I Don't Exist

Let's see if you can follow this argument from Ray Comfort:

There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why: Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. Right there with ya, Ray. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

Why would I need to answer those questions? Yaks and sand have nothing to do with atheism. Atheism neither denies nor claims any knowledge of yaks and sand. Nor do atheists claim to know everything. Atheists, in fact, like not knowing everything. We're ok with uncertainty, it's exciting. I don't know what's going to happen next, but I'm looking forward to finding out. You can come with, if you want.

Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

I still couldn't tell you where this is going. No place logical, I'm sure.

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists atheists love scientists! we're crazy that way. who ever lived, Thomas Edison i personally prefer einstein or nikolai tesla (but i think i only like tesla because he was played by david bowie in that movie. really cool role.), said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: who are you, joe biden? Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

You don't want to play with that kind of logic, Ray, because it's sharp on both ends. If you truly are reasonable, you would also be forced to admit that somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that god does NOT exist.

Look, no one lives their life on the basis of all the things they don't know. Yes, there may be, somewhere out in the infinity that is existence, proof of god. Maybe he signed a mountain on some distant planet, I don't know. But, until I see that proof, I'm going with what I currently know: there is no god.

Look at it this way: you get cancer. The oncologist tells you your options: surgery, chemo, radiation, some mix of all three. You do your research, get a second opinion, and then you pick an option. You don't sit around waiting to see if somewhere, out there in the universe, there is some other option nobody currently knows about.

Having seen all the currently available information, I make my choice. I don't choose to believe in something I have no proof of, on the idea that somewhere there is proof nobody knows about.

Let's look at the same thought from another angle. you can look at this from all the angles you want, the logic still doesn't hold up. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.

Seems like good logic, isn't. Suppose no one had ever, up until this point, ever found gold in China. Until someone finds gold in China, I can categorically say that there is no gold in China. Until someone proves god to me, I can categorically say there is no god.

To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion. This is ridiculous. We make categorical statements based on currently known information all the time. I hate the taste of alcohol. I have not tried all alcoholic beverages, so perhaps there is one that I might enjoy, but for right now, there aren't any.

Atheism is not the position that "even if you proved god to me I wouldn't believe", it is the position that "given all that I currently know, I don't believe in god." Don't turn the argument into something it isn't.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, again reframing the argument into something it isn't. I don't "disbelieve" in a god I know exists. I believe there is no god. prove to me there is a god, and I will change my mind. what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." yeah, that is what I say. I know my knowledge is limited, everyone's knowledge is limited. which means that Ray's knowledge is as limited as my own. suck it, Ray! Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. Yes, I can. I don't believe god exists. This is the definition of atheism. The only true qualifier for the title what title? atheism is a title? Ok, loyal readers, I now insist you refer to me as "Atheist Personal Failure" in all future communications. is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence? AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! The stupid, it burns! I don't believe in god, you can't use god to convince me of god!
The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic" - one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. No, agnostics and atheists do get lumped togethre a lot, but they are not the same thing. Atheists believe there is no god, agnostics just don't know. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." This is disingenuous at best. "agnostic" means "noncomittal" or "doubter" while "ignoramus" means "ignorant of". They might be the best equivalents across the two languages, but they are not the same word.

The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" good for you, using the book that means nothing more to me than any other book to prove that it should mean more to me. that's so useful. (Psalm 10:4). May as well start quoting Michael Crichton at me. It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. oh, puhlease. I look at the world and see it differently than you, and I am automatically immoral and hateful? Yeah, that's just the best kind of logic. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some. This is not what stops me from being a believer. I already do obey the laws. I am far more moral, and commit far fewer of what are considered sins than most christians I know. Oh, and insulting me doesn't exactly incline me to come over to your side, asshat.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator seriously, you think there might be people unaware of who fucking Mussolini was?), once stood on a pinnacle a pinnacle of what? a mountain? a building? and cried, "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later. Well, duh! On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

Deja Vu Misogyny Tuesday

Yes! YESYESYESYES!!!!!

Dennis Prager has once again graced us with "In Defense of Marital Rape" . . . uh, no . . . "When a Woman Isn't In the Mood: Part II". (I took much glee in dissecting Part I, if you need to play catchup.)

In Part I, I made the argument that any woman who is married to a good man and who wants a happy marriage ought to consent to at least some form of sexual relations as much as possible. (Men need to understand that intercourse should not necessarily be the goal of every sexual encounter.) Wow, the screams of "you big marital rapist twice divorced prick!" from the blogosphere after Part I must have penetrated at least somewhat. In the Part I, Prager did not advance the argument that a woman should engage in "some form" of sexual activity, he advanced the argument that a woman should engage in sex. Sex is very different from a little making out. (Unless he's talking about blowjobs? It's hard to tell.) He didn't really make too much of the whole "good man" thing, either.

What good man wants to have sex with a completely uninterested partner, anyway? I mean, if women are just masturbation aids to you, why not just buy a blowup doll? It'd definitely be cheaper than marriage. Creepy, but cheaper. Ohhhh . . . blowup dolls don't do dishes and vacuum. Got it.

In Part II, I advance the argument that a wife should do so even when she is not in the mood for sexual relations. I am talking about mood, not about times of emotional distress or illness. Way to clear that one up ONE WEEK LATER.

Why? Because you're a sexist, woman-hating, abuse apologist? Because you're a sweaty, unappealing little prick who couldn't get some unless some poor woman (well, two actually, Prager's been divorced twice) bought the idea that she owed it to you? I bet that's not what Prager has to say.

Here are eight eight?! EIGHT?! I couldn't come up with one! reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex. See, it's the woman "denying" her husband sex. Think about that. It isn't the woman declining to participate, it's the woman denying her husband sex. Because women should never be active participants in their own sex lives. We're just masturbation aids with cleaning skills.

1. If most women wait until they are in the mood before making love with their husband, many women will be waiting a month or more until they next have sex. What? I have nerve and joint damage from porphyria, and I want it at least 3, 4 times a week. Some women want it more than me, some women want it less, but Prager seems to be basing his assumptions on the two women who eventually told him to get lost. When most women are young, and for some older women, spontaneously getting in the mood to have sex with the man they love can easily occur. young, sexy. old, sexy. middle aged, not so much. Prager is getting creepier with every passing word. But for most women, for myriad reasons -- female nature oh, that's right, I'm a whore. true female nature is to put a lock on my vagina and never, ever think about sex, let alone want it. I forgot., childhood trauma sexual molestation?

Is Prager seriously suggesting that victims of molestation should, instead of serious counseling, just relive their trauma over and over by having sex when they really don't want to?

Wow.

, not feeling sexy, being preoccupied with some problem, fatigue after a day with the children and/or other work, just not being interested -- there is little comparable to a man’s “out of nowhere,” and seemingly constant, desire for sex. That's right, a real man always has a hardon. Men are never unconfident about their bodies, preoccupied, tired, or not interested. Not ever. Besides that, regular readers of this blog know, probably to their chagrin, that I occasionally become, out of nowhere, obsessed with [censored] with [censored], which would be so very [censored]. It's not just men that get a little "out of nowhere". It's men- and whores!

2. Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? ya know, other than donating organs.

actual conversation I had with my husband after reading Part I:

me: how do you know I love you?
hubbie: when you pour me a soda, you put in exactly the right amount of ice, pour it, wait for the fizz to go down, and pour again. i don't have the patience for that.
me: really?
hubbie: oh, and you always make sure my favorite jammie pants are clean.
me: oh.
hubbie: and in the winter, you hand them to me right out of the dryer, when they're still warm. you really get me, honey.
me: sniffle.

my point is, love is so many things. i know my husband loves me because he takes pictures of our dog and emails them to me when i'm stressed out at work. he calls me and tells me about all the funny little things he saw on the interwebs or on tv (we work opposite shifts), because he knows i like that stuff.

he gets me.

ok, continuing on with the snark:

What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood? I dunno. everything we don't get paid for?
What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? totally different issue. If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. because husbands are hardworking, but wives are just lazy wenches. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? sex is now work? that's an unfortunate metaphor, Mr. Prager. (Though undoubtedly an apt one in his wives' cases.) Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man. because women only value a man for his paycheck.

What woman would love a man who was so governed by feelings and moods that he allowed them to determine whether he would do something as important as go to work? that's women, just a mass of feelings. Why do we assume that it is terribly irresponsible for a man to refuse to go to work because he is not in the mood, but a woman can -- indeed, ought to -- refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why? because. work. and. sex. are. two. different. things. asshole.

This brings us to the next reasons.
3. The baby boom generation elevated feelings to a status higher than codes of behavior. hippies! In determining how one ought to act, feelings, not some code higher than one’s feelings, became decisive: “No shoulds, no oughts.” no marital rapes! In the case of sex, therefore, the only right time for a wife to have sex with her husband is when she feels like having it. uh, yeah. She never “should” have it. uh, yeah. But marriage and life are filled with “shoulds.” sigh

4. Thus, in the past generation we have witnessed the demise of the concept of obligation in personal relations. sexual revolution! guess it didn't work out all that well for Mr. Prager. i'd suggest he have a talk with my hubbie, but i don't fancy visiting my hubbie in jail. We have been nurtured in a culture of rights, not a culture of obligations. i know Mr. Prager seems to think I should regret being nurtured in a "culture of rights", but I don't. I bet black people don't, either. To many women, especially among the best educated thinking is teh evil! and it makes women ugly., the notion that a woman owes her husband sex seems absurd, if not actually immoral. uh, yeah. They have been taught that such a sense of obligation renders her “property.” uh, yeah. Of course, the very fact that she can always say “no” -- and that this “no” must be honored -- renders the “property” argument absurd. no, not if the "no" is regarded as immoral. look, I know the bible says it's ok to own slaves (as long as they come from neighboring countries), but to regard your wife this way is . . . um . . . i don't know a word bad enough for that. A woman is not “property” when she feels she owes her husband conjugal relations. sure she is. she turns herself into a masturbation aid. the blowup doll has more right to respect at that point, because at least she has the excuse of well, being a blowup doll. She is simply wise enough to recognize that marriages based on mutual obligations -- as opposed to rights alone and certainly as opposed to moods -- are likely to be the best marriages.

ok, let's just abandon the idea that marriages 100 years ago were so much better than they are today because now marriages end in divorce. Prior to the invention of antibiotics and modern medicine, people, especially women, didn't live all that long. In fact, the average marriage lasted all of 7 years before somebody died. "Till death do us part" wasn't asking much back then. It had nothing to do with enforced sexual relations.

5. Partially in response to the historical denigration of women’s worth, since the 1960s, there has been an idealization of women and their feelings. we're allowed to vote now! and own property! and have jobs! So, if a husband is in the mood for sex and the wife is not, her feelings are deemed of greater significance -- because women’s feelings are of more importance than men’s. no, but sex is supposed to be a consensual act. it's not consensual if one partner wants to and the other doesn't. One proof is that even if the roles are reversed -- she is in the mood for sex and he is not -- our sympathies again go to the woman and her feelings. bullshit. i actually have seen what he's talking about, but it's related to the idea that Mr. Prager himself espouses- that men are supposed to have permanent hardons and always be ready for it. We're used to the idea of a woman not being in the mood, but the idea of man not in the mood is foreign.

6. Yet another outgrowth of ’60s thinking hippies! is the notion that it is “hypocritical” or wrong in some other way to act contrary to one’s feelings. well, yeah, depending, but to regularly engage in what should be a joyful, pleasureable, consensual act based on obligation and duty is not a good idea. how are you ever supposed to enjoy sex if it becomes just one more chore added on the list. One should always act, post-’60s theory teaches, consistent with one’s feelings. Therefore, many women believe that it would simply be wrong to have sex with their husband when they are not in the mood to. Of course, most women never regard it as hypocritical and rightly regard it as admirable when they meet their child’s or parent’s or friend’s needs when they are not in the mood to do so. because children would die if we didn't meet their needs at all times. because giving your friend a ride doesn't involve getting naked and doing it. because, i give up. this should be obvious. They do what is right in those cases, rather than what their mood dictates. Why not apply this attitude to sex with one’s husband? Given how important it is to most husbands, isn’t the payoff -- a happier, more communicative, and loving husband and a happier home -- worth it? a happy husband versus my own self respect and joy in sex? yeah, i'll take me, thank you very much.

7. Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it. um, yeah. notice Mr. Prager isn't suggesting that men should say, give their wives oral sex on a regular basis and not receive gratification themselves. If he were at least suggesting that both sides of the equation be equal, i might not think him such a douche. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” ever had sex when you really don't want to, Mr. Prager? probably not. dehumanizing and mechanical don't even begin to describe how that feels. how about shaming or disgusting or humiliating. try that on for size. Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. women don't want it, men do. that's just nature. If it is romance a woman seeks -- and she has every reason to seek it -- it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety. because what guy doesn't like to pound away at a women who would rather be anywhere else?

8. In the rest of life, not just in marital sex, it is almost always a poor idea to allow feelings or mood to determine one’s behavior. picking a restuarant? selecting a movie?buying a book? Far wiser is to use behavior to shape one’s feelings. Act happy no matter what your mood and you will feel happier. not really. i defy the person who just watched their child die to act happy and feel happy. Act loving and you will feel more loving. Act religious, no matter how deep your religious doubts, and you will feel more religious. yeah, that's right. if i just pretend to believe in god, i will. Act generous even if you have a selfish nature, and you will end with a more a generous nature. acting generous would involve actually giving people stuff, in which case you actually would be generous. With regard to virtually anything in life that is good for us, if we wait until we are in the mood to do it, we will wait too long. i don't need to wait around to be happy and loving and generous. you truly are a scary man, Mr. Prager.

The best solution to the problem of a wife not being in the mood is so simple that many women, after thinking about it, react with profound regret that they had not thought of it earlier in their marriage. As one bright and attractive woman in her 50s ruefully said to me, “Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me.” that's right, honey. the only thing he wanted you for was a vagina to stick his penis in. you didn't feel like it and now YOU'LL DIE ALONE! why you wanted this guy is beyond me, but whatever.

That solution is for a wife who loves her husband -- if she doesn’t love him, mood is not the problem -- to be guided by her mind, not her mood, in deciding whether to deny her husband sex. sex. should. be. a. consensual. act.

If her husband is a decent man -- if he is not, nothing written here applies -- a woman will be rewarded many times over outside the bedroom (and if her man is smart, inside the bedroom as well but that's extraneous. whether or not a woman comes is entirely irrelevant.) with a happy, open, grateful, loving, and faithful husband. That is a prospect that should get any rational woman into the mood more often.

Normally I wouldn't gloat over this sort of thing, but Mr. Prager's children are adopted, so no, his genetic code will not be spread all over the planet.

Atheophobia

(Second only to homophobia among the religious right, mostly because atheophobia doesn't involve endless discussions of whose penis went where.)

