Friday, July 13, 2012

Catching up with Atheist Comments

Just a couple of comments I think deserve the spot light, so I can debunk them! :-)

thanks for your comments.

May 28, 2012 5:36 AM

Blogger Josip KuleŇ° said...

The fact is that the Bible does encourage violence, you talk of evidence, when you have none either. Atheists do not believe in things without evidence, you do, that is the only difference. Don't get me wrong, atheists that say they know god does not exist is equaly annoyng as fundamentalists. The only problem i have with people like you is that you think everything you don't like is religious persecution. No one ever didn't get a job because they were christian, but that happens to atheists, that is persecution, but if i call your religion stupid that is my opinion and i have a right to express it, if it offends you that is not my problem. (sorry about my grammar, english is not mi first language). My name is Josip Kules, and i don't care if you delete this.

The Bible dos not encourage violence. There is no passage that says "make ye some violence." It dos say things like "blessed are the peace makers," and "be not a fighter or brawler." Ancinet Israel emerged from a very violent milieu in a bloodthirsty era. They had to fight to survive. The OT is largely based upon the nationalism they mustered in order to foster that survive. So depict heroic battles with the children of Israel standing up to the bullies. It's not more encourage violence than it is encouraging peace.

Atheists claim to believe in evidence, but when they need some propaganda of a scientific theory it doesn't matter weather they have evidence or not. there is no empirical evidence of the Multiverse. None there is none at all not one little centiliter. They need the multiversse to beat fine truning and CA so they talk about like it's a proved fact. It's way way way beyond proved. They are pulling universes out of their you know whats.

You have no idea what my attitudes are toward rebellious persecution. There is genuine persecution n message boards but I'm not sure that's a big deal.It's only a big deal if you are a message board addict like me. you don't know anything about who gets jobs. yu have no empirical reserach. You are assuming no one is turned away for being a Christian. I'm sure you could find that somewhere. For one thing it happens in sociology.

You have a right to express your opinion and say that religion is stupid if you think it is but:

(1) It's an expression of bigotry and hate. Weather you have a right to express it or or not. You probalby have a right to express racism too, but I'm willing you wont cling that one so vehemently. Doesn't make you any less bigoted just becuase you have a right.

(2) when you express that on a message board where Chrsitians ware restraining themselves and trying to conduct a serious discussion it's disruptive and unfair.

(3) probalby an expression of hate.

(4) you don't have a right to get personal. you try to attack teh person rather than the idea because they are religious (you stereotype people a because you are narrow minded). That's not right you don't' have a right to do that.

I didn't delete your comment you didn't attack anyone personally.

Old friend and Loyal oppoent Bill Walker:

Hi Meta, EVERYONE was born an atheist. Then, depending on parents & geography, you get one dumped on you by your parents, who got it from theirs, etc. Religions - ALL of them, are dragged through the centuries, sort of like a cosmic security blanket. I realize that I'm one of a small minority. But take a look at Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, & most of Western Europe. Our hotbed of Xianity, has a much greater incidence of crime than everyone else. I have wondered if Xianity is too forgiving. We non-believers have to live with all of our deeds & misdeeds. Perhaps this is why only one fifth of one percent of everyone in prison is a professed atheist in the U.S.A. . We have over 3 million in our prison system. That's a huge disparity. Oddly enough, the 'bible belt' has a much greater percentage of prisoners in out penal system than the more secular states.
Everyone is not born an atheist. That is a misconception and ignores what we now know about the God modul (so called). That's a misnomer but there is scientific evidence that there's an innate concept of God that all or most of us are born with.

You have an interesting spin on the crime issue. Some try to say that athist northern Eroupe is more free of crime than Christian America. You try to sell it as America being too lenient due to Christian background. The conservatives would (see comment section) argue that it's the liberals that are too lenient. Surely atheists are supposed to think that Christians are narrow minded and want to kill criminals.

Your assertions about prison population have been disproved. The atheist website that makes that arguemnt the bogus atheist study that makes it are lies. They are proved to be lies and the statistics they are are fabricated. I caught them and also caught them before me in the lie. this is proved. They changed the data to grossly underestimate the numbers of atheists in prison.

It's no secret that not all chruch going people understand that being a Christian is a personal relationship with God not just going to chruch and reading the bible. Way too many "Chrsitians" understand it only a set of rules and behaviors. Only about 33% of the 73% who identify as Christians actually claim to be "born again."

A lot of those in prison begin claiming they are Christians to get parole or to get things easier in jail. Many are no doubt scared. So they are caught they think back to going to chruch a few times as a kid and say "I went to chruch as a kid didn't do me any good I don't' really believe that stuff." A couple of months latter they find themselves in prison with all the violent people aground and fearing everything. They start saying "I'm a Christian" in hopes God will protect them. The prison statistics don't reflect the time line on conversion.

click here for proof atheists fabricated prison stats.

click here for link to God on the Brain (not born atheists)


Anonymous said...

