It was heartening to see the hand-wringing of the world’s religious apologists in response to the unfolding Haitian tragedy of the last two weeks: It meant that the believers still have the capacity to ask questions when the situation demands. More heartening still was the swiftness with which that behavior ceased. There were perhaps five or six days when it seemed every news organ in the universe felt compelled to address the role a deity might have played, or failed to play, in the earthquake and its aftermath. Then sleeves were rolled up, and the most bizarre plurality of people — basketball players, Reese Witherspoon, the hapless Pat Robertson — set about doing the good work no deity has yet attempted. (It has been suggested, here and there, that the human response was “God’s” work. If so, “God” isn’t very discriminating in choosing His implements.)
For the believers themselves, the hand-wringing may, in retrospect, prove at least a little embarrassing. Their sophistry had the look and feel of hasty improvisation. As Randi’s article about Bishop Sentamu of York demonstrated, serious tragedy has the ability to turn even the most erudite believers into little children. (Unless I am very much mistaken, Semantu’s argument was that the Christian god allows earthquakes to occur specifically so he may share in our suffering, thereby enjoying a bonding moment with his creatures. Counselors who work with battered women might have something to say about that relationship dynamic.) But that’s okay. Stress brings out the worst in plenty of people, and Bishop Semantu seems like an otherwise good guy. Perhaps the decent thing would be to let go of last week’s sillier theological questions and pious proclamations, and to write off Pat Robertson’s hateful early stance on the tragedy as a product of senile dementia. I’d like to — especially since I’m on vacation right now, and find thoughts of Pat Robertson inclement to the pursuit of R&R — but I can’t, quite, until someone points out two obvious facts. (Missed by both Robertson's critics and the small few who actually defended his stance.)
First: If Robertson’s initial statement on the quake was accurate, then his subsequent fundraising efforts for Haitian relief have been accomplished in opposition to his deity’s wishes, and he owes his many fans an explanation for his sudden anti-Christian turn. So obvious is this point that it needs no further elucidation.
Secondly: Robertson’s early stance was no mere effusion of misanthropy. It was fiercely, malignantly racist.
It has been said that Haiti is eighty percent Catholic, twenty percent Protestant, and 100% vodoun. As may be divined by this fishy math, voodoo is not practically incompatible with Christianity. Rather, it is a syncretism of the Catholicism of Haiti’s long-dead French slave owners and the traditional religions of Haitians’ African forebears. It is the latter component with which Robertson and his defenders take issue — not the component that was forced upon those long-gone Haitians on pain of death by international kidnappers, rapists, and murderers. Haitians, so the logic goes, would be better served today if they had followed those pirates’ examples more closely, and if their ancestors had submitted more completely to the cultural extermination that was nearly visited upon them.
Fair enough. Perhaps Robertson would argue that gospel is gospel, no matter whence it comes. But if he believes that, then he should take care to remain consistent. Voodoo is hardly the only, or even the most popular, pagan-flavored syncretism in the world today. That would be Roman Catholicism, which includes among its pagan deities the reconstituted Celtic goddess Brigid (now known as Saint Brigid), the reconstituted Greek goddess Demeter (Saint Demetrios), the Latin deity Mars (Saint Martin), and many others. As we speak, Catholics in every country on Earth are praying for the intercession of saints in much the same way that Haitian voduns now pray that, against all odds, another few lives will be salvaged from the ruins of Port au Prince.
That Pat Robertson remains silent on the evils of syncretism when disaster strikes more purely Catholic countries indicates either a profound ignorance of history or else a particular antipathy to paganism as it is practiced by those of duskier hue. I imagine that, without realizing it, he judges European and African paganisms very differently — finding in the remnants of the former a somewhat disturbing but fundamentally benign reminder of Europe’s cultural roots, and in the remnants of the latter a dangerously foreign belief system that defies (his) understanding.
There is something to be said for charitably writing off the prejudices of the terminally ignorant, but not when they have a TV show. Pat Robertson should be dragged over every available coal until he loses his bully pulpit. Don Imus got the same treatment for less.
Semantu’s argument was that the Christian god allows earthquakes to occur specifically so he may share in our suffering, thereby enjoying a bonding moment with his creatures. This is anther example of Christianity straying from bible teachings. There is no such teaching or scripture in the bible that supports this statement Semantu.
Sentamu typo fixed.. thanks. written by JeffWagg,
January 26, 2010
Sentamu typo fixed.. thanks.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Being religious is sooo much work written by ShawnPitman,
January 26, 2010
This isn't really a constructive comment, but how come no one ever just throws in the towel on these religious matters? Don't they ever get tired of trying to explain their deity's bad behavior? Or just get sick of rationalizing every nonsensical thing as being part of the "bigger plan?"
(1) Disasters, alone, prove there is no omnipotent benevolent God. (2) If you still maintain there is a omnipotent God, then you must accept he is not benevolent. Therefore he is not worthy of your praise. (3) If you still maintain there is a benevolent God, then you must accept he is not omnipotent. Therefore he is not worthy of your worship.
Being religious takes some Grade-A USDA-approved double-think.
I have yet to cause a single earthquake (Seriously!). And I have already donated (through tax money and additional contributions) to the Haitian relief effort (a real benevolent action). I am officially more worthy of worship and praise than the Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +25
Plus... written by kdv,
January 26, 2010
@Shawn
You probably have to add "omniscient" to the equation. Gods might be able to stop a disaster, and they might want to, but they don't know about them.
So...
4) If you still maintain there is an omnipotent and benevolent God, then it doesn't matter if you masturbate.
This guy is sick,sick,sick. The situation in Haiti is devastating enough without comments like the ones this man is spewing forth. Hes a nutcase. Only other nutcases would listen to him. He should be praying for all of Haiti now like everyone else not talking crap. Shame on him. can't believe this.
Robertson's depraved remarks are only the tip of the evangelical iceberg written by Kritikos,
January 26, 2010
I have written a series of entries about Robertson's remarks and related matters in my blog. Each time I finished one, I would find out that there was even more craziness and poisonous bigotry to the matter than I had initially thought. Robertson's reference to the "pact with the devil" ("true story"!) is just part of a widespread evangelical Christian campaign to demonize Vodou (or however you want to spell it). Besides Robertson's remarks, another manifestation of this campaign has been an appalling tale spread from 2001 to 2004 by the anti-Aristide faction according to which Aristide and his associates, in particular So Anne, a well-known Haitian singer and political activist, made use of a baby stolen from the Port-au-Prince hospital for a supposed Vodou ritual blood sacrifice. (A baby really was abducted from the hospital in February of 2000, but the rest is, of course, fantasy.) The present Haitian ambassador to the US, Raymond Joseph, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College (both evangelical Christian institutions), took the lead in spreading this tale in the US. Here is one of his newspaper articles, from the New York Sun.
I have written about this libel in my blog entry "From Satanism Libel to Blood Libel: This Time, It’s Coming from Haitians," and about Robertson's comments and the more general evangelical libel campaign against Voodoo in the two entries preceding that.
By the way, a small correction: Robertson did not say, and appears not to have meant, that God produced the earthquake as retribution for Haiti's Satanic pact: rather, he seems to have meant that Satan produced the earthquake as part of the original bargain. I discuss the details of this matter in my blog entry "The Right-Wing Evangelical Libel against Haiti."
We have the following fatuous statement: "Undoubtedly the majority of the volunteers helping out in Haiti are people of faith. That is an act of God."
From me, to the author of that opinion-presented-as-fact: "piss off and do some research."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
... written by vino,
January 26, 2010
I have a theory. If America is gods chosen nation, as it is considered by many Americans to be, then maybe he brings forth disasters such as the one in Haiti simply to give us god fearin' folk another cause to support and helping us feel warm and fuzzy and pat (no pun intended) ourselves on the back. Now back to American Idol...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Robertson's comments not original written by razmatazspaz,
January 27, 2010
The initial comments of Pat Robertson follow in the long tradition of the religious habit of assigning blame to those "not like us." In 1755, Lisbon, Portugal was struck by a massive earthquake that destroyed the city and left possibly 100,000 dead. This occurred on All Saint's Day, Nov. 1. Most of the dead were killed in Catholic Churches during worship services. The Catholics blamed the Protestants and Jews and the Protestants and Jews blamed the Catholics.