Conservapedia, the answer to the question no rational person would ask, has announced their article of the year: Atheism!

Conservapedia, in case you are unfamiliar with it, is the conservative answer to wikipedia, which is all liberal and biased towards facts and rational thought. If you have some time, it is endlessly amusing to compare conservapedia pages to their wiki counterparts. Most telling are the pages on the Sermon on the Mount. The wiki page is huge, the conservapedia page is 2 sentences. (I'm guessing because the Sermon on the Mount is where Jesus blessed the meek and the peacemakers. Conservatives do not like that kind of hippytalk, even from their messiah.)

Anyway, let's get this party started!

This is the opening paragraph, from Cpedia: Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the denial of the existence of God. The atheistic worldview has a variety of effects on individuals and society at large which will be elaborated on shortly. In regards to individuals adopting an atheistic worldview, atheism has a number of causal factors that influence its origination in individuals which will be addressed. In addition, critiques of atheism will be offered and some of the historical events relating to atheism will also be covered.

Now from Wiki: Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.

First of all, Cpedia articles always read like someone's sixth grade book report. You don't need to tell me what you will be elaborating on and when you will be doing it. Just give me section links and I can figure this one out for myself. Beyond that, this is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. Encyclopedias do not offer critiques of subjects. They simply give you the facts and leave it up to you to decide. (Conservatives have learned the danger of simply letting the public decide. We end up doing things like electing BLACK!TERRORIST!He's MUSLIM! presidents.)

There are three ways that atheism manifests itself:

Militant atheism which continues to suppress and oppress religious believers today especially in Communist countries. This is not atheism. I am not at all interested in killing believers. I want you all to shut up, but you're welcome to believe as you will. All right? Whatever Vox Day and his ilk claim, Stalin and atheism have nothing in common. What's being referred to here is totalitarianism. It wasn't enough for Stalin to control what soviets could eat and drink and what jobs they had and where they lived, he needed to control their minds. It doesn't work, but boy did he try.

Theoretical atheism: atheism of the mind -- that is, believing that God does not exist. Pay attention to where the negatives go: I do not believe that god exists. Cpedia: believing that god does not exist. Me: not believing that god exists. I'm an atheist, asshat. I don't believe. Believing that god does not exist is belief.

Practical atheism: atheism of the life - that is, living as though God does not exist. Practical atheism is not "atheism of the life", a phrase with no meaning, it is essentially what believing scientists do while at work. Contrary to what some assert, plenty of scientist believe in god. However, physicists and chemists and such cannot simply say, "it was god!" every time something happens in their labs.

For reasons inscrutable to, well, anyone with a brain, we now move to biblical answers to atheism.

The writers of the Bible considered the existence of God to be self-evident and Moses simply wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1). What does that prove? JRR Tolkien, after all that time spent hiding in a basement while the Nazis bombed London, firmly believed that the events that he described in the Lord of the Rings were true, that the characters were real, there really were elves, he really did speak their language. Am I to conclude that the Lord of the Rings is an historical text?

Wait a fucking minute. Moses didn't write the book of Genesis. What is this asshat talking about? I have read the bible cover to cover in 6 translations, and I can affirmatively state that nowhere does it say that Moses wrote Genesis. This is Jewish tradition, but we can logically state that Moses, having been born many generations after the events in Genesis, did not freaking write Genesis, unless he simply wrote down the oral tradition already existing . . . and I'm boring myself.

Accordingly random use of a big word?, the psalmist David wrote the following:
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." - Psalms 14:1 and the bible remains consistent within itself exactly like every other work of fiction. Amazing!
The psalmist David also stated that "The heavens declare the glory of God..." and?

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that the creation testifies the existence of God, when he wrote the following: fail for using "wrote" twice in the same sentence.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen if they are invisible, they are not clearly seen, if they are clearly seen, they are not invisible. pick one., being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - Romans 1:19-20 (NKJV) again, the fact that the bible, the book dedicated to the idea of god, says that everything proves that god exists, is irrelevant unless you already happen to believe in god. round and round we go.

The next section is entitled "Tenuousness of Atheism in Prominent Atheists" in which we get quotes from two (two!) atheists, Sartre and Darwin. The quote from Darwin doesn't even contradict his own professed atheism.

Notable professing atheists have had the characteristic of variability and tenuousness when it came to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism. For example, Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the leading proponents of atheism of the 20th Century. Yet Jean-Paul Sartre made this candid confession:

“ As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise." this is the atheistic equivalent of a crisis of faith to me. sure, sometimes i wonder. am i wrong? is there a god? is there a heaven and a hell? just like sartre, i was raised catholic. it's hard to get that out of your psyche.

Charles Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist. materialism is not a form of atheism. materialism is more or less a scientific viewpoint, devoid of religion. Charles Darwin was an atheist, as well.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:
“
In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away. ”(Argyll 1885, 244) Again, the atheistic equivalent of a crisis of faith. See, fundamentalists don't get this sort of questioning. To them, religion provides absolutes. Everything has a pat little answer (god) and they do not understand people who don't need that. I like the uncertainty of things. I'm ok with not having an answer for every question. If the universe, in all its infinite wonder, doesn't occasionally make you question everything, there is something seriously wrong with you.

We are then treated to "Communism and Atheism", which I will spare you, other than to note that the second quote from Karl Marx is "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction", yet the next four paragraphs go on to connect atheism and the depredations of communism. Why let facts get in the way of belief?

Commonly Cited Arguments Against Atheism and for Theism offers us really big words!

In relation to the debate between theism and atheism, theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument funny, i've always felt the same way about theists. and have a number of arguments against atheism. Arguments for the existence of god include:

Teleological Argument: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an intelligent designer.
Really? I guess that depends on what you mean by "intelligent". To repeat an argument from yesterday, Sickle Cell Anemia is a genetic disorder most often found in subSaharan Africa. The red blood cells, instead of being round, are the shape of a sickle moon. This greatly reduces life span and causes tremendous suffering. However, people with sickle cell anemia are immune to malaria, a disease that kills millions of children every year. Therefore, in an evolutionary sense, sickle cell anemia is advantageous, because the sufferer lives long enough to reproduce. In the sense of intelligent design, sickle cell anemia would be cruel to the point of sadism. You decide.

Csomological argument: Every event in our universe necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause distinct from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. Atheism denies that that first cause is God. If every event in the universe necessarily has a cause, then the first cause must also have had a cause, so who caused god? (a 5 year old could figure out the problem with that.)

Ontological argument: According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone."You cannot reason your way to god. You try reasoning, you'll end up over here with me. (I have cookies!)

Historical arguments for the existence of God. For example, arguments stemming from historical accounts such as Christian historical apologetics useless if you don't already believe, Christian Legal Apologetics i'd love to see that and archaeological evidence such as Bible archeology which solely proves that some guy named Jesus existed, not that he rose from the dead or turned water into wine;

Experiential arguments for the existence of God: Arguments based on personal experience and human intuition. not a logical argument. "I feel like god exists" proves nothing except that you, and only you, feel like god exists. good for you. According to philosopher Alvin Plantinga belief in the existence of God exists is a "properly basic" belief and not based on inference from other beliefs but is rationally justified due to one's circumstances of immediate experience of God. I wasn't all that impressed with cogito ergo sum, either. We've all seen the Matrix and the 13th Floor and Existenz guys! We know there is no spoon.

Presuppositional apologetics: Christian apologists Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli have published Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God care to tell me what they are?
bible scientific foreknowledge. absolutely no explanation of what this is. in the bible, bats are listed as birds, rabbits are listed in the same class of animals as cows and insects have four legs. i'm not going to the bible for my scientific knowledge.

