coming here is almost like visiting the zoo, just to watch the monkeys do their fling, entertaining, as long as you just don't stand too close.

Robert. Act like an adult. As I told you the last time you wrote to me I would be pleased to communicate with you if you can remain civil. Clearly, you can not.

R-anon; Ditto.

Dana - When you demand civility, it is a demand that nothing be said that reflects badly on religion, especially yours. To expect that, is what it is, a demand not to have ideas that contravene your deeply held misconceptions expressed at all, which hardly encourages getting at the truth. Nice try, but you are now bordering on Clay like shunning, which you will have to admit does not stop those who continue to point out every time something issues from him that is patiently stupid, and neither will such tactics work for you. One cannot claim the high ground when their foundation is a manure pile, in which they are sinking.

Dana - Unfortunately the one thing Robert has consistently demonstrated is an inability to conduct himself in a civil manner or treat anyone who does not share his views with any degree of respect. He will profess that those who believe in God do not deserve any respect. He may be the best proof of why atheism has no value and why contrary to the atheism bus signs people are not good without God.

Mr Littel - What LaRocca wants is for you to act like an adult and disagree with out the childish personal insults. We all know it won't happen because you can't discuss anything like an intelligent or logical human being.

ravensfan - Simple solution, just produce this god of yours in a demonstrable, undeniable, verifiable fashion, and you will earn the respect you demand. Until that time, what you believe is what it is, a superstitious pile of drek that you want to spread like a disease to the rest of us. It deserves no respect until you can give it validity in the real world.

I seem to be doing alright without god, Ravensfan.

I never “demanded” civility from you Robert. I merely told you that I will not discuss this with you unless you will be civil. I have never “demand(ed) that nothing be said that reflects badly on religion,” not in the current thread nor in any other.

You can read all of my posts and see that I speak the truth. Similarly one can read your posts and see that you consistently attack, offend, and insult. It seems that whenever someone has disagreed with you more than a few times you come up with some brilliant comment like “Shove it, you obsequies fanatic troll. Your mindlessness is beyond belief.” (September 3, 2009 4:30 PM) Or, as you said to me upon discovering that I am gay and out of the closet. that “no priest found you attractive enough to molest as a child.” (May 7, 2010 9:44 AM).

In the last thread where I tried to engage you in discourse you kept making disparaging remarks about the poster “pattycakers” who was not even involved in the thread. In the recent past you have referred to a poster as “the butt end of a donkey” (March 22), to another “Blow it out your … hole” (Feb. 6), to another “someone has to point out that you are an idiot” (April 21), or “I'm saying this in kindness, you are an insane blithering idiot” (Jan. 4).

Ravensfan's caveat that you are incapable of conducting yourself in a civil manner has proven correct. Your behavior speaks volumes of the level of integrity of the your position.

Dana - Whether you are gay or not, means nothing to me. I find that the more gays we have in our society, the less children will be produced, which is a positive that should be encouraged. As to your coming out, I guess I missed that, not reading all your contributions on all threads and my comment was aimed at you as if you were straight, which would have had a far greater impact on your ego if you were a heterosexual homophobic absolutist.

As to my less than courteous attitude regarding people who are using their religious beliefs to impose religious positions on the rest of us, by channeling them through use of the coercive power of the state (limiting abortion for one), I find that any acceptance of the absurdity of religious belief only encourages your kind to think they can get away with more intrusive behavior. Religion has reached the end of its usefulness and is now more of a threat to progress than any benefits it offers in return. It is time for Humanity to unburden itself from our ancient and outdated delusional rationales and you only stand as an impediment to doing what must be done. This, of course, does not require giving the carrier of the disease of religion the same respect we give to those not so afflicted. I give the same level of respect to the political Right, who are also acting in a manner that will lead to our demise, so don't take it personally, its just all part of the awareness that we are, as a species, not yet evolved to the point where we can handle our accumulated progress, when it is being driven by our accumulated prejudices and fears. Religion is one of the great bastions of our prejudices and fears and it is the world in which you reside, pitifully.

Robert - I don;t believe I was addressing you just your lack of ability to be civil which was addressed to Dana. You place far more value on your narrow minded opinions and the value of your respect than I do.

Bankstreet - Although I don't agree with you my friend, I do respect your view on the subject. Of course you also don't spend time posting anfer filled personal attacks on people either. Robert could learn something from you.

LaRocca,
I have not insulted you except the insults you imagined--but that's fine--if you want to play prima donna. Robert, you won't go far with the religionists--I have told LaRocca none of the things she says you have told her and her replies have been feeble at best and defensive and accusatory at worst.. As for seeking the truth---there is only one truth--LaRocca's truth--LaRocca sounds like she or he used to be a teacher, is used to being revered, having a captive audience and is not used to her authority being flouted or questioned--she has called us bratty kids for our god disbelief and continues to condescend in every post--but the religionists pop up to throw their arms around her sagging shoulders to civilize you. Anonymous is here--what did I tell you--he or she cannot get you out of his or her system--this person is besotted with you Robert and wow! Did you every think that you would acquire such a fan on the blogs?
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan Anon - Fans like them are what is keeping me coming back. I haven't had this much fun since I walked out of work one night in Florida, dressed in my tux, and found the parking lot covered with thousands of mating Palmetto Bugs (3 inch domestic flying cockroach). I turned on my car lights and did a Mexican hat dance, killing potentially millions of the buggers and my shoes were gunked with so much bug guts, I could slide over the pavement as if skating. I often get the urge to scrape off my shoes with a stick everytime I finish posting to them.

R-anon, the exact words you used toward me were: “...there is no god or gods out there and no demons either--then pinch yourself--you'd still be the swaggering queer that you are....”

Now if you want to pretend that “swaggering queer” is not an epithet based on my sexual orientation, then you are quite wrong. It is not only insulting but it is unkind.

I never referred to anyone as “bratty kids.”

“Kids” are animals, and as a former teacher I have never referred to dignified human beings as animals. Though you tempt me! The phrase I used, young man, was: “bratty, disobedient child.”

So I expect both you and your little friend to refrain from vulgar, abusive, or hateful language, expressions and slurs, and inflammatory attacks of a personal nature. I hope that is understood young man!

Anonymous I see you are here as well defending Mr Littel. People who post like immature paranoid loud mouths like Mr Littel tend to get a lot of responses. His last sntence is a good description of how most people feel about him after reading his arsenic laced posts.

BankStreet. I agree with Ravensfan. Your gentlemanly ability to disagree with dignity is a quality that I admire and respect.

MIKEY WEINSTEIN, JESUS-BASHER

What kind of wine has Mikey Weinstein been drinking?
As an anti-Christian Jewish supremacist and as the president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, he's doing all he can to create an anti-Jewish backlash and help bring about the predicted endtime Holocaust of Jews that'll be worse than Hitler's.
Neither Falwell, Hagee nor any other Christian initiated this prediction. But Weinstein's ancient Hebrew prophets did.
In the 13th and 14th chapters of his Old Testament book, Zechariah predicted that after Israel's rebirth ALL nations will eventually be against Israel and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed!
Malachi revealed the reasons: "Judah hath dealt treacherously" and "the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this."
Haven't evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the hate-filled back-stabbing by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard, Kathy Griffin, Bill Maher etc.) against followers of Jesus such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
Weinstein wouldn't dare assert that citizens on government property don't have freedom of speech or press freedom or freedom to assemble or to petition the government.
But God-hater Weinstein maliciously wants to eliminate from government property the "free exercise" of religion - especially by evangelicals - a freedom found in the same First Amendment. Significantly, this freedom was purposely listed FIRST by America's founders!
And Weinstein wouldn't try to foist "separation of church and state" on strongly-Jewish Israel, but he does try to foist this non-Constitution-mentioned phrase on strongly-Christian America.
In light of Weinstein's Jewish protectionism and violently anti-Christian obsession, Christians in these endtimes should be reminded of Jesus' warning in Mark 13:9 (see also Luke 21:12) that "in the synagogues ye shall be beaten."
Maybe it's time for some modern Paul Reveres to saddle up and shout "The Yiddish are Coming!"

PS - Some, like Weinstein, are so treacherously anti-Christian they will even join hands at times with enemies, including Muslims, in order to silence evangelicals. It was Weinstein, BTW, who put pressure on the Pentagon to dis-invite Franklin Graham from speaking there on the National Day of Prayer!

ravensfan and Dana,

Thank you for your kind words You know me well enough (as well as anyone can "know" anyone here) to know my ... skepticism ... regarding the existence of "God." You know that I am impatient with piety, especially mindless piety, and most especially when that piety attempts to impinge on my rights as a ,man and as a citizen.

I gather you also appreciate that I try to remain civil in my conversations here ... although sometimes my "wit" cannot resist a certain degree of acerbity. I usually find Mr Littel's tirades to be embarrassing (and they do little to convince anyone of anything ... much like Clay's from the other side of the choir). Ravensfan_Anon, I happen to find somewhat less annoying, for the record.

I did have to leap into this particular fray (I "retire" from time to time, out of the general futility of these exchanges) when I read ravensfan's sweeping assessment of atheists and atheism as "having no value" and that we are somehow not "good."

I believe I am a good man, struggling in the world against evil -- both my own and the world's. The fact that I can do it without religion is not at all remarkable; many people do it every day.

Again LaRocca, it is not an epithet--you are a swaggerer--you simply swagger across the pages of these blogs--you identified yourself as queer--nothing wrong with that as I said before--I merely put the two together--I believe Catholic guilt wracks you and makes you see anti gay sentiments where there are none--as far as I am concerned you can be gay, naked, happy, sad, it's all the same --I argue with you based on the merits or the demerits of what you write--it is true that whether there are demons or no demons out there, gods or no gods, you will remain who you are--queer as you have identified yourself and swaggering as I have pegged you. Once more, teacher, no offense meant--your pressing the point won't help--offense taken does not always equate offense meant but since offense was taken I proffer you a prim and proper, "Sorry, teacher!"

Hopefully that will shut the door on the subject unless of course you, like all the ones who want complete control in an argument with another, not by virtue of the strength of the argument alone, but also by playing the wounded victim, will keep pressing this "swaggering queer" comment until you have milked all you can out of it for its control angle--ditto for Robert's comment, "you are upset because a priest did not find you attractive enough to molest" or something akin--but if I have gleaned you well from these blogs, you are not yet done with these comments, they are the same as a switch in your hand for now --teacher.

I guessed right Robert--LaRocca used to be a teacher--once a teacher, always a teacher--look upon her or him with awe and tremble because she or he carries a ruler in her (or his) hand and smacks your wrist when she (or he) perceives insult where none is intended. I don't know what Anonymous's excuse is for the same type of behavior--Anonymous were you a teacher once too? Say that you were Anonymous and I will then know why our educational system is in shambles and I will not ponder the matter any further.

By the way LaRocca, I assume it is you who has posted as Anonymous and not Anonymous who has posted on behalf of you, imitating your vocabulary and style--if it is the latter, I have to congratulate Anonymous on his perfect imitation of you--Anonymous that was perfect pitch if you posted for LaRocca--never knew you had it in you to be this perspicacious about someone else's modus operandi.

O BankStreet, a pat on your head have the acrimonious religionists bestowed on you--congrats--LaRocca earlier on compared Atheism to Satanism--one has to follow this person's subtleties--not exactly interchangeable according to her (or him) but Satanism masquerades as atheism. Would you say BankStreet, that is a moderate and unbiased statement--you see LaRocca bestows, a nod here, a pat there, a vicious viper hiss here and a gentle whisper there--control, BankStreet is the name of the game and in Robert, the teacher has found the big bad bully to tame, in you the teacher's pet and in me a an animal to spill her animus over. Good bye folks--enjoy the cannibalism--it's called religion, it masquerades as forgiveness, goodness and kindness--rip up the facade, what lies underneath is authoritarianism and control--the apotheosis of all of that--LaRocca.
Ravensfan Anon

Your excuses for your bigotry fall on deaf ears r-anon. “Swaggering queer” is by anyone's definition an epithet. You can lie to your (only) fan as much as want that neither word is an insult, just as you might say that neither “lazy” nor “negro” is an epithet. Similarly bigots combine harmless words like “greedy” and “Jew”, or “terrorist” and “Muslim” to implicate themselves in the ancient art of hatred.

It remains true that not a single intelligent person has been swayed by your flaccid attempt to explain away your hateful comment. Had you been a man you would have admitted that the words were uncalled for and apologized for them. You would have gained a measure of reluctant respect at least. You did not, and that defines the limits of your ethical stance, to your shame.

LaRocca,
I told you you would milk it for what it's worth--carry on--you are being true to form. Not a single intelligent person has said anything about this except yourself and I am not here to sway anyone about that comment-- nurse that and other comments in your bosom LaRocca--they might yet eat you alive. You have a true problem with accepting yourself as you are more than others have with you being who you are--I would say to you, "Similarly bigots combine words like Atheism and Satanism to implicate themselves in the ancient art of hatred!" You are a queer by your previous post--you swagger by my assessment--end of discussion--a swaggering queer in many circles would be an endearing one--except of course when the swaggering queer has an awful pious and sanctimonious side to contend with. Keep contending LaRocca--you may yet accept yourself and not make such a to do about being a swaggerer or a queer or both. And practice what you preach--your ethical stance is not exactly a shining beacon on the hill-- don't place satanism and atheism side by side in one continuum to beat up the atheists with your truncheon. By the way you are very predictable--I knew you would sniffle into your little hanky and tell me that I haven't been man enough to own up to bigotry, ethical lapse, hatred and numerous other sins because LaRocca you can't help yourself--you hate atheists so and you hate atheists who challenge you even more.

BankStreet, it was not Ravensfan who made sweeping statements about atheism--it was Dana LaRocca.
Ravensfan Anon

R-A,

I was provoked by (and was responding specifically to) ravensfan's posting of May 10, 2010 10:58 AM.