The philosophers (Voltaire and others) on the other hand, asked why would god permit or cause such devastation? They concluded that the quake was not an act of god but one of natural causes that were indifferent to the welfare of humans. Using this type of scientific thinking the Prime Minister of Portugal collected all the data he could from survivors about the quake and the subsequent tsunami. This began the science of seismology and eventually saved many lives by changing the way buildings were constructed, etc. It's one of many examples of a gap in knowledge being filled by science that was once filled by a supernatural entity. Something good came from the scientific worldview, not the religious worldview.
Robertson's vitriol is obsolete and should be condemned by the moderately religious as well as the non-religious.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
B.K., lurching, flailing, spouting nonsense... written by Human Person Jr,
January 27, 2010
Mr. Thorp, you, along with many others, continue to dilute the meaning of the word "racism." I hope you're not standing on a stool, since you've reached so far to come to this conclusion, you could easily fall and get ANOTHER head injury. falling.
Pat Robertson is a religionist, therefore deluded and ignorant. You've ascribed background knowledge and motives to him that are simply beyond his mental capabilities. And you did this why? I'm guessing, but it seems that deluded and ignorant just don't get the job done for you, so you invent this charge of racism.
Again, you dilute the meaning and the impact of actual racism, which is cruel and maleficent, by indulging in silly speculation about imagined racism. Shame on you, sir, for this harmful mental exercise, this play-acting that brings you pleasure, yet adds nothing to the community's understanding of anything at all.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
Again at the author... written by Human Person Jr,
January 27, 2010
Pat Robertson probably is a racist. I wouldn't doubt it, since it often goes with the territory.
However, nothing he said regarding the tragedy in Haiti, and nothing you said in the above flight of fancy, tends to serve as evidence that he is a racist.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
I threw in the towel written by MarkNS,
January 27, 2010
Hey Shawn,
You asked "how come no one ever just throws in the towel on these religious matters? Well, I and millions of others who were raised in one religion or another (Catholicism in my case)threw in the towel and became atheists as we grew up. We got sick of trying to subordinate our intellect to the rantings of cult leaders.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
Racism? written by MarkNS,
January 27, 2010
I agree with Human Person Jr. Just because the people whose culture he is criticizing happen to be black doesn't make him a racist. I'm sure he'd blame any ill that befell me on the fact that I'm an atheist even though I'm white.
I find Human Person, Jr.'s first comment overstated as well as rude, but I think that he makes a legitimate point: the facts adduced by Brandon Thorp are not enough to show that our dearly beloved Dr. Robertson's motives are racist (though it is plain that he is a shit of the first rank). Yes, Robertson and his allies and followers show far more animosity toward Voodoo than they do toward Catholicism; and it is reasonable to surmise that this has to do with the essentially African character of Voodoo. But the bigotry could be cultural rather than racial in nature. Perhaps one can argue that in this instance that is a distinction without a difference, since African culture is the culture of racially African (black) people. But the differential treatment of the two "pagan-flavored syncretisms" could also be due to political calculation rather than bigotry. Catholic clergy in Haiti have historically been among those leading the effort to abolish Voodoo, and the present efforts by evangelical Protestants have been supported by some Protestant Haitians, notably Haiti's ambassador to the US (see my blog or my previous comment).
So it seems to me that the charge of racism is as yet unproven. Brandon stated a better thesis in his title than he did in the body of the post: "Pat Robertson and his boosters are either ignorant, racist, or both," rather than "Robertson’s early stance ... was fiercely, malignantly racist."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Why racism and religion are abhorrent to me... written by Human Person Jr,
January 27, 2010
I find both racism and religion especially abhorrent, because I nearly got trapped in both mindsets. I grew up in southern Georgia, USA, where racism and religion ran rampant (how's that for alliteration?).
I escaped both, fairly early in life, and I think blind luck played a role in the twin escapes. Neither made a damned bit of sense to me. I do recall being shocked when I first realized that the voodoo priestess with her paraphernalia is no more misguided than the Catholic priest with his magical incantations and scepter (if they have scepters, lol). Atheism: The great equalizer.
Kritikos, I appreciate the excellent knowledge you brought to this topic. I am less appreciative of your bullshit judgment on my remarks. BK Thorp has deserved my rudeness far more often than he's received it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
Pat Robertson written by MJG,
January 27, 2010
I'm not saying that racism didn't play a significant part in Robertson's statements. But fairly convinced that there is another factor also at work: namely that he is simply bat-@%$! crazy. Consider that this is the guy who claimed that his energy shake allowed him to leg press more than the Olympic world record. Consider that he has gone on record saying that 9-11 and Katrina were the vengeful response of his god for things like feminism and toleration of gays. I'm willing to bet there there is plenty of good old fashioned ignorance and hate bouncing around in that little head of his, but I think just as important is the fact that we are most likely dealing with an individual whose grip on reality is tenuous at best.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
Human Person Jr., teaches good manners written by Kritikos,
January 27, 2010
Kritikos, I appreciate the excellent knowledge you brought to this topic. I am less appreciative of your bullshit judgment on my remarks. BK Thorp has deserved my rudeness far more often than he's received it.
Well, I know that I did not deserve your rudeness, so I am not inclined to trust your claim that Thorp has done so.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
I'm just good like that - I live for teaching and learning... written by Human Person Jr,
January 27, 2010
LOL -- Well, BK didn't deserve my rudeness, but he deserved something for missing the mark so far. He was noodling, pretty much just doing mental gymnastics for the sake of stretching his mind. You don't do that, not on a topic like racism. You and others have pointed out other idiotic statements he's made, where race COULDN'T have played a role. The guy's a fool, and BK had no business even writing this article. It was an article crying out to remain unwritten. Unfortunately, some boneheads have nothing to say and tend to say it at great length (and yes, that same saying often applies to this human person, junior grade).
As for you, I offer a grudging apology. And I still appreciate the background knowledge you gave all of us. (Too bad BK didn't look a bit further.)
And, by the way, you don't have to protect the guy. His right fist is the size of a honey-baked ham, registered trademark, so I'm sure he can take care of himself.
I meant to say: "LOL -- Well, BK didn't deserve my rudeness, but he deserved something for missing the mark so far. He was noodling, pretty much just doing mental gymnastics for the sake of stretching his mind. You don't do that, not on a topic like racism. You and others have pointed out other idiotic statements he (Robertson) has made, where race COULDN'T have played a role. Robertson's a fool, and BK had no business even writing this article. It was an article crying out to remain unwritten. Unfortunately, some boneheads have nothing to say and tend to say it at great length (and yes, that same saying often applies to this human person, junior grade).
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
... written by Alan3354,
January 27, 2010
I have done everything in my power to prevent earthquakes, and the human suffering that they cause.
Can god say the same?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
Grudging apology accepted written by Kritikos,
January 27, 2010
Fair enough, HBJ. You even made me laugh that time.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
ShawnPitman written by Griz,
January 28, 2010
"This isn't really a constructive comment, but how come no one ever just throws in the towel on these religious matters? Don't they ever get tired of trying to explain their deity's bad behavior? Or just get sick of rationalizing every nonsensical thing as being part of the "bigger plan?" "
That'll never happen. Reason being, religious people tend to spend all their time with other religious people who believe the same, ignore the contradictions, and don't ever discuss the hard subjects like this. It's only when they are reluctantly exposed to scrutiny by the non-religious that they are called on to justify their belief system. They quickly find out they can't, but that doesn't make them examine their beliefs for credibility so much as it just makes them avoid further contact with unbelievers.