Atheism and Mass Murder: let's see here (1) atheists are mass murderers (2) all mass murder was done by atheists (3) even if the mass murderer claimed to be a christian, they weren't really. Isn't that special?

Atheism and Uncharitableness: I'm not sure why this bothers me after the whole mass murder thing, but it does. Look, Barna Group is a Christian group. That's their viewpoint right from the outset. Beyond that, part of what is counted as charitable giving is what church attendees put in the collection plate at church. Most of that money gets put . . . you guessed it, right back into the church. It is charitable giving, but it's not money that is feeding the hungry or housing the homeless.

Atheism and Immoral Views: Here's where how you define a word makes all the difference. The Barna Group found regarding atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use I regard drug addiction as an unfortunate but treatable illness, not immoral; excessive drinking see above; sexual relationships outside of marriage yeah!; abortion your choice; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage umm . . . living together?; obscene language fuck you, asshat!; gambling put it all on red!; pornography gross and mysogynistic to be sure, but immoral? and obscene sexual behavior doggie style? what is obscene sexual behavior?; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality. it's teh greatest evil of all: Teh Gay!!!! Puhlease.

then we get this little gem (which is totally unrelated to atheism, by the way. gays aren't any more or less likely to be atheists than straights, which is kind of wierd given what the religious right has been putting them through):

Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality,

so, list for me the diseases associated with homosexuality that are not associated with heterosexuality. need a minute? take all the time you want. there are none. HIV/AIDS is a heterosexual disease in Africa. all of the STDs are as likely in straights as they are in gays, so what is the asshat talking about?

the bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time. What about the bible prohibition against eating shrimp? Was that "ahead of its time"? What about the bible prohibition against sitting in a chair that a menstruating woman has sat in? Was that "ahead of its time"? the bible commands us to kill adulterers. ahead of or behind its time?

Next, atheists die younger and get sick more often.

Atheists commit suicide more often.

Next we learn that because one atheist lied, all atheists are liars. Timothy McVeigh, anyone?

Evolution gets a random shout out. Not sure why.

Antiatheism blogs get a whole paragraph.

Then we get the reasons for atheism (again, nobody ever asks the atheists):

1. Moral depravity: The history of the atheist community and various studies regarding the atheist community point to moral depravity being a causal factor for atheism. Show your work, asshat! Of course, if you count thinking and not hating gays as "moral depravity", I suppose this might be true.

2. Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence That's right, we all know god exists, we just choose to ignore him. You're right, we're wrong, and we'll be sorry in the end!

3. Superficiality: Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his Stanford professors who were united in disbelief regarding God. we're too spineless to stand up for our beliefs! because it's so easy to be an atheist in the US!

4. Error: Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts we're just too stupid to understand your facts!

5. Poor relationship with father: Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards holding the position of atheism. Who? Who argues this?!

6. Scientism: Science has in many ways become a new God. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA thinking is Teh Evil! logic is the devil! don't think, just believe!

Next, atheists are going after the children!

In 2007, WorldNetDaily feature be careful with that website, if the stupid makes your head explode, it's not my fault. I just gave you the link a column by Chuch Norris which stated the following regarding atheism and the Internet:

What exactly is Chuck Norris an expert in? Other than roundhouse kicks and really bad acting? This would be like me quoting Edward Norton in an article about the Large Hadon Collider. (When Chuck Norris jumps in a lake, he doesn't get wet, the water gets Norrised.)

“ Atheists are making a concerted effort to win the youth of America and the world. we are? why didn't I get the memo? Hundreds of websites and blogs that's me! on the Internet seek to convince and convert adolescents, endeavoring to remove any residue of theism from their minds and hearts by packaging atheism as the choice of a new generation. like pepsi! While you think your kids are innocently surfing the Web, secular progressives are intentionally preying on their innocence and naivete. yeah, that's right. 15 year old boys are checking out atheist blogs, not porn. don't even worry about the porn.
What's preposterous is that atheists are now advertising and soliciting on websites particularly created for teens. The London Telegraph noted that, "Groups including Atheists for Human Rights oh no, human rights! it's Teh Evil! and Atheist Alliance International – 'Call 1-866-HERETIC' man I wish I had that phone number! - are setting up summer camps and an Internet recruiting campaign."
youtube, the most popular video site on the Net for young people, is one of their primary avenues for passing off their secularist propaganda. uh-huh. who gave chuck the damn memo and didn't give me one?

There are no atheists! No, really. Get this one, and pay close attention to the source material.

The Christian Cyclopedia states regarding atheism the following:
“ It is not possible for a man to be an atheist, in the commonly accepted sense, in his innermost conviction. No amount of reasoning will erase from the human heart the God-given conviction that there is a Supreme Being; those who theoretically deny God's existence replace Him with something else.

Sure, I've been lying to you all. Secretly, I love Jesus! Next week, we prove that every Muslim in the world knows that Jesus is the savior, they just want to fit in.

There is a Santa Claus!

Conservapedia's article of the year is on atheism! There is a Santa Claus! I am going to have so much fun with this! It'll be like the above picture times a million! (Yes, yes, I know, egregious overuse of exclamation points. I get a little overexcited sometimes. In case you can't tell what the above picture is, it's a head being exploded by a sniper rifle headshot. Too bad you can't hear the accompanying exploding-melon sound.)

Tomorrow. I'll have time for this tomorrow.

Barack the Magic Negro

If someone does not know why this is very, very wrong, then I can only suggest one thing: admit that you are a racist. You are an ignorant, hateful bigot. You judge people on the basis of their skin tone, as if the amount of melanin in someone's skin could tell you anything at all about them. You are stupid.

We don't want you anymore. You don't belong here.

Shut the fuck up.

Go away.

We're not playing anymore.

(This goes for homophobes, too.)

Literally True?

Fundagelicals will tell you that the bible is literally true. Every word is meant exactly as it was written, to be taken as the absolute, true word of god himself.

This can make for some amusing conversation. Try it sometime.

Who was Jesus' grandfather?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Jacob or Heli, well, one of those.

Jesus equal to God or Jesus less than God?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Who was made first, the beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

How many animals were on that ark?

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Bats are not birds, unless you're christian!

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat

If you happen to be a christian, rabbits chew their cud!

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Insects that worship Jesus have 4 feet!

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you

Yeah, that's fun. So, the next time someone witnesses to you, ask them about these little problems. Be sure to write down the chapter and verses, though, because fundagelists rarely ever read their bibles, so they won't be familiar with them.

Vault-Tec Bobblehead Locations

In case this has been bothering you, too, here are the locations for the Vault-Tec Bobbleheads.

Not In Front of the Children!

Let's review the instructions on how to witness (beat over the head with a bible until they beg for mercy, or agree with you to make you shut the hell up) to an atheist. You'll note that no one seems to have consulted, or indeed spoken to, an actual atheist.

Just for the record, atheists don't believe in any deity at all. We don't know how the universe got started (nor do we need to, answers for everything is the believer's problem, not ours), but we know it wasn't some bearded dude in a white robe yelling, "Let there be light!" We believe that tomorrow is no guarantee, the afterlife is a lie, so you better get out there and live today. We also believe that god does not provide, prayers are not answered and there are no guardian angels, so we need to help each other, because there is no other help coming.

This is different from agnostics, those who believe that there might be a god, but they're not entirely sure, and they certainly don't know what religion to pick. Theists definitively believe in god, but may not necessarily have picked a religion or specific belief set.