I can't imagine in what circles a homophobic epithet would be considered “endearing” r-anon. Not here in Mt. Vernon, I can assure you of that.

As I said before, if you can be civil I will be happy to correct your errors. If you cannot, you may remain in darkness.

God bless you, and God bless your situation.

I can't imagine in what circles a homophobic epithet would be considered “endearing” r-anon. Not here in Mt. Vernon, I can assure you of that.

As I said before, if you can be civil I will be happy to correct your errors. If you cannot, you may remain in darkness.

God bless you, and God bless your situation.

Bankstreet - For what it's worth I didn't mean to imply you or anyone else is not an honorable person. It's meaning was intended as better off. I realize you wouldn't agree with that either. I just wanted to clarify.

Ravensfan Anon - Don't you find it quaint that a person who has outlined his delusional beliefs so well (his proud subscription to the Creed of Nicaea, 325 A.C.E.), would presume to correct YOUR errors, if only you would no longer challenge his, which he defines as not being respectful enough to his made-up rationale?

LaRocca,
Keep correcting my errors and I will be civil to you--I insist I have already been civil--you insist I haven't--then we will go with your assessment--I will curtsy, I will bow--accept your damning verdict and submit to the teacher's truncheon--by the way what is this obsession you have about correcting people's errors--am I to assume you think you are always right--all that said, I do miss
your cavalier caviling voice when it doesn't come through against me--pure masochism----you are endearing LaRocca--in your own way--there is none like you on these blogs. Robert--yes, there is none like LaRocca on these blogs--I am sure I will pretty soon say something to LaRocca, she or he will nurse in her or his bosom like a poisonous snake but until I err again I am going to ingratiate myself to this taskmaster with a god complex. I hope you will join me against the religionists---in defense of the atheists--we are outnumbered by them by the millions--I know you will never ingratiate yourself to anyone--and that's what makes you like none other on these blogs--you are a perfect match for the knee bended god adoring Larocca--always right.of course this LaRocca--vindicated for her or his arrogance because she or he speaks for god--wouldn't you love how god makes arrogance, conceit, egomania, paranoia--all things OK?
Ravensfan Anon

I find it odd that someone who claims to not know yet still makes absolute claims regarding the beliefs of others as if he does know. Someday I'd love to hear that one. If your response will be similar to what you gave ravensfan earlier save yourself the embarrassment and don't respond. Logic 101 Failure to prove something true does not make it false. Maybe your Anonymous defender can help you out

Now Robert you haven't been studying your catechism very well. That was the Apostles Creed that I instructed you with earlier. I showed it to you instead of the Nicene Creed because the latter insists on the divinity of Christ. I thought we could cover that issue later. But since you have shown an interest in the Nicene Creed I would be more than happy to go over the salient details briefly with you.

The Arians had denied the divinity of Christ and had taught that Christ was created (made) by God the Father.. The Creed intended to clarify the error by emphasizing that the trinity is one and the same substance: Such that we believe “... in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. ”

His Holiness Benedict XVI explains it like this:

“With his theory, Arius threatened authentic faith in Christ, declaring that the Logos was not a true God but a created God, a creature "halfway" between God and man who hence remained for ever inaccessible to us. The Bishops gathered in Nicaea responded by developing and establishing the "Symbol of faith" ["Creed"] which, completed later at the First Council of Constantinople, has endured in the traditions of various Christian denominations and in the liturgy as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

“In this fundamental text - which expresses the faith of the undivided Church and which we also recite today, every Sunday, in the Eucharistic celebration - the Greek term homooúsios is featured, in Latin consubstantialis: it means that the Son, the Logos, is "of the same substance" as the Father, he is God of God, he is his substance. Thus, the full divinity of the Son, which was denied by the Arians, was brought into the limelight.” (General Audience 20 June 2007)

It is interesting to note that the “Communion of Saints” is included in the Apostle's Creed, but not the Nicene Creed. And if you can give me a good reason for that Robert I'll give you extra credit!

Once again Robert, I am so very pleased that you studied ahead in the book.

R-Anon: Your question “by the way what is this obsession you have about correcting people's errors?” deserves an answer.

Actually it is only you and Robert that I want to correct. I am truly concerned for your salvation. Others are not showing any outward manifestations of hatred, and hatred is so injurious, not just to the soul, but to your somatic health as well. So you see, I'm very interested in your well being. When I was teaching the other teachers would tease me for always taking on the most difficult kids, the “lost causes,” and the, well, “brats.”

As for: “I will bow--accept your damning verdict and submit to the teacher's truncheon....,” young man , I will have you know that it is loving chastisement, not “damning.” And that is only a yardstick, not a truncheon. What a scaredy-cat.

Again. God bless and keep both of you.

Ravensfan Anon - Dana/ Anonymous?, it's hard to tell which is which and which are the same, does seem to have an identity crisis that cannot be sustained outside the limiting embrace of delusional thought. How proudly they wear their ignorant need of god concepts to give meaning to their lives and how stoutly they defend their truths that are not truths at all, even going so far as to use the "proof" that because we cannot prove their god does not exist, (as if a negative assertion can EVER be proven in logic) it somehow can be used as a justification for their unquestioning belief that they try so hard to share with everyone, whether it is wanted or not. The only justification for the level of societal interference they wish to impose, would be the undeniable proof that such a creature exists and that its nature is exactly as they say it is, or their actions in the name of such made-up beings must be held suspect and if intrusive, denied. Their truth is not truth until they can prove that it is true.

Mr Littel - Dana and I are not the same person regardless of what you choose to believe in your clouded mind. Since you do not know me you can not possibly know what I believe is truth. You foolishly assume because I take exception with you on inability to articulate a logical rational intelligent respectful argument I must believe the same as Dana and others. That is the thinking of a paranoid mind which explains your constant whining about people trying to silence you from spouting your truths. Are you saying nothing is truth until proven? If so then you are even less intelligent than I thought

(Fake) Anonymous - In that you cannot, or will not, settle on a moniker that will identify you, having to determine if it is you we are dealing with, is difficult. That you seem to take some perverse pleasure in claiming anonymity, both in name and what you believe, just basing your attacks on the notion of politeness, makes you pretty much a coward hiding behind your perceived wall of non-commitment. I will not play tag with a coward, so $#!+ or get off the pot.

Mr Littel Aww does it bother that much. I told you a while back if id's mean that much to you pick one and as long as it's not insulting I'd consider using it. I realize coming up with one without resorting to a childish insult may be tough for you. My comments are based not on your lack of politeness rather your lack of logic and ability to behave like a reasonable adult when you comment here and your ignorant and arrogant concept how you treat people is earned. Respond or don't respond when I post that's up to you. I could care less. There is no reason to get into what I believe with someone completely incapable of discussing and debating such issues like a rational, logical and intelligent person. Demonstrate you can do that then talk to me about what I believe. Until then I’ll just point out your numerous flaws, lack of logic and inability to anything except act like a petulant child.

Alan Turing, the famous atheist mathematician, determined that even some mathematical truths cannot be proven.

That said, he gave credit to God in a poem he wrote that was later used as his epitaph:

Hyperboloids of wondrous Light
Rolling for aye through Space and Time
Harbour those Waves which somehow Might
Play out God's holy pantomime

Faith is often much more powerful than proof. Do you need proof that your parent or child loves you?

I would hope not. Faith is enough for most of us.

Dana LaRocca,
I absolutely adore you--you keep me rollicking along, my somatic health failing me, my traumatic brain digesting all that you spew, my thematic reasoning speechless in the face of your schematic pedantic barrages.
That said don't waste your time pleading with the god creature for Robert and me--we are irredeemable. Plead for thyself, Clay and ANONYMOUS--yes, plead for ANONYMOUS who needs much pleading.
Anonymous-- god is not included in the I don't know yet" theme-- Robert believes there is no God--zip, nada zero god except those like you and LaRocca on Earth who act as though they are gods--the "I don't know yet" refers to the deep dark unknowns and conundrums around us--minus the made up conundrum- the unsubstantiated fabricated, concoction- decoction called god. Don't include god in the "I don't know yet!"declaration of Robert. What belongs there is the subatomic world, the yet to be discovered particles swirling around in the CERN super collider, the strings strumming--or not strumming in the universe--the black holes and their density--the dead and dying stars--the constellations--the nature of matter and anti matter--the amalgamation of the theory of gravity with that of relativity--the nature of strong and weak forces--that of quarks--how have the Neanderthals influenced our gene pool, and so and so forth Anonymous--endless conundrums--not fabricated--mathematically deducible--can your god be reduced to an equation or to a burning bush like the one Moses saw--or to a many armed creature the Hindus have cooked up--bring forth this god as the ancients have imagined this god--lead this god out of the darkness and we will take this god out of the "does not exist" group and place this god in the "a+a=2a" category --do it and show me and then I will believe in your god--and don't tell me that all string theory equations are god deduced and god reduced--won't buy that Anonymous--can you or LaRocca reduce, deduce and produce this god?
Ravensfan Anon

(Fake) Anonymous - Why don't you adopt SOG as your moniker. It stands for Sword of God, giving vent to your messianic need to deliver this forum from evil, and by sounding like your delusional head, would appeal to your psychotic need to achieve near god-hood. It is clear that you stand on the Clay side of the reality question, tin foil hats and all. I can understand why you don't want us to know the details of your beliefs, because you know how vulnerable they are to attack, especially by people who actually embrace the ,"rational, logical and intelligent " analysis of reality.

R-anon, I am trying to understand your four sentences.

The first sentence is easy. You adore me. Quite understandable.

The second sentence presumes that I am “wasting my time” praying for you. It is not a waste of time even if you consider yourself irredeemable. Even if one were to imagine a world where there was no God the practice of prayer has beneficial effects for the practitioner. Meditative styles of prayer, in particular, have shown significant physiological effects. A study conducted by the Division of Nuclear Medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania showed a significant increase in cerebral blood flow in a study of Franciscan nuns. Compared to the baseline, the “scans showed increased blood flow in the prefrontal cortex (7.1%), inferior parietal lobes (6.8%), and inferior frontal lobes (9.0%).”

Increases in phenylalanine concentration have also been noted. The urinary metabolite of serotonin (5-hydroxyindole-3-acetic acid) is found to be higher in the subjects than in resting controls; levels also increase significantly immediately after the meditation period has ended.

Similarly a study by the Laboratory of Cellular Physiology and Immunology at Rockefeller University has suggested that; levels of plasma prolactin , epinephrine and arginine vasopressin increase. Thyroid-stimulating hormone has also been reported to decrease. There is also a marked decline on adrenocortical activity and a decreased heart rate.

So, prayer is healthy and beneficial, regardless of you redemption status, it is not a waste of time. That said, no study has yet shown that Intercessory Prayer has the intended result on the person for whom one is praying. In other words, “it is not yet known.”

The third sentence that suggests that God can not be included in Robert's "I don't know yet!" declaration. That assumes that Robert does know. He will have to address that issue himself.

The fourth sentence is the one that troubles me. It is a sentence of over 200 words with confusing punctuation, questions inserted in the middle of assertions, and even a mathematical formula. I should tell you, dear one, that “stream of consciousness” writing styles went out of fashion at the same time as Nehru jackets hit the department stores and L.S.D. was criminalized.

I did understand one of the questions that you asked in that hodge-podge synaptic overload: “How have the Neanderthals influenced our gene pool?”

The answer is that I do not know, yet. But if your intention is to show me that it has, you have surely given ample evidence.

Robert, you mentioned what you imagined to be another Anonymous' “need to deliver this forum from evil,” yet other than myself, Bankstreet is the only one in this thread who has mentioned “evil.” That's where he wrote that he was “struggling in the world against evil.”

My question is: Do you believe that there is a quality of being that can rightly be called “evil?”

If you believe it exists, how does one know the difference between good and evil. And at what stage of development of humankind did we first start to separate one from the other?

On the other hand, if you do not believe in the existence of “evil,” would you put it in the list of things that you “don't know, yet” or are you quite certain?

Yes, LaRocca,
I need proof that my parent or child loves me--how many children have been sold into sex slavery by their own parents and how many children have committed parricide? Actions do count--not just foregone conclusions about instinct--remember in the Greek story Medea took revenge on Jason by killing her own children and since that fictional killing there have been many hideous parents who have done the same to their children. That, you may say, is a phenomenon exclusively the province of the godless--not true--the god believers have set fires to the very churches where they have worshiped and the god believers have barged into these places of worship across the globe to commit revenge or honor killings--it seems the human kind is capable of immense brutality-god belief notwithstanding. You can insist that even such heinous deeds should not dispute parental love for children or a child's love for the parent--or that god believers are generally guided by god's commands and such brutality is less among the believers and more among the non believers--but there are no clear statistics to prove your point--suffice it to say that savagery is equally possible from both sides and to me seems to have occurred more on your side of the fence and to you on mine--endless argument in futility. That an atheist mathematician in a moment of weakness wrote something in praise of god epitomized on his epitaph does not prove that god exists--faith may be powerful but is no proof of god's existence--it may elevate you, exhilarate you, give you hope in times of despair and may be your salvation--still no proof LaRocca--you still talk in abstractions because knowing god and loving god, praising god and praying to god are a natural state of being for you--like breathing air or drinking water--therefore it is impossible for you to understand those to whom this is not so--those who question your unconditional faith--those who don't subscribe to it- that those who can live without your god can be good--that too is impossible for you to believe--hence your zeal to use the words of the non believers on these blogs as positive proof of their need for salvation--as positive proof of their "cannot be helped hate state" -- you also set a lot of store on the words on these blogs--the sweetest spoken men and women on these blogs may be venomous and the gruffest, most acerbic and caustic ones may be the most truthful and decent of folks--the latter may be true of Robert for all you know--you deal in superficialities LaRocca---haven't you had some harsh taskmasters and vitriolic ones in your life who actually were softies when you got to know them or they used gruffness as a cover or defense--judge not based on the words on these blogs LaRocca, you don't know the deeds of those on these blogs. That said I do agree, you have a right to express that you have been hurt by the words spoken and you have a right to demand politeness as a forerunner of communication--by the same token the other side has the right to assert that you are being too sensitive or are milking the situation for what it's worth or you are imagining slights. Ciao as Pattycakers and all Italians would say--chow as I would say--chow that down and I am sure you would give me plenty to chow down when you put your typing fingers to it.
Ravensfan Anon

Dana - Good and Evil are concepts that we have evolved, or have been realized by the negative, or positive, influence circumstances have on our lives. The people of England in the 10th century recognized the raids and resulting rape of English women by the Vikings, as being a perceived evil that such terror acts represent, but in the long run, the gene pool of England got an infusion of genetic material that strengthened them beyond where traditional breeding patterns would have led. Evil in this case spawned benefits that can only be judged as good by their long term results. Evil, or good, cannot be judged by a set standard that ignores, or even contravenes the needs of society, even when that need contravenes doctrine laid down to satisfy concepts that are not real. In the same breath, some aspects of made-up rationales for existence can have positive aspects that, by their enforcement marshal a population in directions that benefit that society, until they become moribund and begin harming that society. Absolutist belief systems ALWAYS stagnate over time. They may adapt superficially in the long run, but because of their rigidity, they never adapt quickly enough to handle new and unknown threats (see religion's response to The Plague, which only accelerated the spread of the disease). Today we face the threat that we are going to breed ourselves to the point where we poison the pond we all live in and at this time, religion's tendency to breed itself into a superior position relative to other religions doing the same thing, can only be perceived as an evil, unless you are one of those so constrained by your belief system that you cannot, or will not see the threat that is so mathematically demonstrable. Good and Evil, are concepts that are subjective, elective and malleable if they are to be both effective and meaningful. If they are absolutist and given by a made-up vane and vengeful god, they can, in the long run, lose all meaning, if by their imposition we all end up dead, the ultimate evil with which we can all agree .