This archbishop will have gone back to his fellow believers and said something like "can you believe those heathens questioning god's love?" and they'll all nod sagely and slap him on the back. A guy like me, I could afford to lose my religion once I was no longer an active player in the scene, but this archbishop, he's committed. He has everything to lose if he strays from the party line. In that regard, he's no different than any politician.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
... written by Alan3354,
January 28, 2010
Robertson's vitriol is obsolete and should be condemned by the moderately religious as well as the non-religious. And dogs and cats. .
Kind sir or madam, your ignorance is profound. You mis-state (and not intentionally, I believe, but from unknowingness) Darwin's conclusions. This is called "putting up a straw man," which, I'm sure, was done for you by one of the learned Elders of your particular fantasy.
"Weather" and "whether" are distinctly different words, with different uses. I'm trying to help you in a small way. I'm guessing here, but I really think you're too far gone to receive any overarching, meaningful help.
If there is a Hell (there most assuredly is not), I would cheerfully make my eternal home there, if you and your ilk will be elsewhere.
This is pap, plain old unoriginal pap. A drunken child wouldn't be fooled.
my guess is that most people who go to a site like this will laugh and reject what I just wrote.
Well, you got that right, but it can be instructive to have before us a sample of the thinking of people like you who view the world through the fun-house mirror of religious dogma.
As HBJ said, with uncharacteristic gentleness, "your ignorance is profound." He seems to have had in mind your ignorance of biology, which you disparage as "the Darwinian fairytale." (Yes, it is the science of biology itself -- the science that makes possible the medical practices on which you and I depend for our well-being every day -- that you are disparaging and not just some supposed "faith" of atheists, as you suppose. To think that you can subtract the theory of evolution from biology and expect medicine to survive is like thinking that you can remove the foundations and framework of a building and still be able to live in it.) I wish only to add that your ignorance of Haiti and its people, the vast majority of whom are believing Christians -- unless you are so backward and bigoted as to deny that Catholics are Christians -- is even more appalling. It takes a special kind of presumption and ignorance to make a statement like this:
Haiti, unfortunately was a nation where the God of the Bible was almost completely rejected, and as such their spiritual immune system was greatly compromised.
Voodoo is not a rejection of the God of the Bible. If you don't know that, you have no idea of what you are talking about and no right to make such smug and priggish generalizations. People say that the voudouisants worship a god called "Bondye." This is just the Creole version of the French term "bon Dieu," i.e., "the good Lord." You may tut-tut over the voudouisants for adding lots of spirits to their stock of invisible entities, but that is at worst a parochial heterodoxy.
By the way, a principal is the head of a public school. A general proposition from which someone derives specific conclusions is called a principle. Look up the words "affect" and "effect" while you are at it. But most of all, learn something factual about the people that you want to make judgments about before you take on authority whatever evangelical propaganda you have been listening to.
Wowser! Does your erudition know no bounds? I'm not being in the least sarcastic when I say that. I envy you your wordsmithery. What an excellent comment! Thank you for saying what I tried to say.
I just wish that I could know that Qualt would read the comment, but failing that, I'm glad to know that you appreciated it. (I'm surprised that Qualt's "weather" bothered you more than "principal." That one made me grind my teeth!)
Qualt, SAYING that something is true does not provide a REASON why anyone should believe it written by Kritikos,
January 28, 2010
Haiti is not, sadly to say, a nation which embraces the God of the Bible to much of a degree, and is certainly not, as you say, "vast majority".[are].."believing Christians."
Qualt, I can cite as many statistical sources as you want to show you that over 90% of the population of Haiti consists of people who profess Christianity and belong to Christian churches. (Here, for instance; or here.) What evidence do you have for your claim? Do you have any whatever? Or are you just repeating what one of your fellow evangelicals told you?
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make claims are not based on any verifiable facts?
I forgot that this editor does not reproduce links. I'll try again: link 1, link 2[URL].
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Again, to Kritikos... written by Human Person Jr,
January 28, 2010
Kritikos -- It's been said that my reasoning powers are neither slow nor fast, but a medium speed people call half-fast. I also think my ancestry was both large and mute, for often I've been called "one of the dumb masses."
So, from a half-fast thinker, a human person, junior grade, I truly salute your abilities. I do have a question (which I could look up, but this is my busiest time of year in my work).
Isn't it true that Darwin never posited a particular origin-of-life theory? He didn't say how life began, did he? Did he say anything regarding the origins of the universe? It is my impression that he addressed neither issue.
That is what I meant by a "straw-man" argument on Qualt's part. I'm not strong on the physical sciences (what an understatement!), but I try to follow along when I can.
Isn't it true that Darwin never posited a particular origin-of-life theory? He didn't say how life began, did he? Did he say anything regarding the origins of the universe? It is my impression that he addressed neither issue.
Alas, I am not an expert on Darwin, but I can quote for you a page from TalkOrigins.com (let's see if I can get the link right this time: link?). The writer quotes a letter to his friend Hooker in which Darwin speculates that proteins might originally have formed in "some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present," but notes that
in print ... he restrained from speculation, noting that "In what manner the mental powers were first developed in the lowest organisms, is as hopeless as how life itself first originated. These are problems for the distant future, if they are ever to be solved by man." (Descent of Man, chapter 2, 1871).
If the writer had to go to The Descent of Man to find a pertinent passage, I assume that there is nothing on the subject in The Origin of Species. Certainly, Darwin was aware that he was taking on a large enough task by proposing to explain speciation. Even if he had an opinion about the origin of life, it was no part of his theory of evolution. As for the origin of the universe, even if he had an opinion on the subject, I can't imagine that he would ever have advanced it as any kind of scientific hypothesis.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
... written by The SonicGamer,
January 29, 2010
@Qualt
No one has been able to reproduce thunder and lightning in a lab. I suppose that means that doesnt exist either. You also seem to ignore a number of experiments in which they reproduced similar organic soup enviornments and yes, the building blocks for life such as proteins and amino acids did form together, organic compounds DID come together, and with a larger enviornment and a few million years, life would probably have originated. Even so, Honestly, if you need to fall behind the "it doesnt make sense" line of reasoning instead of offering any evidence for evolution to not be true,you have a pretty weak arguement. Evolution makes NO comment on the origins of life, only the diversity. We HAVE the fossils, the DNA evidence, the observed cases of evolution in other species. We use the theory of evolution to predict how a virus might evolve and therefore how to make a vaccine to counter it. We have EVIDENCE. Do you honestly think every single scientist, including countless religious scientists, would back up a theory that, as you say, is foundationally weak? They dont, because it isnt weak. Its a theory that has so much evidence, even in the case of human ancestry alone, that its not a matter of "Have we found the missing link" so much as it is "We have too many god damned missing links we cant sort this out properly." That's the basic conflict between Biologists right now concerning evolution. They have TOO MUCH evidence they're having trouble sorting it all out. Unfoundational? I think not.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
Stay on Target written by Hutch,
January 29, 2010
Folks, we're getting sidetracked/suckered? into an Evolution debate, rather than the Haiti comments.
Qualt, the main point you make in defense of the Rev. Robertson (I presume it is your main point as you repeat it in both your postings), is
"The closer a society embraces the God of the Bible, without man's added religious dogmas; the stronger, healthier, wealthier and freer they will be, and the more they will live in peace."
I guess my questions to you are:
1. Which particular 'added religious dogmas' did Haiti add that would provoke God's wrath?
2. If societies are stronger, wealthier and freer and live in peace when they closer embrace the God of the Bible, how do we then explain societies in Western Europe (where belief and Church attendance are at historical lows), the United States (where all religions can practice whatever dogmas they wish right out in the open) and Japan (where the number of practicing Christians is rather minute...)?
Just curious--I am always willing to learn--if you have something to teach....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
... written by Alan3354,
January 29, 2010
Religious people don't try to explain things. The don't think it's necessary that it make sense, you just "have faith", and believe that god, who created malaria, polio, and other dread diseases, loves us.