Onward to the forced conversions!

OP: Is there an effective way to reach Atheists? Many people I know on other forums, are either atheistic, agnostic, or non-religious in general. They quite often rely on logical thinking over faith. I love the implication that while atheists are capable of logical thought, accepting Christ as your personal savior renders any kind of thought impossible. That's not quite a point in favor of converting in my book. OP probably shouldn't mention this to potential converts at first. Can someone please help? I want to witness to some non-religious friends.... I call this harrassing, and I certainly wouldn't call the OP "friend" after that.

Adoration cannot even articulate the basic tenents of his own faith. (Being incapable of thought is a bitch!): Here's my question:How do I form arguments/answers to an unbelievers statement that God doesn't exist...therefore Christianity has no validity.Or if they say "Prove to me that God exists". How would you answer? Seriously, you cannot explain to me why you believe god exists? That's pretty freakin' basic, buddy! I can tell you why I don't think god exists.

John 321 appears to be talking about . . . well, I'm not sure, but probably not atheists: These people want God in a test tube from some science lab actually, that would be totally cool, but no, that's not what we want. Just give me something other than (a) I believe and so should you, or (b) it's right here in the bible that god exists, and the bible is absolutely true because god wrote it, and off we go in a circle forever...it's not happening! Remember they hated God first. what? how can I hate what I don't believe in? I don't hate Santa or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, either. After planting the seed of the gospel it is God who gives the increase. Increase? Pay increase? Weight increase? What? Continue to pray for them but do it quietly and not in front of the children!

Whamo takes an approach popularized by police interrogators: I try to start more subtle: Get them to realize there is a creator first. How? I believe it's easier to witness for Jesus to someone that believes in a "higher power", or God, than someone with zero belief. probably true, but how are you planning on getting me to believe in anything at all?

Hilhill spouts the most commonly held belief evangelical christians have about atheists: In my experience there are very few true atheists, but rather anti-theists. Everyone knows that God exists. They can try to convince themselves that He doesn't because of their own personal stubborness or rebellion, but His Law is written on the heart of every man. Of course, they don't act like this and they will NEVER admit it, but they know God exists deep deep down, but they are just trying to ignore Him. Basically, Hilhill believes that no matter what I say, I truly do believe in god, I just don't feel like going to church or giving up my rebellion. We're all born knowing all about evangelical christianity, but we choose to ignore this knowledge and be muslims and jews and hindus and atheists.

Does anyone else see how ridiculous and insulting this belief is? It puts the atheist in the position of being a particularly disobediant dog. My dog knows damn well he isn't supposes to steal food off my plate, and for the most part, he doesn't. Every now and then, for reasons known only to him, he will attempt to take the food right off my plate while I'm eating from it. He knows I will punish him for this, and he does it anyway.

To Hilhill and people like her, I am less intelligent than my dog, because he only does this occassionally, and I do it every moment of every day. (Not related, but I keep typing "dog" as "god". Hee hee!)

I think Hilhill and her ilk hold this belief because it shores up her own: her own belief HAS to be right. Otherwise, she is wasting her life for this crap when she could be living it. If she allows herself for one moment to contemplate that I honestly do not believe in god, that I am happy, and that I am also a moral, good person despite my lack of belief, then she will have to confront the idea that she, too, could be happy without her restrictive faith.

Can you imagine spending every day running from the knowledge that you may well be deliberately and actively wasting your life? Yikes!

Hootmon starts out ok, and goes downhill from there: Depends on the source of their atheism. Dont apostrophe! assume they are a monolithic block of 'heathens' hey, thanks for that...
Some were raised in 'religious' households, and are atheist due to rebellion. no, sorry. true atheists are not "atheist due to rebellion". some people claim to be atheists out of rebellion, but true atheists have a conversion moment, exactly like the ones described by christians. it's an "ah-ha!" kind of moment where you realize that even if you want to, you don't believe. That's not rebellion.

Some were raised in religion-free households and are atheist due to ignorance.
Sure, you find me a person on the US or anywhere else in the world, who has reached I dunno . . . 7 without hearing about some kind of religion. I'm waiting. Still not back yet? That's because 7 year old Jews and Muslims in the US can tell you all about Jesus. Trust me, there isn't anyone anywhere who is entirely ignorant of religion.

Some chose atheism due to 'logic'...ooh "logic". it's so ridiculous to think about things. who does that? why think when you can believe? The latter two groups are way easier to reach than the first one, but you need to approach them each on their own terms. I can't imagine how you approach the logic people. "Hey, tired of thinking and deciding for yourself? Jesus has a solution for you!" Ultimately, you need to show them how belief in any 'god' is a logical proposition, yeah, that must be quite the bit of sophistry. and then show how belief in the Christian God is the most logical of the available options. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I don't think this guy understands what "logical" means.

Mike reiterates the "they believe that just won't admit it" with a twist: It is interesting to note that the bible makes no effort whatsoever to prove God's existence. Neither do the Jason Bourne novels, the Lord of the Rings or the Wheel of Time series attempt to prove the existence of their characters. So what? I would echo what has already been said, everyone knows that God exists, some choose to pretend that they don't. Pray for them to lose whatever they are holding onto that damn logic again! that is coming between them and God.

Alhere seems a little confused on the definitions of "legal", "forensic" and "evidence". There are a number of lines of legal forensic evidence that could be presented.One would be that life is too complex to have come into existence by time, chance and random processes. really? how would you know? keep in mind, that while you may believe the universe is only 6000 years old, I believe it is billions if not trillions of years old, and trust me, everything that can happen is bound to happen at least once in all that time.

There is no way you could add information to the genetic machinery for increased complexity unless there was an intelligence designing and directing the adding of information. Alhere clearly doesn't know how evolution works. Not surprising, but the information doesn't get added to DNA by an outside source, it is selected by which orgamism lasts long enough to reproduce. Let's look at sickle cell anemia. In sickle cell anemia, the red blood cells are the shape of a sickle moon rather than being round. It is a horrible, painful disease that greatly reduces life expectancy, but it makes one immune to malaria. Malaria kills millions of children a year before their 5th birthdays. People with sickle cell anemia make it to adulthood. Therefore, in an evolutionary sense, sickle cell anemia is successful: people with it live long enough to reproduce. If you accept that there is no evolution, you must also accept that god created sickle cell anemia rather than simply making people immune to malaria. That's a hard position to defend, unless you like the idea of the sadistic god.

That leads to, well who is that intelligence then? From there you can point out that the Bible claims to be a message from that intelligence. so does the torah, the q'ran, and a number of other books. Ok, then how do I know that the Bible is really from the creator? There are a number of lines of evidence one can consider. Bible prophecy and its accurate fulfillment is strong evidence that the Bible is from that Creator. the bible, like many other books, is consistent within itself? that's amazing! There are hundreds of prophecies already accurately fulfilled and many more ready to be fulfilled in the end times. so, they haven't been fulfilled yet is what you are saying? The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has strong legal evidence that it truly happened. "legal" evidence? what? The gospels are 4 eyewitness accounts of these events admissable in any court of law. no, they're not. simply because some guy, a couple thousand years ago, says he saw the same thing 3 other guys say they saw does not make it admissable in a court of law. I suggest reviewing the Rules of Evidence. There were over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ available also. really? are they available today? did they write their testimony down? Secular historians recorded the fact of the existence of a man named Jesus Christ. doesn't make him the son of god.The dead sea scrolls attest to the accuracy of the manuscipts we now have. The writings of the early church fathers preserve virtually every verse in the Bible which affirms our current Bible.There is a start. to what?