R-anon, you are correct in your statement: “LaRocca--you still talk in abstractions.”

When I was a graduate student studying epistemology I was lead to believe that abstract thought was a higher cognitive process. Unless something new has been discovered in the realms of cognition and intelligence that should still be the case. Forgive me if I slightly misquote Jean Piaget, as it has been well over thirty years since I read the book:

“Intelligence is the coordination of the means to reach a certain goal that is not attainable in an immediate manner, whereas thought is interiorized intelligence, no longer based upon direct action, but upon a symbolism...”

Essentially, the further thought progresses from the concrete to the symbolic the higher the thought process involved.

If, as you say, you need proof that your parent or child loves you, then that is very unfortunate. If you would read what I actually wrote I did not assert that such a state was not possible, but only that it is unfortunate if such a case exists. I'll repeat it for you:

“Do you need proof that your parent or child loves you?

I would hope not.“

You don't make it clear how child sex slavery and suicide relate to either the question at hand or your own need for proof. I would say that a child in either situation, if the parent were at fault, would already have evidence of lack of love. Next you use the example of what you call a “fictional killing” as evidence, but evidence of what is not clear. If it's fiction what could it show?

Sorry buddy. I can't get through your 600 word paragraph until you break it down into some kind of logical order for me. I'm sure the fault is entirely mine.

Culpa est mea,

Mr Little – As usual you prove incapable of making an intelligent rational logical response. Instead based on absolutely nothing except the fact that I find your responses lacking you assume you know what I am. Having run into your type of biased ignorant paranoid types before saying anything of what I believe would be pointless. You’ve already made up that tiny little mind of yours on what I am and certainly wouldn’t let anything I say sway you. As for your moniker since you couldn’t follow the one rule I made I’ll pass. Anyone who post as much irrational, illogical and unintelligent anger laced rants as you has no business giving advice to me or anyone else for that matter. With the exception of your defender no one considers anything you say to have any rational, logical or intelligence to it. Prove me wrong post something devoid of petulant childish personal attacks or mocking things that you personally consider rubbish. I don’t think you can do it.

racism -> evil
poverty -> evil
greed -> evil
sanctimony -> evil
Pat Robertson -> evil

(Fake) Anonymous (aka SOG by his many fans) - I stand by my last post to you, and defy you to critique my last post to Dana, to see if it meets with your demand for logical and intelligent discourse. My guess is it won't, not because it is lacking in any way, but because the lack is within you. You seem to be exhibiting behavior that is becoming ever more manic, and looking for someone to blame. I seem to be your chosen victim and as long as you keep tilting at windmills, I am happy to be the focus of your increasing and obvious ego gratification issues. Maybe someone witnessing your struggle, will point you toward the help you so seem to need.

Mr Little – I expected you would stand by your post. Unlike you I can acknowledge and respect logical intelligent responses even when I disagree. So while I don’t completely agree with the post you refer, I commend your showing you are capable of stating your views without simply making blatant personal attacks. Pity you can’t do it more often. Get over your paranoid delusions of being a victim. It ruins what otherwise was a marginally ok response. One last piece of advice. Someone who constantly posts as if he has all the answers probably should concern himself with his own ego rather than someone else’s.

(Fake) Anonymous (aka SOG) - Perhaps you could be a bit more honest in this discussion so that one can understand the origins of your motivations. Your working so hard to enforce courtesy standards is wearing a bit thin. Either you are just here to obstruct us poor heathens, while maintaining a wall of separation, which by itself causes one to question your sanity, or you are a full blown Clay type with a few more brain cells than that poor creature possesses, who refuses to come clean about their beliefs specifically because they are so vulnerable to refutation. If you maintain your present attitude, then speculation about your motives is all we have and any speculation we may voice will be used by you to mount another attack, a sweet little con we will not let you get away with. If you continue to be deceptive you will be curtly dismissed as irrelevant and a waste of time, any time you post.

So you consider the rape of English women by the Vikings as being what you identify as a “perceived evil,” you make the case that rape is not objectively evil. You justify that on the basis of a spurious argument that the “gene pool” of England was strengthened. Perhaps this was “the propensity to rape women” gene.

I can almost understand (but not agree with) those who claim that good and evil are always subjective and never objective. But your theory that “absolutist systems always stagnate over time” is especially troubling when you use it to justify rape. If you can make that leap would you also similarly justify murder? Could that not also alter the “gene pool” to create the kind of Englishmen that you prefer? Or even a “master race?”

Perhaps, using the argument that some folk “breed” to much, one might use that argument for some kind of social eugenics program, or even outright murder. These arguments have been used for genocide in the past. It is new wine in old wineskins.

I'll leave you with a quote from Baltimore's own Dr. John Money, of Johns Hopkins:

“The social eugenics movement became the volcanic explosion of racial purity in Hitler's Germany that unleashed a catastrophic social tsunami and destroyed millions. Among the victims, some were those who had self-righteously ridden the social eugenics bandwagon. Never for a moment had they ever hallucinated that there might be a change in the rules of racial purity by which they, themselves, would be classified as racially unfit. Victimologists, beware!” (Vandalized Lovemaps: Paraphilic Outcome of Seven Cases in Pediatric Sexology By John Money, Margaret Lamacz 1999)

You make a clear answer regarding your views. That said, they are very scary.

O LaRocca,
You drive me nuts. Someone who talks in abstractions must love stream of consciousness and Nehru jackets are still in vogue in some parts of the world. "The I don't know yet" for the atheist LaRocca could be about any number of things--string theory, subatomic world, dark matter, dead or dying stars, Neanderthals--not about god--the last doesn't exist. A whole lot of people have attacked Robert about this "I don't know yet" part but in all the millions of years of god consciousness, in all the thousands of years of religion based massacres, this god has never been produced by the believers for one millisecond--not so the boson or the hadron or the meson--they may disappear as soon as they appear, these subatomic particles, but they do appear and can be agitated out of bigger particles. All of your hoo ha about parents loving children and vice versa and such love, sensed by faith and trust, is by extrapolation similar to god's love for humanity is not credible. First of all, the unfortunate incidents of violence, I talk of, between parents and children are not unusual--I mentioned the fictional Medea to emphasize they have been happening since ancient Greece-- second the fictional god you speak of, who rules over all of us, as per the believers, has been as violent, if not more violent than most abusive parents. Third, Neanderthals, even tongue in cheek, should not be disparaged by you, because if you are of European extraction, 8% of your gene pool is Neanderthal derived. Considering your vanity you should beware of casting aspersions on your own DNA.
Fourth, for a sense of good and evil one doesn't have to believe in either god or satan. I don't have to believe in a god to know that you are being good when you agree with me (which is almost never) and being bad when you disagree with me--not just disagree with me--but disagree with me vehemently and venomously--then I know god worshiper or not you are being bad. Really LaRocca, with your expansive knowledge and a superior brain (???) it shocks me you think that a moral compass requires belief in a creator called god. Mount Vernon eh? Go to Helmand restaurant when you get a chance LaRocca--right close to you and the Maryland Film Festival, I hope you were not too godly to reject that one as sinful. I hope you attended--there were some fine films--none about god, at least not the ones I saw.
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan Anon

But LaRocca,
Didn't we argue about the Cathars before and didn't you wear the shoe then that you are fitting now on Robert, excusing the murder of a million Catholic heretics, as something akin to "good riddance to bad rubbish!" Not that you actually said the last but I mean didn't you exult that the Cathars got what was coming to them? It seemed to me you favored that slaughter of yore and now you lecture my good friend Robert about the horror of eugenics and the slippery slope of moral relativism regarding murder and rape. A bit hypocritical wouldn't you say?
Revnsfan Anon

O by the way my praying friend LaRocca,
Let me wake you up from your prayerful reverie to tell you that the benefits of meditation can come from pondering on any word--this includes sin, sex, or god--or you can wrap your mind around the nothingness to which we are all headed--no hell, no heaven--just nothing, which the religionists dread. In Sanskrit, this is called "Nishabdham"--soundlessness--like in the song the sound of silence.

And talking of Dr.Money whom you quote about the eugenics bit, the man was discredited heavily for his work with children born with sexual ambiguities--he assigned them genders when they were very young and as a result several were subjected to mutilating surgeries and regrettable hormone therapies--the children afflicted rose up in their own defense as adults, and his methods were found to be ghoulish to say the least--this man should be talking about eugenics! Robert, in his defense, was not defending the rapes Larocca, he merely said when the rapes occurred they were horrific to the English, but the result later proved not so horrific--should such rapes occur to improve a stock or a race? Certainly not but the rapes did occur and the cross pollination, incidentally was not a bad thing. Of course the cross pollination would have been best if it had occurred without brutality and coercion. I understand Robert's point to mean this: To breed ourselves to extinction, to use up all the planet's resources, to rape, plunder and pillage our planet because we can't stop reproducing is a terrible evil. Yet a lot of so called virtues go into making such an evil possible. Many of those virtues like no contraception, no abortion are religion based. Are the latter virtues when the former is the result? Therefore reality defies an absolute definition of evil or good. Many so called absolute incontrovertible goods can sow the seeds of evil and many so called evils can sow the seeds of good. This is when absolute evil or absolute good get into the shadow of relativism. Think of the absolute moral that the killing of a human being is bad but when a woman kills her horribly abusive husband is that bad? I don't believe Robert is endorsing killing or rape but he is pointing out that out of evil sometimes there can come good and this paradox has no place in the world of religious absolutes. Again one does not have to be a religion standard bearer to recognize these subtleties or to know good from evil.
Ravensfan Anon

Mr Littel - I've never been dishonest in everything I've said here. You just don’t like hearing the truth of what you are. I could really care less what you think about having your lack of social skills pointed out. I guess it was too much to hope you could replicate a post without personal attacks. Your conceit in your own self importance is amazing. There is no point in discussing one's beliefs or disbeliefs with someone not interested in having an intelligent exchange of ideas. Discussing such topics with petty small minded people like you is a waste of time. That is why I don’t bother. Fear of anything you could say is a joke. You and Clay are opposite sides of the same coin so you pose no intellectual, rational or logic threat to me. Do you honestly think I care if you dismiss me? Don’t talk about it do it.

Dana is proof that even an educated person can fall victim to the absurdities expressed in his statement of belief (the 325 A.C.E. constructed piece of myth called the Nicene Creed). He goes through contortions of intellectual deconstructions to somehow justify, in the real world , the absurdities he has, like any Clay like automaton, signed onto to give artificial meaning to his life because he cannot face the void of non-existence that faces us all at death. So smart, yet so weak and easily deceived, he cannot get his head around the idea that God is the reduction of all that is illogical to the simplest possible non-answer. The next step in Evolution will be recognized as the point where either Humanity gives up dependence on delusional god concepts, or where we succumb to the absurdities of their end time scenarios and cause our own demise to fulfill superstitious prophesy (not so implausible in the nuclear age). His efforts to sound intellectually plausible are just a part of his delusion he must undergo so that he can justify in his own mind what simpletons like Clay accept without question, or thought of the consequences of such retrograde beliefs can have on the future development or survival of our species.

Once again you imagine me to have said things that I never said. It is a testament to your prejudices that you believe that I must think the death of the Cathars was a good thing merely because I am Catholic. Again, that is wrong.

Of course I am pleased that a particular heresy is no longer promulgated. Delighted in fact. But to infer from that I favored the slaughter of those dear souls who had yet to be reconciled to the Universal Church is ridiculous.

Besides that some of your statements are starting to make sense. For instance: “That an atheist mathematician in a moment of weakness wrote something in praise of god epitomized on his epitaph does not prove that god exists--faith may be powerful but is no proof of god's existence.”

That could also be said as: “That an atheist mathematician in a moment of STRENGTH wrote something in praise of God epitomized on his epitaph does not prove that God exists--faith may be powerful but is no proof of god's existence, nor does lack of faith disprove it.”