I've seen no reason to think there's a god (emphasis on reason), or that the bible god loves humans.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
... written by Alan3354,
January 29, 2010
I saw a bumper sticker - "The bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."
Don't waste their time with facts.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
... written by The SonicGamer,
January 29, 2010
@Alan3354 Honestly, I always thought that was a joke line atheists use to make fun of creationists until I realized that creationists came up with it to accurately describe their line of reasoning. Scary.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@Qualt written by Dooyoowoowoo,
January 30, 2010
" The diversity, (and adaptation) of species i.e. large dogs, small dogs, long hair dogs, short hair dogs, etc, in no way proves that life evolved entirely on its own without a creator. That, as you say, "kind sir or madam," is not a straw man argument. " So what does this prove given that all dogs were bred recently by MAN?! Sorry for feeding the troll but he is laughable.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
I don't think Qualt is coming back written by Kritikos,
January 30, 2010
Dooyoowoowoo, I think you are using the word "troll" in a rather careless way. Qualt posted to defend a position that is unpopular here; his or her (I will presume it's a "he," as seems most likely) language was not inflammatory, even if his arguments were shit. A troll is someone who posts specifically to provoke anger and to disrupt discussion. I see no grounds for attributing such intentions to Qualt.
As I said in my first reply to Qualt, his posts are interesting for the sample that they provide of "the thinking of people ... who view the world through the fun-house mirror of religious dogma." With regard to the business about Haiti -- which, as Hutch reminds us, is what should be the issue here -- Qualt seems to be impervious to verifiable facts and indeed completely uninterested in them. In a way, this is more disturbing even than his willfully ignorant views about biology. When I made some show of knowledge of the religious views of Haitians, Qualt simply repeated his claim that the Haitians rejected "the God of the Bible"; when I cited reliable sources, he failed (or has so far failed) to reply. I imagine that Qualt is someone who, if you met him in a social setting and started talking to him about some topic that did not invite Jesusification, would come across as a normal, even reasonably well-informed and intelligent person. His comments show that he has done some study and some thinking. But it is all poured into the rigid framework of a view not founded on or even influenced by empirical or scientific knowledge. Sad.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
One of the best comment threads at Randi.Org... written by Human Person Jr,
January 30, 2010
Great comments by several people.
Kritikos, I don't say this lightly -- You'd be an excellent contributor to this site, and by that I mean writing articles for publication here. I'm not the worst thinker or writer ever, praise the non-existent Baby Jesus, but you do an outstanding job at both.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
... written by MTS,
January 30, 2010
"The closer a society embraces the God of the Bible, without man's added religious dogmas; the stronger, healthier, wealthier and freer they will be, and the more they will live in peace."
One word: Denmark
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Qualt will be back written by qualt,
January 30, 2010
I do not have much time so this needs to be a quick reply: I was out of town yesterday, and also will be unable to reply tonight or tomorrow. Hopefully I can reply to the thread, and get to your comments and/or questions sometime Monday. God Bless all of you...........even those of you who think you can upset me with ignorant comments.
I don't want to upset you, and I'll bet no other commenter here wants to upset you.
When someone offers you information they believe to be factual, you should take it as an effort to help you. If that someone gives you bad information (to your way of thinking), that in no way negates the intent, which was to help, not upset, you.
However, I don't believe you've been given bad information here. I was reared as a dedicated Christian. Christianity does offer some comfort, but the unvarnished truth offers a great deal more. That's right -- I consider religion and truth to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. That doesn't mean I hate you or want you to be upset. I DO vehemently despise the slavery into which you've sold your thoughts.
As for Christians in general, they can be awesome people. One of the biggest heroes of my life was a Baptist minister. That doesn't change the fact that he was misguided, just as misguided as a so-called superstitious savage or a practitioner of voodoo (or a chiropractor, for that matter).
I love my fellow humans, and I help everyone I can. The fact that I don't pray to an invisible sky spirit makes me no less moral or worthy. The fact that you do makes you no better than me. The stuff you believe is utter bullshit. The Christian Bible is pure fabrication, written by ignorant men back in the day, interpreted and re-interpreted by fatuous idiots to this very day. Those are the facts. There are three major monotheistic religions -- all are the purest bunkum. Sure, there is occasionally a bit of useful advice in the Holy Scriptures. The great, enslaving evil in the sacred text far outweighs any useful advice, which can be had elsewhere with no strings attached, without having to set your brain on "stupid."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
... written by Alan3354,
January 30, 2010
Don't waste qualt's time with facts and information.
He believes, he's certainly said many times to many people that he believes, and he would look even sillier if he changed his mind now.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
I hear ya, Alan written by Human Person Jr,
January 30, 2010
I'm sure you're right about qualt.
It's very sad. My former mother-in-law, who recently died, was a Baptist. She always said it didn't matter what a person believes, as long as they believe in something. Now, how crazy is that? Not to mention, lol, she was violating her own religious tenets to take such a view. (Her father was a Baptist minister; she inherited her Baptistism, I guess.)
It's too bad religious beliefs can't be completely harmless. If they were, I could ignore them entirely, and just live my life in contentment.
I'll say it again. I've enjoyed the comments in this thread. I don't consider it Christian-bashing. Everyone has criticized the belief system far more sharply than the believer. Thanks for replying, Alan.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
1st 1/3 of qualt's reply written by qualt,
February 01, 2010
****My reply was rejected because it was too long, therefore it is in three parts. As stated, this discussion should remain about Pat Robertson's comment on Haiti, or rather the principal it implies (whether or not Mr. Robertson himself even understands) and therefore my comment on this infallible truth, "The closer a society embraces the God of the Bible, without man's added religious dogmas; the stronger, healthier, wealthier and freer they will be, and the more they will live in peace." is directly tied into it. Some people have challenged that as an infallible truth, and I will respond to them. However, before I do I need to state that I, in no way, take pleasure in Haiti's suffering any more than I took pleasure seeing gay men dying from the complications of AIDS. Haiti, as well as many other nations, have alienated themselves from the God of the Bible, and as such have lost many of the protections and blessings of God. It is not God's wrath that we experience, it is the lack of God's available blessings that we erroneously call "God's wrath," and we bring it upon ourselves. I will use an analogy to try and explain the principal. However, and I do not say this to be insulting, as with small children, many people, especially those called Liberals, seem to be incapable of understanding abstract thought, and therefore never grasp the point of an analogy. Hopefully this group does not fit into that category. The analogy, to help explain how a society that rejects the God of the Bible experiences what is erroneously called "God's wrath" can be likened to; Calling the suffering of someone with emphysema, that was brought about by the three pack of cigarettes they smoked most of their life, God's wrath. It is not God's wrath that caused their suffering, it was brought about through their own rejection of available health warnings. I am going to call the rest of this an addendum as some of it may not directly apply to the Haiti - Pat Robertson subject. Addendum: Some of the other comments I need to address (not in any particular order and not necessarily direct quotes) •over 90% of the population of Haiti consists of people who profess Christianity and belong to Christian churches. The majority of Haiti embraces a religion which is a blend of both Catholicism and Voodoo and as such is in no way defined as Biblical Christianity. Moreover, Catholicism itself is mostly a blend of Pagan rituals, man's fabricated dogma, and Biblical Christianity.
•Which particular 'added religious dogmas' did Haiti add that would provoke God's wrath? Your question is in two parts, one of which I have already addressed; the rejection of God does not cause what is erroneously called "God's wrath." Very seldom (if ever) do any of us, believers or non-believers, experience God's wrath directly; other than we are currently living in Hell right now. As for the first part of the question, Catholicism, at best, is "pre-school" level Christianity, or as I call it a "bait & switch" type of Christianity. Jesus is in Catholicism if you can find him through the worship of Mary, dead Christians (called Saints), rote memorized prayers, man made religious structure, etc. True Christianity is not actually what I call a religion, true Christianity is a one on one direct relationship with Jesus the Christ. Any human or denomination that places themselves between a individual and God is a lie.