Glory in Print takes the "all atheists are mass murderers" approach: I don't think there is anything you can do other than to plant the seed of the gospel and pray for them...I have debated over 100 atheist you counted? and I found one thing real fast apparently not that fast, you did debate 100 of them. unless Glory in Print debated 100 atheists at once. they are not seeking truth not your truth, anyway, they love darkness rather than light we're evil!, they will reject the truth at all cost it's that logic! we just can't give up the logic!...And not to mention the fact that alot of atheist have a vile hatred for God, and for Christians i love how these idiots think that because a person gets really annoyed about being preached at, they must hate god. there's no other explanation...Now when I talk to an atheist I don't even acknowledge there their unbelief and I tell them it doesen't matter if they don't believe in God, because God will judge them regardless of there unbelief then I share the gospel with them. so there! i'll be right in the end, you'll see!

psalms 137:9 apparently didn't get the memo about thinking: What is wrong with logical thought? jesus demands that you think about nothing! BTW, I looked up psalms 137:9, and now I am very afraid of this poster: he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

buzzardhut, a moderator on the raptureready message boards, gives psalms 137:9 the memo: Logic blurs at the metaphysical yeah, what the fuck does that mean?

I'm giving up there. Apparently, my brain is the reason I can't believe. Not sure why god gave me a brain . . . and now I'm back to atheism.

I Am a Mass Murderer

Well, I must be, I'm an atheist!

No, really, "Vox Day" proved it.

Good to know what I'll be doing later today.

Judge Not

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged

In case it's been a while since sunday school, Jesus said that. Here's the quote in context:

1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye

What's truly interesting there is verse 2, which is mostly overlooked. This is not just a prohibition against judging other people, it is a warning that you will be judged by the same harsh standards you use against everyone else. We see this all the time when we laugh at the most judgmental preachers who end up being publicly outed as thieves and adulterers. "Oh," we say, "He was one to talk!"

Verse 3 is also interesting: you shouldn't be judging others because you know you have done wrong yourself. Worry about your own faults and flaws instead of others', in other words.

(Hey, I may be an atheist, but Jesus had some good ideas.)

Apparently, Grace Community Church got some faulty bibles that didn't include those 3 verses in the 7th chapter of Matthew. They are publicly "disciplining" a 49 year old women for having sex with her boyfriend. Yeah. Really. So, after being confronted about her "habitual sinning", she stops attending the church.

End of story, right?

Hey, c'mon now, this is christianity, of course not.

Grace Community Church decides that it's not enough for her to simply stop attending church. They need to publicly "discipline" her, which involves announcing to the entire congregation why she no longer attends church. The best part? Her two young boys still attend the church. Grace Community Church intends to announce the exact nature of her "habitual sinning" in front of her sons.

Nice, huh?

I picked up on this after reading a two part blog post at baptist21 defending the church's actions. Oh, yes.

This is an extremely interesting story, and several observations about it need to be made. First, the church is acting appropriately! They are following a command laid out by King Jesus to restore those who refuse to repent of sin and might be on a path to destruction and judgment (Matt. 18:15-19).

Clearly, baptist21 misunderstands these verses. (Why am I doing better at bible reading?)

15"If your brother sins against you and stop. sins against you. YOU. How is a woman having sex with her boyfriend sinning against anyone at Grace Community Church? She may be sinning against god, if you believe that sort of thing, but she's not sinning against you or me. , go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Wait, what part of this suggests announcing to everyone in the congregation that the woman and her boyfriend were having sex?

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Dogma clause. Doesn't even apply here.

19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. apparently, if the church "disciplines" this woman on earth, she will be disciplined in heaven, as well. What does this have to do with the question at hand?

You know, Jesus loved the sinners, and not in a "hate the sin, lover the sinner" kind of way, either. He never condemned prostitutes and adulteresses. In fact, he protected an adulteress from being stoned.

Now, you may say that Grace Community Church has the right to expell anyone they want from their congregation, just like any other private group. That's true, but it misses the point of what Jesus actually said. Jesus didn't preach for the perfect, the sinless, the rich and the powerful. He preached for the poor, the drunk, the diseased, the imperfect and the flawed.

Why is it that Christians, whose own savior said more than once not to judge, just can't let go of the judging?

Missing the Point Entirely

Yeesh.

This is from smartchristian.com (apparently, in this guys' case, a contradiction in terms):

God’s ultimate future is a “new heaven-and-earth” (Revelation 21:1). In Christ, we become integreated into God’s “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17).
So, how does this biblical truth relate to Botox? Because we must ask: what is the internal driving motivation for men and woman to spend millions of dollars to “recreate” their bodies? I believe it is the God-given hope and longing for a “new creation,” a new resurrected body. This is some food for thought as we enter 2009.

Ok, I can't get botox due to medical conditions (I doubt even a supreme deity could say what would happen if you mix botox with porphyria), but I wish I could. I want to be the sort of person that loves their wrinkles and accepts aging with grace and dignity, but I'm not. I'm obsessed with my wrinkles and (incipient) sagging. If I spent half as much time on say, world peace, as I do looking in mirrors and buying antiwrinkle products (that don't work), the whole planet would be holding hands and singing Kumbaya right now.

I do not do this out of a desire for a "new resurrected body". I do this because I live in a culture where a 25 year old actress is old. I do this because every image of a woman I see has been airbrushed to oblivion. I do this because I have never, in my entire life, seen anyone look at a 19 year old and a 50 year old and say, that 19 year old just looks too smooth and tight. I hate myself for buying into this and I can't stop it.

Moron. (Me and him.)

The absolute worst part? See that picture above? That guy isn't real, he's from a video game. It's still a good representation of my taste in men. I especially like the scar. Yet I still am horrified that I can't manage airbrushed perfection in myself. If I could just cut myself the same slack that I cut everyone else in the universe, including the made-up people, I'd be a lot happier.

Happy Whatever!

I don't really have anything to be testy about today.

The presents are fewer this year, but everyone is getting something.

Christmas dinner is less fancy this year, but everyone will eat.

The heat is turned down low, but we still have a place to live.

Some of us are sick, or sicker, but we're all still here.

Life is harder this year than last, but the simple joys, a child's smile, sunset, petting a dog, were always free anyway.

Remember, you can endure what you must endure, and the things that make the most difference in this life- love, kindness, acceptance- don't cost a thing. So give them to everyone and change the world.

Happy Whatever!

Misogyny Tuesday

Ok, did the Religious Right have some meeting that I (obviously would have) missed? Or is the recent upswing in obvious misogyny part of the "christmas spirit"? Honestly, When a Woman Isn't in the Mood, Part 1 by Dennis Prager had my hands into fists after the first sentence. By the second paragraph, I was growling. (Really growling. People were staring.)

Update: Dennis Prager has, unsurprisingly, been divorced twice.