It was never my intention to prove the existence of God, but rather to accept His existence on the basis of warranted assertability. I neither need nor want proof. If there were proof it would not be faith. Take a look at the top of the page. The name of the blog is “In Good Faith,” It is not “In Good Proof.” Similarly Alan Turing never asserted that there was proof to either the existence or the non existence of God. And that gets back to your idea that maybe he mentioned God in “a moment of weakness.

It is more likely that he turned to atheism in a moment of weakness. It is well known that Turing turned away from God after a fellow student, whom most assume was his boyfriend, passed away from bovine tuberculosis. Prior to that he was a skeptic, but not an atheist. With that in mind it would be both unreasonable and intellectually dishonest to suggest that his atheism came from profound reason, rather than profound grief.

But he was always a skeptic this mathematician. I too understand you better LaRocca--faith needs no proof and does not submit to reason--so you assert --a brilliant person--tis a pity. That said you have not put your heft to the good and evil part. I am dying to hear what you have to say. And Robert has said plenty--keep us going LaRocca. You are a stimulant like none other. By the way LaRocca, his atheism could have come from profound reason that descended on him after the profound grief passed. You must agree that is possible and your subtlety in your reasoning about the Cathars does not wash--you rejoice that they were defeated, the heretics, and the church reigned supreme but defeat could not have occurred without the death--the two are intricately bound--so if you rejoice over the defeat, you rejoice over the death by default, no matter your clever reasoning--you from the Catholic church, Lady Ga Ga from the Catholic church and Madonna, the Kabbala heretic also from the Catholic church--the Catholic church is certainly doing a number on the population of the world LaRocca.
Ravensfan Anon

R-anon. In describing the beneficial effects of prayer nowhere did I deny that similar benefits could not be obtained through other means. In fact I was practicing Zen Buddhism at the same time I was wearing those Nehru jackets. And I was shortly thereafter a practitioner of Transcendental Meditation. All good practices. Prayer, however, has the added benefit of being able to think warm and fuzzy thoughts about you and Robert while I lower my blood pressure. Thanks!

As far as Dr. Money is concerned I can assure you that I know more about the man, the Psychohormonal Research Unit that he headed, as well as the history of gender and transgender politics at Hopkins than you will ever know. The notion that he was “discredited heavily” is simply not true. In the period of time from his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1952 until his death a few years ago his work with those populations others refused to treat was bound to have a few that were less than successful. That is regrettable. But his were far fewer than the average family practitioner and that is to his credit, considering the controversial nature of his work.

What you call “regrettable hormone therapies” and “methods (that) were found to be ghoulish” are actually standard practice today, due largely to his pioneering work. I would challenge you to find any peer reviewed medical journal that would cast the nasty aspersions that you have cast. You can't.

As far as Robert is concerned he really can't defend himself. He said that the “perception” of the rape was evil, not the rape itself. You describe it as “horrific.” Good call.

So now you are saying “Therefore reality defies an absolute definition of evil or good,” whereas in another recent post you wrote, ““Pure and simple--abuse has been occurring for ages and it was wrong, is wrong and will always be wrong.” Make up your mind buddy. Are you a moral relativist or not???

Out of one side of your mouth you say that moral relativism is acceptable for a social eugenicist named Robert, but the other side of your mouth proclaims that an absolute standard should be in place for a priest named Ratzinger. You insist that Robert “is pointing out that out of evil sometimes there can come good,” and that seems to be the case. That is his primary error.

No R-anon, I never asserted that “faith ….does not submit to reason.” My comment regarded the existence of God, and that warranted assertability is the submission to reason that is an acceptable level for me. Some philosophers would say that warranted assertability is proof, I don't go that far, mostly because it is not necessary. Again, you fail to read what I write and then you write back arguing against assertions I never made.

Don't hold your breath for my discourse on good and evil. So far both you and Bobby have suggested that good can come from evil and even that rape might have a positive outcome. So as far as all that is concerned we are farther apart than we are between atheism and Christianity. I could only engage in that discussion with an atheist who could agree that such things as murder, rape, and genocide are always very bad. I can't see how we could possibly talk about, say, war, or abortion when we can't even agree on rape and murder.

Ravensfan Anon - Seems the crime that Dana is so happy about removal of the heretic Cathars, was over a point of doctrine. They had to die because they saw god as a duality, two gods, one good and one evil, one creator god and one responsible for suffering and death. In the Catholic mold, there is god and then there is the devil, who is not a god, despite being extremely powerful enough to engage and not be crushed by the Catholic one god. Either this god is so weak that it cannot crush this devil invention, or that devil is actually powerful enough to be a god. The tiny difference seems to have been enough to require the murder of the Cathars and inspire the admiration of Cathoholics like Dana today. My question is, what would Dana condone, if he can justify the action of his church then, as appropriate action that should be taken against heretics and blasphemers like you and me, not to mention against the other ultimate truths trying to impose their will contrary to Cathoholic dogma and doctrine.

Here you go LaRocca the deep muse--I shall call you that--it suits you,
Anyway, why should I apply Robert's so called moral relativism to the holy pope? I am applying to him his moral absolutism--popes live and die by moral absolutes--at least that is the show they put on and therefore should be judged, vindicated or condemned by the same. Popes should not be hemming and hawing about abuse in the precincts of the church. Even now the Vatican has not mandated the reporting of abuse by the various archdioceses, it has suggested this should be the way and this is a top down institution, Larocca. Suggestions and tear shedding won't cut it.

As for the moral relativism that would excuse rape and murder or glorify them as reaping advantages--that kind of thinking does not arise overnight LaRocca. Say Robert lights a cigar or someone like Robert does and is looking into the starry night and like the pope he is thinking, "Wow! the world is full of moral absolutes--do not kill, do not rape, do not steal and do not lie. But what if I am hungry and on the streets? I have begged all day and no one will give me a penny. I can't find work and I am homeless. Then would I steal a loaf of bread from the supermarket? What if I am an abused woman--I have a big bad bully for a husband. He not only threatens me, he threatens to kill my children, he shadows me, I have left him for a shelter and he hunts me down even there. I am terrified of this brute.. Would I kill him if I had a gun? Would I be wrong to fantasize about that or to act on my fantasy to save myself and my children? Remember the Austrian girl who was imprisoned by her own monstrous father for years breeding children for him--if she stabbed him with her kitchen knife then would she have been wrong? What if I am a preacher in Rwanda and 50 Tutsis take refuge in my compound and 2 Hutus with machetes are after them--I have a gun. would I shoot the marauders down and save the 50 Tutsis who are fugitives in my compound? Would that be right? You see these situations can be pondered on and multiplied by 100 to confuse the moral absolutes my dear LaRocca. And then the person can ponder further about the rapes of yore and yonder as Robert has--get to thinking about the English being raped by the Vikings--say to himself, "That was a horror story. But look what resulted! The British didn't turn out to be complete morons which is what interbreeding and consanguinous cousin alliances would have led to." The person--this ponderer- then shakes his head and says--out of evil good. How strange our existence! How the moral absolutes are shattered! Moral relativism does not necessarily come out of a blase attitude toward killing and rape LaRocca--it comes out of contemplation about the way we live, the situations that defy moral absolutes, and the realization that from the most horrendous situations can come rolling a lot of brilliant light. Your rush to judgment of Robert is just that--rush to judgment!
Ravensfan Anon

You offer a lovely litany of scenarios, R-anon, where “moral absolutes,” might be abrogated without the resultant stain of sin. Very good. But none of your examples prove a case for moral relativism, but rather than merciful forgiveness of a loving God, and, inter alia, the forgiveness by societies blessed by that God.

I will leave aside the concepts of stealing and lying for the moment, at least until we can satisfy the concepts of rape, murder, and genocide.

The notion of murder, as understood under the fifth commandment, applies to intentional killing. The examples that you give of the abused woman or the preacher in Rwanda would fall into the category of “legitimate defense.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear about the difference between legitimate defense and murder:

“Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” (CCC)

“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.” (CCC)

Beyond that, Canon Law, like modern civil law (which of course evolved from Canon Law), considers the culpability of the offender based upon his or her ability to understand the nature and effects of the act at the time of its occurrence. That said, neither mental illness nor drunkenness will diminish the objective sinfulness (or lawfulness in the case of civil law) of murder but it may diminish the spiritual or corporeal effect of the crime on the perpetrator.

You seem to have totally have missed the point of rape, which has never been to improve the blood line of some fantasized superior race, but rather to humiliate, to subjugate, to terrorize and to intimidate women. Your outrageous comment that had those women not been raped that the English would have turned “out to be complete morons...” (your words), is debasing to the dignity of humankind. It isn't for you or Bobby to determine that ancient women ought to have been raped for the sake of some post-modern concept of a “better” race. That is obscene.

When you say that “Moral relativism does not necessarily come out of a blasé attitude toward killing and rape....” I agree. It comes from hatred and contempt of other human persons. That is hardly blasé, it is evil. You'll have a hard time explaining what “brilliant light” could come out of such an “horrendous situation” outside of a Klan meeting or a séance with the Führer.

Dana seems to forget that before we became civilized through evolution, we were subject to the same forces that apply to the animal kingdom (of which we are and have always been a part) when it comes to perpetuating our species. Rape was a normal part of that process and was applied the same way early religionists applied it, if we are to believe his inerrant word of their made-up god, the Buy-Bull. The imperatives of the Vikings, it seems, are little different from the god sanctioned actions of the children of his holy book's beloved chosen people, as outlined by the treatment of their enemies survivors after smiting their armies .Numbers 31:17-18 " 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones (children) and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (No doubt the job of the checker was highly sought after)
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Please Dana, don't try to claim moral superiority of your precedents based on your god perceptions, when they were every bit as barbaric and chauvinistic as the behaviors of every other socially unevolved people on Earth.

Rape was never a “normal part” of humanity Robert. It is a crime of violence, it is a sin. It has always been that way. You are a very sad fellow Robert. I will continue to pray for you.

Dana - It is amazing how the truth has no effect on you, reason and logic have no effect on you, and even using your own holy book, the source and base from which your Nicene Creed beliefs spring, to tear your argument asunder, has no effect. You are more of an idiot than Clay. Rape, cannibalism, murder, treachery, warfare, pogroms, crusades, jihads and genocides of entire populations are all unfortunate, and quite often sanctified by your delusional gods, are all things that reflex on what we are today and could be again, with the snap of a finger. That your last retort was the retreat of the outmaneuvered toward the old standby, absolutist rhetoric and an invocation of superstitious ritual. YOU ARE PATHETIC.

Again Robert. I'll pray for you.

Dana - I'll remember how much good was accomplished by the hundreds of millions of heart-felt prayers that were offered up to your god to stop Hitler before 50 million had to die, when I think about you praying for me. What, a simple blood clot in the right spot, in one lousy madman was too much to ask for?

I would never pray for such a thing dear Robert!!!!

You are merely confused and yet to be saved. Not a madman! Only confused and in need of salvation.

Peace.

Dana - Either you did not get the point, or desided to try to milk it for your own twisted benefit. Hundreds of millions of prayers were offered for deliverance from Hitler. I only suggested a possible course that an all powerful, Humanity loving god might have tried to save so many of his so called fervently beseeching, and presumed, much loved children. That he performs this task (presumably) for so many tiny children on a daily basis (for reasons I won't even try to deduce), I wonder why the Hitlers of the world seem to get a pass? Maybe this god of yours doesn't love us at all, or perhaps, as seems reasonable to to understand, it does not exist at all.

Again LaRocca,
Rape is terrible--deplorable, cannot be condoned but when it has happened in the case of the English, it did produce a stronger bloodline. Should this rape have occurred? No. should the English women have suffered? No. But the rape happened. A case of out of evil one good. Of course rape is not a method to improve blood lines and that is not what I said---for someone hung up on subtleties you deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent what Robert and I are discussing with you here. The women suffered--terrible-- and the blood line unwittingly improved. Same as your logic about the Cathars LaRocca. You don't rejoice they were slaughtered, but you, as a devotee of your church rejoice that your church prevailed and the heretics didn't. I don't agree with you but you do and that is as it is. To you a believer in god Larocca, the examples I have given prove the merciful forgiveness of a loving god. To me, a non believer, they prove the case against moral absolutes. Robert's quotes Larocca are accurate and yes, humans have evolved through rape, polygamy and incest. Lot's daughters slept with him when he was drunk so that the bloodline of Lot, the chosen one of god, will not disappear. Did the god of yore, Jehovah, condone incest? Seems like it to me--but when god does it then it is fine eh? Besides most Christians get out of the bloody mess the Old testament is by saying that all of that violence, gore, rape and murder were before Christ, the loving and forgiving form of god--the Old Testament should be put aside and the new picked up without quibbling about the origins of this Christ from the loins of the one god glorified in the Old Testament. Sane LaRocca? The Klan met and hated LaRocca, but from that hatred sprang the determination of Martin Luther King and all the others who marched in Selma. The hatred of the Klan fueled the tenacity of the fighters. Out of evil good and out of evil triumph. I am not vindicating the evil or celebrating it--simply stating observations. You have asked when does one begins to distinguish good from evil--how does one know without a sense of god is what religionists like you ask. Religionists argue that we are born with a conscience, the ability to be good because we are vested with this god, that god himself or herself or itself is conscience. Well, LaRocca, what about the psychopath or the sociopath or the sadists and the killers of this world? What happens to the god creature in them? They start early as children to kill and maim animals. A glib explanation from the religionists claims they are devil possessed. Are they also devil created or is the god creature the actual creator of these monsters? Or are these people born with god in them but at a very early stage imprinted with the feet of the devil through abuse and other horrors? Why is abuse a devil perpetration rather than a god perpetration? Why is this god not able to defeat the devil in one fell swoop? Why is the devil almost infinitely more powerful than this god of all things living and moving? Is the devil an excuse delusion of the religionists to vindicate the god creature from responsibility for not putting a clot in the right spot in the Fuhrer before 6 million Jews were executed, or not stopping the Vikings before the rapes of the English women or the Catholic hierarchy before the slaughter of the Cathars? You see LaRocca there is no god creature only man made inexplicable legends birthed by the fear of men about the unknown,
men on their knees, trembling at shooting stars and meteors, scared to death about death, sleepless over bad omens and superstitions, terrified of small pox, malaria, any number of bad portends, wars, pestilence, locusts and the sudden demise of their children--always afraid and only thing that makes the uncertainties and the unknown bearable is a myth that someone is watching out for you--even though you are dying, in pain, in the throes of grief--that someone will save you, will lead you by the hand into eternal bliss and that someone is god! If the myth makes life more bearable for you LaRocca go ahead invest a lot of energy in it-- but there are people for whom belief in that myth is incarceration and they are not the ones who should be prayed over LaRocca--they are not abnormal, not pitiful and not prodigal for you to constantly invoke prayer as an antidote for them.