•No one has been able to reproduce thunder and lightning in a lab. I suppose that means that doesnt exist either. I do not know which lab you are involved with, but I have personally observed man caused electrical discharges and along with them very loud explosive sounds.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
2nd part of qualt's reply written by qualt,
February 01, 2010
•You also seem to ignore a number of experiments in which they reproduced similar organic soup enviornments and yes, the building blocks for life such as proteins and amino acids did form together, organic compounds DID come together, and with a larger enviornment and a few million years, life would probably have originated. That argument is just as absurd as saying that cars evolved entirely on their own without a creator because through experiments we have reproduced the basic components of motor oil and radiator coolant. You argument of a few million years falls apart as well, and as I stated in my second post ' "the Darwinian fairy tale is based on 100% blind faith! Those who embrace this fairy tale must also invoke the false concept of "given enough time anything can happen." In any debate a Darwinian will always run to that as their crutch." ' Society would be far better off if the fools who are doing these experiments, and I might add wasting our tax money, trying to prove there is no God, would try to produce blood or some other helpful "organic soup." They will never be able to produce blood either but maybe in the process they will come up with something useful instead of spending their life creating foolishness.
•If societies are stronger, wealthier and freer and live in peace when they closer embrace the God of the Bible, how do we then explain societies in Western Europe (where belief and Church attendance are at historical lows), the United States (where all religions can practice whatever dogmas they wish right out in the open) and Japan (where the number of practicing Christians is rather minute...)? That is an excellent question and one that I was hoping someone would ask. I did not want to expound on it until asked. Over the years Western Europe and the United States, compared to the rest of the world, have been blessed mightily because a large portion of their population has embraced the God of the Bible. That principal is the reason these societies have flourished while others have lived comparable to the dark ages. The advances that came from the predominately Christian Western World have enriched the entire planet. As for Japan, she represents the principal of receiving the benefits of a spin-off blessing. Just as an atheist living in the Western World reaps many of the blessings of a Christian influenced society, so has Japan. HOWEVER, as the Western world moves further away from the God of the Bible, we will lose many of the blessings we once had, and it is already happening! Only a revival by the Christian Church can turn stop it but I'm afraid it may be too late. For much of Western Europe it is already too late. Within 30 years France, as we know it, will cease to exist, and many of the other European countries are facing the same Muslim expansion problem. France has embraced the Liberal influenced death sentence of homosexuality and abortion, and is now at a point where their birth rate can no longer reproduce fast enough to sustain itself. However, the birth rate of the Muslims living in France does, and by a factor of eight to one. France may not even have 30 years left. Although you did not bring up Asia or Africa, I will, but I promise to be brief. In Asia, one of the best examples of a society that embraces the God of the Bible compared to one that does not is South & North Korea. South Korea is one of the most Christian nations in Asia and as such it flourishes while North Korea, where the God of the Bible is suppressed, lives in oppression and squalor. As for Africa, Uganda has become more Christian since Edi Amine and as such it has reaped many blessings.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
3rd part of qualts reply written by qualt,
February 01, 2010
•Religious people don't try to explain things. The don't think it's necessary that it make sense, you just "have faith", and believe that god, who created malaria, polio, and other dread diseases, loves us.
As for faith, many Christians do exactly what you wrote but in reality that applies more to atheists than Christians (actually almost everything we do in life requires some level of faith). As I already stated, those who believe there is no God, actually have more faith than those who do because they have blind faith. As I stated in my second post "As for the Darwinian fairy tale, the theory falls apart at the foundation and is almost entirely embraced by those who either believe without giving it much thought, or refuse to acknowledge truth. After over 150 years, and billions of dollars spent on research, no one, I repeat no one has created life from inanimate material, and they never will. The Darwinian fairy tale is based on 100% faith!" Your statement about God creating dreaded diseases (and other horrible things like earthquakes) is one that I pondered for years. Most Christians would have trouble answering it even though the answer is right there in their Bible. However it requires an understanding of the deep symbolic aspects that encompass the entire Bible. The Bible is far more profound than what it appears to be on the surface; the Bible is deep symbolism from beginning to end. Yes the events it contains happened, but they represent far more spiritual meaning than what is on the surface. I.e., Adam & Eve are symbolic, the snake in Genesis (with Adam & Eve) is symbolic, the Hebrews coming out of Egypt is symbolic, Jesus turning water into wine was symbolic, etc., and it is all tied together. Now to answer the last part of your question: God does love you and that is why you are here. You, me, and everyone else (including everyone who has ever lived on this earth) are (or were) living in Hell, yes Hell, not the final outer darkness that awaits those who reject redemption, but still Hell. Our Hell has rattle snakes, malaria, polio, tidal waves, earthquakes, stabbings, theft, rot, scorpions, gossips, cold, shootings, pain, mosquito's, etc, the list is endless. So why are we in Hell? We are here because we rebelled against God in our previous spiritual existence, and because of that we were given a Death Sentence; we, all of us, are on Death Row. We are currently receiving justice for our rejection. But God has given us a second chance (so to speak) and the ability to be redeemed through Jesus the Christ. So I no longer need to ask why a Just and loving God would allow death row to sometimes be an unpleasant and even horrible place to live. Everyone on this site will eventually die and from my experience so will leave in peace and some in terror.
•I saw a bumper sticker -"The bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it." Don't waste their time with facts.
Yes I have too but I wish it would say "The bible says it, I believe it, and once I understand it, that will settle it." The Bible contains far more than just what is on the surface. The Bible contains symbolism from beginning to end but most people, including Christian Pastors, never delve past what is on the surface. The Bible can be likened to someone looking at the surface of the ocean but never realizing what lies below. On the surface they can sometimes see dolphins jumping, birds diving, seaweed floating, fish jumping, etc, but however much they see on top a far greater world lies below. The Bible is that kind of book.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
4th and last part of qualt's reply written by qualt,
February 01, 2010
•" The diversity, (and adaptation) of species i.e. large dogs, small dogs, long hair dogs, short hair dogs, etc, in no way proves that life evolved entirely on its own without a creator. That, as you say, "kind sir or madam," is not a straw man argument. " So what does this prove given that all dogs were bred recently by MAN?! Sorry for feeding the troll but he is laughable.
Darwinians like to use the diversity within species to prove that the current life on this earth evolved through change. Thank you for making my point that this diversity, in this case in dogs, does not prove anything. Although this diversity still could have happened through natural selection, dogs will always remain dogs and never turn into horses or anything else.
•qualt, my brother from a different mother... When someone offers you information they believe to be factual, you should take it as an effort to help you
I totally agree! But on the other hand we need to reject that which has been shown to be false.
•The Christian Bible is pure fabrication, written by ignorant men back in the day, interpreted and re-interpreted by fatuous idiots to this very day. Those are the facts.
So far that is the most ignorant statement written so far. The uniqueness of the Bible far surpasses anything ever written on this earth. If you care to become enlightened a good place to begin would be a book titled "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" written by a Josh McDowell. I consider it to be a good primer and would prevent you from ever making such an ignorant statement again.
I knew I should never have opened the link to this site my friend sent because these replies have taken over 3 hours of my time. I do not want to take any more time to proof read it so I'm sure there are some grammatical errors. Yes this took up some of my time but if someone learns something from it then it was worth it. May God bless all of you.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
Thanks, qualt! I understand now. I once was blind... written by Human Person Jr,
February 01, 2010
but praise Jesus, now I see.
Those Haitians had it comin' to 'em.
I hate it for 'em, but what else could God do? He had to withdraw His blessings, after what they did, out there aworshippin' them there false gods and I don't know WHAT-tall. Any decent, humane deity would've done the same.
Thanks for clearing that little matter up. I now consider myself fully educated.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Let them explain this one-- written by PhillyBill,
February 03, 2010
Not directly on topic, but a memory that's stuck with me when we talk about anecdotal evidence on the almighty's mercy. Many years back, I was working on a class action that involved a certain type of auto insurance benefits for people who were killed in traffic accidents. We had our staff entering info about particular accidents into a database. (to date this, the computer was a TRS-80 Model II, the kind with 8 inch floppies).