Given our preoccupation with politics and economics, it is easy to forget that for most of us micro issues still play a greater role in our lives. So here are some thoughts that, as heretical as they might sound "heretical" isn't word you are looking for. try "offensive" or "misogynistic" or "sexist" or, and this is my personal favorite, "shut the fuck up you stupid asshat", have been found extremely helpful, sometimes even marriage-saving, from listeners to my radio show, which features a "male-female hour" every week. it's good because it saves marriages. as if an intact marriage, no matter how miserable for one or both parties, is the greatest good. if that's how you judge success, then a marriage in which the husband regularly puts the wife in the hospital is good as long as they don't get divorced. it doesn't matter if this advice saves marriages, if the marriages being saved require one party to completely subjugate themselves to the other.
The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is "not in the mood" and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband. actually, research has shown that married people have more sex than unmarried people. contrary to popular culture, this makes sense. after all, there's the two of you, sleeping in the same bed and all. (maybe, some people sleep apart by choice.)
There are marriages with the opposite problem – a wife who is frustrated and hurt because her husband is rarely in the mood. But, as important and as destructive as that problem is, it has different causes and different solutions, and is therefore not addressed here. because men always want to have sex, so if they don't want to as much as their wives, it's a physical problem that needs a doctor. a woman who doesn't want to have sex is just being mean or frigid or withholding affection. (btw, if you are a woman and find you don't ever want to have sex, or not as much as you might like to, go to a doctor. there are all kinds of physical problems that cause loss of desire in women. sure, it might very well be stress or just plain tiredness, it could also be medication or hormones or a lot of other things. you're not being a bad wife.)

What is addressed is the far more common problem of "He wants, she doesn't want." i wonder how common this really is, or if we're just getting an unwelcome look at the sexual habits of fundamentalist christians. i mean, think about it. they're taught from birth that sex is Teh Evil. they have abstinence shoved down their throats from a very young age, and both boys and girls are taught that women who "want it" are badbad dirty whores. how could you possible, as a woman, have a satisfying sex life if you internalized that kind of shit? I know I couldn't. It took me more than a decade to get over that. If you didn't get over it, how eager for unsatisfying, dirty, badbadsex would you be?

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Yeah, because otherwise that's rape. Yes, you can rape your own wife. Happens all the time. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom. Don't worry about your own desires and pleasure, sweetie. It's what your husband wants that counts. It's your duty to do it even if it is unsatisfying or even painful, otherwise you're being a bad wife.

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife's refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny). Not to be gross, but that's because sex for a woman involves letting someone else inside her body. If you're a man, try to imagine the invasive nature of this. Sure, if the sex is consensual and pleasurable, this is fine. (More than fine, but we won't go there.) If it's not, this is humiliating and . . . well . . . icky. This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Not the women I know. We all read women's magazines, buddy. Many women think men's natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a woman's nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it. Sure, we're all such idiots that we don't know that men view the world in a vastly different way on certain subjects. By the way, men like to fix things, women like to vent. Just clearing that up for you. Who are these women he's referring to? 12 year olds?

This is a major reason many husbands clam up. Also, men just aren't as adept with language as women, and are culturally conditioned to view talking about feelings as unmanly. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex. Instead of advising women to do it when they don't want to, indeed when it isn't pleasurable at all, why not just advise the men to TALK about their feelings? Oh, wait, that's right. Fundies don't talk about sex unless it's gay sex. They talk about that a lot.

When first told this about men, women generally react in one or more of five ways:
You have to be kidding. That certainly isn't my way of knowing if he loves me. Because I'm an idiot and I assume men are women with outies!

There have to be deeper ways than sex for me to show my husband that I love him. there are. you know, like giving him a kidney.

If this is true, men really are animals. i like men, but they are a little basic sometimes.

Not my man. He knows I love him by the kind and loving way I treat him. he should.

You have it backwards. If he truly loved me, he wouldn't expect sex when I'm not in the mood. yeah, actually. it's ok to ask, but to continue to demand it when the other party says no isn't really loving, is it? my husband has not once, when i have said that i am in so much pain that being set on fire would be more pleasant, suggested that we have sex. i guess he's just unmanly.

I know this and that's why I rarely say no to sex. sigh. you know, sometimes it's not a bad idea to give it a whirl and see if you get in the mood. but, BIG BUT, this requires a partner who's ok with a little making out that goes nowhere if the mood doesn't appear. also, there is nothing wrong with saying "hey, not into this today. not going to be. i'll get back to you about tomorrow." to constantly do it when you don't want to removes the pleasure of doing it when you do.

Let's deal with each of these responses.
1. You have to be kidding. …
The most common female reaction to hearing about men's sexual nature is incredulity, often followed by denial. These are entirely understandable reactions given how profoundly different – and how seemingly more primitive – men's sexual nature is compared to women's. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA I love fundy morons! look buddy, i don't know what's going on in your bedroom (probably a lot of eye closing and thinking of england), but women love sex. we desire as strongly and passionately and, in the absence of judgment, will cheerfully rip the shirt of a man and throw him on the bed. (unless i'm the freak . . .)

Incredulity is certainly the reaction most women have when first being told that a man knows he is loved when his wife gives him her body. you know, you can't really give someone your body. this is like the idea of "giving" someone the tremendous present of your virginity. i'm ashamed i missed this the first time through. sex is something that should be shared, not given or taken. The idea that the man she is married to, let alone a man whose intelligence she respects, will to any serious extent measure her love of him by such a carnal yardstick strikes many women as absurd and even objectionable. men are different, get over it.
But the question that should matter to a woman who loves her man is not whether this proposition speaks poorly or well of male nature. It is whether it is true. And it is true beyond anything she can imagine. A woman who often deprives her husband of her body again, the language of the man using his wife's body is disgusting and oppressive. if that's how my husband felt about sex, i wouldn't let him anywhere near my body. sharing, Mr. Misogyny, sharing! is guaranteed to injure him and to injure the marriage – no matter what her female friends say, no matter what a sympathetic therapist says, and no matter what her man says. (Very few men will confess to the amount of hurt and eventual anger they experience when repeatedly denied sex.) why would i want to married to this guy, anyway?

Of course, there are times when a man must simply refrain from initiating sex out of concern for his wife's physical or emotional condition. we're weak little critters. And then there are men for whom sex rarely has anything to do with making love for the love of all those things that don't exist, can we please get over this? it's sex. it's fun. if you like s&m, go for it. or whose frequency of demands are excessive. well, at least he's not suggesting that women "give" their bodies up 5 times a day. unless you want to have sex 5 times a day. though it seems like there would be some chafing issues after a certain point. (What "excessive" means ought to be determined by the couple before the refusals begin, or continue. not very helpful, buddy. one person might find more than once a week excessive, while another might not find it excessive until it's 10 times a day. it's a word with no definitive meaning.) But the fact remains: Your man knows you love him by your willingness to give him your body. give again. yeesh.

2. If this is true, men really are animals. they're fun that way!
Correct. Compared to most women's sexual nature those other women are whores!, men's sexual nature is far closer to that of animals. BWAHAHAHAHAHA considering my occasional preoccupation with [censored] involving [censored] that would be so very [censored], i must be an animal! the word Mr. Prager would probably use is "whore". So what?

That is the way he is made. it's that unsymmetric xy configuration. Blame God and nature. Telling your husband to control it is a fine idea. But he already does. Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control.

and my head just exploded. "heroic"? HEROIC?! not sticking your dick in any available slot is heroic? what about my "heroic" self control? you should see some of the men who walk around my office! oh, that's right. good women don't really want sex, they just give it up to make nice.

He has married knowing he will have to deny his sexual nature's desire for variety for the rest of his life. he deserves a freakin' medal. anyone want to donate me a bunch of money for gold-plated awards in the shape of a penis held back 1" from a vagina? To ask that he also regularly deny himself sex with the one woman in the world with whom he is permitted sex is asking far too much. Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman. it's your fault if your husband cheats on you. he could have tried talking to you or marriage counseling, but that's just not the manly way. If he is too moral to ever do that, he will match your sexual withdrawal with emotional and other forms of withdrawal.