By the way about this Dr. money--I have listened to him speak many times--I used to be an admirer of the man in the early days when he walked tall--before he became a dogmatist about his theories--truly, you must know, his forays into gender plasticity and gender malleability-- that an appropriate gender if assigned early to children with ambiguous genitalia and their ambiguous genitalia then altered to fit the gender assigned, the children so treated will adjust to the gender reassignment-- has been totally discredited in the endocrine community. The man hurt a lot of children LaRocca, unwittingly initially and when examples showed up right on his couch, that gender reassignment was not working well, he hid this from the medical community, dissembling to protect his postulates. In the end Hopkins too lost its reputation in the area of gender dysphoria and Money lost his prestige and position at Hopkins--not due to a few disgruntled gender reassigned children alone (these children were psychologically terribly damaged) but also due to solid brain research about gender identity Larocca that emerged in the 90s. Money's intentions were good initially and he did indeed take on patients none of the others would touch in the old days but his methods are no longer in vogue and along the way he developed a god complex that left his minor patients out of the equation. We now know LaRocca that gender imprint occurs in utero and is very much influenced by the hormonal milieu of the mother and the fetus. Gender plasticity is a terrible thing to foist on minors who cannot speak for themselves and then to mutilate their reproductive organs and genitalia to fit the gender assigned by a single person Larocca--that was and will remain an outrage similar to eugenics--hence my comment about Dr. Money.
Ravensfan Anon

Littell and R-anon, You both seem to have some idea that because humankind has done some terrible things that, wave the magic wand, “there is no God.” It is a waste of bandwidth to list every very bad thing that was done in the Bible. Christians, like myself, already know, and atheists, which you claim to be, would have no reason to care. You regard it as a myth, at least that's what you claim.

It doesn't come as a surprise to Christians that the sinful acts of men are revealed in the bible. Nor does it come as a surprise that, in those narratives, that at times of cultural upheaval, men and women often do improper and immoral things. If we take the biblical account of Lot and his daughters at face value (I do not) it suggests that his daughters got him drunk and had sex with him because they thought the rest of the world had been destroyed. According to the story, it happened just that way.

The bible does not, however, say that therefore God condoned incest. It says that the incest occurred, it offers a legitimate defense (no more men to mate with), and in true chauvinistic it blames the girls. I have my own interpretation of the account which you can find in another thread if you are interested. Many Jewish scholars have studied it and have come to some interesting conclusions as well. And, except for the fundamentalists, we use this and similar story to interpret, study, and discern the story put before us. Fundamentalists do that without the “interpretation” part.

What we do not do is suggest that because some good thing happened after a bad thing that, wave the magic wand again, “look ma! Good from evil!” That is a teleological error of grand proportion. The mere fact that you are offering teleological arguments suggests that you are not atheists at all!

Dana - It is the main focus of anyone running the long con, that any effort to expose the truth has to be painted as not worthy of consideration. Religion is the longest con that has ever been run against Humanity and painting those who find god concepts to be the unfounded BS that they are, is just you doing your part to perpetuate the fraud to keep it going, despite the flimsy nature of your beliefs. The only strength it has is that it has been running for so long that even people running the con have lost sight of the fact that that is exactly what it is, a fraud. That you can lie to us is to be expected, but that you so freely accept the lie as truth and work to perpetuate what, in logic and reason, can ONLY be a fraud, is a measure of the weakness and immaturity of our still evolving (and if you had your way, devolving) species. Every religion that has ever been created, has been supplanted by the next "ultimate truth" that came down the pike, with each manifestation being a further abstraction from the universal worship of everything, to the Jewish abstraction of an omnipresent invisible god of all. Christianity is a step backwards, toward the multi-god format, so popular among the predecessors of the Jews. The god, son of god, the Catholic lesser gods (Saints), the negative god (Satan) and any of the other manifestations of man becoming at one with your made-up deities, IS A JOKE and a bad one at that.

Your Buy-Bull recounts many examples of the cruelty that man can perpetuate against man. but the example I cited was a DIRECT command of your supposed god to his supposed chosen people to carry out genocide and rape of the conquered children of their enemies. It was mentioned. Your statement that, "The mere fact that you are offering teleological arguments suggests that you are not atheists at all!", is absurd, because in-order to show the hypocrisy of your contentions, it is necessary to go to the very roots of those contentions. You may not want us to go there, and this I can understand, because who likes to be beaten to death with their own weapon (and as you are subject to broad misinterpretation, that was a metaphor, not a threat).

No Robert. The quote you provided from Numbers was “But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves," was about taking the virgins as slaves. Rape is something you imagined, perhaps in some Wagnerian reverie. The order was given by Moses. Moses, Robert, was a human being, not a god, not God.

Men sin Robert. All of them.

Thank you for your kind words, and as always, I'll keep you in my prayers.

Dana - Considering that Numbers 31:1 states "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, " I think we can presume all the instructions thereafter were meant to have been channeled through Moses directly from your "Lord" creature, which I presume means your god. Give it up, your own book shows your god to be a fickle, vain, vindictive, psychologically disturbed creature, so ego-centric and self-centered and insecure, that it demands to be worshipped in a highly proscribed manner (subject to change {note the fickle nature}) by people who of necessity have to accept all this BS as the absolute truth without the tiniest shred of proof, or suffer eternal damnation in the fires of hell. I don 't need to tell you and Clay what kind of pile you are standing in, put the stench is palpable.

The LORD said to Moses, "Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites, and then you shall be taken to your people."

That is what the Lord said to Moses Robert. It is a very simple if-then statement. He didn't tell him how to avenge them. Simple logic, if A then B. I can't understand how it is lost on you. God does not micromanage. It should be clear, even to you, that not every one interprets God's instructions in the same manner. See how often I disagree with Clay, for instance. Yet we are both operating from the same instruction manual; the revealed truth of God.

That said, Robert, I do not imagine that it is your intention to study the bible in order to discern its meaning. We both know that. You only come to this venue to attack religion with sophomoric pejoratives and to attack your fellow posters with childish name calling, such as those I listed on May tenth.

And that is the primary reason that I always keep you in my prayers.

Dana - You are right, god does not micro-manage, because god, any god, DOES NOT EXIST. Your god is no better, no worse, no more real than any other god that man has ever invented, because they are all invented products that came into being the moment Human-kind evolved to the point where they asked the question "Why?", and having reached that point in evolution, somehow thought themselves deserving of the answer to that question. The Human experience should be an unfettered search for the answers to our being and purpose and NOT the acquiescence in a chauvinistic myth and fear driven collection of lies that somehow, by seeking a oneness with a larger force, makes us think we special. You seem to have taken on the task of carrying out your god's command in Leviticus 24:16 and are only frustrated by the fact that the anonymity of this forum, and those pesky secular laws against such actions prevent you from carrying out the full extent of your god's mandate.

It is very sad Robert that you think that you are being persecuted. Your concern that anyone would be “frustrated” by your anonymity is unfounded. I don't really care who you are. I am very curious about the real identity of some of the people who post here. But you are not on that list.

Personally I do not believe in the methods of ridding ourselves of blasphemers as described in Leviticus. Jesus said “offer no resistance to one who is evil.” (Matthew 5:39)

We all know that you do not believe that God exists. But you can give up on the idea that you can bully religious folk with your need for “proof.” We don't operate on the basis of “proof” Robert, we operate on the basis of “faith.” You can stomp your feet like a two year old because you didn't get the proof you need. Or you can act like a twelve year old and say things like:

“Either your god exists and you can prove it, or it is all just a bunch of fairy-tales.”
“..."it" is rubbish and until you prove otherwise, it will remain rubbish.”
“...then you are going to have to prove it, or shut up about it.”

All we will ever tell you is that we “believe” or that we have “faith.” That is never going to change because belief and faith are the currency of our metaphysical stance. So stop stamping your feet and getting all red in the face and take a time-out. Reconcile yourself to the fact that you are not going to get what you want.

Personally Dana, it doesn't matter what you believe in at all, the Buy-Bull, your god(s), and every other thing you believe that has no substantive proof backing it up, and is therefore just so much delusional BS. What you believe cannot even be defended as being a plausible rationale because of its spurious origins, intolerant violent history, and questionable product line (would love to see your prospectus and legal papers regarding that everlasting life crap your religion is selling (yes selling).

Your escape clause, referenced above, that gives you the out when ever anyone successfully backs you to the wall over your silly gods, gives you the excuse to declare anything you don't agree with as being evil and therefore something you can cowardly turn the other cheek (a euphemism for running away). There is NOTHING that can't be justified by reading your Buy-Bull any way you wish, making is little more than a puzzle book of absurdities for clods you just can't, or won't, face reality.

Of course you care what I believe Robert. You care about what all of us here believe. That's why you keep returning to “In Good Faith.” Your soul longs for its conversion but your mind is obdurate in error.

That is why I welcome and look forward to your comments.

“Charity widens our heart, gives it something of the grandeur of
divine goodness, and makes us love, as God does, all men without exception.” (Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, in Everlasting Life)

http://www.internetpadre.com/everlastinglife.htm

You are in my prayers.

Dana - I come here for the same reason Dr. Schweitzer went to Africa, because this is where the disease is, where I am most needed and where I can do the most good for you poor deluded souls.

List your converts Robert.

Again. My prayers.

Dana - List my converts? I could, but you probably don't know any of them. We could start with family members who tried to drag me back to the dumb side, and found my arguments more compelling. I could mention several women who started out appreciating my other assets and came to rationality along the way. I could mention any number of students over the years, who started their journey to reality as a direct result of contact with me, but what would that prove? I'm sure religionists are far out-breeding more mindless automatons than I could ever convert, but my victory is the seed of doubt that gets planted and takes long to germinate, as it is planted in some very barren soil. You and the ever mindless Clay are beyond hope, but I'll bet there are some readers here who do not respond because they feel inadequate to the task, who have had their minds tweaked a bit by ideas that do not come from your stale cauldron of mystical goop. This forum just provides a canvas and an opportunity to paint it with colors from a palette, that even you cannot paint over. Your example only helps to fertilize the doubt, as the spurious nature of your beliefs get revealed by your vacuous attempts to give them validity.

I will prey, not for, but on you. You are such an easy foil.

Crank up the attention span Robert. We were talking about your visits here, to “In Good Faith.”

You said that you come here because that's “where I am most needed and where I can do the most good for you poor deluded souls.”

Again. Name your converts from among the “deluded souls” that you have found at this blog.

I am pleased to see that you still believe in the concept of a “soul.”

Robert - Most Christians at some time or another have that seed of doubt so I wouldn't pat myself on the back to much. You still operate with many of your own deluded notions on Christianity and Christians. I won't rehash the same arguments you've ignored time and time again. Most who don't respond do so because of your inability to mount logical arguments without excessive abusive ad hominem attacks, appeals to ridicule, irrelevant conclusions and other assorted fallacies. Your favorite being unless God can be proven to you he doesn't exist. Since a person opposing the possibility of there being a God, any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. Of course in your case you usually don’t even do that you usually mount an abusive personal attack or appeal to ridicule. You have never made any serious argument that would cause anyone to question their beliefs that I’ve ever seen.

Had I meant "soul" in the delusional sense, I would have said "their souls" as if there was some part of the Human separate from the physical body. Soul, as in the generic person is not a totally owned by religion word. It has meanings other than the delusional one. It was deliberately used to see if in your desperation to have any recourse from my last statement, you would grasp at straws. You did not disappoint.

As to your absurd request, DENIED, due to its total inanity and my inability to see into the future to see if any doubts sprouted among your weeds. My seeds of doubt were planted when I watched the first "Donahue Show" and listened to his first guest, Madalyn Murray O'Hair of American Atheist fame. She so angered me by the things she said about belief, that I truly hated her at that moment. Over time I began to think about what she said and what it meant and no one hearing my initial response would have counted me as someone who had been seeded with the beginning of understanding that can only come from the spark of doubt. The same applies here, and I have no doubt that you will not be among those who will count at a later date.

Dana - Good luck getting Robert to answer that question. He has deluded himself into thinking he's some sort of atheist savior shining the light or rational thinking as if he's opening they eyes of us poor believers. What he has never understood from the beginning is that he presents nothing new or even worth considering. He’s a true disciple of Dawkins. I knew his angry intolerant dogma sounded familiar so I did some research and found this from several years ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/reject-arguments-for-into_b_13240.html

My guess is this sits on his bookshelf along with Dawkins work as his bible.

ravensfan - Unlike most Christians who have a moment of doubt and run off to some confessional, or minister, for "correction" in their thought processes, someone who has doubt and follows the implication of that doubt, will come to a more rational conclusion, if they can make the leap of logic and clear the hurdle of delusionalism, while avoiding the reprogramming trap.

Your statement that, "Since a person opposing the possibility of there being a God, any evidence can be rationalized or explained away" is interesting only in that there is not now, nor has there EVER been the slightest bit of "evidence" that a god, or gods, exist, or have EVER existed. Not one tiny little bit has EVER been forthcoming. Everything you stand for is MAKEBELIEVE and therefore, devoid of any kind of evidence.