One day I noticed our secretary was at the keyboard, crying. All of these were sad stories, but this one really got to her. A half-dozen college kids were on a summer program with the Campus Crusade for Christ, out in the Rockies. There was a heavy rainstorm, and their van was being led to safety by a state troopers car, when a mudslide came down the mountain and washed their van over the cliff. True story, I saw the report. Every sparrow's fall, indeed.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@ PhillyBill written by Human Person Jr,
February 03, 2010
Very good point, PhillyBill.
Here's the "nice" thing about religion. They don't just have it both ways, they have it every which way.
They have one fallback position after another. The Good Lord rewards his faithful followers, if their obsequies are genuine. However, if the faithful find themselves in dire straits, like maybe, their only child is brutally murdered, well, then, the rain falleth on the just and the unjust alike.
Or perhaps the Good Lord's garden needed another flower in it, and aren't they lucky their child was picked? Or, how about this one, God allowed their child to die, but only to prevent a worse death later on. What's that? Brutal murder is about as bad as it gets? Well, you don't know the Good Lord very well, do you?
Or how about this one? The parents are to blame. Their faith wasn't all it should've been. Or this? Their child died as a warning to others to get right and tight with the J-Man.
It never ends. A credulous idiot can find thousands, literally thousands, of good reasons why the promises in the Holy Bible aren't worth the paper upon which they're written.
Thanks for the excellent comment.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Reply PhillyBill & Human Person Jr's questions written by qualt,
February 04, 2010
The questions/ statements by PhillyBill & Human Person Jr,, are both easy to explain when one understands the meaning of life and why all of us are here. Granted, the vast majority of Christians cannot answerer them very well and the reason is that most are blinded by their religious dogma. You, me, and everyone else alive are currently living in Hell; yes Hell, albeit not the final outer darkness that awaits those who reject redemption, but still Hell none the less. Our earth, our Hell, has rattle snakes, malaria, polio, oppressive heat, tidal waves, earthquakes, stabbings, theft, rot, scorpions, gossips, frigid cold, shootings, pain, mosquito's, etc, the list is endless. We are living on Devil's Island so to speak. And why are we in Hell? We, all of us, are here because we rebelled against God in our previous spiritual existence, and because of that we were given a Death Sentence; we, again all of us, are on Death Row. We are currently receiving justice for our rejection and rebellion against God. However, God has given us a second chance (so to speak) and the ability to be redeemed through Jesus the Christ. Eventually every one of us is going to die, our physical existence is going to end, and whether someone believes it or not, will not change that fact. Therefore to ask why someone's life on this earth ended at an early age, or in a terrible manner, is really irrelevant in the whole span of eternity. They were already living under a death sentence. True, it affects those of us who are still living on this earth but physical death is our eventual destination anyway. Only God determines when that time will be. There are only two requirements to be saved (redeemed is a better word) and those are what Jesus call the two greatest commandments. 1. Love the lord God with all your heart, mind and soul, and 2. love your neighbor as yourself. That's it! True Christianity is not actually a religion, true Christianity is a one on one direct relationship with Jesus the Christ. Any human, religion, or system, that places themselves between a individual and God is a lie. Everything one needs to know about life can be found in the Bible, and it contains far more than just what is on the surface. The Bible contains deep symbolism from beginning to end but most people, including many Christian Pastors, never delve past what is on the surface. A true intellectual can spend an entire lifetime learning the deep symbolism it contains.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
qualt, enjoy your fantasies while you can... written by Human Person Jr,
February 04, 2010
because when you're eventually dead, you'll be dead forever, same as me.
So, you're no better or worse off than me, right? Wrong
As much as I hate death and don't want it to claim me, it hasn't driven me bat-shit crazy. Therefore, I'm a damned sight better off than you.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Why do people who derive their opinions from scripture and religious authority bother to post here? written by Kritikos,
February 05, 2010
Qualt, you need to understand that no argument founded on articles of faith is going to be taken seriously by the readership of this site, other than perhaps as an object of psychological study. What you think God told you is not a reason for anyone else to share your opinion. As the Lord Chancellor says to Strephon in Iolanthe, "it isn't evidence."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
For Kritikos (and any others) written by qualt,
February 07, 2010
My question back to you is, why do you or anyone else post here? From what I have gathered so far, most, if not all of those who have responded, live their lives on blind faith, not on hard evidence. So far no one has answered how life on this earth came about without some kind of intelligent creation. I will repeat it again, the Darwinian explanation, that all life spontaneously evolved from inanimate material and then continued to change (evolve) until we have what is currently on this earth, is as foolish a story as anyone could come up with. And please do not add more foolishness to the Darwinian fairy tale by implying that large periods of time made it possible. The Bible has a statement for those who embrace that kind of illogic; in Romans 1: 22 it states: "professing to be wise they have become fools."
Now if the question is asking why I am personally on this site then I will answer it. I had made a comment in regards to the Pat Robertson statement, and shortly thereafter a friend sent me the link to this site. My first impression was if the James Randi guy is so intelligent why doesn't he create his own logo instead of foolishly modifying a Christian logo? I then read the "about the JREF" as well as "about Jeff Randi" and realized I agreed with much of it. There are many foolish and outright lies spread in this world and some of it is done under the name of religion. However, Christianity (which is really a spiritual relationship not a religion) and the Bible has more hard evidence than any other belief foundation. Moreover, to ridicule faith is also foolishness, for almost everything we do in life requires some level of faith; just writing your question required faith that it would be read or I doubt you would have bothered to do it. However, there is never enough evidence to convince someone who refuses to believe something.
There is much hard evidence from which to form a foundation for the Christian faith. Although I am not going to do your homework for you, I will direct you, or anyone else who wishes to learn some of the foundational hard evidence, to one source, a book titled Theomatics II; the author being a Mr. Del Washburn. Theomatics II shows the absolute uniqueness of the Bible and proves it through mathematics. There is far more evidence available but that should be a good start.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
Will this ever end? (Part 1) written by Kritikos,
February 07, 2010
The server won't accept my comment, so I am guessing, based on what Qualt reported, that the reason is that it is too long. Here is part 1:
So far no one has answered how life on this earth came about without some kind of intelligent creation. I will repeat it again, the Darwinian explanation, that all life spontaneously evolved from inanimate material and then continued to change (evolve) until we have what is currently on this earth, is as foolish a story as anyone could come up with.
Qualt, I am no expert in biology, but even I know that Darwin's work has nothing, absolutely nothing to say about the origin of life. This is not some sort of controversial or refined question of interpretation. It is rudimentary historical fact, like the fact that The Origin of Species was published in 1859. If you can't get this straight, you have no business talking about this subject at all. So please spare me the sing-song about a "Darwinian fairy tale" about the origin of life. Your use of that phrase with reference to abiogenesis show that you don't know what you are talking about.
The evidence for the theory of evolution -- which does derive from the work of Darwin -- is as strong as the evidence for any branch of science. As I said before, the medical science on which you depend for your continued life and health every day is utter nonsense without its foundations in evolutionary biology. Perhaps you wish to entrust your life and health to "faith-based" doctors who reject biology as a foundation of medical practice, and instead direct themselves by the Bible or personal revelation. You are welcome to do so, but I am sure that you will understand why I prefer to put my trust in medical science.
The fact that I do not know all the details of modern science does not mean that I live on "blind faith." I base my judgments on what I do know of science and of how science works. It is a trust founded on the proven record of science in the past five hundred years in discovering how the world works -- as contrasted with religion's proven record of ignorance, delusion, backwardness, and failure on that count. It is like the difference between my putting my trust in the postal carrier to deliver my mail to me six times a week and putting my trust in a medium who claims to be able to foretell my future or a quack who claims to be able to cure my aches and pains with magnets or crystals or the like.