You can recommend the bok "Is God a Moral Monster?" to them and watch them:

1) Claim they read it but weren't impressed


2) Claim they have no need of further research because they know it all


3) Claim they dont read books written by 'fundies'

Metacrock said...

LOL ritht on!

JBsptfn said...

That Josip guy was talking about how Atheists are denied jobs because of their belief. How much does that really happen? In interviews, I don't think that too many employers ask questions about that sort of thing, do they? At jobs that I was at, that sort of thing wasn't a big deal.

Metacrock said...

I have never researched that. I don't if anyone really has. I doubt that it's very significant.

JBsptfn said...

I also like how that guy says that the Bible teaches violence. What about when Jesus told the disciples to love one another? Of course, that gets overlooked, and Bible critics seem to emphasize what happened in the OT too much.

They usually take it out of context because they don't read much of it(if any) and they say things like "God needs to be prosecuted for his crimes".

Metacrock said...

Yup. that's about the size of it.

Loren said...

This only shows that if one takes what one likes and leaves what one does not like, one can prove essentially anything.

There are several parts of the Bible that command violence, even genocide. Like Deut 7:1-6.

Metacrock said...

there is no part of the Bible that commands violence. It never says anything like "always do violate, it's great just be violent all you can."

they were running a country in the ancinet world. all the other guys real violent and they gonna kill them if they don't fight back. understand?

JBsptfn said...

In Deuteronomy 7 1-6, those peoples, like the Hittites, the Girgashites, and the Canaanites, had giants(or hybrids) among them. Those tribes had mixed with the fallen angels, who Satan was using to try to destroy the pure bloodline to Christ. That is why God wanted them destroyed.

Loren said...

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Just like George Zimmerman. "Do unto others before they do unto you". :p

Genocide is genocide, and we are told in the Bible that not only did God command the Israelites to commit genocide, they actually did so. In 1 Samuel 15, Samuel complained that Saul let enemy livestock live, in exception to everything-must-be-killed.

Curiously, in Numbers 31, the Israelites kill all the men and married women, but not the unmarried women who have not gone to bed with any man. Why did they make that distinction?

Metacrock said...

Loren:"Excuses, excuses, excuses. Just like George Zimmerman. "Do unto others before they do unto you"." :p

what does that have to do with anything? Fallacy of guilt by association.

"Genocide is genocide, and we are told in the Bible that not only did God command the Israelites to commit genocide, they actually did so. In 1 Samuel 15, Samuel complained that Saul let enemy livestock live, in exception to everything-must-be-killed."

I've already demonstaed there is evidece that this is not in the original. Sicne not in the original version of the book God did not command it and it's not an issue.

seee my Doxa Page:

Dealing with the Amalekite problem.

"Curiously, in Numbers 31, the Israelites kill all the men and married women, but not the unmarried women who have not gone to bed with any man. Why did they make that distinction?"

why don't you try witting down some of my answers do you want to to keep making the same mistake all the time?

The Nature of Biblical Inspiration

JBsptfn said...

Meta, Loren is a hypocrite. God wanted those peoples destroyed because they were threatening the bloodline of the savior. He wanted to make a way for all peoples to be saved.

Loren would probably kill to protect her children, and that is okay, but if God does it, he is evil.

The ancient world wasn't pretty. That wasn't God's fault.

Metacrock said...

From the standpoint of moderating a site I have to warn againt personal attacks. saying "so and so is a something" is a personal attack. You should say something "that's a hypocritical position" rather than "so and so is a hypocrite." It's a short jump form that to "so and so is an idiot." I can't publish personal attacks. I have to lecture myself on that too.

I don't' think it's being hypocritical to say God would not command the murder of a whole culture or civilization. I don't believe that's what God really commanded.

That especially applies to wiping out infants. There's no reason for that there is evidence that it's been added to the text.

Metacrock said...

Mind you the idea of God leading Israel to put down militarily some tribe because of their barbarism I can accept, especially if it's not self defense and not just playing policeman. that's really no excuse to wipe out infants.

JBsptfn said...

I agree. Wiping out infants wasn't right. And I shouldn't have called Loren a hypocrite.

Metacrock said...

i share your frustration. It's not like she's going to remember that answer next time. She'll be saying the same stuff again like it never happened.

JBsptfn said...

I know. Atheists are like coaches and athletes in major college football and basketball(I say this in light of what happened at Penn State). They don't think that there should be any consequences for their evil doings.

Metacrock said...

come on man. The point is not to throw guilt by association at them. Do you know what Sandusky's professed religious beliefs were? There's really nothing to connect atheism to that scandal or any like it. The idea that they don't think should be consequence we can get from examining their actual statements.

JBsptfn said...

I didn't say that Sandusky was an Atheist, or that this had anything to do with Atheism. I just said that coaches and players in those high programs feel like they should be able to do anything they want, and that they shouldn't have to suffer the consequences.

Atheists are similar to that. They think that there shouldn't be any consequences to actions, either.

Metacrock said...

I agree with your statement here. Winning is all they cared about so they weren't willing to rock the boat.