I started thinking about the existence of god creatures at age 11, in 1959. My first serious doubts occurred at age 13 and at age 17, I became a fully committed Atheist, on December 25th 1965. Professor Dawkins was a child at that time and I have never read any of his works because they would hold no new information for me. For all I know, Dawkins could be influenced by my writings, or perhaps the radio debates I participated in decades ago, with any number of religionist losers.

Interesting Robert would cite Madalyn Murray O'Hair as being the one who opened his mind. Her own son became a Baptist minister in 1980 and had this to said his mothers activism was motivated by a love of hedonism and a need for dominance. He called her “profane and vulgar” He also had this to say about her

"When I was a young boy of ten or eleven years old she would come home and brag about spending the day in X-rated movie theaters in downtown Baltimore.... My mother’s whole life circulated around such things… My mother was an evil person... Not for removing prayer from America's schools... No, she was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents' inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company."

Donohue actually said she was rather unpleasant to be around and openly mocked him.
I heard her as well and found most of what she said to be motivated by intolerance and hate much like a angry child who was told she couldn’t do whatever she wanted. In many ways much like your posts.

Robert - I'm curious if you became a fully committed atheist on December 25th 1965 why would Madalyn Murray O'Hair comments on the Donahue Show on November 6, 1967 have angered you as yuo claimed in a previous post?

You have no idea what anyone other than you think regarding doubts so your entire first paragraph is speculation at best and delusion at worst.

As for your evidence comment that would depend on what one considers evidence. You would discount anything presented as not being evidence so it really doesn't matter. In your case nothing short of God announcing himself to you would do and even then you'd rationalize it away anyway.

I know I'm not getting an answer Ravensfan. The sad thing is that there are truly intelligent and well spoken people who can make a reasonable case against our Faith. He just isn't one of them. He's just a heckler.

I had to go hunting or information about Richard Dawkins. He is slightly older than me, but his first work of note wasn't published until 1976 and was about genes, not gods, so by the time he became noteworthy, I had already been an Atheist for eleven years. I have never read any of his works and the bits and pieces I've picked up show me that such an exercise would be redundant because we have already reached the same conclusions independently.

Robert - You made that point and I'll take you at your word. Now how about you answer my question on my last post regarding the apparent inconsistecy with when you became an atheist amd Ms O'Hair's comments which you claimed at first angered you then helped convert you.

Indeed Ravensfan god must announce himself--or please, give me a break, even in this delusional god business you are chauvinistic-- or herself, why not herself? Otherwise you'll look at a flower Ravensfan and say--"There god!" and what are we supposed to do kneel to the flower because you've called it god? Robert is not merely a heckler--I believe he has presented a cogent case for his lack of belief in a god or many gods---the ones who have heckled are the religionists insisting that faith is indefinable, like white noise, there if you want to see it, but not there if you don't--all very poetic and also cockamamie Ravensfan. The myth writers always have the upper hand because they invoke the magic of faith to say, "Just because you are denying your soul what it hungers for does not mean manna from heaven or heaven or a heavenly father don't exist. You, the atheist, are vacuous--me, the religious one, am gifted with a special sense of god. You refuse to comprehend this because you have a hard heart and a closed mind." And then of course to add insult to injury, "I'll pray for you! Pray for you!" But where is this god--again I ask--poof! Nowhere!
Ravensfan Anon

ravensfan - Shortly after her court case that took prayer out of public schools (1962), Madalyn Murray O'Hair was interviewed on television. I remember where I was when I saw it, I remember the bed I was lying in not going to sleep thinking about what she said and I know we moved from that house before I turned 15 (1963). Sometime before moving, at or before age 14, I saw the interview and it may have been conducted by someone other than Phil Donahue. The date of the first Donahue show was well after I had become committed to rational thought. Whoever the interviewer was, (and I have spent the last couple hours trying to find out), it was not what he said, but what she said that made the impression on me. When Donahue died, the bio that generally follows such events stated the appearance of her on his first show and I seem to have inadvertently signed onto that event in my subconscious. In 1967 I was in college and busy chasing co-eds, so I'm not even sure I would have seen it, as my priorities were being driven by more basic needs. During those years, the only time I admitted to being an Atheist was when it was necessary to discourage the further advances of girls deemed not cultivatable because they were just looking for a husband. Saying to them that "I hate kids, and never want to have any" and "I don't believe in god", always seemed to do the trick when it was time to make a woman "break off" the relationship, and because I let them think they did it, not so traumatic to them. Sorry for the confusion, its even got me shaking my head, and I will continue to see if I can find reference to the interview I saw.

Groovy Robert, you must be a really “great catch” if you have to tell women the truth about yourself in order to get them to break up with you. Nice of you to spare their feelings so that it is “not so traumatic to them.” But what I really want to know is what you mean by “girls deemed not cultivatable.”

Is this attitude toward women representative of atheists in general, or is it peculiar to you?

How does one “cultivate” a girl? Hydroponics?

I've cultivated a few medicinal herbs in my day. But never a girl, man. That's righteous!

Ghost - In my twenties (back when sex was safe and motorcycles were dangerous) I led a far more hedonistic life and NEVER wanted children. The experience gained then has served me well and has been most appreciated by the woman I finally settled down with, once my ego gratification period ended. She never wanted children either, so it took us some time to find each other, during which time neither of us was inhibited by Puritanical restrictions. In my sixties, I have a better relationship than most twenty somethings do.

That 90% of all women are religious (a negative) and only a small percentage of them don't want children, it was necessary to dispose of those who would have me compromise (pay the price) for what is just a type of prostitutional type of marriage, where my function is to supply a nest for brooding and a support system for a baby machine. I much prefer the honest relationship I have now to that, and so does she.

Anon – Robert and to a degree you are nothing more than hecklers. His argument and yours is basically no one can prove God exists therefore He doesn’t. A logical fallacy and that is your only argument. Neither of you have made any case why anyone is better off accepting your ideas. You both spout the same intolerant dogma most of which has nothing of value behind it. So it’s not surprising that you’d see him as more than a mere heckler. Robert has an inability to make arguments without personal attacks, appeals to ridicule, irrelevant conclusions and other assorted logical fallacies. Robert when backed in to a corner usually responds with something intelligent like F off. Actually the ones claiming superiority are Robert and you. It’s Robert and you who continually rail against how ignorant and deluded we Christians are as if somehow you are on the intellectual and logical high ground. As Christians we know that we have no special gifts or qualities. We suffer from no need to prove our superiority to anyone as Robert and you seem to do. The real problem is you both want desperately silence believers and to prove God does not exist to satisfy your own egos but you can’t.

Robert – Thanks for answering my question. Please don’t keep looking on my account. It was quite a long time ago.

ravensfan - It has NOTHING to do with satisfying our alleged fragile egos, it has everything to do with Humanity moving beyond unprovable, archaic, chauvinistic, concepts that now represent a threat to our being able to cope with looming problems facing us, with institutions that have the flexibility to change as conditions change. Religious belief, while of seeming benefit to the individual practitioner, is a dead weight we are carrying on our backs, as we enter the deep waters our short sightedness has led us into. Religion, is not something we are trying to deny, it is something we (as a species) must take an active role to kill, if we are to survive. When the next figurative plague comes, we do not need some religious idiot telling us to take action by killing all the cats (familiars of the witches spreading the plague) letting the rats with their fleas free to spread disease. You are as relevant today as the idiots of the past, and that is why we are here.

Robert – Sorry but it does and I stand by what I said. You view religion as evil because it has moral boundaries you don’t like which impede our selfish hedonistic desires. You can not prove your accusations against religion. What you can do is deny is that the real culprit of our problems is humanity itself. You can draw irrelevant conclusions to support your own dogma. The real threat to humanity is intolerance and the desire to force ones own beliefs on others as you propose. That is the real threat to humanity. How is a faith which calls for one to love one’s neighbor and one’s enemy poses a threat to humanity how exactly? Like those same ignorant fools in the dark ages you want eliminated what you can’t understand because you view it as dangerous. Somehow I struggle to see how your message of is any more advanced then those poor souls who you mentioned from the dark ages

With your totally parochial mindset, you will never see the truth that is right before your eyes. You are blinded by your own inertia, comfortable in your cocoon, deny the fact that the forest you are living in is on fire and are living in a paper house in the middle of it. If you are standing by what you said, you are standing on a fecal mound of ignorance and stupidity that will not only spell the end of your line, but possibly the end of us all. Religion is as dangerous an institution as any of the absolutist beliefs that have led us to hate and kill our fellow Humans over silly dogma, and even more so now that the scientific means exists that they can use to achieve the end times goal of all their so-called holy books, the end of the world. You are every bit as pathetic as the idiot who stood before a statue of Baal, looking for deliverance, and every bit as correct about reality. To quote Ayn Rand (on the only thing she EVER said that made sense, "Religion is rubbish.".

What if you were to succeed Robert, what if you came up with the correct formulation of insults, appeals to ridicule, and magical tantrums, and the readers here decided to call it quits with God?

What's in it for your readers?

From your account girls continually gave you the boot once you told them you were a proud atheist. Would they have to look forward to a life of loneliness and onanism?

They don't want to go that way. They like religious girls! They are softer and more feminine that God haters. They spoil them and the kids on Christmas. They wear pretty dresses and hats on Easter. Pretty much they are loving, and kind, and pleasant. I won't even start about Catholic girls!

Lord, make me chaste, but not yet.

Robert –I suspected you’d resort to personal insult since you couldn’t support your claims about religion and. How exactly does a message of love and hope spell the end of anyone? You failed to address that in your response. Actually you are too blind to see you are following your own absolutist beliefs and actually advocating their being forced on everyone for our own good. You also still spouting your flawed dogma that somehow it is the goal of religion to bring about the end of the world. I won’t bother asking you to prove it I already know you can’t that’s why you resorted to the appeal to ridicule at the end. That’s really the only thing you can do besides abusive personal attacks on those who don’t share you rationalizing dogmatic beliefs. I am a bit surprised you'd quote someone who had such an influence on right-wing politics especially libertarianism. I would have figured you would have some left wing atheist quote or did you pick her because you assume I’m right-wing? Maybe Anon will help you out with one of his verbose responses dwelling on every negative event he can come up with in an attempt prove your claims for you.

Augustine - Chaste makes waste. The silly moral absolutists think sex is dirty, and it is, if you are doing it correctly.

Come on Augustine from the hippo--the South of the US--the Bible belt-- is littered with the corpses of the religious girls who wear pretty dresses and serve their male masters and then get kicked around for being servile--abused is a better word. All you want are Christian female vassals man. You want a return to medieval times and Osama bin Laden, with 10 wives would see eye to eye with you, O God believer. As for loving and kind and pleasant, watch a couple of gritty Tennessee William plays to get a grasp of the unseemly side of the Bible belt--out of wedlock pregnancies, 13 years old girls with sugar daddies, men who attend church by day and Klan rallies by night, men who say the Lord's prayer in the pews and pay homage to alcohol by night--this has been the state of affairs in the Bible belt for ever and you talk about phony easter bunnies served up as chocolate for you to ravish and revel that atheist girls are probably hard and repugnant. As for Robert being given the boot by girls who don't want to go the way of onanism--did they tell you that these girls?--onanism is probably not a bad choice compared to what they have to look forward to with a guy like you but you go on to say that they don't want to go that way, they like religious girls--who is the "they" man, the girls or the boys--you seem all along to be talking about the girls and all of a sudden you seem to be switching genders with the "they" or are you switching genders--surely I shouldn't expect something cogent to emerge from your rants?
Ravensfan Annon

ravensfan - I find it most interesting that you continually demand I prove my contentions and conclusions about religion, when you have N-E-V-E-R been able to prove that the center and base for all your beliefs, exists at all. It is disingenuous to demand proof from me that your beliefs are just a pile of rubbish, when you are totally unable to make the case for your silly gods.

Mr. Ravensfan anon: As for onanism, I was referring to the readers that Mr. little would like to convert to his dogma, not to the girls that dumped him. It was my rash assumption that you would know I was talking about the atheists. I was suggesting that it would be the lot of all those lonely atheists.

I went on to my great reward in the year 430, by your calendar. So I don't know about these horrible things you say occurred since my passing. I was somewhat immodest in my day, which you would know if you had read my “Confessions.” At that time I wrote: “By love I mean the impulse of one's mind to enjoy God on his own account and to enjoy oneself and one's neighbor on account of God, and by lust I mean the impulse of one's mind to enjoy oneself and one's neighbor and any corporeal thing not on account of God.” So I can assure you that wrong behavior toward women comes neither from religion nor from God. It comes from the sin of men.

You really should read my “Confessions,” I'm not plugging it, I receive no royalties. I just think your eyes might be opened to the ways of God.

Robert _ I am not demanding anything from you. The only making any demands has always been you. I’m simply pointing out you are doing the exact same thing you rail against so frequently. If you want to cling to the logical fallacy that lack of proof means lack of existence I can’t stop you. Just don’t get upset when I point out the flaws in your argument, or the fact that you are making an absolutist statement and are providing NO PROOF for it. You are simply making an opposing absolutist statement with even less behind it. Neither of us can prove our belief using human science or logic our point. The difference is I don’t need it. You seem to miss the point of faith. That’s why you need to resort to abusive personal attacks and appeals to ridicule. Not to change believers, but to convince yourself and others who try to understand God using the knowledge of the world. That’s also why religion scares you and why you desire to see it eliminated. You fear what you can not understand using limited human knowledge.

ravensfan - FAITH is the excuse for ignorance. It can be used to substantiate NOTHING, EVER. Religion does not scare me, outside of what delusionalists are doing to the world in the name of it. It is only to be feared the way we fear what the Right-wing is increasingly becoming, in its quest to institutionalize stupid as our guiding political philosophy.Religion is stupid, and stupid has no place in the affairs of man any more than bloodletting should be the dominant treatment for disease, (except for polycythemia interestingly enough). If you are going to stand behind the crutch of "faith" as your truth, you lose, it is rubbish and wishing doesn't make ANYTHING so.