The fact that I personally cannot explain the details of biology or physics to you does not undercut biology or physics any more than my ignorance of engineering lends support to some nut's claim that the Sears Tower (or whatever it is now called) is about to collapse. I do not know what produces the force of gravitation, but that does not give me license to talk about the "Newtonian fairy tale" that holds the paths of the planets about the sun and so forth to be determined by universal gravitation. My ignorance of natural causes does not constitute insight into supernatural causes: it just means that I am ignorant. You should learn to apply the same lesson to yourself. Your personal incredulity is not a ground of argument of any kind.
My first impression was if the James Randi guy is so intelligent why doesn't he create his own logo instead of foolishly modifying a Christian logo?
On this point, I just don't know what you are talking about. That James Randi, or rather the person who designed this site for him (Randi himself is not, to my knowledge, a graphic artist or Web designer), would borrow his logo from a Christian source would indeed be foolish if it were true -- which I very much doubt. But I do not what the source is from which you think he borrowed the logo.
However, Christianity (which is really a spiritual relationship not a religion) and the Bible has more hard evidence than any other belief foundation.
I am acquainted with Christian versions of "evidence." I have yet to see any that does not depend on either a presupposition of divine origins in order to validate it or simply fallacious strategies of argumentation (e.g., "I can't believe that life could come about by an undirected process, therefore God created it").
Moreover, to ridicule faith is also foolishness, for almost everything we do in life requires some level of faith; just writing your question required faith that it would be read or I doubt you would have bothered to do it. However, there is never enough evidence to convince someone who refuses to believe something.
Of course life is impossible without faith. I could not, e.g., sit in the chair in which I am sitting as I write this if I did not have faith that it would support my weight -- a belief for which I have no proof apart from the fact that, so far, it has supported my weight (and other chairs much like it have supported the weight of other people sitting in them for years, and so on). If I insisted that the chair be examined for structural integrity before I sit in it, I would then have to worry about whether the examiners missed something. To avoid every element of faith, I would have to investigate whether the floor under my feet is absolutely firm, whether the air that I breathe is not poisoned, and so on -- in short, I would be a paranoid lunatic. No one is saying -- at least I am not saying -- that faith is an error. But there is an important difference between faith in something that is in complete conformity with common experience, scientific knowledge, and so on, such as the trust that my chair will support my weight, and, say, the belief that an earthquake was caused by the intervention of God or the devil, or the belief that the coming-into-being of diverse species of living thing was so caused, or in general any claim of the intervention of supernatural agencies into the course of nature. If the need for faith in commonplace things (like the reliability of my chair or the postal carrier) licensed faith in such extraordinary things, it would be license not just for Christian faith but for every bizarre theology imaginable or existent -- Mormonism or Scientology or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
As for the book on Theomatics, I decline to look into it just as I would decline to look into a work that pretended to offer conclusive proof of the healing powers of crystals or the raw food theory of disease or any other nonsense. Once in a while, I do look into such things; and there are people here who love to look into them in order to expose their follies; but given what I have seen of how you think, I have every reason to expect that I would derive no profit whatever from following your reading recommendations.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Well said, Kritikos... written by Human Person Jr,
February 07, 2010
qualt, surely you're not one who thinks it's the atheist's duty to disprove the existence of all deities. I, for one, have no interest in proving any negative. The whole thing is too slippery. However, it's fairly easy to prove, through logic, the nonexistence of any specific deity.
People have, to date, worshipped around 2,500 deities in the course of recorded history. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to disprove the existence of the OTHER 2,499 deities whom you foolishly refuse to accept.
My mission, and I cheerfully choose to accept it, is to be good to those I love, to be upright in my conduct, and live this one, single life given to me by my creators, Mom and Dad. I mentioned mom first, cuz I'm a mama's boy.
Seriously, the Holy Bible's hotshot deity made some pretty crazy promises and predictions, through His drunken, savage servants here on Earth. It's your job to prove His existence, not my job to disprove it. If anyone had done so, I think I would've heard about it by now. Thanks for playing, 'cept not rilly.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
More for Kritikos (and any others) written by qualt,
February 08, 2010
•Qualt, I am no expert in biology, but even I know that Darwin's work has nothing, absolutely nothing to say about the origin of life............. I was wondering how long it would take before someone used your "straw man" argument that Darwin himself never stated that life evolved from inanimate material therefore we can ignore the fact that we have no foundation for our atheist beliefs. It is irrelevant that Darwin himself never taught it because that is what is currently taught today. The common teaching called, Darwinian evolution, is that all life began from inanimate material, turning into life entirely on its own, and then continued to evolve until we have the diversity of life we have today. That is a blind faith fairy tale with no foundation in science. •As I said before, the medical science on which you depend for your continued life and health every day is utter nonsense without its foundations in evolutionary biology. That is a flat out lie, and no matter how many times it is said does not change it into fact! Almost all scientific research, even accidental findings, depend on, as JREF itself says, controlled "scientific conditions." That is not possible with the fairy tale called evolution, because it is based on (supposedly) millions of years of evolution. However, those who believe in fairy tales might actually attempt to obtain tax money to fund a million year long controlled scientific experiment; it wouldn't be any more foolish than the evolution experiments they have already wasted our tax money on. •My first impression was if the James Randi guy is so intelligent why doesn't he create his own logo instead of foolishly modifying a Christian logo? ..........On this point, I just don't know what you are talking about.......... Spend $7.00 on the Randi emblem, and then hopefully you can figure it out. If it still taxes your intellect, maybe you can find a grade school child to explain it to you. •Of course life is impossible without faith........... No one is saying -- at least I am not saying -- that faith is an error. But there is an important difference between faith in something that is in complete conformity with common experience, scientific knowledge, and so on......... Thank you for countering your own argument where you earlier stated, "Qualt, you need to understand that no argument founded on articles of faith is going to be taken seriously.." I never implied that someone, especially myself, should rely on unfounded faith. Many people do, and that may be fine for them but not me, my Christian faith has evolved, and is rooted in logic. Logic which has come from many years of life's experiences and hard evidence, something which appears you refuse to do. However, Theomatics II and the other book I referenced earlier, Evidence that demands a verdict contain real evidence to support a Biblical Christian belief. It's your life and your choice but your ridicule of Biblical Christianity is based on self imposed ignorance. I'm done for now, the sun is out so it's time for a motorcycle ride and then a cold beer.......have a nice day.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
Not sure whether your latest post deserves a reply, but here is one written by Kritikos,
February 08, 2010
I was wondering how long it would take before someone used your "straw man" argument that Darwin himself never stated that life evolved from inanimate material therefore we can ignore the fact that we have no foundation for our atheist beliefs.
You appear not to know what the term "straw man" means. A straw man is a position or an argument that one falsely imputes to one's opponent and attacks, under the pretense of thereby exposing the failings of the position of one's opponent. The assertion that Darwin had no theory of the origin of life is not "my straw man argument": it is the assertion that I actually made, and it is a plain historical fact. I do not infer from this fact that "therefore we can ignore the fact that we have no foundation for our atheist beliefs." THAT is a straw man -- your straw man.
The theory of abiogenesis has nothing to do with Darwin, and Darwin has nothing to do with it. To call it "Darwinian" is simply incompetent. Anyone who insists in calling it by that label establishes that he is either a liar or an ignoramus; in any case, he thereby forfeits any claim to be taken seriously. Further, to argue that the origin of life is explicable by natural causes is not to argue for atheism. Atheism is no part of biology.
It is irrelevant that Darwin himself never taught it because that is what is currently taught today.
So according to you, the fact that some idea has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin is of no relevance to the question whether it is Darwinian. I hardly need any further evidence of your utter intellectual incompetence. The theory of abiogenesis is taught as part of biology, not as part of Darwin's theory, because it is not part of Darwin's theory.