3. Not my man.
Many women will argue, understandably, "My husband knows I love him. He doesn't need me to have sex with him to know that. And this is especially so when I'm too tired or just don't want sex. Anyway, my man only enjoys sex with me when I'm into it, too." he should. i can't imagine anything less sexy than trying to do it with someone who is tired, resentful, unfulfilled, and just lying there thinking of all the cleaning that remains to be done. i suppose you could do it doggie style facing the tv, so at least she's not bored, but that doesn't really sound sexy, either.

The importance of mutual kindness to a marriage is impossible to overstate. actually, this is true. it's very hard to get excited about a person you resent. when you come to the point where the dog is the only person who is reliably nice to you, you need to rethink things. But while necessary, it is not sufficient. Women can understand this by applying the same rule to men. Most women will readily acknowledge that it is certainly not enough for a man to be kind to her. If it were, women would rarely reject kind men as husband material. But as much as a woman wants a kind man, she wants more than that. If a man is, let us say, lacking in ambition or just doesn't want to work hard, few women will love him no matter how kind he is. you'll find a lot of women who go for this in second marriages, or at least relationships after the first marriage. money and ambition seem nice, until you've experienced it in the absence of humanity. trust me on this one. i can make my own money, but i need more kindness than the dog provides. In fact, most women would happily give up some kindness for hard work and ambition. written by the man who really makes me concerned for his wife. A kind man with little ambition is not masculine, therefore not desirable to most women. c'mon, Mr. Prager, it's not 1950. it's practically 2009! we're so over the traditional gender roles. Ooooo, watch me blow Mr. Prager's mind: some men stay home and take care of the kids while their wives work!

Likewise, a kind woman who is not sexual with her husband is not feminine. She is a kind roommate. a woman who is sexual prior to marriage? a whore. a woman who is not sexual after marriage? a lesbian.

Furthermore, a woman who denies the man she loves sex is not kind.

4. You have it backward.
Every rational and decent man knows there are times when he should not initiate sex. In a marriage of good communication, a man would either know when those times are or his wife would tell him (and she needs to – women should not expect men to read their minds. He is her man, not her mother. mother's read minds? since when?)
But, to repeat the key point, rejection of sex should happen infrequently. And it should almost never be dependent on mood – see Part II next week. i can't wait.

5. I know this and that's why I rarely say no to my husband.
This is a wise woman. or a woman who's subjugated herself to the point where she can no longer distinguish between her needs and her husband's. is that some new definition of "wise" i am not aware of? She knows a sexually fulfilled husband is a happy husband. and who cares about a sexually fulfilled wife? (At the same time, men need to recognize that complete sexual fulfillment is unattainable in this world. what. the. fuck. is that supposed to mean?) And because a happy husband loves his wife more, this cycle of love produces a happy home. for one person, anyway.

In Part II, I will explain in detail why mood should play little or no role in a woman's determining whether she has sex with her husband.
I conclude Part I with this clarification: Everything written here applies under two conditions: 1. The woman is married to a good man. 2. She wants him to be a happy husband. could you stop with the woman blaming? pretty please? If either condition is not present, nothing written here matters. But if you are a woman who loves your husband, what is written here can be the most important thing you will read concerning your marriage. Because chances are the man you love won't tell you. because the woman should be telling her husband things, not the other way around. it's unmanly!

Once More With Feeling

"Allah" is simply the arabic word for "god".

Let me put this another way.

If I am in Mexico, I don't point at a dog and say "dog", I say "perro". I am not referring to any other animal, but if I said "dog", the Mexicans wouldn't have any idea what I am talking about. (Yeah, I'm pointing, but perhaps I am referring to the color of the dog, or the size of the dog, or the location of the dog. They wouldn't know.)

"Allah" does not refer to any specific god, any more than the english word "god" refers to a specific god. After all, I could use the word "god" to refer to Shiva or Krishna as easily as the christian deity.

Now that we have that cleared up, let's see what prompted it: a question on the RaptureReady bulletin board entitled Arabic Bible Version.

Shining Brightly: We recently purchased an Arabic/English Bible. However, upon reading the Arabic, I discovered to my horror that in reference to God it says Allah!!! You can handicap stupidity by the number of !s alone.

Allah: Derived from an old Semitic root refering to the Divine and used in the Canaanite El, the Mesopotamian ilu, and the biblical Elohim, the word Allah is used by all Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others.

This is a very popular version published by the International Bible Society. Does anyone here know of an alternative to this? Such as using the generic term for God "rabona". I cannot find the word "rabona" anywhere. If this is a generic term of "deity", it doesn't get used much. Probably because they're all using allah.

It is highly disturbing and misleading for the Arabic speaking world to read about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as Allah. Our God does have a name, but it is certainly not Allah. Do you typically refer to god as any of these? God has lots of names in the old testament, none of them are "god". Unless the poster is referring to "Jesus"? That's an anglicization anyway. The Hebrew for that is "Yeshua". Any help gratefully received.

A couple of respondents actually pointed out what I did, even adding that Arabic-speaking Christians referred to god with that word prior to the birth of Islam.

Antitox thinks that Arabic-speaking Christians are easily confused as to which religion they belong to: I think it is incorrect because today's arab/mideasterner is going to think of the Islamic god as Allah. That means the jihadist's god Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. Are all Christians domestic terrorists? is what they are going to refer to, not the God of the Bible. Ya know, unless they are christian. It just doesn't fly; it'll be too misleading, confusing, etc. This guy undoubtedly got all bent out of shape about Obama's name, too.

Faithmarie actually gets more disturbing than that: There is nothing to get upset over or is there? dumdumdum ...... BUT allah is not the word for god. It is a pagan gods NAME that existed before islam existed. Allah had three daughters. He was the moon god , I believe, that is why they kept the cresent moon. Mohammed kept the name from the pagan religion . Illah ( I don't remember the spelling) That is why the muslems say there is no Illah but allah. Illah= god.

Hey, why do christians celebrate the birth of Yeshua on December 25? Historical evidence definitively proves that he was born in March. Why do christians celebrate easter 40 days after the first full moon after . . . whatever? Why would it be a revolving date? You know why? Because when the christians moved into european pagan territory, rather than attempting to entirely replace the various pagan traditions with christianity, they simply placed the christian traditions right on top of them. Hence Christmas instead of the old winter solstice festival and Easter instead of Beltain (the spring equinox celebration and the most important pagan holiday of the year. pagans celebrated every phase of the moon, and ended up having celebrations about once every other week, but Beltain was the highlight of the year.)

This whole crescent moon thing with the three daughters is Jack Chick crap (WARNING: that link will bring you to the most hateful, bigoted shit you've ever seen. Seriously, Jack Chick makes the Grand Dragon of the KKK look like an open minded liberal). Yes, that was a belief system in place prior to Islam in those regions. It has less to do with Islam today than the old pagan traditions with christianity today.

So it is a BIG difference.no, there's not, but continue Christians will use allah because of the MANY years of persecution they have suffered. or because it is the Arabic word for god. Besides alot two freakin' words are nominal christians as in America. Even if Arabs are christians, they're not really christians. the only real christians are US christians.They are very big replacement theology, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA see above christians in Syria and Lebanon. That is the only countries I have experience with.America's word for god is god for all other gods but to use a capital G for God we are referring God The Father. they use a capital "a" to refer to their guy. capital "g" beats capital "a" why? Allah is NOT the same god as the Christian God. It is demon god. WHo thirsts for blood. vampire! allah is coming to suck your blood (bela lugosi voice)

Nobody even tries to correct this.