Robert – Your response is what I expected a mixture of Ad Hominem logic and Appeals to Ridicule. Stay off politics you illogical enough when you rant against religion. What you refuse to see is that your diatribe is your opinion not a fact. No matter how many times you say it or how much you insult and mock it doesn’t change that reality. Your insecurity comes out in the last sentence with the need to declare yourself the victor. What’s sad is you are too blinded to see that you just proved right what I said about you

Robert, here are a couple of dictionary definitions of “faith.”

“Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.” (Wikipedia)

“Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.” (freedictionary.com)

“In the Old Testament, the Hebrew means essentially steadfastness, cf. Exodus 17:12, where it is used to describe the strengthening of Moses' hands; hence it comes to mean faithfulness, whether of God towards man or of man towards God.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

When you say you lack “faith” you are saying a great deal about yourself and your lack of ability to trust. Rather than telling us about ourselves you are revealing much about your own weaknesses and insecurities. As a christian friend I want you to think very carefully about the things you are saying out here on the world wide web for all to read. You even use your sex life from the 1960's to make some obscure point. You set up as a role model some crazy woman whose own son calls evil (Madalyn Murray O'Hair). And the language you use towards other people is disgraceful Robert.

I played along with you for a while but in recent posts you revealed your age. It is very sad. I truly thought I was arguing with a snotty college kid. But knowing that you are grown man it is no longer interesting or challenging. It is just very, very sad.

I will continue to keep you in my prayers but I will no longer respond to your posts. It is just too sad for me.

God bless and keep you.

Dana - We all know the definition of "faith" being bandied about when it comes to religion. It is not the, "I have faith my dog will come when I call it" type of faith, and we all know that the chosen final answer you are willing to give in an argument you cannot make the case for, is to feign righteous indignation over the demeanor of your opponent, and then quit.

I am surprised my age has anything to do with your attitude, perhaps you need to feel that you are somehow the wise sage talking down to an unworldly child, much the way a wife-beater twistedly views his relationship with his wife. Finally, using the scribblings of your fairy-tale book to give validity to an argument in the real world is ludicrous and illogical. Your reality is a contrived fiction based on your need for answers (any stupid answers) you have not earned and do not deserve, which many of us resent having forced on us. We who actually think, respectfully decline the invitation to join your hallucination .

I suspect the age issue for Dana is in reference to your immature personal attacks and appeals to ridicule. One would have assumed by your age you would have gained enough wisdom to be able to make a case for your beliefs, and that is what they are, without the need for such disgraceful language towards others. When you say “we” you mean “you”.. I see you still hold the deluded view that only those who subscribe to your beliefs, which you have made no case for, are the only ones capable of intelligent thought or deserving any respect. All that does is show your won insecurity. The only thing I can agree with you on is nothing should be forced on you or anyone else. Of course I haven’t seen anyone except you calling for the elimination of beliefs that don’t agree with their own either.

ravensfan - I have no doubts, whatever, that people who make the entire center of their being, their entire reason for existence, their entire rationale for the world around them, the collected myths and superstitions of their less than aware ancestors, are not fit to classify themselves as a higher life form. Granted, it took an evolutionary leap to first reach the point where we could abstract enough to invent gods, but to have frozen our intellects at that particular point, even in the face of coming to understand the basics of reason and logic, is not worthy of the first leap of understanding we took when we first asked the question "Why?". Take, for instance, the first Humanoid who learned to swim, using the doggy paddle (which seems logical). Now think about having discovered this wonderful talent, Humanity froze the parameters of swimming at the doggy paddle and never learned,or mandated further learning unnecessary, about what was possible beyond that point. Religion, in our intellectual development, is the doggy paddle in our intellectual swim, mandated by custom and habit, to be our intellectual limitation. You are just not receptive to the idea that there are those of us who refuse to be limited by your institutionalized prejudices and which, in your ignorance, still try to maintain, and when possible, impose those limitations on others. What you call Evangelizing your beliefs, we call spreading your intellectually debilitating disease, what you call freedom of religion, we call intellectual slavery to the absurd. The only real immaturity I have seen here is the blind adherence to the ridiculousness of religious dogma and the universal need by believers to paint anyone who has had the courage to look outside the box as a social pariah, but then again, if that's all you've got, I guess I should have expected it to be what you would run with.

Robert – that is your own unproven belief or faith. No evidence exists to prove to possess one means to limit the other. That is just some atheist dogma you cling to with the same zeal you attribute to religion. The flaw in your swimming example is religion would not limit exploring other learning. It would place moral limits on what you could do with that knowledge. It would not preclude any exploration for new knowledge. If you want to refute you need more than insults and appeals to ridicule. If one accepts your idea of immaturity then you are as guilty as anyone of being immature. You blindly adhere to your misconceptions and flawed logic and paint anyone who has the courage to confront you as intellectually and socially inferior. I won’t even bother pointing out the obvious flaws in your definition of immaturity since it would only reflect even worse on you. In the end all you have is your own personal opinion or dogma on what religion is and that has been shown to be at best flawed logic and at worst immature angry rants of someone looking to eliminate what he can’t understand.

ravensfan - My beliefs are that there are things that are known, and there are things that are yet to be known, it is that simple. They are not infected with dogma and doctrine, they are not limited by arbitrary rules devolved from myth and superstition, and they do not presume to knowledge that cannot yet be possessed. The purity and simplicity of these beliefs are being able to admit that I do not have the answers to questions that as a species, we have only begun to ask and that I admit may, in the end, never be known. That you defend with a ferocity your beliefs, which are steeped in dogma and doctrine, limited by arbitrary rules devolved from myth and superstition and that do presume to knowledge that cannot yet be possessed, IS NOT MY DAMN FAULT. It is your lack that needs addressing, especially since your beliefs mean to be the controlling factors that govern our further development, or as I have postulated, based on the past actions of religion, the militant and absolutist mindset of the religious, and the inability of religion to adapt, our eventual demise. Religion is a luxury that we can no longer afford to carry on our backs, if we are to achieve the next level of Human development that will allow us to live in balance with a world that was not handed to us by any god for our greedy and rapacious consumption. You are no more advanced than the prostrate worshipper of Baal, praying for a temple whore, and despite your self perceived moral superiority, no more or less warped, or arcane.

Robert – You have stated as a matter of fact God does not exist. How exactly did that become known to you? If you do not know you really can’t make that absolute statement can you? You can’t have it both ways. Either you don’t know which means you can’t state God definitely does not exist, or you do know and have to admit you are an absolutist as well. While you rail about my ferocity of defending my beliefs I don’t proclaim the need to eliminate yours as you do quite regularly. What you refuse to see is that most of what you say is based on nothing except you own beliefs or opinions. You are infected with this dogma that religion and knowledge are mutually exclusive. One can not have both. That is necessary for you to feed your ego-centric belief that you are somehow superior. You attack religion because of your own hedonistic, selfishness and resentment of religion setting up moral constraints. Religion doesn’t stop learning. It limits what you can do with that knowledge. You don’t like that and can’t comprehend it so you dismiss it at superstition and myth. Nothing in my beliefs governs anyone unless they choose it allow it. It’s you yet again proclaiming your message of the need to eliminate what you don’t believe and perpetuating your own absolutist mindset for the good of humanity. Christianity has adapted quite a bit over its 2000 year history and has survived the rise and fall of countless civilizations and empires. That doesn’t happen without the ability to adapt. You just don’t like the idea of some absolute boundaries. Ironic considering it’s the only thing that could keep us from destroying this world with our greedy and rapacious consumption as well as our own pettiness and selfishness. Your way is the path to certain doom for humanity. The only one who not only perceives but proclaims his superiority morally or intellectually has always been you. The truth is all you can do is mock and use appeals to ridicule since you have nothing else.

ravensfan - I can deny the existence of gods the same way I can deny that the center of the planet Venus has a chewy chocolate center. When there is no proof to back up either contention, then to blindly accept such a notion is pointless and stupid. If, somehow, you produce this god creature, or it shows up to prove its own existence and nature, then I will concede. Short of ANY proof at all, I will not bow to stupidity, I will not entertain the existence of gods, and I will not take any more $#!+ from theological retarded pit-bulls like you, who don't have enough sense to see that they are standing on a rock made of loose packed sand. You are upset because I treat you with the same respect I would show to someone telling me that the Venus scenario was true because of faith that it is so .

If you are counting on religion to save our species, forget it. The major religions are competing with each other to see which can breed itself to superiority, there are Jewish nuclear bombs already, there soon will be Muslim nuclear bombs, and when added to the Hindu bombs, we are one frantic Jihad/Crusade away from total annihilation.

The 2000 years,or so, since the cult of Jesus captured the unimagination of our ignorant superstitious fore-bearers, is only an example of how long a bad lie can be carried forward when you use the fear of death, the futility and misery of life and the promised escape coupon that cannot, and will not, be redeemed at death. Add to all of that the fact that institutions of religion program children from birth to swallow crap, and you can envision the perpetuation of delusionalism over eons of time and beyond reason and logic to understand.

Robert – You can say or believe whatever you like. Don’t get upset when I point out the inconsistencies in what you say. Regardless of the topic one can not claim not to know then make a definitive statement, just as one can not use lack of proof as proof. It’s your need to resort on use abusive personal attacks that shows your weakness every time. Trust me nothing you can say could or has upset me. Quite the contrary with each angry intolerant outburst I feel nothing but pity that you can’t articulate your position like the intelligent logical reasonable person you claim to be.

I’m certainly not counting on intolerant immature and hostile thinking like yours to save the world. There is no love or compassion for anyone anywhere in anything you rant on and on about. You still don’t see the reality that it’s not religion, but things like greed, anger, lust, hate and intolerance that may someday destroy us. I can not speak for all religions but nothing in mine advocates anything that would bring about the doom you rail on and on about. Your nonsensical breeding rants have no basis in fact and never had. They are part of your own dogma that you proclaim with a zeal unmatched by any religious zealot I’ve ever encountered.

Your entire last paragraph is really nothing more than a rant with no basis in fact. Funny how you continually attack Christians and other believers for their swallowing of myths and do the same thing yourself then continually talk about how you can say you don’t know yet as the key to your enlightenment. Your argument against Christianity was mentioned about in the Bible long before you ever became enlightened as you put it. In short try as you might you have no logical argument to prove your points so you resort to illogical ad hominem attacks, appeals to ridicule, irrelevant conclusions and ad nauseum arguments to try and wear down those who disagree with you. The really sad part is after 60 plus years one would have thought you would have acquired enough wisdom to state your case with out the need for such immature, bigoted, rationalizing tactics.

ravensfan - Having already achieved the delusional state, I find it highly improbable that you will ever understand the hypocrisy in everything you say. In defense of your unsupportable position, you accuse those who have gotten beyond your infantile level of development of being exactly what you are, illogical, intractable, inflexible and entrenched in ideas so absurd as to be dismissed as the fairy-tales they are. IT IS NOT MY FAULT that you are so boneheadedly stupid, so doggedly absolutist, so chauvinistically self deluded and insistent that you be shown respect that you will NEVER deserve, as long as you live in a fantasy world where you think are right just because you lack the imagination to think outside the tiny box of superstition and fear that was shoved down your throat as a child. Grow up, it is a far more complicated and interesting world than you can, or are seemingly capable of imagining.

Robert – For someone who seems to think he’s above those who believe you resorted to nothing more than massive ad hominem personal attacks or appeals to ridicule as you just did in you’re your last post. For someone who claims not to know yet and in the same post make absolutist statements to talk talking about the hypocrisy of others displays a disturbing lack of understanding of the meaning of the word. That post reflects more like an emotional childish tantrum than the work of a superior intellect or logic. It also comes off as someone rather insecure in his own position. Like I said before it’s rather sad that after 60 plus years one would have thought you would have acquired enough wisdom to state your case with out the need for such immature, bigoted abusive tactics.

ravensfan - The case against religion is a prima facie case. There is no way to state the case against religion that will have any meaningful impact on religionists, because they are, by definition, intellectually flawed. Fact, reason, logic, mathematical certainties, the historical absurdities, the existence of other equally as self certain absolutist religions, all point to the fact that you, in this time and place, are no more correct about the existence of your god than any other Human that has ever lived, be they bowers to Baal, or stick worshipping savages in the deep Amazon. You are all equally as certain of your beliefs and because only one set of beliefs could ever possibly be true, every bit as wrong as all the others that have ever existed, or may come to exist in the future. There can only be one truth and Humanity is a long way away from discovering it, if we ever will, and your pat answers get you what you deserve, a slap in the face every time you hold them up and say "Here is the truth, and we demand it to be respected until we can make it your truth too.". You will have to put up with our resisting, and until the day religionists are made to feel the fools they are by a society that has moved beyond your foolishness, our disdain as well.

Robert – It is logically and intuitively clear that just because a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts that both the notion of the evidence presenting a case in a self-evident manner and the facts actually being facts (which, presumably, would require evidence of at least a minimum degree of quality) can often be reduced to entirely subjective interpretations that are independent of any truthful merit by sufficiently skilled individuals. You attempt to pass of a bare assertion fallacy off as prima facie. You are simply repackaging your I can’t prove God, therefore he doesn’t exist fallacy. Only by your bigoted dogmatic definition is religion intellectually flawed. You can make all the appeals to ridicule you like and none of the change the fact that you have made no logical, rational or intelligent argument. You state there can be only one truth yet attack others who believe that simply because you don’t like their truth because it conflicts with yours. The only one making demands is you. You demand we accept your bigoted, intolerant views as fact. Christianity will be around long after you my friend and you will never be able to destroy it and that is what really makes you mad. For all your diatribes, insults, and childish tantrums you are powerless to exterminate what you can’t comprehend and fear. Keep denying the obvious that you are every bit the absolutist you accuse me and others of being. The difference is no one except you is preaching the message of exterminating conflicting absolutist ideas. As for yours or anyone elses distain that doesn’t concern me one bit.

ravensfan - I'm wide open to the truth, hell, I'd be wide open to your truth if you had any, but you have yet come up with any rationale that stands the test of truth about institutions you would have have dominion over us all. I say you are wrong because what you allege is patently ridiculous. I claim nothing but that there is an ongoing search for truth, that even when information shows any of your doctrine wrong or even unhealthy, you still stand behind it. I can be convinced when there is valid reason to change my understanding of reality. You are locked into a mindset that, if challenged, only makes you more intransigent. You are an enigma wrapped up in a fantasy reality, who is clueless enough to think it is real, for that, you have my pity, but never my respect. Your repeated need to come back to continue your pathetic attack against my character, in lieu of being able to counter my arguments, reminds me of a retarded pit-bull a neighbor had that constantly knocked itself out attacking its own reflection, fun to watch for a while, but just sad in the end.