The common teaching called, Darwinian evolution, is that all life began from inanimate material, turning into life entirely on its own,
So called by you creationists, yes. By people who know something about Darwin and who take account of historical facts, no. The theory of the origin of life is not the theory of evolution. I don't understand why you are so insistent on denying plain facts. As I have said before, these are not refined questions of theory or interpretation. They are as plain as looking up an address in a phone book. If you can't accept them, you are either completely incompetent or completely dishonest, if not both.
and then continued to evolve until we have the diversity of life we have today.
Yes: that is what evolutionary biology is about. Congratulations on managing to get one fact right.
That is a blind faith fairy tale with no foundation in science.
Um, no, it is science -- a branch of biology. About which it is plain that you know too little for your mere opinion to be of any interest to anyone.
I'm going to skip down a bit, since it is tedious to deal with every error, fallacy, and misrepresentation in your comment:
Spend $7.00 on the Randi emblem, and then hopefully you can figure it out. If it still taxes your intellect, maybe you can find a grade school child to explain it to you.
Fuck you, you ignorant prick. After this, I see no point in dealing with you further.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@ Kritikos -- Not much else you could do... written by Human Person Jr,
February 08, 2010
The guy just goes on and on, like a demented version of the Energizer bunny.
Still, you kept your cool through most of this bizarre back and forth (bizarre on one side only, mind you).
I still think you could write some excellent articles for the site. Speaking of articles, Alison Smith certainly did a good job on her most recent -- the story about the Chrazy Christaceans in Oregon.
qualt, I just don't know what to think about ya. Ya gotz a hard head on ya shoulders.
Well, I went on quite a bit myself, which was probably foolish of me. It was clear early on that Qualt has no interest in any fact or argument that does not agree with his religious views. (Really, no interest in facts: you have seen how some just bounce right off him.) I know of someone who is actually able to engage in argument with such people without showing contempt for their way of thinking. I don't have the patience to do that, at least not for very long, so maybe it is pointless for me to try to argue with them. What really bugs me is that on a site like this, nobody who really knows something about biology ever stepped in to answer Qualt. I suspect that the reason is that you and I and he are the only people following this discussion. It would be quite a different thing if Qualt tried to post such stuff on the forum. Hey, Qualt, maybe you should try bringing enlightenment to the heathens over there: http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
An Ignorant Prick? Yes and no. written by qualt,
February 09, 2010
"Fuck you, you ignorant prick. After this, I see no point in dealing with you further."
I have to commend you on getting one point correct, I am a prick, in fact I have been called much worse than that, a dip shit, an Ass Hole, a F 'ing jerk, and more; I have even been thrown out of a Bible study. However, I am not ignorant, at least on the subjects we have been discussing. I also need to apologize for the "grade school" comment I made. I knew it was wrong when I wrote it but the Prick in me wouldn't let me change it; that prick thing is one area I need to work on.
You bring up another good point about the small number of people who are now following this discussion; therefore this will probably be my last post (depending on your reply). However, your suggestion to enter the Randi forums is intriguing. It is intriguing but I'm not sure I want to commit the time required to engage it correctly.
We should only wish to embrace truth and therefore we should never fear having our beliefs challenged because if they are correct they will stand up to criticism and if not we should repent (repent means to change direction). Therefore I am never afraid to engage someone who challenges my beliefs. Over the years I have embraced, rejected, abandoned and changed many things I once thought were true. I even wrote a book challenging the end time foolishness currently embraced by too many evangelical Christians; and have been called an anti-Semite because of it (oops, add anti-Semite to that prick list). However, the more I learn the more I am convinced that the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus is who he said he was. At this point I would need to reject far too much evidence to embrace anything else.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
Well, if you are going to talk to me like one human being to another, . . . written by Kritikos,
February 09, 2010
then I will consider your snide comment to be just par for the Internet and dismiss it. Hell, if you made me laugh as HBJ did, I might even end up liking you. As for my use of the word "ignorant," I knew that it didn't fit, but I needed a meaningful adjective. I considered "condescending," but that would imply a disposition on your part, when what I was objecting to was just your taking a condescending attitude toward me. (By the way, you could have simply explained that when you used the word "logo" you were referring to the emblem or medallion advertised on the sidebar rather than to the JREF banner at the top of this page, which is what I thought you were referring to. That is why I spoke of Web design.)
You may not be ignorant, but you have clearly imbibed a lot of creationist canards about modern science. You say that you are in quest of truth, but the fact that you INSIST, with the stubbornness of a mule, on applying the term "Darwinian" to the theory of abiogenesis, despite the fact that it is no part of Darwin's thought and completely distinct from the theory of evolution in any case, does not give me confidence. You even seem to want to include atheism in the bundle, though atheism, as I said, is no part of biology. This habit of yours seems to me pretty strong evidence that, far from being interested in subjecting your views to rational examination, you are willing to adopt dishonest and obscurantistic verbal measures -- less pretentiously put, to muddy the waters -- as a means to defend the position that you have adopted.
In any case, as I have said, I am not suited, either by temperament or by knowledge, to the task of disabusing you of your misunderstandings. And unfortunately I cannot seriously recommend to you the forum to which I referred in my previous comment, unless you simply want to practice your skills in debate and invective. There are lots of people there who know a lot about science, but very few who will treat you with any respect if you introduce yourself by making assertions about "the Darwinian fairy tale" (I notice now that it was almost the first thing that you said on this page, even though it has no connection with the topic) or in general by making pronouncements about the natural world on the basis of faith.
I suppose I need to reply to your retort to me on that point. I stand by my previous assertion, which you quote (in part), that "no argument founded on articles of faith is going to be taken seriously by the readership of this site." In the comment that you regard as a "counter" to that, I was not making an argument from faith: I was explaining why I have confidence in the findings of modern science, which is not itself an enterprise founded on articles of faith. Yes, I know, you will insist that the "Darwinian fairy tale" (don't you ever get sick of repeating that cant phrase? I know I am heartily sick of reading it) is merely an article of faith. The point that I was trying to get across was that my own lack of expert knowledge of science and consequent need to take some things on "faith" (though I would prefer to say "on trust," since people tend to assume that "faith" means religious belief; I was at pains to show that I was talking about an entirely banal kind of trust) does not in the slightest reflect on the nature of science.
I hope that we can end with this, as I really do not want to argue with you any further.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Addendum written by Kritikos,
February 09, 2010
The JREF forum, in my view, is a rather savage place. This is partly because it is overpopulated. There are, however, other skeptical forums that are neither as crowded nor as boorish (which is not to say that they are positively genteel). You might possibly find some profit in the Skeptics' Society Forum, http://www.skepticforum.com/: see especially the sub-forum "Origins."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
A big hello to Kritikos written by Human Person Jr,
February 09, 2010
This is very funny stuff, this religious BS, but it certainly has its sad and infuriating sides, as well.
On the funny side, I am writing a gospel song (well, a song in the southern gospel quartet style) that I think will be funny as hell. It's about an atheist who answers the door to find the preacher standing there. Long story short, he cheerfully threatens to disassemble the poor man of God, and hilarity ensues.
I make fun of Christians, Muslims and Jews around the house, but mostly Christians, since I was trained up from the time I was a small idiot, to believe in the Good Lord, etc., etc.
Great comments, Kritikos -- I really enjoyed reading them. Over and out.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Can we get back on topic? written by kennypo65,
February 09, 2010
Of course Robertson is racist> He and his pal the late Jerry Falwell were pro-aparteid. If you will recall Falwell called Desmond Tutu a "phony". Robertson was right alongside him. They both might as well have been basking in the light of a burning cross.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Thanks written by qualt,
February 10, 2010
Thanks for the advise. I honestly do not want to invest the time required to properly engage forums such as those but at my age (mid 60's) keeping my mind active is important. However, as working out at the gym is good physical exercise, debating with people who disagree with me is good mental exercise. They are both work but the rewards are greater than the effort. Maybe see you over there sometime...............if so and you observe me reverting back into my prick mode (or worse), please remind me to repent.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please
register if you do not have an account yet.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
This is anther example of Christianity straying from bible teachings. There is no such teaching or scripture in the bible that supports this statement Semantu.