Robert – Your problem is you operate on preconceived notions about me and believers in general. First no one has provided any information that proves anything I’ve said wrong especially you. Your entire argument has always been I can’t prove God exists to you therefore he can not exist. If that fallacy gives you comfort I have no problem with that. You’ve made no logical arguments to counter. You are far to blinded by our own intolerance and preconceived ideas to see that everything you accuse me of being in regards to a locked in mindset applies to you far more. You are the one who time and time again makes personal attacks on those who see things differently. You are the one who uses appeals to ridicule in an attempt to bully away anyone who dares confront you. You are the one who has a burning desire to eliminate that which you do not agree with. I was wondering when you’d play the aggrieved party card. You usually do when you are in a corner. All I’ve done is point out the obvious logical flaws and fallacies in your arguments. If you consider that an attack against your character then my friend then what is calling someone a “a retarded pit-bull”?

Robert – Your problem is you operate on preconceived notions about me and believers in general. First no one has provided any information that proves anything I’ve said wrong especially you. Your entire argument has always been I can’t prove God exists to you therefore he can not exist. If that fallacy gives you comfort I have no problem with that. You’ve made no logical arguments to counter. You are far to blinded by our own intolerance and preconceived ideas to see that everything you accuse me of being in regards to a locked in mindset applies to you far more. You are the one who time and time again makes personal attacks on those who see things differently. You are the one who uses appeals to ridicule in an attempt to bully away anyone who dares confront you. You are the one who has a burning desire to eliminate that which you do not agree with. I was wondering when you’d play the aggrieved party card. You usually do when you are in a corner. All I’ve done is point out the obvious logical flaws and fallacies in your arguments. If you consider that an attack against your character then my friend then what is calling someone a “a retarded pit-bull”?

ravensfan - Double entering absurdities does not give them, or you validity. Now go find a mirror, I'm still not tired of watching you attack your own image.......yet.

Robert – While your attack the person strategy probably works for you most of the time by chasing away those who question your views it only is effective on someone who can be bullied or intimidated. I would have figured you were smart enough to realize by now that it does work on me. Then again when one doesn’t have an intelligent argument all one can do is use distraction to try and force them into defense and away from their argument. Maybe you could point out the absurdity in my last post.

By the way I have no idea how that message posted twice. I only require one post to show the numerous flaws with your highly emotional and illogical arguments. Funny for someone who cried about having his character attacked you seem to have no problem attacking other peoples. Forgive me if I say that sounds rather hypocritical. Then again so does saying you are claiming nothing and searching for truth while making statements you claim as facts requiring no proof. One more thing the pit bull in the mirror thing isn’t working come up with a new insult next time. Who knows maybe you’ll find that one so horrific I’ll run in shame and terror proclaiming your intellectual superiority.

ravensfan - Nothing will work on you, so I don't even try to make you see things my way. You are just a convenient tool that allows me to voice what is wrong with religious belief and what it is doing to our species. You are perfect just the way you are, as an example of absolutist, inflexible, dogmatic, doctrinaire idiocy, that you reinforce every time you put your fingers on the keyboard. No matter what you say, it opens more opportunities to point out the nature of superstitional delusional belief. I owe you a debt of gratitude for acting like the bigoted cop who arbitrarily beats a Black man in-front of me, while I record the whole episode. I'm here to enlighten and you are here to be the perfect foil. I couldn't ask for more, again, thank you. Don't change a thing, I like and can use you, just the dumb ignorant way you are.

Robert – what is truly sad is just about everything you just said applies to you. The difference between us is while you see it as an opportunity to launch mocking personal attacks on those who do not share your narrow view of the world I see these forums as a place to discuss our differences agree where possible and agree to disagree where we can not. That’s why it’s you who is the cop in your example. Someone filled with anger, hated and biased views on others because they are different that you. Even sadder is you have some sort of pride in that bigoted outlook as if it’s somehow intellectually superior.

In as much as your beliefs are a denial of reality and mine are a call to face reality, in the face of the delusionalism you espouse, there is little you can do to elevate the inferior nature of your chosen form of intellectual slavery to a position of equality, let alone superiority.
What you believe IS NOT REAL and all your wishing it were, is not going to make it so. My view of the world encompasses all that is possible and probable, yours is a set in cement dogma, formulated by a blood drenched religion with a history of repression and death. Good luck with that.

Robert - Your beliefs are nothing more than your version of reality. If that was not true you wouldn’t contain the combination of anger, hate, bigotry and fear which emanates from your responses. If it were reality then you’d be able to do more than simply use appeals to ridicule and personal attacks to make your point. The only one obsessed with proving their ideas superior is you. It resonates countless times in your posts. Your fallacy that somehow religion and intelligence have inverse relationship is further evidence of your need to feel your own position is the superior one. To support it you point to events back in the dark ages and use it to nurse your own insecurities. You can keep on saying my beliefs aren’t real and if it gives you comfort be my guest. However, we both know that all you have is the logical fallacy that lack of proof something exists means it doesn’t. At the end of it all is the reality you can’t prove God does not exist no matter how much you desire to or wish to. The difference between us is I’m not crusading to have what you believe eradicated. I’m not afraid of your beliefs as you appear to be of mine.

ravensfan - Your circular rationale that you are trying to use to validate the sketchy vainer of delusion and superstition to the point of absolute truth, reminds me of the Uffal bird, that flies in great circles from the first time it leaves the nest, with each circle slightly smaller than the last, until finally the circles become so small that it flies up its own fundamental orifice and from this advantageous position spewers manure at its pursuer. Like I said before, don't change a thing, we need your example to show the fallacy of delusional belief and how pigheadedly stupid someone can be to defend it.

Robert – That would be true if I were trying to validate anything to you. Long ago I acknowledged proving God to your satisfaction was not possible solely using limited human logic and science. It is a question of faith which you and everyone else is free to accept or reject. All I did was challenge your absolutist statement that God does not exist and challenge you on how you can say that if you do not know yet as you maintained so frequently. I also pointed out your sole basis of proof is a logical fallacy. The inability to prove God means He does not exist. Your response now as it has always been is to insult and use appeals to ridicule. You confuse my pointing out your own logical flaws and delusions for defending my beliefs. My beliefs need no defending to you or anyone else. Unlike you I’m not afraid of beliefs which conflict with my own.

Funny, how your beliefs are similar to how a rich heroin addict views the world. They care not that the rest of the world has to live in reality, they have their drug. They don't care that they are addicted as long as they can get their fix. They don't care because the haze can be maintained without losing a step in their high, as they still function in the real world. There is no bottom to hit because they can always get their fix and if they die with a needle in their arm, they don't care because they will be in heaven when they die, or a drug imposed impression of heaven, before the light goes out. I've seen people die while I tried to hold, in my bare hands, their life spurting from severed veins, as they screamed for their non-existent god to save them. Their dead eyes showed no reflection of a better place or the wonder of a well met god, I saw only fear and pain and then an empty shell. There is no god, he/it had its chance and failed, and has always failed, except maybe for the heroin addict who rode the silver horse to oblivion, and you if you are lucky enough to die in a hospital bed, in a drug induced haze, maybe you will see your god for a fleeting second, maybe not, it is all delusion after all.

Robert – Your sad view of faith doesn’t really surprise me. Since the only value you appear to place on things is what you can reason and have distain for what you can’t.
While I confess I have no idea how heroin addicts see things, I kind of doubt they place much importance on anyone else’s well being other than their own. I doubt they have compassion for anyone or anything outside their own self gratification. Traits more attributable to your own dogma than anything I believe. Your tragic experience of someone dying proves nothing except your own need for certified proof to believe. All your post does is reveal how desperate you are to destroy opposing views rather than build consensus where we can agree which is the principle difference between us. You view everything through your own experience and never seem to question of there is more to life or anything else than what you have personally experienced. You latch on to ideas which mirror you own views and mock those which don’t. While you may believe what you said it’s still only your opinion with nothing to support it. You can not prove my faith a delusion and saying it over and over doesn’t change that reality. To deny that fact would be a lie on your part. The reality is we both believe different things that neither of us can prove. The difference is I’m not bothered because some choose to believe as you.

ravensfan - I certainly cannot "prove " that a god doesn't exist and there is a very real reason why that should be so. In logic (and if you don't believe me, find a damn priest who teaches logic an d ask him) you cannot prove a negative assertion, ever. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim that something "is", and in logic that which "is not" cannot be supported with proof if is is an abstract rather than a concrete demonstration that something is not, like proving a glass is not full. The burden of proof therefore, falls clearly on your head and because the only proof you can offer is the ridiculous concept of "faith" ( the excuse to believe something that cannot be demonstrated to be true, hence the excuse for ignorance), you have not demonstrated how anyone with a functioning brain can make claims of possessing ultimate truth based on the shape of smoke. You are, by the weight of the evidence, every bit as nuts as Clay.

Robert – I need no logic instruction, however, you may want to pick up a book on the subject and read it. Pay special attention to the following logical fallacies: Ad Hominem (Attack the person): Appeal to Ridicule (Ad Absurdum):Bare assertion fallacy: irrelevant conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi). They form the backbone of most of your arguments. What you are trying to claim the Appeal to Ignorance (ad ignorantiam) would apply if I were asserting your lack of ability to prove your point proves mine. Since I have never made that argument it does not apply. It is you who keeps using that to assert that makes your belief the valid one. It was you who made the claim “God does not exist”, “What you believe IS NOT REAL”. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim. That would be you. You are right negative assertions are difficult to prove which is why absolute negative assertions are rarely made. In the end all one making one can usually due is reverse the Appeal to Ignorance around to try and shift burden of proof or use Appeals to ridicule and Ad Hominem attacks all strategies you employ time and time again.. Neither of us can prove our point to the other. You can do all the name calling and insulting you like and it does not change anything that reality.

ravensfan - I attack the notion of god not being real because there is NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that a god, or gods, exists, or has ever existed. I attack religion for its negative affects on society (which I have amply proven) because it is based on the spurious rationale of the existence of your god . If you happen to place yourself in the path of my disparaging attack on your silly god and the spurious institutions erected to support that absurdity, and wish to call it a ad hoc attack against you, then I can live with that erroneous perception also. You are just as irrelevant as Clay and THAT is provable fact.

Robert – Attacking a notion is not the same as making board generic statements like God does not exist. If all you had done was that I doubt I’d of spent as much time discussing the topic. You also have proven nothing except your own inability to conduct yourself as the intelligent logical rational person you claim to be. Regardless of whether you want to admit it or not your problem is you can’t prove God doesn’t exist. So your resort to personal attacks and appeals to ridicule and other assorted fallacies in an attempt to vainly convince yourself you have done it. As for the rest of your post you appear to lack comprehension of what the words fact and proof really mean. What is truly sad is you actually think your rude behavior and bigoted and biased views actually are for the good of humanity. Intolerance, anger and hate NEVER benefit humanity.

ravensfan - Tolerating the intolerable NEVER benefits Humanity. Religion, god concepts, and the lie of everlasting life (the hook to win over the rubes), is intolerable in the complicated modern world.

Robert – What seems to allude you is that in nothing more than your opinion and not a proven fact. How exactly does one determine what, if anything is intolerable. Catholics would say your views on abortion are intolerable yet you would say the same about ours. You can provide nothing to give your opinion any credibility except past actions, of people who more than likely violated the basic precepts of their own religion in the name of it. I tell you want prove how concepts like treating others the way you want to be treated and loving your neighbor as yourself pose something that does not benefit humanity and I’ll give your rants some serious thought. Prove how someone believing in God who actually follows it is intolerable other than you don’t believe because God can not be proven. How about you prove how your type of intolerance and contempt for people who have different beliefs or ideas than your benefits ANYONE except perhaps those who share your absolutist, inflexible, dogmatic ideas and views.

Robert a while back you called me a “pit-bull” I’ll leave out the more insulting part of that post. Considering that you respond to every one of my posts and the only one of us who has ever suggested agreeing to disagree was me I can’t help but wonder who the “pit-bull” really is? This discussion is going nowhere. Since I know you won’t do it let me. Go ahead and declare victory and move on. I won’t ask you to agree to disagree.

ravensfan - Why should I declare victory and move on. Every post I make keeps the issue as to whether it is a good idea to let delusional based institutions have so much power, over both the individual and society. Your last word obsession, is tailor made for continuation of the opportunities to continue the process.

The Catholic fixation on the abortion question is a perfect example of how the actions of believers impacts society in general, in an intolerable way, because it is based on the idiotic religious idea that a soul is infused into the zygote at the moment of formation, and that that perception should be codified in law and enforced by using the coercive power of the state over people who do not share that particular hallucination. If you want to see a religious war (especially against religion), then be successful in this religious endeavor and see what happens to the insurance rates charged to Churches, as thousands of angry women, resentful of being made second (or lower) class citizens, take their revenge. You have to remember that the technology of striking a match is not beyond their comprehension . Oh, and so as not to dilute the meaning, I referred to you as a "retarded pit-bull" because obviously you are to stupid to let go, when continuing the way you are is only going to cause you more angst. So please, keep it up, I wouldn't have you change a thing.